UPDATES: 17th October 2008
Alex Hawke MP calls for games R18+
No opt out under Conroy's internet censorship system
EDEN and 200 PROOF: Banned in Australia
UNDERBELLY: Incorrectly rated M
KITCHEN NIGHTMARES: Should have been MA15+
Launch of digital PEACEFUL PILL HANDBOOK
ROMANCE: Cut & Uncut
UPDATES: 6th October 2008
DOUBLE VISION 2: Banned in Australia
THE RUINS: Uncut version too violent for MA15+
THE FAMILY GUY: PG rated sex, violence, and necrophilia
Advertising Standards Bureau: July 2008 Complaints
THE INCREDIBLE HULK: Poster Complaint
STREET KINGS: Poster Complaint
Australian Censorship News
17th October 2008
Alex Hawke MP calls for games R18+
Alex Hawke, the MP for the Sydney seat of Mitchell has spoken in Parliament about the need for an R18+ games rating. Hawke is the most unlikely champion of an R18+, as he has always been portrayed as some religious nut. Maybe we were mixing him up with the PM.
Title CONSTITUENCY
STATEMENTS Mitchell Electorate: Video Games
Classification
Database House Hansard
Date 16-10-2008
Source House of Reps
Parl No.42
Electorate Mitchell
Page 76
Party LP Presenter
Status Proof
Speaker Hawke, Alex, MP
Stage Mitchell Electorate: Video Games
Classification Type
Constituency Statements System ID chamber/hansardr/2008-10-16/0135
CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS - Mitchell Electorate: Video Games Classification
Mr HAWKE (Mitchell) (9:48 AM) —I rise this morning to support calls from parents within my electorate for a R18+ rating system to be applied to video games. Currently the highest maximum rating that can be applied to video games is the MA15+ rating under the system. The relevant legislation is the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 as—
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 9.49 am to 10.02 am
Mr HAWKE—As I was saying, games—video games in particular—have advanced in the last 30 years. They are full of complex concepts and adult themes, and there really is very little to differentiate them from films. Of course, under the Classification (Publications, Films And Computer Games) Act 1995, there is a lack of consistency in the ratings that are applied across these media. It is the case that there are four classifications for video games and six classifications for films. I think it is a sensible proposition that, if it is good enough for television that we assess that some films are not able to be rated as MA15+ and require a higher rating of R18+, then that ought to be the case for video games.
I note that on 27 and 28 March this year the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General met and agreed in principle to a consultation in relation to an R18+ scheme for video games—a national classification scheme—and this is a good development. They have also agreed to consider, at a subsequent meeting, the outcome of the public consultation on this issue and resolve whether an R18+ classification for computer games should be introduced into the national classification system, and whether amendments to give effect thereto should proceed. This is a good development and a welcome one for the parents in my electorate who have raised this matter with me.
I am not one who seeks to censor what freely thinking adults may view or think, but, in the case of children and people who we define as minors, regulation is lagging behind the reality of modern video games. Indeed, it is important to note that from all of the representations I have received from the parents in my electorate, they understand that this rating system is no substitute for responsible parenting and parents taking an interest in their children. In fact, I find these parents to be the most responsible, because they, in spite of the lack of classification, ensure that all of the material that their children watch in these video games is suitable. But, in a complex and diverse world, with technological advances, this will be an important aid to parents. There is a case that consistency must be applied and I strongly recommend that the consultation process proceed and that we ensure that we move as quickly as possible to ensure an R18+ classification is applied to computer games and video games.
******
No opt out under Conroy's internet censorship system
Duncan Riley has written an excellent piece for Crikey looking at the Government's internet censorship policy. We've been told we'll be able to opt out if we wish which is beginning to look like it is not strictly true.
******
EDEN and 200 PROOF Banned in Australia
A couple more hardcore sex DVD's from 2007 have just been banned by the censors.
Homesafe DVD had Daniel Dakota's EDEN rated RC on October 10th. Astroknight's review over at Adult DVD Talk gives no obvious clues to problematic content.
The previous day saw Vivid's production, 200 PROOF Refused Classification. This is despite Clavista having had it passed with an X18+ (Explicit Sex) rating on March 14th 2008. For some reason (DVD extras?) it was resubmitted, and this time refused by the Classification Board.
The synopsis seem to indicate a plot that may have been far too ambitious for our censors. Remember folks, more often that not, gangsters mean violence.
There's a new drug going around -- it's an unbeatable aphrodisiac called Honeysuckle that will make any woman, no matter how prim and proper, beg for sex like the horniest slut in the world, so imagine what happens when you give it to Vivid girls! Stefani Morgan, Franchezca Valentina and Aarielle Alexis star with Van Damage and Ben English in a high-speed story of crime, drugs and lust as two FBI agents race to bust a sleazy British gangster who's corrupting the morals of LA.
******
UNDERBELLY: Incorrectly rated M
When Channel Nine's UNDERBELLY premiered back in February the usual suspects were soon complaining that it breached the M-rating guidelines. The Classification Board seemed to confirm this when they awarded the DVD of series one an MA15+ (Strong violence, Strong sex scenes, Strong drug use). However, things were not as straight forward as they seemed when the DVD was released as UNDERBELLY [UNCUT], with the cover promising "scenes that couldn't screen on TV", indicating that C9 had censored some footage for the M-rating.
Following the complaints, the Australian Communications and Media Authority launched an investigation, results of which have just been handed down. The conclusion is that episodes 3, 7, and 8 exceeded the M-rating for coarse language and sexual activity. While episodes 1,2,5 and 6 were correctly rated as M.
******
KITCHEN NIGHTMARES: Should have been MA15+
Back in March the Liberal's Cory Bernardi complained about the bad language in Gordon Ramsey's KITCHEN NIGHTMARES during a speech in the Senate. This led to a Senate 'Inquiry into the effectiveness of the broadcasting codes of practice' which handed down its final report in June.
Now the Australian Communications and Media Authority have found that three episodes were incorrectly classified M by Channel Nine.
******
Launch of digital PEACEFUL PILL HANDBOOK
Exit International's THE PEACEFUL PILL HANDBOOK was originally rated Category 1 by the Classification Board back in December 2006. The decision was not at all welcomed by religious nuts, so the Attorney-General Philip Ruddock stepped in and called for a review. The Review Board did their master's bidding, and banned the book in February 2007.
Now Exit International is back with a new improved Digital Edition of the book which should demonstrate just how impotent the censors are in the internet age.
The Peaceful Pill eHandbook - Digital Edition
www.peacefulpillhandbook.com
Is a new kind of “book” combining: video, audio, images and the printed word
Is always up to date, providing real time updates on key facts and information as they come to hand
Brings Exit’s flagship Workshops into your home, so you can learn about your end-of-life options when and where it suits you
Is yours to own on your personal PC
Authored by one of the world’s leading experts on voluntary euthanasia - Australia’s Dr Philip Nitschke - The Peaceful Pill eHandbook uses its unique ‘Reliability & Peacefulness Test’ to rank different approaches, ensuring that you can make the best decision for your situation.
******
ROMANCE: Cut & Uncut DVD's
Catherine Breillat's ROMANCE proved to be something of a watershed in Australian censorship. It arrived before the Classification Board in January 2000, who swiftly banned it for depictions of actual sex. An appeal to the Review Board saw it re-rated R18+ (High Level Sex Scenes). This opened the gate for other 'art films' to show actual sex with an R18+ rating. When the film was released on VHS by Siren it was in the same uncut version that played theatrically. Madman's R4 DVD that followed soon after was actually a censored British print that lost a brief shot of an ejaculation.
In 2006 Madman re-released the DVD after having it re-rated by the censors. We can now confirm that this version is uncut.
Confused yet?
Both DVD's have essentially the same cover. So the way to tell them apart is the cut version has the old style censorship rating, while the uncut one has the new style.
Update 17th October 2008
Refused-Classification.com
Australian Censorship News
6th October 2008
DOUBLE VISION 2: Banned in Australia
What would an update be without banned porn? The latest title added to the database is Erik Everhard's DOUBLE VISION 2 which was Refused Classification on September 30th. This is the fifteenth hardcore DVD to be banned in 2008, and Calvista's ninth. By this time in 2007, thirty-five titles had been Refused Classification.
******
THE RUINS: Uncut version too violent for MA15+
Back in July the theatrical version of THE RUINS was awarded an MA15+ (Strong violence, Blood and gore, Coarse language) by our censors. Now the more extreme footage found in the uncut version has seen the rating of this Queensland shot horror film upped to R18+ (High level violence, blood and gore).
The excellent German site movie-censorship.com has a comparison between the Theatrical and Uncut versions. They describe the differences as:
"3 extended scenes, additional violent scenes and an alternate ending
The extra violence that pushed the film out of MA15+ looks to be down to some messy leg amputations.
******
THE FAMILY GUY: PG rated sex, violence, and necrophilia
Foxtel have been found to have incorrectly classified the DEATH IS A BITCH episode of THE FAMILY GUY as PG, rather than M.
The complaint concerned Death's flashback to when he was a teenager, where he accidentally kills a girl he is having sex with. He then says "I'm gonna be a virgin forever...or am I?", while he continues having sex with the body.
The complainant was also unhappy about the scene where Trisha Takanawa shoots Peter Griffin in the head.
Australian Government
Australian Communication and Media Authority
Media Release
29 September 2008
Foxtel will review classification of all Family Guy episodes after incorrectly classifying an episode PG Foxtel will review the classification of all episodes of Family Guy after the Australian Communications and Media Authority found that it incorrectly classified an episode of Family Guy as PG (Parental Guidance) instead of M (Mature).
After investigating a complaint that the program contained sexual references and depictions of violence that were inappropriate for a PG-classified program, ACMA found Foxtel Cable Television Pty Ltd had breached the classification provisions of the Australian Subscription Television and Radio Association (ASTRA) Subscription Broadcast Television Codes of Practice (the codes).
Foxtel also breached the codes by not following the required complaint handling procedures in that it failed to advise the complainant that he could refer the matter to ACMA.
‘ACMA’s on-going research consistently shows that classification categories are well understood by the community,’ said Chris Chapman, ACMA Chairman. ‘ACMA is firmly committed to the view that the correct classification of programs helps to inform viewers’ decisions about what they and their children watch. It is also important for the effectiveness of codes of practice that licensees are eternally vigilant in meeting their complaint handling obligations.’
Following the breach findings, Foxtel will review the classification of all episodes of Family Guy, while re-classifying the episode in question as M.
The codes use the Classification Board’s Guidelines for Classification of Films and Computer Games. For PG-classified programs, ‘Violence should be mild and infrequent, and be justified by context … Sexual activity should be mild and discreetly implied, and be justified by context.’
ACMA determined that the program contained frequent violence and that a reference to necrophilia exceeded mild. The program was therefore incorrectly classified PG instead of M, which allows for stronger sexual references and levels of violence, if justified by context.
ACMA noted that Foxtel was last found to have incorrectly classified a program in November 2006, and it is the first time that Foxtel has been found to have breached the complaint handling provisions of the codes.
Investigation Report No. 1985 is available on the ACMA website.
******
Advertising Standards Bureau: July 2008 Complaints
Parental concerns about the THE INCREDIBLE HULK and STREET KINGS posters are just a couple of the complaints that the Advertising Standards Bureau threw out in July. As always, if you want a good laugh we recommend you take a look at the adstandards.com.au website to read many more dumb time wasting whinges.
THE INCREDIBLE HULK: Poster Complaint
1. Complaint reference number 227/08
2. Advertiser Paramount Pictures
3. Product Other/ Film
4. Type of advertisement Transport
5. Nature of complaint Violence Other – section 2.2 Other - Causes alarm and
distress to children
6. Date of determination Wednesday, 9 July 2008
7. DETERMINATION Dismissed
DESCRIPTION OF THE ADVERTISEMENT
This print advertisement is displayed on the back of a bus. The advertisement features an image of the film character - The Incredible Hulk. The Hulk is in the foreground and takes up most of the image, approximately 2.5m high. He appears to be shouting at the camera. The background of the image includes the New York skyline and an explosion.
THE COMPLAINT
A sample of comments which the complainant/s made regarding this advertisement included the following:
My 4 year old son is absolutely terrified of this ad. He first saw it one fortnight ago and was very scared by it then. Since then he has had nightmares that seem to be connected to the image on the ad, and is worried that he will see the ad again on buses that we pass. I cannot believe it is able to be posted on public transport in the line of sight of small children and babies. Further to this complaint, are there controls on the type of advertising that is allowed on public transport? (I sometimes have to wonder??)
THE ADVERTISER’S RESPONSE
Comments which the advertiser made in response to the complaint/s regarding this advertisement included the following:
The image in question was approved for outdoor use and was subsequently approved by the supplier ie Buspak.
Throughout the process of selecting materials for this campaign it was not anticipated that this image, of such a well known character, would cause concern and this is the only complaint/ comment of this nature we have received throughout the campaign – official and non-official.
The campaign for THE INCREDIBLE HULK was not targeted at children and it was certainly not our intention to scare small children. It is therefore regrettable that in this instance this has occurred.
I would like to inform you that the bus back campaign for THE INCREDIBLE HULK ran from 26/05 – 16/06, so therefore is now no longer in the marketplace.
THE DETERMINATION
The Advertising Standards Board (“Board”) considered whether this advertisement breaches Section 2 of the Advertiser Code of Ethics (the “Code”).
The Board viewed the print advertisement and did not consider it to be overly frightening, given it featured the Incredible Hulk who is a well known character and is intrinsically 'good'.
The Board acknowledged that young children are frightened by many things and that it is hard to predict what will affect individual children.
However on balance the Board agreed that the advertisement would not cause alarm and distress to most viewers.
The Board also noted that as the advertisement was a promotional advertisement for a film it had a limited run time and as such the image would not to be used on a long term basis.
Finding that the advertisement did not breach the Code on other grounds, the Board dismissed the complaint.
***
STREET KINGS: Poster Complaint
1. Complaint reference number 212/08
2. Advertiser Twentieth Century Fox Film Distributors Pty Ltd
3. Product Other/ Film
4. Type of advertisement Print
5. Nature of complaint Violence Other – section 2.2 Other - Causes alarm and
distress Other - Causes alarm and distress to children
6. Date of determination Wednesday, 9 July 2008
7. DETERMINATION Dismissed
DESCRIPTION OF THE ADVERTISEMENT
The advertisement is presented in red and black - a red background with a black splatter pattern around the central text and images. Two men are presented above the central text, each holding a hand gun. Circling the central text there are four head shots of other actors, a picture of a woman in a bikini and a picture of a car. In bold print in the centre of the advertisement is the film title STREET KINGS. The names of the actors are printed at the top of the advertisement and the following text is printed at the bottom: 'Their City. Their Rules. No Prisoners. In Cinemas April 17 www.streetkings.com.au'
THE COMPLAINT
A sample of comments which the complainant/s made regarding this advertisement included the following:
I wish to protest about, and to seek your intervention in, the standards of advertising in Adshells. In particular, I am dismayed by the current advertisements for a film called 'Street Kings'. These ads appear on a significant proportion of Adshells. The ad is montage of images that are completely inappropriate for public display. Most inappropriate is a man aiming a hand gun - which would be an illegal act for an Australian citizen and would land an Australian policeman in a deal of trouble if he were to do this in such a public display. The entire montage is embellished with what appears to be spattered blood. These ads appear next to churches, schools and generally in the prominent places Adshells have been put. This movie is rated MA, meaning "Mature Accompanied. This category is legally restricted in that children under 15 cannot see "MA" films or rent them on video unless accompanied by a parent or adult guardian".
THE ADVERTISER’S RESPONSE
Comments which the advertiser made in response to the complaint/s regarding this advertisement included the following:
A total of 505 panels were included on street and rail locations. Both Rail Authority and Adshel approved the image. The panels locations specifically is at the discretion of Adshel, we can only define routes and preferred suburbs.
The OFLC advises that these panels do not require Film Classification Advice in any form. The tagline emphasises that it is a cinema release and classification is clearly marked at all cinema box office with ticket purchase.
Keanu Reeves (main character) is pointing his gun off-poster and Chris Evans(smaller character) has his gun pointed parallel to other character's face, not at him. The film's fictitious storyline is about the Los Angeles Police Department - and complainant's reference to local police or civilian behaviour is not relevant.
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 the complainant's concern appeared to be that the advertisement, due to its proximity to schools, sent an inappropriate message to children about the use or acceptability of firearms and violence generally.
The Board considered the advertisement against the Code. The Board noted that the advertisement was for a movie called 'Street Kings'. The Board noted that the advertisement depicted a man holding a gun in the direction of another smaller man but that there was no active violence or use of the weapon depicted in the advertisement.
The Board considered that the advertisement was not violent and that the depiction of a weapon (and any implication of violence that may flow from that) was justifiable in the context of an advertisement for this film.
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.
Update 6th October 2008
Refused-Classification.com
Updates: August - September 2008
