Australian Censorship News
11th May 2008
GTA IV: The Cuts
Well GRAND THEFT AUTO IV has been out for a couple of weeks now. Time enough to get behind the rumours, and start to evaluate what is missing from the Australian release. Mick has played the UK version, and has sent in his observations. If anyone has any other information please send it in.
In the UK version there are blood pools when killing people. This occurs when killing another person, whether it be a pedestrian or an enemy. Blood slowly oozes out of a person on the ground and in my opinion, makes killing more disturbing. When walking in a blood pool you get to see bloody footprints. Bloody tire tracks can also be created by driving through a pool of blood. This does not exist in the locally released version. Although there are blood splatters there are no blood pools.
When having sex with hookers you get to see it taking place (i.e sex animations) and can choose between a blow job, hand job and regular intercourse. In the AU version you only get to see the car bounce from a rear view of the car and can't choose your services. The camera is locked to a rear view and can't be rotated. However there are glitches one can perform to get a front-view of the car bouncing but the sex animations are not present. Thus as in the previous GTA games the hooker and your character are just sitting there doing nothing.
When shooting people light blood patches appear on their bodies, this basically represents bruises and bullet wounds. This is non-existent in the AU release.
******
AUSTRALIAN ROSIE FINNISH EROTICA #2 Censored in Australia
More hardcore censorship with the cutting of THE AUSTRALIAN ROSIE FINNISH EROTICA #2 to achieve an X18+ (Explicit Sex) rating. FZ (NSW) Pty Ltd originally had the DVD banned in March 2008.
This now joins AUSTRALIAN ROSIE FINNISH EROTICA #1, and AUSTRALIAN ROSIE: SWEDISH EROTICA #1 which were both banned in 2007, but were similarly censored for an X18+ (Explicit Sex) rating.
******
New Ratings: MAGNUM FORCE- THE GODFATHER- RESERVOIR DOGS-CLERKS
The DVD revolution of the past ten years has seen many old titles back for re-classification. MAGNUM FORCE, THE GODFATHER, RESERVOIR DOGS, and CLERKS have always been rated R18+. How would they get on in 2008? Have 'community standards' changed? Read on....
***
MAGNUM FORCE Still R18+
You have to admire a film that thirty-five years still has what it takes to be rated R18+. MAGNUM FORCE, the second Dirty Harry movie was originally awarded an R-rating in December 1973. In October 2001 it was confirmed as R18+, but with added consumer advice of 'Medium Level Violence'. Last week saw it again awarded an R18+, but now with the consumer advice changed to just 'Violence'.
***
New Ratings for THE GODFATHER Trilogy
One of the original early 70's R18+ films has finally seen its rating dropped to MA15+. THE GODFATHER was awarded a rating in June 1972, eight months after the introduction of the R-rating, and has held on to this until as recently as August 2001. Finally it has been dropped to MA15+ (Strong violence, Coarse language) following the submission of the restored version by Paramount Home Entertainment. Also re-rated were part two and three.
Here is a run down of each part, covering their changing fortunes with the censors. Note that consumer advice was not introduced until May 1989, and the MA15+ until 1994.
THE GODFATHER
06/72 R18+
09/97 R18+ (Medium level violence)
08/01 R18+ (Medium level violence) *
05/08 MA15+ (Strong violence, Coarse language)
*Submitted as part of THE GODFATHER TRILOGY, however the original film would have been the reason for the R18+,
THE GODFATHER PART II:
Sorry, can't find the original rating. However we think it was an R. Correct us
if we're wrong.
09/97 M (Medium level violence, Low level coarse language)
05/08 M (Violence, themes & coarse language)
THE GODFATHER PART III:
01/91 M (Occasional violence, Coarse language)
08/91 M (Medium level violence, Coarse language)
09/97 M (Medium level violence, Medium level coarse language)
05/08 M (Infrequent violence, themes & coarse language)
***
RESERVOIR DOGS: Changing Consumer Advice
The 15th Anniversary Edition DVD of RESERVOIR DOGS is out now, so it would seem to be a good time to look at the changing consumer advice that has accompanied the R18+ rating. In fifteen years we have came full circle from 'High level violence, Coarse language' to 'Medium level violence, Medium level coarse language', and back to 'High level violence, Coarse language'.
02/93 R18+ (High level violence, Coarse language)
10/93 R18+ (High level violence, Coarse language)
02/97 R18+ (Medium level violence, Medium level coarse language)
06/03 R18+ (Medium level violence, Medium level coarse language)
02/08 R18+ (High level violence, Coarse language)
***
CLERKS: Finally MA15+ after thirteen years!
Back in 1995 the theatrical release of CLERKS was hit with an R18+ rating. Newvision Film Distributors unsuccessfully appealed to the Review Board and the film was released in cinemas with an R18+. Thirteen years later, and finally the desired MA15+ has been awarded. Here is a run down of the classifications the film has received in that time.
01/95: R18+ (Medium level coarse language)
02/95: R18+ (Medium level coarse language) Review Board Appeal
02/05: R18+ (Medium level coarse language)
05/08: MA15+ (Strong coarse language and sexual references, Strong sexualised
nudity)
The February 1995 appeal to the Review Board gave the reasons for the R18+ as:
Such language included countless uses of "fuck" (and its variations), and very frequent use of 'ass hole', 'shit'. Examples of sexually explicit language included a number of references to "my girlfriend sucked thirty six dicks" and "suck my cock", "fucking a dead man", "snowballing ... a blow job thing ".
Near the end of the film, the girlfriend of the store clerk emerges from the toilet to describe in glowing terms the sex that she had in the toilet, with a person she thought was her boyfriend. In fact, the person had gone to the toilet hours earlier with a porno magazine and died there. The boyfriend is upset that his girlfriend "is catatonic after fuckin' a dead guy".
The last time CLERKS was rated R18+ was February 2005. Don't you love changing community standards? Three years later (and with Gordon Ramsey saying cunt on C9) CLERKS finally gets the MA15+ that it deserved back in 1995.
Here is the original unsuccessful Review Board report for the film from February 1995.
Title: Clerks
Applicant: Newvision Films
Decision reviewed: Classify R by the Film Censorship Board
Decision: The Board of Review decided to confirm the decision of the Film
Censorship Board to classify Clerks as R, with the consumer advice "Medium
level coarse language".
2. Legislative provisions
2.1 Relevant State and Territory laws applicable to the classification of films.
3. Procedure
3.1 Four members of the Review Board viewed the film Clerks on February 3 1995.
4. Evidence
4.1 In reaching its decision, the Board of Review had regard to the following:
(a) the applicant's Application for Review
(b) the film Clerks
(c) the relevant provisions contained in State and Territory classification laws applying to films for public exhibition, as in the Western Australia Censorship of Films Act 1947 (as amended)
(d) the current "Guidelines for the Classification of Films and Videotapes" issued by the Office of Film and Literature Classification, and endorsed by Censorship Ministers.
5. Findings on material questions of fact
5.1 The Plot Clerks is an American film which chronicles, in a humorous way, the trials, boredom, love life, conflicts, bizarre happenings and tribulations of a day in the life of two male friends who work as assistants in a neighbourhood convenience store and a video shop.
5.2 The Board of Review considered the elements cited by the Censorship Board as, in its opinion, taking the film out of the MA category and into the R classification. These included a very high level of coarse language, frequently sexually explicit, and occasionally used in an assaultive fashion.
Such language included countless uses of "fuck" (and its variations), and very frequent use of 'ass hole', 'shit'. Examples of sexually explicit language included a number of references to "my girlfriend sucked thirty six dicks" and "suck my cock", "fucking a dead man", "snowballing ... a blow job thing ".
Near the end of the film, the girlfriend of the store clerk emerges from the toilet to describe in glowing terms the sex that she had in the toilet, with a person she thought was her boyfriend. In fact, the person had gone to the toilet hours earlier with a porno magazine and died there. The boyfriend is upset that his girlfriend "is catatonic after fuckin' a dead guy".
5.3 The tone of the film was humorous and the language largely in context. The Guidelines for the MA 15+ classification, in relation to language, however, have no provision for contextual justification of crude language which is excessive, unduly assaultive, or sexually explicit.
5.4 The applicant put the view that the film was designed to provoke amusement, and represents characters whose lifestyles include the use of "a myriad of references to sex ...". It argued that young people today talk in more sexually explicit terms ... which if, and when heard, cause offence to parents..."; and that the Board should consider whether those of sixteen or seventeen could not comfortably cope with the material.
5.5 The majority of the Board, however, found the sexually explicit language, the high frequency of crude language, and the assaultive nature of some language, likely to be harmful to some under the age of 18 years, and sufficiently offensive to some sections of the adult population, to require a strong warning to be given via the application of the Restricted (R 18+) classification.
6. Reasons for the Decision
6.1 The Review Board based its decision to confirm the Censorship Board's decision to assign an R classification to Clerks principally on the elements 5.2.
6.2 The Review Board had regard to the Guidelines for MA 15+ films, which provide that "crude language may be used, but not when it is excessive, unduly assaultive, or sexually explicit". In the opinion of the majority of the Board, the language used in the film was excessive, frequently assaultive, and often sexually explicit (as per examples listed in 5.2 above). The language was in context with the style and tone of the film, but the Guidelines for MA IS + do not provide for contextual justification. The Board also held that the sexually explicit nature of some of the language and concepts, such as the girlfriend having sex with a dead man, to be potentially harmful to some under 18 years. The Board therefore found that the film did not meet the Guidelines for MA 15+, and was more appropriately classified R. Further the application of the R classification is required to flag material "possibly offensive to some sections of the adult community". In the view of the Board, the use of the R classification, to warn adults of a high incidence of crude and sexually explicit language, is justified in this case.
6.3 The Review Board therefore concluded that the film Clerks should be placed in the For Restricted Exhibition category, with the consumer advice "Medium level coarse language".
7. Summary The Review Board's majority decision is to confirm the decision of the Film Censorship Board to assign an R For Restricted Exhibition classification to the film Clerks, and with the consumer advice "Medium level coarse language".
This decision was taken after full consideration of the applicant's submission, and after assessing the film as a whole against relevant legislative criteria and those contained in the current film classification guidelines endorsed by the Censorship Ministers. 3 February 1995.
******
Advertising Standards Bureau: Dec '07-Feb '08 Complaints
Posters for THE HEARTBREAK KID, EAST WEST 101, and Sexpo, and a print ad for Krystal Adult World are just some of the complaints heard by the Advertising Standards Bureau from December 2007 to February 2008. Go to their website (adstandards.com.au) to see full reports for many others. Take some time to read them as some of the complaints are so funny and pathetic that it is no wonder that the vast majority get thrown out. Thanks to that wonderful thing called the internet many of these advertisements can still be viewed on sites such as You Tube.
***
THE HEARTBREAK KID: Poster Complaint
1. Complaint reference number 397/07
2. Advertiser Paramount Pictures (Heartbreak Kid)
3. Product Entertainment
4. Type of advertisement Outdoor
5. Nature of complaint Discrimination or vilification Gender - section 2.1
6. Date of determination Tuesday, 11 December 2007
7. DETERMINATION Dismissed
DESCRIPTION OF THE ADVERTISEMENT
This advertisement for the movie The Heartbreak Kid features actor Ben Stiller huddled in a chair swathed in a white bathrobe, and staring fixedly at the camera. Just in front and to his side is a woman. The advertisement shows only the rear view of the woman wearing a leopard-skin bikini, bridal veil, high-heeled shoes and a garter around her thigh. Text reads "He waited all his life to get married. Too bad he didn't wait another week."
THE COMPLAINT
A sample of comments which the complainant/s made regarding this advertisement included the following:
The advertisement is in bad taste and was embarassing for the females on our school bus as we pulled up behind it on a school excursion. It portrayed young women as sex objects. The movie itself is rated R and I believe the advertising reflected its sexual nature.
It is totally inappropriate for this type of imagery to be shown, especially on the back of a bus where it CANNOT BE AVOIDED. Whether that bus is driving past a school zone, shopping centre or our own home, we do not need or want to see a semi naked woman whether she be standing over a seemingly weak, cowering man or not. This advertisement and it's placement on the back of a bus give us no choice but to see it. Perhaps it is about time your pathetically low (may I say in the gutter) standards are raised to a level where most DECENT, MORAL people would not be offended.
You could even try to raise them to a standard where NO ONE will be offended. This is an offensive ad in two ways. Firstly, it uses gratuitous nudity and an ugly, demeaning picture of a woman to sell the movie - which is about a man who marries a woman, then decides he doesn't like her. (Ha Ha) Secondly, by associating a popular star with this image it is making it more OK to see women as pieces of faceless flesh. Young men like Adam Sandler. They think he is cool. As a society are trying to teach young men to treat women with respect.
THE ADVERTISER’S RESPONSE
Comments which the advertiser made in response to the complaint/s regarding this advertisement included the following:
This advertising campaign commenced on Monday 29 October and will cease on Sunday 25 November.
The man is cowering in a chair with a shell-shocked expression on his face. He is not looking at the young woman at all.
We do not consider the advertisement to be discriminatory or demeaning. The female is clothed, albeit in a bikini, and by her demeanour is clearly the stronger character of the two people in the image. The "tongue in cheek" comedic nature of the film's content is fairly obvious by the copyline: "He waited all his life to get married. Too bad he didn't wait another week."
We are of the opinion that we cannot stop advertising films on the grounds that certain sections of the public may deem certain aspects of the advertising to be offensive. Buspak had no problem with The Heartbreak Kid artwork when it was shown to their production team, prior to its installation on the buses. The OFLC did not perceive the feature film as being offensive or demeaning to women. They granted the film an MA rating in Australia...(the film did however receive an R rating in the USA).
THE DETERMINATION
The Advertising Standards Board (“Board”) considered whether this advertisement breaches Section 2 of the Advertiser Code of Ethics (the “Code”).
The Board noted the complainants' concern that the image of the rear view of the woman's lower half is demeaning to women and inappropriate in terms of nudity or sexual suggestion.
The Board noted that the advertisement depicts people at a beach, that the woman is wearing a bikini, and there is no nudity. The Board noted that the movie is classified MA15+ and considered that the advertisement did not depict material that was of an MA15+ classification. The Board considered that the advertisement was not overtly sexually suggestive and that it was not inappropriate for a bus advertisement. The Board determined that the advertisement did not breach section 2.3 of the Code.
The Board considered that the image of only the lower half of the woman was not demeaning to women nor encouraging of inappropriate or disrespectful behaviour towards women. The Board considered that the image of the woman was not inconsistent with the apparent plot of the movie, was not discriminatory to or vilifying of women and did not breach section 2.1 of the Code.
Finding that the advertisement did not breach the Code on other grounds, the Board dismissed the complaint.
***
EAST WEST 101: Poster Complaint
1. Complaint reference number 447/07
2. Advertiser SBS Corporation (East West 101)
3. Product Media
4. Type of advertisement Outdoor
5. Nature of complaint Violence Other – section 2.2
6. Date of determination Wednesday, 16 January 2008
7. DETERMINATION Dismissed
DESCRIPTION OF THE ADVERTISEMENT
These outdoor advertisements feature actors from the TV series East West 101 holding handguns as though ready to fire. The images are life-size and are placed in various outdoor executions. The images include a blue banner with the text "Two Aussie cops. Two Aussie cultures. East West 101. Thursdays 8.30pm on SBS."
THE COMPLAINT
A sample of comments which the complainant/s made regarding this advertisement included the following:
I’ve worked in Advertising and Design for 20 or more years and have never complained about an ad before. I thought maybe I’m getting old, maybe it’s the fact I have a 3 year old and a new born. Maybe it’s a sense of despair that Howard’s gun buy-back and the Port Arthur massacre was totally in vain. Then in my home suburb of Balgowlah, there goes another life size person in a bus stop holding a gun. I thought I was over reacting. And then a leading headline today. Another person with a gun kills 8 in a shopping mall somewhere. I can turn a program off if I don’t like it. I can’t do the same for such a graphic ad on the street. Since then, there is another report today, Monday 10.12.07 with 4 more slain by guns. I object to this desensitising in our streets. The show advertised is probably televised past an appropriate hour for child viewing. But these ads give them no choice. I don't object to the show, or the actors. It's just this unthinking use of guns as props in suburban or even urban streets. We now have guns appearing in night clubs and even drive by shootings and armed holdups in Sydney. This kind of advertising normalises them and I believe that's not the something which helps.
THE ADVERTISER’S RESPONSE
Comments which the advertiser made in response to the complaint/s regarding this advertisement included the following:
SBS is established under the Special Broadcasting Service Act 1991. The principal function of SBS is to provide multilingual and multicultural radio and television services that inform, educate and entertain all Australians, and, in doing so, reflect Australia’s multicultural society.
The complaint concerns cut out still-image billboards used to promote EastWest101, a six-part police drama set in Sydney screening on SBS over December- January 2007/08. The advertisements ran in bus shelters as part of a short campaign from 2 December 2007 for one week and the posters were distributed for a two week period, from the week commencing 2 December and the week commencing 16th December. The advertisements have been placed on outdoor advertising billboards and public buildings and tie into on-air and online promotions for the program. The advertisements pictured on the main characters of EastWest101, two policemen played by Don Hany and William McInnes.
The campaign is intended to be high impact, and will be maintained for two weeks only. The images represent action shots of police work as reflected in the drama, and a sense of the conflict between the central characters.
SBS considers that only clauses 2.2 and 2.6 of the Code are potentially relevant to its consideration of the complaint.
Clause 2.2: violence Clause 2.2 of the Code states: "Advertisements shall not present or portray violence unless it is justifiable in the context of the product or service advertised." The images used in the advertisement do not, and are not intended to, glorify the use of guns or violence in the community. The program promoted is based on the work of a real police squad located in Lakemba, and the billboards are drawn from action shots of the characters at work in the context of the drama.
SBS acknowledges that violence is part of everyday life which must be dealt with responsibly. SBS recognises that for some people, particularly children, the portrayal of physical and psychological violence has a unique potential to distress and disturb. Accordingly, it is SBS policy not to present violence gratuitously.
EastWest101 deals with a range of conflicts in society, in a powerfully dramatic treatment of social issues in some parts of Australia. The central character Zane Malik is an Arab-Australian police officer often caught between law enforcement and his community. Other subplots in the program deal with drug cultures and racially motivated violence. In the context of this program, violence is an essential element to the exploration of these social issues, as it tends to be a key element of police work.
The advertisements do not in themselves represent violence.
Clause 2.6: Health and safety
Clause 2.6 of the Code states:
Advertisements shall not depict material contrary to prevailing community
standards on health and safety.
SBS, does not intend, through these advertisements, to promote or glorify the illicit use of firearms in the community. EastWest101 is a police drama.
As Australian police use guns, they are represented in the images as visual shorthand for the program genre. The advertisements show police officers with guns drawn to represent some of the dramatic tension represented in the program. The guns are not being mishandled or used except by the characters authorised to use them, police officers. Guns are often used in promotions for police drama.
The program EastWest101 deals with some of the tragic consequences of guns in the community, and the first episode includes a highly empathetic treatment of the human cost of mishandled firearms in volatile situations.
For the reasons given above SBS does not consider that the advertisements breach the Code. The advertisements do not present violence and do not depict material contrary to prevailing community standards on health and safety.
THE DETERMINATION
The Advertising Standards Board (“Board”) considered whether this advertisement breaches Section 2 of the Advertiser Code of Ethics (the “Code”).
The Board noted the complainant's concern about the advertisements which feature life size images of men with guns.
The Board noted Section 2.2 of the Code which states that 'advertisements shall not present or portray violence unless it is justifiable in the context of the product or service advertised.'
The Board noted that the image of a man holding a gun is an image that is suggestive of violence but that the still image is of itself not an image of strong violence. The Board considered that the advertisement did clearly indicate that it was an advertisement for a police drama. In the context of this product, the Board considered that the depiction of a man pointing a gun was justifiable. The Board determined that the advertisement did not breach Section 2.2 of the Code.
Finding that the advertisement did not breach the Code on other grounds, the Board dismissed the complaint.
***
Krystal Adult World: Print Ad Complaint
1. Complaint reference number 430/07
2. Advertiser Krystal Adult World (Stiletto)
3. Product Other
4. Type of advertisement Print
5. Nature of complaint Portrayal of sex/sexuality/nudity – section 2.3
6. Date of determination Wednesday, 16 January 2008
7. DETERMINATION Dismissed
DESCRIPTION OF THE ADVERTISEMENT
This print advertisement features a drawing of a woman in a pink dress, holding a black stiletto shoe at eye level.
THE COMPLAINT
A sample of comments which the complainant/s made regarding this advertisement included the following:
The advertisement is for adult products and may seem inocuous but when viewed upside down it shows a woman fondling her vagina.
THE ADVERTISER’S RESPONSE
Comments which the advertiser made in response to the complaint/s regarding this advertisement included the following:
I'm so glad this was brought to my attention as I wasn't aware of the add being offensive in its proper context. If you turn any photo sideways, reverse etc you may interpret whatever you wish to see in a photo.
I have discovered 7 advertisements in the Womens Weekly and other publications including The National Geographic, where photos could be interpreted in a sexual manner.
I have informed the Echo that this add will NEVER be used again in their newspaper. I feel your issue is NOT with me but with the editor, as he should screen these for censorship.
THE DETERMINATION
The Advertising Standards Board (“Board”) considered whether this advertisement breaches Section 2 of the Advertiser Code of Ethics (the “Code”).
The Board noted the complainant's concern that the advertisement, when seen upside down, is sexually suggestive and inappropriate.
The Board viewed the advertisement and considered that, when viewed in its intended form ie: the correct way up, the advertisement was not inappropriate.
The Board considered that when the advertisement was inverted although it was suggestive of a partially naked woman and her genitals, the advertisement is clearly not an image of that.
The Board noted that the advertiser will not use that advertisement again.The Board considered that the advertisement did not breach Section 2.3 of the Code.
Finding that the advertisement did not breach the Code on other grounds, the Board dismissed the complaint.
***
Sexpo Poster Complaint
1. Complaint reference number 420/07
2. Advertiser Sexpo Pty Ltd
3. Product Other
4. Type of advertisement Outdoor
5. Nature of complaint Portrayal of sex/sexuality/nudity – section 2.3
6. Date of determination Tuesday, 11 December 2007
7. DETERMINATION Dismissed
DESCRIPTION OF THE ADVERTISEMENT
This outdoor advertisement for Sexpo features two females photographed from the shoulders upwards and announced as "The Evil Empire presents Belladonna and her girlfriend Bobbi Starr." The advertisement also features photos of exhibits available including a promotion "Ride the Gerbil at Sexpo" with a picture of a miniature train and the front carriage carrying an image of a furry animal called a gerbil.
THE COMPLAINT
A sample of comments which the complainant/s made regarding this advertisement included the following:
I'm not sure if the act of achieving sexual gratification by inserting a live gerbil in the rectum until it dies is an urban myth or not. Either way the connotation these adds suggest is not only disgusting but cruel upsetting.
THE ADVERTISER’S RESPONSE
Comments which the advertiser made in response to the complaint/s regarding this advertisement included the following:
We would like to point out that the image in question was on 6 Billboards over a period of three weeks and one complaint (based on that person’s own personal interpretation) does not represent the views of the community. We are unaware of any “urban myth” as described by the complainant.
You might liken this to the “Batman” ride at Dreamworld – just because they have named it Batman, does not mean that any bats have ben harmed or altered to be part bat part man!
The advertisements in question are in no way designed to be offensive, nor do they refer to bestiality, or cruelty to animals in anyway. The “cruel and disgusting” connotation is the complainants’ alone, for which we take no responsibility.
THE DETERMINATION
The Advertising Standards Board (“Board”) considered whether this advertisement breaches Section 2 of the Advertiser Code of Ethics (the “Code”).
The Board noted the outdoor advertisement and considered whether it breached Section 2.3 of the Code dealing with sex, sexuality and nudity.
The Board noted that the advertisement contained an image of a woman from the shoulders up and that this was an image that was not inappropriate or overtly sexual. The Board also considered the references to the exhibits and features of the Sexpo exhibition. The Board considered that none of these references were explicitly sexual and the Board considered that the references were generally not explicit or inappropriate.
The Board considered also that the language used in the advertisement was not inappropriate – containing references to the exhibits at the Expo, but doing so in a manner that did not feature obscene or strong language.
The Board considered the reference to the Gerbil Sex train ride. The Board noted that there may be sexual connnotations taken from this reference by some people, but considered that the advertisement itself, by simply mentioning the name of the ride and a picture of a show ride carriage with a gerbil head, did not breach any of the provisions of the Code.
Finding that the advertisement did not breach the Code on other grounds, the Board dismissed the complaint.
Update 11th May 2008
Refused-Classification.com
Australian Censorship News
4th May 2008
PUSSY SWEAT: Banned in Australia
The 2003 all-girl hardcore feature PUSSY SWEAT has just been banned by the Classification Board. The review over at Adult DVD Talk provides no real clues as to what the problems could have been.
******
Sydney Adult Stores Raided
Robbie Swann from the Eros Association has written the following opinion piece on last weeks police raids in Western Sydney. The last high-profile busts were early last year when stores in Kings Cross were emptied of stock. As usual, the situation will soon be back to normal, and trade will resume. In the article Robbie claims the raids took place following pressure from the Classification Board’s Community Liaison Officer, Ron Robertson.
Police
Raids Adult Shops
Written by Robbie Swan
Thursday, 01 May 2008
NSW police have raided a number of adult shops in Blacktown and St Marys over the last week, ostensibly looking for X18+ videos and DVDs. It is illegal to sell films that have been classified X18+ by the Federal government, in NSW. Most people do not know that non-violent, sexually explicit films showing consenting adults, are illegal to sell in NSW or any of the Australian states for that matter.
It is estimated that up to 50 police officers spent at least 10 hours each performing these raids and that at least another 200 police hours will be spent on classifying and processing the thousands of DVDs that were seized. Approximately 30 robberies and a dozen assaults would have taken place in the Blacktown and St Mary’s precincts during the time that these raids were enacted. A poll of public opinion concerning where the police should be placing their attention in these matters, would overwhelmingly come down on the side of the robberies and assaults. Anyone who has ever been burgled or subjected to an assault will know of the frustration in having to wait sometimes hours for a police officer to attend.
Mostly this is not the fault of the police. It’s the fault of the state government who would rather that they spend unnecessary amounts of time policing morality - like censorship breaches. What makes this situation worse is that many of the police raids are carried out at the request of the federal government’s Censorship Board. The very same organisation that classifies X18+ films as OK for adults at a federal level.
The Board’s Community Liaison Officer, Ron Robertson, is supposed to go around and visit retailers and inform them if they are selling material outside of the law. Instead, he now takes it upon himself to encourage state police to waste their time busting adult retailers for selling x18+ films that his own Board has classified! If this sounds like bureaucracy gone mad, you’re right. The NSW Attorney General should get out and about and talk to a few of the 30% of the state’s adults who regularly buy and watch X18+ films. And the Federal censorship Minister, (former NSW Attorney General) Bob Debus, needs to have a serious talk to all state Attorneys about the massive waste of police resources in each state on policing the sale of adult films.
******
GIRLS GONE WILD DVD's Censored in Australia
The GIRLS GONE WILD series is aimed squarely at the R18+ market for soft-core sex, as such, the Australian distributor, Zeal Entertainment, is always aiming for an R18+ rating. Most of the time they are successful, though on several occasions they have been hit with X18+ ratings. This was the case with two more titles which in April were rated X18+ by the Classification Board. GIRLS GONE WILD: GIRLS ON GIRLS and GIRLS GONE WILD: GIRLS POWER CRAZY have now both been censored by the distributor for R18+ ratings and will be released soon.
They join GIRLS GONE WILD: MARDI GRAS INVASION and GIRLS GONE WILD: SPRING BREAK SEX RIOT which are already out in censored R18+ versions. Not that you would know this from the covers though. They both claim to be UNCENSORED! This is blatant false advertising, they are cut. Ask for your money back guys!
Two more titles to look out for are GIRLS GONE WILD: SEXIEST MOMENTS EVER and GIRLS GONE WILD: CELEBRITY LOOK-A-LIKES. Both were also hit with X18+ ratings in April, but are yet to be passed in censored versions.
******
Umbrella's IN THE REALM OF THE SENSES is cut
The review of Umbrella's IN THE REALM OF THE SENSES over at Michael D's has identified it as being sourced from a censored British print. The 2001 Madman DVD release contains the scene that has been optically reframed in the UK print. This is a case of Umbrella not being careful with their source prints. Back in 2004 they did a similar thing when they advertised their DVD release of DRILLER KILLER as "Previously Banned. Now Released Uncut", only for it to be a UK print missing 54 seconds of footage.
Other DVD's where censored UK prints have been used include Madman's ROMANCE and Paramount's THE EXTERMINATOR. In the latter case (like the GIRLS GONE WILD discs) it promised
"Finally witness the Director's cut, featuring never before seen footage from one of the most cold blooded tales of revenge ever to hit the screen"
Not true, we've always had the uncut version of this and ROMANCE until these censored versions found there way onto the market.
Update 4th May 2008
Refused-Classification.com
Updates: April 2008