UPDATES: 27th September 2008
SILENT HILL - HOMECOMING: Banned in Australia
Censorship @ MUFF 9 
PEACEFUL PILL HANDBOOK back before the censors
NOT THE BRADYS XXX: Seized by Customs
Learning The Ropes #1: Seized by customs, banned by censors
AUSTRALIAN ROSIE FINNISH EROTICA #3: Banned in Australia
STAR 69-CONTRACT BRUNETTES: Banned in Australia
Adult Magazine Censorship
Qld and NSW Adult Store raids
Unrated film and game advertising for NSW

UPDATES: 6th September 2008
The Classification Board Speaks
Censored R18+ DEEP THROAT
Advertising Standards Bureau: Mar '08-Jun '08 Complaints
TERMINATOR - SARAH CONNOR CHRONICLES: Poster Complaint
MEET THE SPARTANS: TV Ad Complaint
GEARS OF WAR: TV Advertisement Complaint

UPDATES: 17th August 2008
BONDAGE MANSION: Retains R18+
FALLOUT 3: Censored in Australia
NOT QUITE HOLLYWOOD and 70's censorship

UPDATES: 10th August 2008
Banned Hentai DVD's
DEEPER 10: Censored in Australia
GALLERY Vol.36 No.4: Banned in Australia
Eros Magazine Vol.9 No.3.
ART MONTHLY, LUX ET NOX, and Bill Henson
SPACE CHIMPS: PG dropped to G by Review Board
ACCORDING TO JIM: Not PG

UPDATES: 1st August 2008
BONDAGE MANSION & HOLY VIRGINS: Banned in Australia

Australian Censorship News  
27th September 2008

SILENT HILL - HOMECOMING: Banned in Australia

Here we go again! Game number four to be banned in 2008 is SILENT HILL: HOMECOMING. Excessive violence is the censor's reason for slapping it with an RC rating.

All previous entries in the series have been rated MA15+.

1999: SILENT HILL - MA15+ (Medium level animated violence, Horror theme) 
2001: SILENT HILL 2  - MA 15 + ( Medium level animated violence)
2003: SILENT HILL 3 - MA 15 + ( Medium level coarse language, Horror themes)
2004: SILENT HILL 4 - MA 15 + ( Medium level animated violence, Horror themes)
2007: SILENT HILL ORIGINS - MA 15+ ( Strong horror violence)

Back in 1999 the original game very nearly got itself banned because the minority opinion of the Classification Board

.... was that the school setting for some of the violent elements of the game (although no children are depicted in the game) offends against the standards of morality and decency generally accepted by reasonable adults to the extent that the game should be classified RC, but the majority opinion was that the horror scenario and lack of detail militate against the impact of the violence. The game was classified MA15+, with consumer advice of Medium Level Animated Violence and Horror Theme.

It looks like the next few years may see the slow defeat of the various Labor State governments. The Liberals are already back in power in Western Australia. This is not going to bode well for the chances of an agreement on an R18+ games rating.

The previous game to be banned by the Classification Board was FALLOUT 3. This was finally passed by the censors when the morphine drug references were removed. Now Bethesda has announced that this will become the version that is released worldwide. How about that, Aussie censorship goes global. Some may see this as long overdue revenge for all those butchered BBFC and MPAA films that get dumped on the Australian market.

******

Censorship @ MUFF 9 

The ninth Melbourne Underground Film Festival will run from October 9th to 19th. Last year saw the following titles dropped from the program after the refusal by the censors to grant them an exemption.

The same happened in 2004 when these for titles were scrapped.

Now the 2008 program is tackling censorship in a forum to be held on Sunday October 12th. It is to be followed a look at SALO. Attempting to screen the film would only result in another ban for MUFF, so we'll have to make do with some documentaries. Get yourself along and give the festival your support!

Polyester Books
Press Release
Polyester books is part of a special night at the Melbourne Underground Film Festival. Starting at 5pm on Sun 12th Oct as part of The MUFF academy Polyester's Paul Elliott is a member of the Censorship forum with Richard Wolstencroft and international guest John Pattu. We will discuss the subject of sexuality, censorship and ways to avoid it, get around it, flaunt it and fight it.

Then at 7pm Polyester books present a selection of shorts about the notorious film Salo, or the 120 days of Sodom including one by local young film maker Christian Gilbert which investigates it's banning in Australia and includes interviews with Fred Nile and censor turned porn distributor David Haines. 

At 9.00 we proudly present "Totally weird shit!" the PolyEster Books documentary directed by Simon Strong & Aaron Golberg devoted to discussing Australia's weirdest and wildest bookshop. Also on the bill is Gold, a genuine crazy cultural artifact from the cellulite 60s that plays like an early model John Waters film but with nudity and different drugs.

Censorship Forum 2008
Bill Henson’s Bon Mots 
5pm / Sun 12 Oct / Noise Bar 

Richard Wolstencroft, Paul Elliot from Polyester and International Guest John Patti will discuss the subject of sexuality, censorship and ways to avoid it, get around it, flaunt it and fight it. Paul has many experiences at Polyester as a free speech advocate. John Pattu will discuss the great liberalisation of censorship in the 70s that Xavier Hollander was part of. Wolstencroft will discuss the many fronts of the censorship wars, MUFF’s own experiences and the recent Bill Henson case. In addition, he will offer his own definition of, and guide to, censorship. A great forum, not be missed!

Polyester Totally Weird Shit! 
Salo documentary focus 
7pm / Sun 12 Oct / Noise Bar 

Some of my favourite films include Performance, Pink Flamingos, anything directed by Jacques Tati and Mike Leigh, and also Pier Paolo Pasolini’s Salo, the 120 Days of Sodom. Are these cruel visions of man’s inhumanity towards other members of the human race? It holds up a mirror to our face and says you know these people are you. If you had unlimited power what would you become? The film is heavily regarded as a masterpiece, an adaptation of the Marquis de Sade’s the 120 days of Sodom transposed to Salo in Northern Italy, during the Nazi-Fascist occupation. Salo is a film on another planet from typical Hollywood fare. 

A writer on the Internet Movie Database said SALO comes across as one long primal scream of rage, designed to shake the viewer out of his complacency, and in this respect, the film succeeds unequivocally. Whether or not you would care to watch this more than once, or indeed for ‘entertainment’, is another matter, but SALO is an important film that demands a careful viewing ONLY by those prepared for it. Acclaimed director Michael Haneke named the film one of his ten favourite films. The Village Voice named it the 89th greatest film of the 20th century. 

MUFF regular Melbourne’s Bill Mousoulis was so moved by the film that he wrote a web page devoted to Salo: www.sensesofcinema.com/contents/ 00/4/salo.html Prolific film writer Alberto Pezzotta said “Salò is a film, which one doesn’t see with impunity”. Now we cut to the chase, if you don’t already know, you are forbidden to see Salo in Australia. First banned in 1973, it was briefly given an R rating in 1993 before being banned again. Earlier this year Shock Entertainment re-submitted it and the OFLC voted to refuse classification. Hence our presentation of 3 documentaries Salo: yesterday and today, Fade to black and The end of Salo, we are forbidden to show the real thing 

If you haven’t already seen Salo somehow, these documentaries will give you a good idea of the power of this film. Say NO to censorship! – Curated by Paul Elliot

NOISE BAR 
291 Albert Street 
Brunswick VIC 3056 
P +61 3 9380 1493

******

PEACEFUL PILL HANDBOOK back before the censors

Over in New Zealand THE PEACEFUL PILL HANDBOOK has had a long fight for a rating. It was classified as objectionable by the NZOFLC on June 7th 2007. In February 2008, the New Zealand customs seized a censored copy of the book and forwarded it for a rating. It was awarded an R18 in May, and has just had it reconfirmed by the Review Board, who dismissed a challenge brought by the Society for the Promotion of Community Standards and Right to Life New Zealand.

The Director of Exit International, Dr Philip Nitschke

....said the decision clears the way for a fresh attempt to get the book classified so it may be published in Australia where it is currently banned outright.

”We are talking to our Australian lawyers about lodging a copy of the New Zealand edition of the Handbook with the Australia Office of Film and Literature Classification, making use of the detailed the arguments outlined by the New Zealand Board of Review to justify re-classification here.”

******

NOT THE BRADYS XXX: Seized by Customs

Customs do not publish a list of what they confiscate, so it can be a bit of a gamble when importing a title that may be controversial. Here at Refused-Classification.com we like to keep you informed. After all, if you know a title has been previously confiscated then you may wish to think twice before playing the customs lottery.

With this in mind we can inform you that Will Ryder's hardcore BRADY BUNCH spoof NOT THE BRADYS XXX has become another victim of the overzealous ACS. We've received a report that a copy of the DVD has been taken because it was:

"deemed to be offensive to moral standards of reasonable adults"

We would guess that some BRADY BUNCH fan at customs saw the cover and decided they didn't like it. Astronight's review over at Adult DVD Talk  recommends it to "anybody wanting a porno with plenty of laughs" and advises "anybody wanting nastier sex" to avoid it. While the review over at the IMDb describes it as "too PC". It hardly sounds the kind of title that would be offensive to reasonable adults.

******

Learning The Ropes #1: Seized by customs, banned by censors

As we mentioned above, customs do not publish a list of titles that they take. On occasions they will forward an item to the Classification Board for rating. However the past few years has seen a steep decline in this happening. Here is the number of items submitted to the censors by the ACS since 1995. 

The censor's database lists a DVD of Frank and Ona Zee's 1992 feature LEARNING THE ROPES #1: MALE SUBMISSIVE as being banned on August 21st 2008. The applicant was the Australian Customs Service. Now we know it is rare for the ACS to forward an item to the Classification Board, but it is rarer still for it to be listed in their database. Maybe customs were confused by this title because of its educational value. It's described as being:

...created to introduce this erotic sexual practise to people who want to learn more about bondage. Dominating the male submissive is featured in this chapter. From spanking to restraints and foot worship, this video is perfect for the beginning bondage enthusiast!

The censors had no such doubts and hit it with an RC rating. 

******

AUSTRALIAN ROSIE FINNISH EROTICA #3: Banned in Australia

We have more banned porn to report. Rob Hout's THE AUSTRALIAN ROSIE FINNISH EROTICA #3 was hit with an RC rating on September 11th. This joins FINNISH EROTICA 1 which was banned in November 2007, and FINNISH EROTICA #2 which was banned in March 2008. The applicant, FZ (NSW) Pty Ltd, subsequently censored both volumes for X18+ (Explicit Sex) ratings.

******

STAR 69-CONTRACT BRUNETTES: Banned in Australia

The latest Calvista DVD to be banned by the censors is STAR 69:CONTRACT BRUNETTES. This compilation DVD from Vivid promises: 

"69 of our wildest brunette scenes with the hottest Vivid superstars in history! "

The censors refused it a classification on September 23rd 2008.

******

Adult Magazine Censorship

The Eros Association have just issued a media release calling for a review of magazine censorship. Their claim that less than 5% of publications are classified would seem to be plausible. Very few magazines seem to be submitted for rating. However, when they are they often fall foul of the censors who in the space of a couple of months have banned GALLERY Vol36 #4, BUSTY BEAUTIES #61, CELEBRITY SKIN Vol 30 #175, and HUSTLER BARELY LEGAL Vol 15 #11. No wonder many distributors decide the cost and threat of an RC are not worth the risk.

EROS - Publications Classification Scheme in Chaos EROS Association 19.09.2008

Australia’s national adult retail industry association has called on the federal government to overhaul the national classification scheme for publications.

Eros CEO, Fiona Patten, said that less than 5% of adult publications currently sold in Australia were classified and in many cases importers of adult magazines simply could not afford the classification charges.

Unlike most other countries, it is compulsory for all adult magazines and books to be submitted to the Federal government for classification. “The cost to classify a publication ranges from $500 to $700. This even includes the classification of a business card that might have a nude dancer on it”, Ms Patten said. “Many adult publications are imported in small numbers. If an importer wants to bring in 10 copies of a specialist magazine they have to load the cover price of that magazine by up to $70 just to recover the classification costs, so clearly they cannot comply with the law or they will go broke”.

Frequently, two or three businesses will import the same publication and whoever classifies it first, effectively pays for their competitor’s fee which also causes many to baulk at classification. Ms Patten said that in the past, Australia had the same voluntary scheme as New Zealand and the UK. At that time explicit adult magazines were not classified but were only allowed to be sold from age restricted adult shops.

“Its time the government reformed the classification scheme to create a powerful uniform adult category called Non Violent Erotica (NVE), that spans film, publications and computer games, that all fall under the same set of guidelines”, she said. “The public have no idea about the differences between an R or X rated film, A Category 1 or 2 Restricted magazine and an MA rated online or computer game”, she said.

Ms Patten said that NVE magazines (Category 2) and films (X rated) should only be available to adults from adult shops. The system as it stood today was not working and inappropriate material was finding its way into non-restricted outlets like convenience stores and service stations. Not only are adult magazines being found in these outlets but explicit films were also turning up. Eros has been alerting state and federal governments to this problem for years but the Classification Board’s Community Liaison Scheme was too obsessed with policing the sale of X rated films in adult shops to worry about the more important issue of adult material in family areas.

Ms Patten said that censorship laws needed to be consistent throughout Australia. In West Australia, Category Two explicit magazines could be legally sold by minors working in newsagents - a situation Eros had challenged but had been ignored on. In Queensland, R rated films are legal but the equivalent magazines (Category 1 Restricted ) are illegal.

Fiona Patten

EROS Association CEO

******

Qld and NSW Adult Store raids

There has been an increase in the number of Adult stores being raided over the past couple of years. Remember that hardcore DVD's cannot be sold or rented from anywhere within the States. It is only legal to do so in the NT and the ACT. This does not stop Adult stores from catering to the public demand, which obviously leaves them open to raids and possible corruption.

The owners of the Brisbane's Everything Adult and Naughty but Nice stores were recently found guilty of stocking hardcore DVDs and publications. Even hardcore Category 2 magazines are banned in the Sunshine State! That has not stopped there currently being 180 adult stores throughout Queensland.

Meanwhile, down in Newcastle the cops raided the EROTICA PLUS store in Hunter St.

X-posed: Brisbane adult shops sell banned material Brisbane Times 17.09.08

Queensland's Office of Fair Trading has successfully prosecuted two adult shops for selling banned films and magazines.

Attorney-General Kerry Shine today said Costa Giorge George and Con Ange, the proprietors of Brisbane store Everything Adult, were each fined $5,000.

Merlaway Pty Ltd, proprietor of Naughty but Nice, at Capalaba in Brisbane's east, was fined $2,000 for the sale and display of banned publications and films.

Office of Fair Trading inspectors found the banned items on sale while responding to consumer complaints, Mr Shine said.

"Fair Trading officers bought magazines and DVDs in trial purchases at each location," he said.

"The items were then sent to the Commonwealth Classification Board, which found the DVDs classified as X18+ and RC, Refused Classification, while the magazines were classified as Category 2 Restricted.

"Items with these classifications are banned from sale in Queensland."

Mr Shine said the Office of Fair Trading took breaches seriously and would continue to carry out spot checks.

Queensland has more sex shops than Coles supermarkets Courier Mail 28.09.08

The EROS Association is calling on the State Government to tighten controls on the number of sex shops in Queensland.

But the Government says it has no plans to cap the number of sex stores or introduce a licensing system to regulate the industry.

A spokesman for Queensland's Office of Fair Trading said it was investigating the current regulations that deal with the location of adult stores, but would not look at licensing operators.

The spokesman said Queensland already had Australia's toughest restrictions on the sale of sexually explicit material, with X18+ rated DVDs banned and some 18+ magazines restricted.

The number of sex stores in Queensland have jumped 65 per cent in the past two years – an increase that has Family First chairman Peter Findlay seeing red.

"I've had so many families say they don't want their children confronted with these sexual images and issues in suburban areas," Mr Findlay said.

"We're seeing such a dramatic rise in sex crimes committed by young children (and) when we see these abberations of behaviour going on we've got to ask what's causing it?" Mr Findlay said.

"Exposure to these sexual images and issues is partly to blame.

"When it comes to issues like placement of sex shops in family areas, you're going to get a lot of children exposed to these things."

EROS argues that the introduction of a licensing system would have the dual effect of limiting the number of sex shops, and reducing the amount of illegal material sold.

Association spokesman Robbie Swan said sex shop owners would be more likely to abide by the law if they faced the threat of losing their operating licence, and fewer operators would submit themselves to the scrutiny of regulators.

Mr Swan said the ACT required shop owners to obtain a licence, which costs $11,000, and they have to agree to police checks and submit a business plan before opening an adult store.

"At the moment, anyone can open a sex shop in Queensland," Mr Swan said.

He said Queensland parliamentarians were ill-informed about the industry and "can't deal with sexual matters appropriately".

Mr Swan said adult shop patrons were mostly women, but politicians believed they were solely the domain of "dirty old men".

Rebecca Tobin, who works at Naughty But Nice Cannon Hill, said: "I think (licensing) is necessary and a good idea.

"It would help put an end to people selling unclassified goods and it's about looking out for the customers as well."

But Miss Stella Lingerie and Adult Products manager Wayne Casey did not support the move.

The Logan Central store's manager said Queensland could still sustain new businesses.

"This store has been open for 10 or so years and the current owner has had it for four (years). It's a successful business," Mr Casey said.

Councils are responsible for processing applications for sex stores in their local area.

DVDs seized in porn store raid Newcastle Herald  16.09.08 

LICENSING police yesterday seized more than 1000 DVDs and videos from a Newcastle adult store which were allegedly unclassified or classified as too explicit.

Officers raided Erotica Plus on Hunter Street about 11am and spent several hours sifting through DVDs and videos.

Newcastle City duty officer Inspector Steve Gallagher said the search warrant followed a complaint made against the store.

No one has been charged. The DVDs and videos have been sent away to be checked. It is an offence under the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Enforcement Act 1995 to sell or publicly exhibit a film classified "refused classification" or "X18+".

'Outing' threat on porn raid THE adult entertainment industry has threatened to "out" some public figure customers, including police, politicians and the judiciary, for what it claims to be hypocrisy over raids on adult stores allegedly selling material not allowed under NSW law.

The Eros Foundation, which represents pornography traders, said although its industry was confidential by nature, it would be prepared to illustrate who bought pornography classified under "X18+" to illustrate the laws were not representative of the general public's views and needed changing.

The threat follows a raid on a Hunter Street, Newcastle, adult shop on Tuesday where 1234 DVDs and 315 videos were seized by police who alleged they did not have classification or were classified as being too explicit to be sold in NSW.

Eros Foundation co-ordinator Robbie Swan said there had been at least a dozen similar raids on shops in Sydney and the Riverina in the past 12 months following at least three years where no searches were performed anywhere in NSW.

Mr Swan said Commonwealth law deemed the non-violent pornography could be sold in Australia but it was illegal to do so under many state laws, including NSW.

Stores in the Northern Territory and ACT can sell pornography classified as being X18+, which the foundation described as being non-violent erotica showing penetration. He said it was not illegal to buy or possess the pornography.

A police spokesman said officers would be happy to speak with the foundation about its concerns but that police enforced the law and were not law makers.

******

Unrated film and game advertising for NSW

The NSW government has introduced amendments to remove the offence of advertising an unclassified film or game providing it is in accordance with the new advertising scheme. This follows concerns by distributors who now often submit titles very close to release dates, so limiting their advertising opportunities.

CLASSIFICATION (PUBLICATIONS, FILMS AND COMPUTER GAMES) ENFORCEMENT AMENDMENT (ADVERTISING) BILL 2008 
Page: 59
24 September 2008

Bill introduced, and read a first time and ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. John Hatzistergos.

Second Reading

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS (Attorney General, Minister for Justice, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [5.33 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to amend the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Enforcement Act 1995, to ensure that future requirements imposed on the advertising of unclassified films and unclassified computer games will be enforceable in New South Wales. These are technical amendments that are necessary to complement amendments to the Commonwealth classification legislation. Before I address the provisions of the bill, it is appropriate for me to provide some background regarding the National Classification Scheme, and the recent Commonwealth amendments. The scheme for the classification of films, publications and computer games in New South Wales is part of a national, cooperative scheme, which commenced operation in 1996 with the support of all Australian jurisdictions. The Commonwealth Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 establishes the classification authorities—the Classification Board and the Review Board—and provides the framework for the administration and making of classification decisions.

All Australian States and Territories have enacted legislation that sets out offence provisions to enforce the classifications of products under the Commonwealth Act, and to place appropriate restrictions on the sale, exhibition and advertising of films, publications and computer games. The New South Wales legislation is the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Enforcement Act 1995. New South Wales Police are responsible for enforcing this legislation. I move now to the recent amendments to Commonwealth classification legislation.

Currently, Australian State and Territory enforcement legislation makes it an offence to advertise an unclassified film or computer game. However, some limited exceptions do exist for cinema release films. Due to increasing concerns about piracy, and rapid advances in technology, films and computer games are now often available for classification only very close to their release date. As such, the current classification laws place significant regulatory limitations on marketing these films and computer games prior to their classification. To address this concern, while ensuring that advertising continues to be done appropriately, Commonwealth, State and Territory classification Ministers agreed in April 2007 to implement a new way of regulating the advertisement of films and computer games which have yet to be classified. This new advertising scheme was developed following nation-wide public consultation in late 2006.

The first step in implementing this new advertising scheme was the recent amendments to the Commonwealth legislation, made by the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (Assessments and Advertising) Act 2008. When the Commonwealth Act comes into force on or before 1 July 2009, it will allow the Commonwealth Minister for Home Affairs to make a statutory instrument that sets conditions for the advertising of films and computer games before they are classified. The Commonwealth and all State and Territory classification Ministers have already agreed on the conditions which will be imposed by this statutory instrument, with the final text of the Commonwealth instrument to be developed in consultation with States and Territories. This consultation is guaranteed by section 31 of the Commonwealth Act, as amended.

The conditions contained in the new scheme will relate to the display of a message to check the classification, similar to that which currently appears on some cinema-release films, and strict time periods in which industry must add classification information to advertisements once the product is classified. The scheme will also place strong limitations on advertising where advertisements for unclassified material accompany a classified product. Currently in New South Wales, it is an offence to advertise a film that has been classified PG or M during a screening of a G-rated film. The new advertising scheme will introduce this strict commensurate audience rule for the advertising of unclassified products. It will be prohibited to advertise a film likely to be classified PG with a film which has already been classified G.

In order to apply this rule, the Commonwealth instrument will establish an assessment scheme for unclassified films and computer games, whereby the likely classification of the product can be determined either by the Classification Board, or by an assessor who has undertaken training approved by the director of the Classification Board and is authorised by the director to make such assessments. This assessment will ensure that where unclassified material is advertised together with classified material—for example, a trailer at the start of a film or DVD—the advertisements for unclassified material are always appropriately matched to the audience of the classified material. Mandatory initial training will be provided for individual assessors in courses approved by the Classification Board, including mandatory annual refresher training. Also, there will also be disciplinary provisions for assessors. The director of the Classification Board will have the power to revoke or suspend a person's authorisation to assess materials, if, for example, that person seriously or repeatedly misrepresents the likely classification of materials.

The bill provides a number of safeguards to ensure the integrity of the new advertising scheme. First and foremost, the scheme will not apply to material that falls into, or is likely to fall into, the X18+ or RC categories. Advertising of this material is currently prohibited, and will continue to be prohibited. Other safeguards include the following: Currently, under the Commonwealth legislation, the board must refuse to approve offensive advertisements or advertisements which deal with topics in a way that offend reasonable standards of morality and decency. This provision will be retained under the new advertising scheme, and it will remain an offence to publish, screen or otherwise distribute an advertisement that has been refused approval by the Classification Board, or, importantly, which would be refused approval by the Classification Board if it were submitted for approval.

The director of the Classification Board currently has the power to call in an advertisement for classification. If the director does so, the advertisement has to be submitted to the Classification Board within three business days. The board then determines whether the advertisement should be approved for distribution. This power will also be retained for advertisements for unclassified material. Similarly, the director of the Classification Board will have the power to bar a distributor from using authorised assessors for unclassified material. In those circumstances, the distributor will be required to apply to the Classification Board for assessment of the likely classification of any unclassified films or computer games they wish to advertise. Those offences and powers will deter assessors, distributors and advertisers from making lax or inadequate assessments.

Having outlined the new advertising scheme and its various safeguards, I move now to the contents of the New South Wales bill. As I noted earlier, the purpose of this bill is to make the technical amendments necessary to complement the new advertising scheme when it comes into force. This bill amends the NSW Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Enforcement Act 1995, to ensure that the scheme's requirements on the advertising of unclassified films and computer games will be enforceable in New South Wales.

The bill makes amendments to remove the offence of advertising an unclassified film or computer game and replaces this with an offence of advertising an unclassified film or computer game otherwise than in accordance with the new advertising scheme. The bill also inserts new offences of advertising an unclassified film or an unclassified computer game together with classified material if the advertisement does not comply with the advertising scheme. I note that to ensure the amendments in this bill come into force only when the text of the Commonwealth instrument is agreed to by New South Wales, the amendments made by this bill are to commence by proclamation. Tasmania and the Northern Territory have already introduced bills to make similar amendments to their classification enforcement legislation, and such amendments will need to be made to classification legislation in all other States and Territories prior to 1 July 2009. By allowing the new advertising requirements to be enforced in New South Wales, these amendments will ensure the continued efficacy of the National Classification Scheme. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Don Harwin and set down as an order of the day for a future day.

Update 27th September 2008
Refused-Classification.com 

Australian Censorship News  
6th September 2008

The Classification Board Speaks

The past couple of weeks have seen several interviews with current and past members of the Classification Board. They provide an interesting insight into the workings of our censorship system.

Board Member Alexandra Greene Interview

Alexandra Greene is current member of the Classification Board.

She has this to say regarding the rating of porn.

 "It's one of the easier things to do because all we really have to look out for is violence and some fetishes that aren't permitted."

Indeed it would be one of the easier things to rate, mainly because in 99% of cases the distributors have gone through each DVD and removed all incidents of violence and fetish.

She claims that her job is not to censor, and that:

"People should be able to watch or read what they like but we do need to protect people and children from unsolicited material, or at least give them the choice if they want to watch it," 

True, the Classification Board does not censor, they just rate. Unfortunately one of those ratings is Refused Classification. With this threat hanging over them the distributors do all the censoring themselves.

Here is Alexandra's profile from the Classification Board website.

CLASSIFICATION BOARD PROFILE
ALEXANDRA GREENE 
Board member 
APPOINTED 28 May 2003 
REAPPOINTED 28 May 2006 
APPOINTMENT EXPIRES 27 May 2010

Alexandra Greene, 31 and mother of a two year old son, is originally from Melbourne, having spent seven years living on the Gold Coast. Alexandra is a qualified solicitor and has degrees in Arts (Criminology/Criminal Justice) and Law from the University of Queensland. Alexandra also completed a postgraduate course in Professional Legal Education and Training.

Prior to taking up her appointment on the Classification Board, Alexandra worked as a commercial solicitor on the Sunshine Coast. Alexandra has also spent time as an Assistant Legal Officer in the State Drug Squad and Major Fraud Investigation Unit at the Queensland Police Service.

This mix of work and study experience has allowed Alexandra to have close contact with children and families, giving her an insight into many legal and social issues such as drug use, violence and sexual abuse. She has interests in animal welfare, music, piano and motor racing.

Classifying porn not as hard as it looks news.com.au 05.09.08

"You get used to the adult product, you get used to seeing it and you know what to expect but I that makes you the opposite (of desensitised). You know what you're supposed to look out for and when it comes up it jumps out at you," she said.

"It does get repetitive; it's the same old thing. They go through the same scenes, vignettes and motions. They can only go so far with it, there is not much more they can invent.

"It's one of the easier things to do because all we really have to look out for is violence and some fetishes that aren't permitted."

Ms Greene says her role is not to censor but inform people about what they are about to watch and if necessary restrict the content from being viewed.

"You know what the community is going to find offensive on a general level," she said.

"It is pretty obvious that not many people are going to find child pornography acceptable."

But having to watch everything before it can be consumed by the public can be a hard task.

"People should be able to watch or read what they like but we do need to protect people and children from unsolicited material, or at least give them the choice if they want to watch it," Ms Greene said.

This means that she has to watch things without warning of what it could involve.

"I've got a pretty strong stomach so I haven't had any really bad reactions. I had one which was was an internet site a few years ago which was a live beheading. It caught me by surprise," she said.

"That was quite confronting obviously. I got a physical reaction to it. I felt quite sick but I just went for a walk around the block and spoke to a few people about it."

But the double entendres in children's films such as Shrek and The Cat in the Hat's title character calling a garden tool " a dirty hoe" tread a line that can be hard to define.

"I saw an interview with (Scottish comedian) Ronnie Barker where he said double entendres were OK because the children couldn't understand it and the adults would get a laugh," Ms Greene said.

"But now it's that adults get offended because they're worried their kids might understand."

***

Former Deputy Director Paul Hunt Interview

Next up is an excellent in-depth interview with Paul Hunt, the ex-Deputy Director of the Classification Board. In it he comes over as a games fan that is in support of an R18+ rating. What is it with ex-Deputy Directors? Once they leave the job they are revealed to be anti-censorship campaigners. Just look at David Haines who had the Deputies job from 1986 until the early 90's. He most famously went on to direct the Aussie hardcore feature BUFFY DOWN UNDER, before becoming a founding member of Watch on Censorship.

Here is Paul Hunt's profile from the Classification Board website.

CLASSIFICATION BOARD PROFILE
PAUL HUNT 
DEPUTY DIRECTOR 
APPOINTED 28 May 2006 
APPOINTMENT EXPIRED 31 May 2007 

Paul Hunt, 39, joined the Classification Board as a Senior Classifier in June 2000, and was appointed to his current position of Deputy Director in May 2003 following a 2 year period acting in the role. 

Paul came to the Classification Board from the remote Kimberley region of Western Australia and prior to that he lived mostly in Tasmania. Paul holds an Executive Masters of Business Administration and has worked in a number of fields, including environmental health, land use planning and building surveying. 

Paul has a keen interest in emerging media, particularly as it relates to convergent technologies and has developed a breadth of contacts throughout the media, entertainment and technology sectors. Paul undertook a leading role in developing proposals for Censorship Ministers in relation to the innovative common guidelines for the classification of films and computer games. He has represented the Classification Board internationally in discussions regarding emerging classification challenges. 

Paul has experience in community consultation, as well as considerable experience in balancing community expectations of statutory bodies with the needs of clients. Paul’s experience in the Kimberley and other regional areas has given him an understanding of sensitive social justice and health issues relevant to rural and remote communities. Paul is married with two children.

For the full article and readers comments see:

Inside the Classification Board Part II: Q&A with a former deputy director au.gamespot.com 24.08.08

GameSpot AU: What were your main duties as Deputy Director of the Classification Board?

Paul Hunt: I was there for a total for seven years; before being the Deputy Director I was a Senior Classifier, which is like being a team leader for the board members. I worked in production, workflow, allocation of work and keeping standards consistent. As a Deputy Director I was also a member of the board, but didn't deal with as much classification decisions. I was mostly responsible for other operations, such as corporate services and client services. I served my full term and then left.

I left one month before the OFLC was fully absorbed into the Attorney General's (AG) department. Now the AG looks after all that administration stuff and both the Director and Deputy Director's jobs have been downgraded somewhat.

GS AU: How many video games did you look at during your time there?

PH: During my time there I probably looked at 600 to 700 video games per year as a Senior Classifier, and about 15 to 20 per year as a Deputy Director. As a Senior Classifier I examined all the reports that came in on video games and then made a decision on how to proceed. Roughly 75% of video games were classified as per the reports that came with them. With the rest, they were either controversial or the report was not clear enough, and so they had to be looked at more in-depth. If anything was borderline, I'd put the Classification Board on it. We'd all read the report, maybe take a look at some video excerpts of the video game, and maybe we'd play it.

If a game was controversial then it would definitely be played by the members of the board--either physically by some of the board members, or someone would come in and play it for the board. Otherwise, the actual playing of video games was rather random. Sometimes I'd make the board play some games as not to lose their touch, but you can't have ten or so people spending forty hours playing a video game--it's just not economically feasible. We'd want to spend our time and money on the tricky ones, the controversial game, not the ones that were not at all hard to classify.

If a tricky game like something in the Grand Theft Auto titles came through, extra care was taken. All information would be reviewed by the board (as Senior Classifier, I'd put the entire board on it, not just a few members). Everyone would read the report and then watch a video of the controversial bits. By law, the applicant must point out to the board all the controversial content in the game. Afterwards, the board will want to see some of the game being played and that's when the applicant will bring in a skilled player to take the board through the game.

GS AU: Is the system just when it comes to picking board members? Is the Classification Board a fair representation of the Australian community?

PH: It's not easy to pick board members, and the system is as fair as it can be. We get around 1000 applications when we look for new board members. We can't just pick anyone--board members have to be able to discuss and debate intelligently, and be active members of the community. As you can imagine, we get a lot of older applicants, and not many younger ones. The reason for this is that this is probably not a first career choice for many young people, especially because there's a time limit on the position and there's not really anywhere to go after you have served on the board. You have to start again when it's over and done with, so it's understandable that not many young people want that.

Usually around 10 per cent of applicants are under 30, and of that 10 per cent, 90 per cent are from Sydney. We have to be fair when picking a diverse bunch, so you can see how it's hard to pick someone young when not many apply, and the ones that do all come from the one city. During my time there I tried very hard to pick younger members, but not everyone is capable of doing this job. It takes maturity. It's easy for GameSpot readers to say 'Well, ten year olds play games so they could be on the board making those decisions'. It's a little complicated than that, and the nature of those comments suggests that many of your readers probably wouldn't be able to do the job, even if they think they may.

GS AU: How is the legislation interpreted when classifying video games? Do you think the current legislation is clear, or that it leaves too much up to personal interpretation?

PH: The legislation is broad; all it does is create the classifications of G, PG, M, etc. It's the guidelines that sometimes go into specifics. In some cases the guidelines are open and therefore left up to interpretation; in other cases they are not open at all and therefore there is no room for interpretation. The two most important things outlined in the guidelines impact and context. What can be left up to interpretation are things like: is the content in the video game realistic or stylized, implied or explicit? Not left up to interpretation are things like incentive and rewards. For example, it's clearly listed in the guidelines that it's forbidden for a video game to use sex and drugs as an incentive or reward. So yes, some things are left up to interpretation; some are not.

GS AU: Do you think that the system of trained assessors who come in and list the benefits of a video game skews the decision making process? Is someone who is a more skilled talker more likely to get a game classified the way they want it?

PH: No, I don't think so at all. Authorised assessors receive training every year on how to make pitches to the board. Similarly, board members receive training to know that they are not to fall for marketing tripe. They know how to cut through the crap and ask the right questions. If there is ever any issue with an assessor being too vague, or too enthusiastic about a game, the board will tell them so. The system is very clear on what exactly an applicant has to provide when coming in to see the board.

GS AU: Do you think this system above is fair? Or should it be up to the merits of the game?

PH: I think it's a just system because I think it does allow the game to speak for itself. It's an international system; there are checks and balances in place. In my experience I didn't see any bias occur, and we got results that matched the guidelines.

GS AU: Do you think that the Classification Board has had trouble with consistency in the past? (I.e. in instances where one violent video game has been classified, whilst another video game with equal amounts of violence has been refused classification).

PH: There is no hard line when it comes to consistency. There is no set boundary between the classification ratings so what it comes down to is flaws of interpretation and understanding. It's not just with video games, but with film and TV as well. Sometimes you may see a program and wonder why it's been put on at such an early time given its content--this is because there's no defining line. All the Classification Board can do is look at the context of the game, and judge it on the weight of the issues presented. It's the nature of the system that some things come out differently than others.

GS AU: While you were working for the Classification Board, did it ever irk you that gamers blamed you guys so much for video games that were refused classification?

PH: It did bother me a lot. If the gaming community wants an R18+ classification, then sending an email to the Classification Board saying '**** you, you *****' is not going to get anyone in a good frame of mind. I found it very frustrating and damaging to the cause. If someone ever did try and get the legislation changed, it won't look good for the gaming community when the Attorney General stands up in parliament holding a few hundred emails all calling him a bastard. It's not going to make him improve his mind on the situation.

GS AU: What is your personal view of Australia having an R18+ classification for games?

PH: I think we need an R18+ classification, and I always have thought this. Not having this classification is dangerous, naïve and stupid. It's a policy based on misinformation that treats one area of entertainment differently to the others.

When you look at TV, it's understandable why there are restrictions on an R18+ classification: television is in your home. It seems Australians are not capable of operating a TV remote and simply turn off whatever it is they don't want to see, but that's another matter.

When it comes to an R18+ classification for video games, Australia's current position is embarrassing from an international point of view. Everyone knows now that the average gamer is 28 years old. But if it was up to the legislation makers, nothing harmful would be let through: cigarettes would be banned, and condom machines in high schools wouldn't exist. That's the nature of it.

As a parent, I resent the fact that the government seems to think that parents will not be able to control their kids from playing these R18+ games (if we had such a thing). I've always been a gamer, and I have always loved it. I now own a PS3, an Xbox 360, a DS and a Wii. My two sons love video games too, and we often play together. Parents know their kids. It's insulting to think that parents cannot make a decision. The OFLC doesn't know me, and doesn't know my kids. So how can they decide for me?

In my opinion, the solution is to look at the broader picture. Attorney General Ruddock said in 2006 that he was looking at reviewing the whole media regulations system because there appeared to be crossovers. Consumers don't care who or how the media is regulated, they just want to know that it's being done. Classification is useful because it tells consumers what is good for whom. If this review of media regulations was to happen, we would have one set of regulations for film, TV, video games, etc--then the consumer would get a consistent set of information. It doesn't matter how a decision would be reached, or under what guidelines, but only that it's been made, and it's there. For this to happen, a big change has to occur. We have to look at it from the point of view of economics and say: is this a bigger issue than education, defence, etc? The answer, of course, is no. Media regulation is not a big priority, and I don't think the government feels it is. Why? Because the current system works, so there is no incentive there for an overhaul. Notwithstanding the fact that every time a video game gets banned, 300 angry gamers write an angry email.

In my time with the Classification Board, I reflected my personal view whenever I could, but as you can imagine that wasn't too often. I couldn't push my love of video games too much. I had a job to do--support, manage and promote the current system. Although I was of the opinion that we should have an R18+ classification, the board has never had any role in policy making. There are gamers on the board now, and I think there always will be.

GS AU: Do you think Australia will ever get an R18+ classification for video games?

PH: I think it's unlikely that we'll get an R18+ classification. It's up to the politicians to make this decision, and from their point of view, there's not much to benefit from this. I know that in the media some ministers have expressed their support, while others have shown their refusals; but ministers change, and so too will their opinions. Another option is to have some states that support R18+ classification, and some that don't, depending on what each state wants. The last time this was talked about in 2002, and I think the IEAA is doing something at the moment to get it back into the public forum.

However, I think the Classification Board is a good representative body. It's not perfect, but it's not bad. You can never tick all the boxes of course. I always felt confident while I was working there and I enjoyed it. All the members on the board feel a strong commitment to serving the community and that was a very positive thing.

GS AU: What is your view on films versus video games when it comes to impact? Do you think one has more of an impact than the other?

PH: Yes. I think films have more of an impact than video games. The guidelines for classification state only that interactivity has to be considered when classifying something. It doesn't make a judgment--it's up to the Classification Board to do that. Unfortunately, in most cases, the board decides that if something's interactive, it has a bigger impact. Personally, I don't think this is true. TV is not interactive, and yet a lot of stuff you see on TV is true; in contrast, all video games are made up, and I think even kids intuitively know that.

***

The Classification Board on Games Censorship, and Customs.

Logan Booker at kotaku.com.au has managed to get responses from the Classification Board to a number of questions that he put to them.

Look at how they avoid answering this important point.

Kotaku AU: Why does the Classification Board not make reports freely available on its website, while reports from the Classification Review Board are? Is it possible this position could change in the future? 

Classification Board: Classification decisions are posted on the website and the reasons for the decision are available upon request.

The question was not asking where the decisions could be found or how the reports can be obtained. It asked why the reports are not on the website!

The amount of information that the Classification Board publishes about their decisions is disgraceful. The Classification Board have released zero media releases in 2008. In fact they have had nothing to say about any of their decisions since January 2007 when they banned the game BLITZ THE LEAGUE. The New Zealand OFLC and the British Board of Film Classification have more to say when they award a rating, than our censors do when denying a rating. The websites of both put their Australian counterpart to shame.

Australian Classification Board Speaks On Games, R18+ & Fallout 3 kotaku.com.au 28.08.08

Kotaku AU: When was the Office of Film and Literature Classification (OFLC) title replaced by the Classification Board? Was this a simple change of name, or was the role and organisation of the office altered also?

Classification Board: The Office of Film and Literature Classification was the agency that provided administrative support for the Classification Board and the Classification Review Board. The OFLC did not make classification decisions. This function has always been that of the Classification Board.

On 1 July 2007 the APS staff in the former OFLC became part of the Australian Government Attorney-General's Department.

The independent classification decision-making role of the Classification Board remains unchanged.

Kotaku AU: Are games that have been refused classification considered a prohibited item and could be potentially seized by Australian Customs? Is Customs aware of which games have been refused classification? Is this information kept up-to-date and who is responsible for keeping Customs informed of RC titles? 

Classification Board: The import of objectionable material into Australia is prohibited without permission under Regulation 4A of the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations 1956. The definition of objectionable material includes computer games that are unsuitable for a minor to see or play. This definition accords with the with the 'Refused Classification' criteria in the National Classification Scheme.

The Attorney-General's Department is responsible for the National Classification Scheme and provides advice to Customs in relation to games have been refused classification.

Customs may detain or seize any items that are suspected of contravening the Regulations. The maximum penalty for this type of offence is a fine of up to $110,000.

Kotaku AU: Does the Classification Board have any say in the amendment of classification laws and guidelines? If not, is it not unusual that the office responsible for applying said laws and guidelines has no sway over their creation or alteration? 

Classification Board: The Classification Board is consulted on policy issues and legislative proposals. The Director of the Board attends meetings of Censorship Ministers.

Kotaku AU: Has the Classification Board expressed a desire for an R18+ classification? Does the Board feel restricted by the current classification guidelines for computer games? 

Classification Board: The Classification Board does not make public comment on policy matters.

Kotaku AU: Why does the Classification Board not make reports freely available on its website, while reports from the Classification Review Board are? Is it possible this position could change in the future? 

Classification Board: Classification decisions are posted on the website and the reasons for the decision are available upon request.

Kotaku AU: Does the Board play any of the games it classifies? What materials are provided to the Board from the publisher/submitter to aid the Board in the classification process? Is it a requirement board members play the games they classify? 

Classification Board: An application for the classification of a computer game must include a copy of the game. Other material must also be provided and this is outlined in the application form for the classification of computer games which you can access in the computer games section of the classification website.

For computer games likely to be classified G to M, industry can access a scheme that permits trained assessors to provide a recommendation for the likely classification of a computer game. The assessors must provide a detailed report of the game and gameplay of contentious material. Contentious material is material that is likely to be classified M or higher. In order to use this scheme, industry assessors must attend training that is approved by the Director of the Classification Board, and once trained, the Director authorises the assessors to make recommendations. They are called authorised assessors.

Board members do not usually play a game to in order to make a classification. Applicants submit recordings of game play at each level of complexity to assist the Board. The Board may also request a demonstration of the computer game by the applicant to ensure they experience all aspects of game play and can assess all elements.

***

The Classification Board on Rating Games

Gamespot questioned the Classification Board regarding the process of rating a game and choosing Board members.

Inside Australia's game ratings body — The Classification Board au.gamespot.com 18.08.08

GameSpot AU: How does the Classification Board assess a computer game's content and classify it?

Classification Board: Among other requirements, an application for the classification of a computer game must include a copy of the game and a document setting out details about the game and if there is material in the game likely to be classified at M or higher

For computer games likely to be classified G to M, Authorised Assessors may provide a detailed recommendation report with the application for classification for a reduced fee. The recommendation report assists in the decision-making process of the Board.

In classifying a computer game, the Board applies the Act, the National Classification Code and the Guidelines for the Classification of Films and Computer Games (the Guidelines). These documents are available for download here .

GS AU: When classifying a video game, is it a requirement for all Classification Board members to play it?

CB: No.

GS AU: Then who decides what members of the board will play a computer game that requires classification?

CB: As mentioned previously, the Director of the Board determines the constitution of the Board panel. In some instances the Director may assign the full Board to classify a computer game. The constitution of the panel will depend on the complexity of the game.

GS AU: When classifying a video game, is it a requirement for those members who are playing it to finish the entire video game before they can classify it? If not, what length of time is required for those board members to spend playing a video game before they make their decision?

CB: While the Board needs to experience the highest impact and most contentious elements of the computer game, Board members are not required to play a game to completion during the classification process. Applicants submit recordings of game play at each level of complexity to assist the Board. The Board may also request a demonstration of the computer game by the applicant to ensure they experience all aspects of game play and can assess all elements.

GS AU: The current Classification Board has no members under the age of 29. Is there a reason for this? Do you commonly receive applications from people under that age?

CB: Details of persons who have previously applied to be members of the Classification Board cannot be made available.

GS AU: Without anyone on the board under the age of 29, is the Classification Board still an accurate representation of Australians who consumer film, literature and video games?

CB: As set out above, Board members are selected to be broadly representative of the Australian community. They come from a range of backgrounds and experience with each appointment designed to achieve broad representation. Information about who the Board members are is available here .

GS AU: After reading all the current Classification Board members' profiles, it's clear that all of them have some significant achievement within the community, public service and government. Would you ever accept someone on the Classification Board who does not have those achievements? For example if an 18-year-old pizza delivery driver with significant community involvement through local youth groups, etc, applied to be on the board, could he be a successful candidate?

CB: A young person with significant community involvement could be a successful candidate.

GS AU: It says on your website that trained industry assessors can be authorised by the Director of the Classification Board to make assessments on what classification a computer game is likely to attract. Who are these industry assessors? Where are they picked from, and what are their qualifications?

CB: The Director of the Board may authorise industry assessors who undertake the required training course to recommend the likely classification of a computer game. They are known as Authorised Assessors of computer games. Authorised Assessors must attend annual refresher training to ensure currency of their status. Computer game distributors select staff to be trained in this purpose to assist with applications for the classification of computer games.

GS AU: What is the "majority-based decision-making procedure" that the Classification Board operates under?

CB: The Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 (the Act) provides that the Director of the Classification Board may give directions as to the constitution of the Board. The Act provides that if members of the Board are divided in opinion, but not equally divided, the decision of the majority prevails.

The Act also provides that if members of the Board are equally divided in opinion and the Board constituted for the purposes of the matter includes the Director, the Director will have the casting vote as well as a deliberative vote. If the Board constituted for the purposes of the matter does not include the Director, the Director must vary the constitution of the Board by adding one or more other members and the matter is to be considered again.

******

Censored R18+ DEEP THROAT 

Thanks to David for sending in this confirmation that Umbrella's just released DEEP THROAT DVD is censored.

"... the new "respectable" (as advertised) DVD release of Deep Throat from Umbrella Entertainment, although not edited, is still heavily censored. All the hardcore sex is zoomed out.

What's quite interesting is Umbrella Entertainments advertising of the DVD as follows: 

"Gerard Damiano's Deep Throat, starring Linda Lovelace and Harry Reems, stands as one of the highest grossing film of all time, and finally gets a respectable DVD release in Australia."

Just not too respectable.

Frankly we would have been stunned if an R18+ version of DEEP THROAT was not censored. It may now be regarded as a classic, but it is still essentially a hardcore film. Remember that Adultshop.com had no luck when they fought all the way to the High Court to have the hardcore DVD VIVA EROTICA dropped from X18+ to R18+.

We have to take issue with Umbrella promoting it with the line "this is the definitive release of the porn classic". A censored DVD can hardly be described as definitive. In its favour it does contain an interesting documentary titled DAYS OF DEEP THROAT AND LINDA LOVELACE. Thanks again to David who reveals:

"... it contains hardcore footage from Deep Throat including the infamous scene as well as various other hardcore stills while the main feature itself is censored"

How stupid is that! The film is censored of every shot that made it worth viewing, yet it is okay if you put it in a documentary. In 2005 a hardcore shot from the film did get past the censors with an R18+. The documentary INSIDE DEEP THROAT features a close up of Linda Lovelace performing the title act.

DEEP THROAT was first seen by the Australian censors back in 1974. At the time hardcore was still illegal, so the distributor optically censored it. This was not enough for the Censorship and Review Board who twice refused it a rating. It would have to wait until 1984 and the introduction of the X-rating to receive an uncut release.

******

Advertising Standards Bureau: Mar '08-Jun '08 Complaints

It has been a while since we took a look at the latest decisions of the Advertising Standards Bureau. Posters and advertisements for TERMINATOR - SARAH CONNOR CHRONICLES, MEET THE SPARTANS, and GEARS OF WAR, are just a small selection from the dozens of complaints received since March. We've chosen those that concern films and games, but the ASB database contains everything from toys to brothels. It really is worth taking a look at the adstandards.com.au website to read the stupidity of some of these complaints. Thankfully the ASB seems to recognise this and in the majority of cases dismisses them.

TERMINATOR - SARAH CONNOR CHRONICLES: Poster Complaint

1. Complaint reference number 70/08 
2. Advertiser Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd (Terminator: Sarah Conor Chronicles) 
3. Product Media 
4. Type of advertisement Outdoor 
5. Nature of complaint Violence Other – section 2.2 
6. Date of determination Wednesday, 12 March 2008 
7. DETERMINATION Dismissed 

DESCRIPTION OF THE ADVERTISEMENT 

There are two outdoor executions in this campaign for the TV series "Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles". Both images feature the character Sarah Connor kneeling, and looking at a high-powered rifle she is holding in her hands. Alongside one version the text reads "The mother of all destiny". In the second version her son John is standing behind her, his back towards the camera, with the words "Her son is our future". 

THE COMPLAINT 

A sample of comments which the complainant/s made regarding this advertisement included the following: 

I object because the image is able to be seen by my three young children. I do not think it is appropriate for a large sized image of a woman holding a gun to be on display in a public place where it can be viewed by young children. My daughter aged three asked me why the woman was holding a gun. I do not think she should be exposed to this image. 

THE ADVERTISER’S RESPONSE 

Comments which the advertiser made in response to the complaint/s regarding this advertisement included the following: 

At the outset, Nine maintains that having regard to the imagery and theme of the Advertisement and considering the Advertisement is for a program classified M, Nine maintains the Advertisement is clearly not “primarily directed at children” within the meaning of 2.4 of the Code. Consequently, in Nine’s view, the Code of Advertising to Children does not apply. 

Nine considers therefore that the only part of the Code that could be potentially relevant to the Advertisement is section 2.2, which states that advertisements shall not portray violence “unless it is justifiable in the context of the product or service advertised”. 

The image used in the Advertisement is the official promotional graphic for a television program based on the well known “Terminator” movie franchise. It depicts the main character, Sarah Connor, as she appears in the program. The image is a visual representation of one of the key elements of the series, in which Sarah Connor becomes proficient in weaponry in order to combat machines trying to kill her and her family. 

In the past, Nine understands the Advertising Standards Board (the ‘Board’) considered the use of similar images in billboard advertisements. Most relevantly, the Board addressed the issue in relation to the Telstra “Scarface” campaign, where the Board considered that the image of Al Pacino holding a gun was “not overtly violent as it contained no depictions of blood or people being injured by the gun”. 

While acknowledging the advertisement was visible by children, in that instance the Board considered that the image of a gun was not per se a breach of the Code. Nine submits that the image in the Advertisement is comparable. Nine maintains the image has a low visual impact with no actual depictions of violence or strong sense of menace. It is clear from the image that the gun is not actually being fired and is being depicted in a manner in keeping with the theme of the series. 

Having regard to the above, Nine believes that the context of the Advertisement is self-explanatory and is justifiable by the context of the program in accordance with clause 2.2 of the Code. On this basis Nine maintains that the Advertisement is not in breach of the Code. 

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 that Section 2.2 of the Code requires that violence not be presented unless it is justifiable in the context of the product or service advertised. 

The Board viewed the advertisement and observed the passive stance of the woman. It further noted that she was merely holding the gun and that she was not pointing at anyone nor was she holding it in a position where she could fire it. The Board determined that the woman's stance was neither aggressive nor violent. 

The Board therefore determined that the advertisment was not portraying violence and 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.

***

MEET THE SPARTANS: TV Ad Complaint

1. Complaint reference number 89/08 
2. Advertiser Twentieth Century Fox (Meet The Spartans) 
3. Product Entertainment 
4. Type of advertisement TV 
5. Nature of complaint Discrimination or vilification Gender - section 2.1 
6. Date of determination Wednesday, 9 April 2008 
7. DETERMINATION Dismissed

DESCRIPTION OF THE ADVERTISEMENT 

This television advertisement for the movie "Meet The Spartans" features a modern-day crowd scene with people fleeing from a giant "Transformer", and a Paris Hilton look-alike actress standing before an obese king in an Eastern setting surrounded by courtiers, and being told by him to bow down "to the great Xerxes". The actress replies "I'm a Hilton, I don't bow down - but I do bend over..." 

THE COMPLAINT 

A sample of comments which the complainant/s made regarding this advertisement included the following: 

It is sexually degrading, and second, this kind of debasing sexual content should not be shown at such an early time in the evening, when school children are watching television.

THE ADVERTISER’S RESPONSE 

Comments which the advertiser made in response to the complaint/s regarding this advertisement included the following: 

The TV spot was rated by CAD as a "J" spot which regulates it can be shown in this pre 7.30pm timeslot. The film is a spoof comedy, it was not Fox's intention to offend anyone but to be taken in the light of fun mockery.

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 concerns of the complainants and reviewed the advertisement under Section 2.1 of the Code which deals with discrimination based on gender. 

The Board observed that the advertisement was for a spoof film, contained many double entendres and considered that because the film was M rated this type of humour was acceptable in the context of the product being advertised. 

The Board did not consider that the advertisement discriminated against women and that therefore it 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. 

***

GEARS OF WAR: TV Advertisement Complaint

1. Complaint reference number 137/08 
2. Advertiser Dick Smith Electronics 
3. Product Toys & Games 
4. Type of advertisement TV 
5. Nature of complaint Violence Other – section 2.2 Other - Social values 
6. Date of determination Monday, 19 May 2008 
7. DETERMINATION Dismissed 

DESCRIPTION OF THE ADVERTISEMENT 

The advertisement opens with cartoon graphics of a children's coits game, a yoyo and a bat with a small ball attached by elastic. These images are set on a bright yellow background. A voice over begins whilst these images are appearing on the screen: “Struggling to keep the kids entertained these school holidays? Don’t stress! At Dick Smith Electronics, we’ve got all the latest games and the biggest names in gaming consoles” The logos for X Box 360, Playstation and Wii dance across the screen. The voice over continues: “that’ll keep the kids occupied and out of your hair…” An XBOX machine is displayed as the voice over continues “Like the fully loaded XBOX 360 with 2 wireless controllers and Gears of War game. It plays DVDs and the latest interactive video games." The screen displays an XBOX 360, two wireless controllers, the Gears of War game and the following text: MICROSOFT XBOX 360 PRO CONSOLE with 2 wireless controllers and Gears of War game. Also displayed at the bottom of the screen is the M15+ classification and the text 'Strong violence'. The voice over concludes "It can store all your music and you can view your photos and videos on its 20 gigabyte hard drive. The gaming bundle now only $598… Dick Smith Electronics - Humanising Technology". The advertisement cuts to the Dick Smith logo with the words 'Humanising Technology' underneath. 

THE COMPLAINT A sample of comments which the complainant/s made regarding this advertisement included the following: 

The advertisement focused on children specifically, and had bright colours and spinning logos. At one point they mention deals "to keep the kids out of your hair", using the Xbox360 / Gears of War pack as the example. I found it problematic that Dick Smith would be advertising a particularly violent MA15+ rated game to children, and suggesting adults purchase such a game for kids. It might be worth noting that in markets that do have an adult only category for video games, such as Britain, Gears of War has been rated 18+. 

THE ADVERTISER’S RESPONSE 

Comments which the advertiser made in response to the complaint/s regarding this advertisement included the following: 

As per procedure, prior to releasing to stations, we submitted these ads for rating through FREE TV Australia ( www.freetvaust.com.au ). The Xbox 360 ad was given a K Rating, due to the MA15+ rated game included in the package. For this reason, this ad will not be broadcast between 5.00am and 7.30pm on any day and In G programs broadcast between 7.30pm and 8.30pm on any day as per their instruction. 

The other issue addressed in this complaint was that the advertisement focused on children specifically, however clearly we are speaking to parents rather than the children with the VO - "that’ll keep the kids occupied and out of your hair … ". The MA15+ rating is clearly illustrated on the screen - therefore it is up to the parents’ discretion whether to purchase this game for their children.

 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' concerns about the the advertising of violent games to children and reviewed the complaint under Section 2.2 of the Code which deals with violence. 

The Board viewed the television commercial and noted that the intended audience was adults - parents in particular - and that children were not part of the intended audience. Therefore the Advertising to Children Code did not pertain to this advertisement. 

The Board considered that the use of child-like images contradicted the image of a game rated MA15+ but agreed that the term kids is applied to children of all ages. 

The Board also noted the reference to keeping the kids amused during the school holidays which again suggested a wide-range of ages. 

The Board considered that although the rating was visible both on the game itself and across the bottom of the screen that a mention of the rating in the voice over would have been useful to reduce the likelihood of viewers receiving mixed messages. 

The warning serves to inform viewers that children under 15 cannot buy this product without an adult. 

The Board agreed that the advertiser could have chosen another game to illustrate their deal but that on balance the advertisement did not breach Section 2.2. 

Finding that the advertisement did not breach the Code on other grounds, the Board dismissed the complaint.

Update 7th September 2008
Refused-Classification.com 

Australian Censorship News  
17th August 2008

BONDAGE MANSION: Retains R18+

We now have an answer of sorts to the status of the four hentai DVD's which were looked at by the Review Board. The original media release has now been replaced by this one. Both say that:

T&A TEACHER retained its R18+, but had the consumer advice tweaked from "High level animated sex scenes, Violence" to "High level animated sex scenes and sexualised violence".

CLASSES IN SEDUCTION escaped with rating and consumer advice intact.

HOLY VIRGINS had its R18+ rating withdrawn and it is now banned.

What has changed is that BONDAGE MANSION is no longer banned. 

The July 30th media release stated that a six member panel of the Classification Review Board had found that:

"Bondage Mansion is RC because of a trailer depicting a character, who appears to be under 18, engaged in an explicit sexual act and there is no context for this depiction.” 

While the August 13th media release states that a three member panel of the Classification Review Board has found that: 

".....Bondage Mansion is classified R 18+, with the consumer advice, 'High level animated sex scenes and themes.

' In the Classification Review Board’s opinion, Bondage Mansion warrants an R 18+ classification because while the sex scenes have a high level of impact, the Classification Review Board Convenor, Maureen Shelley said “the anime genre and that the characters appear 18 or older means the film can be accommodated in this legally restricted category. However, the connection between sexual activity and the themes remains a concern. Restricting this material to adult audiences will ensure that children under 18 will not legally have access to the material”. 

The August 6th Review Board report gives the reasons for the change in rating as:

"It was found that the DVD submitted to the Review Board was not the same as that submitted to the Classification Board in that it contained trailers and extra material. "

This extra material initially resulted in an RC rating, before the mistake was corrected.

We would also like to thank Geoff for sending in this review of the BONDAGE MANSION DVD. In it he reveals what looks like some pre-cutting by Siren  prior to its submission to the Classification Board. It was rated R18+ (High level animated sex scenes and themes) back in April.

******

FALLOUT 3: Censored in Australia

Last month saw FALLOUT 3 banned by the Classification Board because:

"In the Board's view the drug use in particular the use of a proscribed drug. via means of selection from a menu, is related to incentives and rewards as the incentive to take the drug is to progress through the game more easily and the reward is an increase in the character's abilities and as such is Refused Classification"

A modified version was prepared for the Australian market and it has just been passed with an MA15+ (Strong violence, drug references and coarse language) rating. The Classification Board had this to say about the censored version.

"The drug references within the revised version are justified by context and lend a strong playing impact to the game. The drugs depicted are fictional; drugs are depicted as stylised icons on a menu with the drug use itself not depicted"

******

NOT QUITE HOLLYWOOD and 70's censorship

Finally we would like to recommend you all get out and see Mark Hartley's NOT QUITE HOLLYWOOD: THE WILD, UNTOLD STORY OF OZPOLITATION! when it opens on August 28th. Apart from being a massively entertaining look at Australian exploitation filmmaking of the 70's and 80's, it also covers some of the censorship battles of the time. The introduction of the R18+ rating is discussed, and Barry Humphries talks about RJ Prowse, the one-armed censor. Interestingly, despite showing just about every controversial scene from Aussie R-rated cinema, the censors have just awarded it an MA15+ (Nudity, sex and violence) rating!

If you would like to check-out some 1970's Aussie exploitation films, and learn more about the censorship situation of the time then we recommend these three DVD's from Umbrella Entertainment. Mark Hartley also works for Umbrella, and all three are covered in NOT QUITE HOLLYWOOD. 

John B. Murray's THE NAKED BUNYIP was released just before the R-rating was introduced. As such it's an interesting example of the standards of the time. As a bonus, Umbrella's disc contains the uncensored footage that during its theatrical release was obscured by a drawing of a Bunyip. This is now considered so tame that it in 2005 it received an M-rating.

Next up is Terry Bourke's NIGHT OF FEAR which was released just after the introduction of the R-rating. This still didn't stop the censors giving it a hard time. Like THE NAKED BUNYIP, in 2005 this was also considered tame enough for an M-rating.

Finally, be sure to pick up the double bill of FANTASM and its sequel. In their uncut versions both of these are still firmly R-rated, but back in the 70's they both lost around three minutes each. On the DVD the producer Antony Ginnane comments extensively on the censorship problems and has this to say about the board in the mid-70's.

"...in those days the film censorship authorities were extremely draconian. They thought they were god. They didn't like the R-rating, it was imposed on them, so they did everything they could to sabotage it. They simply didn't like sex, and once you got past a certain level of nudity, or a certain level of simulated sex, bingo, bango, you had to cut it. It was a nasty bunch of self-dealing, megalomaniacal monsters."

Update 17th August 2008
Refused-Classification.com 

Australian Censorship News 
10th August 2008

Banned Hentai DVD's

A bit of a follow up to last weeks update where we reported that the Review Board had banned BONDAGE MANSION and HOLY VIRGINS. Several readers have written in to say that these are still for sale at many stores. This is probably due to there being no official word on their status. The Review Board met on July 30th to consider the ratings of four titles, with no result being issued on that day. On August 1st this media release was on the Classification Board's site, though by the end of the day it had disappeared. At the time of writing it is still missing, and there is no mention of these two titles being banned in their database. Why the media release was pulled is a mystery. So if the censors are not yet listing them as being banned then why would you bother pulling them from sale?

On a related note, thanks to Danny for pointing out this post over at the Madman forums. It looks like JB Hi-Fi has pulled the entire Siren Hentai Collection from their shelves; this is despite them reportedly being good sellers. We would say that JB Hi-Fi were probably unwise locating them next to the more mainstream anime titles. However, surely moving them next to their GIRLS GONE WILD collection would have been preferable to dropping them altogether.

Madman Entertainment Forum Index
General Anime
Porn in my anime section?
klokwerk 
Doraemon
Posted: Sat Aug 02, 2008 10:26 pm 
Post subject: JB

I know someone who works at JB and can confirm that nationwide the Hentai titles have been pulled from their shelves and all orders cancelled.

They weren't told the full story. Just that they'd no longer be selling hentai. Since it's really only the Siren range that's available they'd have lost a bit of business. There were several JBs that did quite well with hentai titles.

Still, the story that all staff are hearing is that one of the high high-ups in management found out what hentai was and that we were selling them (possibly via complaining mothers and the like?) and gave the word to end it all. They either didn't like the idea of JB selling the stuff, or didn't want any more complaints.

In any case, for you hentai fans, want titles? Go to the EzyDVD website and type "hentai" in the search bar. It'll bring up the whole Siren range including the upcoming titles (as they become known to EzyDVD).

******

DEEPER 10: Censored in Australia

Back in July Calvista had Roddy D's DEEPER 10 banned by the Classification Board. Now it seems the necessary cuts have been made as it was passed with an X18+ (Explicit Sex) rating on Friday. Adult DVD Talk has a review that indicates that bondage and spanking may have been the content that pushed this over the edge.

******

GALLERY Vol.36 No.4: Banned in Australia

We have more magazine censorship to report. Vol.36 No.4 (March 2008) of GALLERY becomes the first issue of that publication to be banned in Australia. The earliest issue that the censor's database lists is Vol. 13 No.9 (September 1985) which was rated Category 1 back in August 1985. We would guess that early issues had been rated, but their notoriously poor database just doesn't list them. 

These early issues were Category 1, or even Unrestricted. Some later issues have been Category 2, though modified versions usually see them re-rated as Category 1.

NAMDA had GALLERY Vol.36 No.4 Refused Classification on July 4th 2008.

This is the fourth magazine that NAMDA has had banned since June. The other three are BUSTY BEAUTIES #61, CELEBRITY SKIN Vol 30 #175, and HUSTLER BARELY LEGAL Vol 15 #11.

******

Eros Magazine Vol.9 No.3.

The latest issue of Eros Magazine, Vol.9 No.3 is out now. Subscription information and a selection of some of the articles can be found here. 

Eros
Media Release
State Government Out of Touch on Sex 
Written by Fiona Patten 
Thursday, 24 July 2008

New Poll Shows State Government Out of Touch on Sex

The latest national opinion poll on the sale of X rated films shows state government bans on adult films are totally out of touch with the majority of Australians and that such bans are the natural state of affairs in Iran, China and Saudi Arabia.

Nationally, approximately 70% of Australian adults are in favour of overturning bans on the legal sale of non-violent, X18+ films. In the 18-24 year old group that figure of support jumps to 82%.

Proving that the adult industry is truly about couples these days, the Newspoll survey* showed that people who have children are more in favour of the availability of adult material than those who don't. A whopping 80% of Australians that have children are in favour of non-violent erotica being legal and available from adult shops compared to 69% of those that do not have children. Eros Association CEO, Fiona Patten said that over 50,000 people would be attending Sydney

Sexpo this week in the anticipation of seeing and buying federally classified, X rated films but the state’s outdated prohibition on the product meant that they would be disappointed.

“Most people who buy and watch X rated films do so with a partner and 70% of the attendees at Sexpo will be couples”, she said. “State governments are stopping people in relationships from exploring their sexuality by imposing these draconian bans and forcing police to arrest adult shop operators in Kings Cross for selling non-violent erotica. This unpopular law means that adult shop employees are made into criminals for selling Debbie Does Dallas to an adult.”

She said the high percentage of parents who support sexually explicit films was proof that they found them positive for their sex lives and helpful in procreation. She reiterated her call for WYD pilgrims to visit Sexpo and help fulfill Cardinal Pell’s pronouncement to pilgrims to ‘populate or perish.’

Ms Patten said that it came as now surprise to find that the poll showed only 53% of people over 50 supported the restricted availability of adult erotic films to adults. She said that this was an indication that perhaps older male parliamentarians battling with prostate problems and sexual affairs were making X18+ films a convenient scapegoat for their own sexual shortcomings. “If all the people who attend Sydney Sexpo this week were to vote for a pro-sex NSW candidate in the next Senate election, we would have a quota then and there”, she said. “State Labor governments need to be careful that their nannying tendencies towards younger voters on censorship and sexual matters don’t turn around and bite them where it hurts”.

Sexpo runs from Thursday 24 July to Sunday 27 July at the Hordern Pavilion and Royal Hall of Industries, Moore Park.

*Newspoll - Community Attitudes to X-rated Films – June 2008

******

ART MONTHLY, LUX ET NOX, and Bill Henson

The Bill Henson controversy rumbles on. The timeline for has now been updated to include such recent developments as the ART MONTHLY controversy, the classification of the LUX ET NOX book, and links to the Art Censorship forum held at the MCA back in June.

******

SPACE CHIMPS: PG dropped to G by Review Board

The new animated feature SPACE CHIMPS has had its rating changed from PG to G following an appeal by the distributor. The consumer advice has also been changed from ‘Mild threatening scenes' to 'Some scenes may scare young children'. Interestingly this is the first time this year that a distributor has appealed against a Classification Board rating.

Australian Government
Classification Review Board
31 July 2008 
MEDIA RELEASE 

Review announced for the film Space Chimps 

The Classification Review Board has received an application