You have got to admire a film like CALIGULA, if only because it has been causing problems for the censors for twenty-five years. An application by the  ACT Office of Fair Trading has just seen the uncut version banned. 

******

Guy Barnett is a Tasmanian Liberal Senator who is campaigning for censorship of the internet. His November 2005 press release titled 'Ban Access To Porn And Extreme Violence On Internet' argued for internet regulation to protect children. However, this final paragraph shows that he has Adults in mind as well. 

The Australia Institute survey found that a much more effective method of restricting access of children to Internet sex sites would be to require all Australian ISPs to apply filters to all content, with some managed exemptions for adult users.

The line

"....with some managed exemptions for adult users." 

goes beyond protecting kids, to include all Australian Adults.

Ban Access To Porn And Extreme Violence On Internet

Wednesday, 9 November 2005

Senator Guy Barnett today called for a national ban on access to pornographic, extremely violent, and other inappropriate material via the internet, subject to "opt-in" rights for adults.

Adults wishing to view pornographic material and other material banned as such would have the right to "opt in", to receive such material.

Senator Barnett said research showed that most Australians would support such constraints applying both at public institutions such as schools and libraries, and in the home.

"I was staggered to learn recently that most libraries in Australia provide unfiltered access to the internet, and there is no legal obligation on public libraries to use internet filtering to prevent children's access to pornography," Senator Barnett said.

"General access to pornography at Commonwealth, State and local government public facilities is particularly worrying."

Senator Barnett said high risk places for children such as public libraries, child care centres and on-line access centres should have filtering to ban access to pornography and other inappropriate material.

“As Members of Parliament we have a duty of care to ensure that pornographic and violent sites are not available to children,” Senator Barnett said.

"In Tasmania in August it was discovered that children could access pornography at the State Library in Hobart. I wrote to the State Minister for Education Paula Wriedt on August 16 and five weeks later she says she is having a review done. This is not good enough," he said.

“It defies belief that students, especially minors, can be vulnerable to on-line porn sites at public libraries of all places. Public libraries are education institutions in the same way as schools are and should be protected as such from pornography and other inappropriate information,” Senator Barnett said.

One option is for a filter to be applied at the Tier 1 (e.g. Optus, Telstra, and Primus) internet service provider level. It could operate on the basis that those customers who wish to access pornographic material could apply to do so.

This reform would be supported by parents, (see statistics below) and would have the effect of filtering out pornography at home and on public sites, with the onus being on adult users to 'opt in' if they wish.

A Federally funded site called www.netalert.net.au has extensive advice on the use of filters and other safety advice for institutions and individual users. Some filter software is available free on the web and the Netalert site provides information on various filter sites.

A survey by the Australia Institute called Regulating Youth Access to Pornography dated 2003 found that 84% of boys and 60% of girls had been accidentally exposed to pornographic material on the internet, while two in every five boys had deliberately used the internet at some stage to see sexually explicit material.

“The survey found that 93% of parents were in favour of filtering out pornography available on the home computer, let alone those in public buildings. The survey also drew a link between prolonged exposure to this material and tolerance of sexual aggression,” Senator Barnett said.

He said he would be canvassing the issue with his Federal colleagues over the next few weeks.

The Australia Institute survey found that a much more effective method of restricting access of children to Internet sex sites would be to require all Australian ISPs to apply filters to all content, with some managed exemptions for adult users.

***

One month later a revised version of his press release was published in The Age. In it he states:

This reform would be supported by parents and would have the effect of filtering out pornography at home and on public sites, with the onus being on adult users to apply for unrestricted access if they wish.

So one month on we have gone from:

"...with some managed exemptions for adult users."

to

"..... unrestricted access if they wish."

Which one do you believe?

Keeping kids from nasties on the net. The Age 8.12.05

LAST month, 62 members of the federal Coalition signed a letter to the Prime Minister calling for a ban on access to pornographic, violent and other inappropriate material via the internet.

The signatories believed the internet should be regulated in a similar way to other media. If adults wished to "opt in" to access the material then of course that would be their right, and they would have to apply for their right of access.

***

ADJOURNMENT: Internet Pornography
Date: 08 December, 2005 
Database: Senate Hansard
Speaker: Barnett, Sen Guy (LP, Tasmania, Government) Page: 134
Proof: Yes 
Source: Senate
Type: Speech 
Context: Adjournment

***

On Saturday, the Tasmanian Government implemented Guy Barnett's idea of internet filtering for libraries.

Paula Wriedt, MHA
Minister for Education
Saturday, 10 December 2005

FILTERING SOFTWARE FOR LIBRARIES

Tasmanian public libraries and Online Access Centres will use filtering software to block access to pornographic and inappropriate websites from their computers from early next year to minimise the risk of exposure to inappropriate content by patrons and staff.

Education Minister Paula Wriedt said today that a review of filtering policies within the State Library and Online Access Centres was completed, and advice had been received from the Tasmanian Library Advisory Board and the Tasmanian Communities Online Advisory Board.

“The Tasmanian Government has developed a network of 48 branch and city libraries and 65 Online Access Centres that enables the Tasmanian community to have access to the Internet,” she said.

“Despite the educational and social benefits of the internet, there are risks associated with its use, and filtering technologies are now being used to protect young people against websites that are unsuitable.

“Adult clients will also be protected from the alarm and embarrassment of inadvertently accessing pornographic material in a public place or witnessing someone else accessing this material.

“Filtering will also remove the requirement of library and Online Access Centre staff having to confront and remove patrons accessing inappropriate material.”

Ms Wriedt said that libraries and Online Access Centres will now be filtered at the same level as Internet access in schools.

“In the event that some legitimate websites are blocked in error, staff will seek to get the filtering service provider to unblock these sites for patrons to access upon request.”

“Some concerns have been expressed about web filtering being a form of censorship. However I am firmly of the belief that we must do everything we can to ensure that members of the public and staff are not subjected to inadvertently viewing inappropriate material that others may choose to access.”

***

Mr Barnett is not going to be happy with this victory. In the following article he describes Tasmania's decision as:

"..... the first domino to fall"

Porn Blocks 11.12.05 The Sunday Tasmanian

Senator Barnett called on Ms Wriedt to implement internet filters for public library computers in August after the Sunday Tasmanian revealed that libraries were powerless to stop patrons accessing pornography on their computers.

Ms Wriedt subsequently instigated a review into the possible use of filters to prevent users accessing inappropriate websites.

But Senator Barnett said it had taken far too long for the decision to be made to fix the problem.

"I wrote to Ms Wriedt asking for an immediate ban back in August and she only wrote back many weeks later saying no, she wanted a review," he said.

"I wrote to the Prime Minister [John Howard] with 61 other colleagues last month calling for an immediate ban on access to pornography in any public place frequented by children.

"This is the first domino to fall and I'm hoping every other state will fall into line as soon as possible."

But Senator Barnett is not content with only banning pornography in public libraries, he wants it to be restricted in the home as well.

"I would like to see a system where access to pornography is blocked from home computers but with an opt-in option if people wish to be able to access it," he said.

******

Eros Journal Vol.6 No.4 is out now.

Along with all the usual articles, Robbie Swann takes a look at sex and politics in Australia. The big news is that Eros have now launched Voting.Org.Au where they aim to find out exactly how your local politician feels about censorship.

Subscription information, and a selection of some of the Eros Journal articles can be found here.

******

On December 1st the OFLC introduced a new fee structure. More details can be found at the OFLC website.

Changes to Classification Fees

The Australian Government has requested the Office of Film and Literature Classification (OFLC) review fees charged for classification and related matters.

Under the Classification (Films, Publications and Computer Games) Act 1995, applications for classification must be accompanied by the prescribed fee. The present fee structure was established in 1995/96 and regulated in November 1997. There has been no increase in fees and charges since that time. Since the fees were regulated there have been major developments in the classifiable materials market, in particular in the areas of DVDs, computer games and multimedia.

OFLC engaged consultants in 2004 to review the prescribed fees presently being charged and recommend modifications to fee structure and charges. These were audited and reviewed by external consultants to provide OFLC with advice on the methodology and underlying assumptions used to calculate any new fee structure.

***

The Annual report of the SACC has been released. Read on to find what they have been wasting your taxes on this year.

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE SOUTH AUSTRALIAN CLASSIFICATION COUNCIL

For the Year Ended 30 June 2005

Submitted to the Honourable the Attorney-General pursuant to Section 90 (1) of the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995

ANNUAL REPORT of the SOUTH AUSTRALIAN CLASSIFICATION COUNCIL for the Year Ended 30 June 2005

The Honourable Michael Atkinson, MP, Attorney-General for South Australia,

Sir,

Pursuant to the provisions of Section 90 (1) of the Classification (Publications, Films, Computer Games) Act 1995, the South Australian Classification Council respectfully submits this report, to be laid before both Houses of Parliament, on its activities for the year ended 30 June 2005.

COUNCIL MEMBERSHIP

Three members of the Council constitute a quorum.

During the year the Council comprised the following members:

A legal practitioner, Ms Julie Redman, LL.B (Chairperson);

A person skilled in the field of child psychology, Mr Michael Dawson (B.A., DipEd, Registered Psychologist (MAPS));

A person with wide experience in education, Ms Angela Conway (B.A., LL.B., Grad. Dip. Secondary Education, Grad. Dip. Design Studies).

Three other people who possess, in the opinion of the Governor, other proper qualifications to participate in the deliberations and functions of the Council:

Mr Anthony Durkin (LL.B.)

Rev Doctor Robert Iles (B.Ed., L.T.H., Dip.R.E., M.A., Ph.D.)

Ms Katherine O'Neill (B.A. (Hons), LL.B (Hons))

Registrar

Ms Wilhelmina Chapman of the Attorney-General's Department.

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE COMMONWEALTH OFFICE OF FILM AND LITERATURE CLASSIFICATION AND THE SOUTH AUSTRALIAN CLASSIFICATION COUNCIL

The Commonwealth Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 came into effect in January 1996. The Act provides for the classification of publications, films, and computer games by the Commonwealth Classification Board in accordance with the criteria set in the National Classification Code and classification guidelines.

Classification decisions made by the Board are adopted by South Australia but may be reviewed under the State Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995. The South Australian Classification Council or the Minister may classify a publication, film or computer game despite the fact that it is classified under the Commonwealth Act. Such a classification has effect to the exclusion of any classification under the Commonwealth Act.

The classification criteria in the State Act are identical to the criteria applied by the Commonwealth Board to ensure that decisions are made on the same basis at both State and Commonwealth levels. Despite this there may still be a difference between the two bodies because the Council is comprised of South Australian residents and endeavours to consider the standards accepted by the South Australian community in particular.

APPLICATION OF CRITERIA TO BE APPLIED BY THE COUNCIL PURSUANT TO SECTION 19 OF THE ACT

The Council must comply with section 19 of the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995, which states:

19. The matters to be taken into account by the Council or the Minister in making a decision on the classification of a publication, film or computer game include- 

(a) the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults; and 

(b) the literary, artistic or educational merit (if any) of the publication, film or game; and 

(c) the general character of the publication, film or game, including whether is of a medical, legal or scientific character; and 

(d) the persons or class of person to or amongst whom it is published or is intended or likely to be published.

Classification decisions are to give effect, as far as possible, to the following principles: 

(a) adults should be able to read, hear and see what they want; 

(b) minors should be protected from material likely to harm or disturb them; 

(c) everyone should be protected from exposure to unsolicited material that they find offensive; 

(d) the need to take account of community concerns about: 

(i) depictions that condone or incite violence, particularly sexual violence; and 

(ii) the portrayal of a person in a demeaning manner.

ACTIVITIES OF THE SOUTH AUSTRALIAN CLASSIFICATION COUNCIL

Costs 
The Council met twice in 2004 - 2005. Its expenditure for the year was $2,400.

Inquiries received from the general public in relation to censorship in SA 
During 2004-2005 a number of queries were received relating to censorship in its broad sense. A number of the inquiries related to matters outside the jurisdiction of the South Australian Classification Council. In those cases, people requesting information were directed to the appropriate organisation that could assist them.

Below is a table of all inquiries received in 2004-2005.

Inquiries Received: NO RECEIVED 

Query about the SA Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995: 1 

Complaint about advertising: 1 

Information about classification of CDs: 1

Query about classification of a computer game: 2 

Query about classification of films/video/DVD: 4 

Query about the Internet: 1 

Query about live performance: 3 

Complaint about merchandise: 3 

Query about classification of publications: 2 

Query about exhibition of films/videos/DVDs: 2 

Complaint about radio content: 1 

Complaint about TV content: 1 

Information about computer games: 2 

Query about display of publications: 1 

Information about publications: 2 

TOTAL 27

Review of Classifications 

1. Publication 
Council did not consider the classification of any publications.

2. Films 
The Council considered two films:

· Dodgeball Council declined to classify the film See Appendix A for the Council's Report on 'Dodgeball'.

· I Spit On Your Grave Council declined to classify the film

See Appendix B for the Council's Report on 'I Spit On Your Grave'

3. Computer Games 
The Council did not consider the classification of any computer games.

THE CLASSIFICATION OF THEATRICAL PERFORMANCES BOARD

Under the Classification of Theatrical Performances Act 1978 members of the South Australian Classification Council are also members of the Classification of Theatrical Performances Board.

APPLICATION OF CRITERIA TO BE APPLIED BY THE BOARD PURSUANT TO SECTION 11 OF THE ACT

The Board must comply with section 11 of the Classification of Theatrical Performances Act 1978, which states:

11. (1) In considering questions as to whether a theatrical performance is offensive, or suitable or unsuitable for children, the Board shall have regard to standards of morality, decency and propriety that are generally accepted by reasonable adult persons.

11. (2) In performing its functions under this Act the Board shall have due regard to the nature of the theatrical performance under consideration and to all other relevant factors that bear upon the classification or conditions that should be assigned to, or imposed in respect of, the theatrical performance.

No theatrical performances were reviewed by Council.

OTHER ACTIVITIES OF THE COUNCIL

Katherine O'Neill spoke at a seminar for media law students at Adelaide University Law School about the workings of the Council

Michael Dawson attended a family conference at the request of the Courts Administration Authority.

COMMUNITY LIAISON SCHEME

The Community Liaison Scheme (CLS) is a joint State and Federal initiative designed to support the operation of the cooperative national classification scheme. Through a program of site visits, CLS staff provide an education service to business in each State and Territory involved in selling or displaying classified products. These include films, video/DVD, certain publications and computer games.

Through a program of site inspections and strategic projects aimed at industry sectors, CLS staff help to ensure that accurate and timely classification information is available to consumers of classified material, and in particular to those who wish to make informed decisions about the products consumed by those in their care. CLS staff undertake individual inspections of businesses in all States and Territories, identifying problems and providing advice on how to better comply with the legislative requirements of the National Scheme. CLS also works with industry sectors (such as publishers, computer games distributors, the cinema industry, the sale/hire chains) to educate them on industry specific issues and encourage them to provide for classification costs and resulting requirements in their business cycle.

In the 2003-04 financial year, CLS staff spent 15 working days in South Australia, undertaking approximately 120 site visits in both metropolitan and country locations.

Areas visited include Adelaide city, most Adelaide suburbs, Victor Harbour, Port Pirie, Port Augusta, Whyalla, Peterborough, Clare and Gawler. Sites visited include cinemas, video hire stores, computer games stores, newsagents and most major shopping complexes. Some breaches of the Act were detected. CLS officers commonly deal with breaches either by educating the retailer concerned or by reporting the matter to police.

CLASSIFICATION INFORMATION

South Australian Classification Council Website

The South Australian Classification website outlines the classification system, answers some common questions and explains how to complain about offensive material. The address is 'www.sacentral.sa.gov.au/agencies/cpb'.

Commonwealth Office of Film and Literature Website

The following information can be accessed at the Office of Film and Literature Classification's website: 'www.oflc.gov.au'

· The Commonwealth Act and Regulations 
· Guidelines for the Classification of Publications 
· Guidelines for the Classification of Films and Computer Games 
· Classification Database 
· Decisions of the Classification Review Board 
· Notice of calls for public submissions on classification matters 
· Annual reports of the Classification Board and Classification Review Board.

There is also general information for both consumers and industry.

Relevant Acts

The South Australian Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 may be accessed at 'www.parliament.sa.gov.au'.

The Commonwealth Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 may be accessed at 'www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/' or through the Office of Film and Literature Classification website

Appendix A

Consideration of film Dodgeball

Background

The Council met on 27 September 2004 to consider two complaints about the film Dodgeball. Both complaints expressed concern that this film depicts sexual assaults upon men as acceptable or comic. In particular, the Council inferred that the main cause of complaint was scenes in which dodgeball players throw balls at other players, striking them in the genital area. The complainants thought that this content was unacceptable in the M category and that legal restrictions should apply to the film or that it should be banned.

In summary, the film is a comedy dealing with the members of a gym club who form a dodgeball team to try to win money to keep the club open. Much of the humour in the film is slapstick. One reviewer described it as 'a big, dumb comedy … it seeks silliness for its own sake' (Toronto Star). Another called it 'a predictable catalogue of gags and pratfalls' (Times Online).

Dodgeball is currently classified M, with consumer advice warning of sexual references and low-level coarse language. The National Classification Code says that the M category contains films that cannot be recommended for viewing by people under 15 years. The classification guidelines for the M category indicate that this contains films of moderate impact. The guidelines say:

'Moderate violence is permitted if justified by context. Sexual violence should be very limited and justified by context. … Coarse language may be used.'

It is not correct to say, as one complainant asserted, that the guidelines state that any film containing sexual violence will be banned. Rather, the guidelines show that sexual violence can be accommodated in the M, MA and R categories, depending on the impact of the material in its context. Films with high-impact depictions of sexual violence are likely to be classified R18+ (as, for example, the recent film Irreversible). However, gratuitous, exploitative or offensive depictions of sexual violence will result in the film being classified RC (that is, banned). These guidelines date from March 2003, having been adopted after nationwide public consultation.

In the United Kingdom, Dodgeball has a 12A certificate, indicating that a person under 12 years may not attend the film in a cinema or hire it from a shop unless accompanied by an adult. The guidelines say that in a 12A film:

Violence must not dwell on detail. There should be no emphasis on injuries or blood. Sexual violence may only be implied or briefly indicated and without physical detail.

In Ontario, the film is rated PG, meaning that parental guidance is recommended. In the United States, it is rated MPAA PG-13, meaning that parents are strongly cautioned that some material may be inappropriate for children under 13. Neither of these ratings legally restricts who can view the film. Yahoo's 'Movie Mom' review rated the film suitable for an audience aged 14 and up. The parental-advisory site www.filmvalues.com suggested that the film was probably not suitable for children aged 13-15 but was suitable for children aged 15-17 with guidance. As to violence, that site indicates:

VIOLENCE/SCARINESS: Considerable sports violence with people getting hit in the face, stomach, and genitals with a ball. A little slapstick. A few bloody noses. One man is hit by several cars without consequences. CRIMES: Bribery (U). As to sexuality, the site does not mention sexual assault or sexual violence as a concern.

The Council is not aware of Dodgeball having been restricted to adults only, or banned, in any country. It is likewise unaware of any public expressions of concern about the M classification, apart from those by the complainants in this case.

Council deliberations

The Council considered reviews of the film from the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom. None of these reviews mentions the theme of sexual assault or abuse of men, nor does any of them suggest that the film has been wrongly classified. The reviews do show that the film includes scenes in which men are struck by balls, including in the genital area, in the course of sporting activities.

The Council agreed that the sexual abuse or assault of any person is a serious crime, and that a film that depicts sexual violence in a gratuitous, offensive or exploitative manner is classifiable RC. The Council doubted, however, whether the throwing of balls at other players in the course of the game dodgeball, even if meant to strike the genital area, would amount to sexual assault in the legal sense, for two reasons. First, sexual assault in law refers to an assault or threat of harm for a sexual purpose (for example, with the intention of having sexual intercourse with the person). Based on the reviews, that intention did not appear to be present. Second, the object of the game of dodgeball appears to be to strike players on the opposing team with a ball. Players who willingly engage in such a game may, therefore, be considered to have consented to be hit by balls in the course of the game. Where the person consents, there is no assault.

The Council noted that the complainants were especially concerned about the sexual abuse of children, particularly in a school setting where a child may be bullied or coerced by another child. However, the dodgeball players in this film appear to be consenting adults taking part in a game. The film does not appear to deal with or condone any type of assault on a child.

The Council noted that both complainants were concerned that the film portrays striking other players in the genital area as funny. Concern was expressed that this tended to cast sexual assault as trivial or to suggest that the appropriate response is to laugh it off. The comic tone was therefore seen as exacerbating the problem. The Council considered this argument but thought that the probable effect of the comic tone was to reduce the impact of the portrayal of harm or discomfort to the players.

The Council also noted that it had received only two complaints about this film, which has now been screening in South Australia for some weeks. If, as suggested, the film did send the message to its audience that the sexual assault of men was acceptable or amusing, more complaints, or at least some reference in critical reviews, might have been expected.

Conclusion

The Council did not find that the film was sending a message that the sexual assault of any person is acceptable. The Council agreed that the film could not be recommended for viewing by anyone under 15 because of its sexual references and coarse language. It did not, however, consider that the film's impact was such as to justify legal restrictions for people over 15. The M classification, and the consumer advice attached by the Board, are therefore appropriate. Accordingly, the Council declined to classify the film.

Appendix B

Consideration of film I Spit on Your Grave

Background

The Council received a complaint that this film should be classified RC because it condones sexual violence against men. The complainants also made a complaint in similar terms to the Attorney-General, who asked that the Council consider it.

The film was classified R18+ by the national Classification Board on 4 June 2004 with consumer advice indicating strong sexual violence. This was a majority decision. Some members of the national Classification Board would have classified it RC. Before this date, an earlier version of the film had been classified RC.

The Council met to consider the film on 7 October 2004. The Council viewed the film and read various reviews as well as the reasons for decision of the Classification Board.

Film content

The film, made in 1978, is the story of the rape of a young woman by four men and her subsequent revenge on them. The first part of the film establishes her arrival in the area, the interest taken in her by the four men, and the rape scenes. The rape sequence is protracted, with the men first attacking her repeatedly in a public place and later appearing in her home to continue the attacks. The second part of the film depicts the victim carrying out revenge by killing each of the four men in turn. The killings in two cases involve seduction for the purpose of murder.

Applicable law and guidelines

The Classification (Publications Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 sets out the matters to be taken into account in classification:

19. The matters to be taken into account by the Council or the Minister in making a decision on the classification of a publication, film or computer game include- 

(a) the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults; and 

(b) the literary, artistic or educational merit (if any) of the publication, film or game; and 

(c) the general character of the publication, film or game, including whether it is of a medical, legal or scientific character; and 

(d) the persons or class of persons to or amongst whom it is published or is intended or likely to be published.

The national Classification Code requires that:

Classification decisions are to give effect, as far as possible, to the following principles:

(a) adults should be able to read, hear and see what they want; 

(b) minors should be protected from material likely to harm or disturb them; 

(c) everyone should be protected from unsolicited material that they find offensive; 

(d) the need to take account of community concerns about: 

(i) depictions that condone or incite violence, particularly sexual violence; and 

(ii) the portrayal of a person in a demeaning manner.

The Code further states as to the category RC, that this contains films that:

(a) depict, express or otherwise deal with matters of sex, drug misuse or addiction, crime, cruelty, violence or revolting or abhorrent phenomena in such a way that they offend against the standards of morality, decency or propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults to the extent that they should not be classified; or

(c) promote, incite or instruct in matters of crime or violence.

The category R contains 'films (except RC films and X films) that are unsuitable for a minor to see'.

The classification guidelines provide that films will be refused classification if they contain any of the following:

Detailed instruction or promotion in matters of crime or violence.

Gratuitous, exploitative or offensive depictions of:

(i) violence with a very high degree of impact or which are excessively frequent, prolonged or detailed;

(ii) cruelty or real violence which are very detailed or which have a high impact;

(iii) sexual violence.

Films classified R include those the impact of which does not exceed high. They can include violence and sexual violence if justified by context.

Council deliberations

The Council noted that the film depicts sexual violence both against men and against a woman, and indeed that this is a substantial part of its content. A majority of the Council thought that the film could be accommodated within the R category. A minority of the Council believed it should be classified RC.

Majority view

The majority noted that although the impact of the film was high, it did not exceed high because:

· although depicting strong violence, the film does not appear to promote or incite violence. The presentation of events is matter-of-fact. The film does not espouse any moral position or try to persuade the viewer to a particular stance. The victim of the rape is, during the first half of the film, presented sympathetically. In the second half of the film, the viewer observes her revenge but with little sense of sympathy or triumph. The film does not condone the rape. The interpretation is open that the film condones the revenge, but equally it can be read as showing that violence breeds violence, or that the rape has entirely altered the character of an otherwise peaceful person. 

· the film, although naturalistic in style, was unconvincing in its portrayal of the experience of a rape victim. For example, the victim did not have difficulty continuing to reside in the house where the rape had occurred and did not show anxiety when alone in places where she might expect to encounter the attackers. She did not show any fear of approaching them again but rather invited two of them to her home. She behaved seductively toward two of the attackers, including having sexual intercourse with one and taking a bath with the other, without apparent difficulty. This, together with the rudimentary character development and inadequate motivation for the behaviour of the characters, made the film seem unbelievable. This tended to distance with viewer from the events depicted and so reduced impact. 

· inasmuch as the film seeks to portray the experience of a rape victim and her subsequent revenge, the portrayal of violence is integral to the story rather than gratuitous or exploitative. Strong-impact depictions of violence are found in films classified MA, for example, in Saving Private Ryan and The Passion of the Christ. High-impact depictions of sexual violence, including rape, are found in some R films, for instance, The Accused and Irreversible, often in the context of a revenge theme. The majority thought that the violence in this film was of no greater impact than the violence in some other classified films. 

· a present-day viewer of the film would be conscious of its lack of sophistication. Only one story is told, events occur in a linear time-sequence, dialogue is minimal, characters are clichéd and flat, there is no musical score, development of the story is slow and the relations between events in the film are simple and obvious. These factors work against the viewer becoming emotionally engaged in the film.

Although depicting sexual violence against both sexes, therefore, the film's impact did not exceed high. Having regard to the general principle that adults should be able to see what they want, the majority judged that this film did not violate public standards of morality, decency and propriety to the extent that it should be refused classification. The film is clearly unsuitable for minors, who should be protected through an R classification. The public can be protected from unwanted exposure to the content by the consumer warning 'Strong sexual violence'.

Minority view

The minority considered that the film consists largely of depictions of sexual violence that are exploitative or offensive, and of violence with a very high degree of impact. The scenes of violence are excessively prolonged and detailed. The film lacked any artistic merit that could outweigh these concerns. The film violates public standards of morality in its portrayal of sexual violence and in its apparent acceptance of murderous revenge, to the point that it should be refused classification.

Decision

By majority, the Council decided not to alter the existing R18+ classification.

Belladonna (www.enterbelladonna.com) has had problems with two other titles this year. BELLADONNA'S FUCKING GIRLS and BELLADONNA: DO NOT DISTURB were Refused Classification in May and July.

******

The latest Standing Committee of Attorneys General (Censorship) report is out now. Unfortunately an R18+ for games doesn't get a mention.

ANNUAL REPORT STANDING COMMITTEE OF ATTORNEYS-GENERAL CENSORSHIP 2004 – 2005 

Introduction 

This report contains significant decisions made by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General (SCAG) Censorship during the 2004-2005 reporting period. It is presented in accordance with the reporting requirements under the Procedures for SCAG which reflect the Broad Protocols for the Operation of Ministerial Councils. Under the Broad Protocols, all meetings of SCAG are confidential unless otherwise agreed by Ministers. Commonwealth, State and Territory Ministers with censorship responsibilities have approved this report for public release. 

National classification scheme 

The national classification scheme is a cooperative arrangement between the Commonwealth, States and Territories. The scheme assists Australians to make informed choices by classifying some entertainment products. The scheme was established by the Commonwealth Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995. This Act provides that the Commonwealth Classification Board classifies films, computer games and certain publications. The States and Territories enforce classification decisions under their respective classification enforcement legislation. 

SCAG (Censorship) 

The censorship component of SCAG oversees the national classification scheme. 

Under paragraph 7 of the Intergovernmental Agreement on Censorship (1995): 

(a) any decision to be made by the Ministers in relation to the scheme; or 

(b) the consideration by the Ministers of other matters related to the administration of the scheme 

is to be effected through SCAG (Censorship) in accordance with its procedures. The Commonwealth Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 confers on Commonwealth, State and Territory Censorship Ministers a collective responsibility to agree to amendments to the National Classification Code (section 6) and determine guidelines (or amendments to such guidelines) to assist in the application of the criteria in the Code (section 12). Ministers deal with these matters at SCAG (Censorship) meetings and ex-agenda through correspondence. 

Under section 90 of the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995, Ministers may enter into an agreement regarding payments in respect of the administration by the State or Territory of the national classification scheme. This is met through the Intergovernmental Agreement on Censorship. 

The Act requires consultation with participating Ministers about principles for serial publications (section 13(4)); principles for fee waiver (section 91(1A)); and appointments to the Classification Board (section 48(3)) and Classification Review Board (section 74(3)). This consultation generally occurs outside SCAG (Censorship) meetings. The censorship component of SCAG does not exercise any statutory decision making functions under the Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Arrangement as the products classified under the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 are exempt from the arrangement under the Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Act 1997. 

Members 2004 – 2005 

SCAG (Censorship) meetings involve Commonwealth, State and Territory Ministers with censorship responsibilities. At the end of 2004 – 2005, the Ministers responsible for censorship were all Attorneys-General, with the exception of the Queensland Minister (Minister for Tourism, Fair Trading and Wine Industry) and the Western Australian Minister (Minister for Justice and Small Business). 

The Hon Philip Ruddock MP (Commonwealth) Commonwealth Attorney General

The Hon Jon Stanhope MLA (ACT) Chief Minister, Attorney-General, Minister for Arts, Heritage and Indigenous Affairs, Minister for the Environment 

The Hon Bob Debus MP (NSW) Attorney-General, Minister for the Environment 

The Hon Dr Peter Toyne MLA (NT) Attorney-General, Minister for Justice

The Hon Margaret Keech MLA (Qld) Minister for Tourism, Fair Trading and Wine Industry 

The Hon Michael Atkinson MP (SA) Attorney-General, Minister for Justice, Minister for Multicultural Affairs

The Hon Judy Jackson MHA (Tas) Attorney General, Minister for Justice and Industrial Relations, Minister for Environment and Planning, Minister for Parks and Heritage 

The Hon Rob Hulls MP (Vic) Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Planning The Hon John D’Orazio MLA (WA) since 10 March 2005 Minister for Justice, Small Business 

The Hon Michelle Roberts (WA) was Minister until 10 March 2005. 

Meetings 

SCAG (Censorship) met twice during the reporting period to discuss censorship matters. These meetings took place on 29-30 July 2004 in South Australia and 21 March 2005 in Queensland. 

SCAG (Censorship) was also scheduled to meet in November 2004. However, this meeting was cancelled due to caretaker conventions pertaining to the Federal election period. 

Censorship Officials met three times during the reporting period to develop issues for the consideration of Ministers prior to the Ministerial meetings. These meetings occurred on 21 September 2004, 17 February 2005 and 9 June 2005 in Sydney. 

Decisions 

The significant decisions of Censorship Ministers included: 

Community Assessment Panels 

Ministers agreed to release the CAPs research findings which indicated decisions made by the Classification Board generally reflect current Australian community standards towards films and computer games. 

Report on the Review of the Operation of the 2003 Guidelines for the Classification of Films and Computer Games 

Ministers received the report which recommended that amendments to the 2003 Guidelines are not required as no change in standards has been observed and that mechanism to improve the public’s understanding of the 2003 Guidelines be developed, to ensure all sectors of the community have confidence in the classification system. 

Amendment of the Classification Act 

Ministers noted the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment Bill 2004 which received Royal Assent on 26 May 2004. Ministers also noted progress of complementary amendments to State and Territory classification enforcement legislation, namely: 

• Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) (Enforcement) Amendment Bill 2004 (ACT) 

• Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Enforcement Amendment (Uniform Classification) Act 2004 (NSW) 

• Classification of Publications, Films and Computer Games Amendment Act 2005 (NT) 

• Tourism, Fair Trading and Wine Industry Development Legislation Amendment Bill 2005 (QLD) 

• Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) (Types of Classifications) Amendment Bill 2004 (SA) 

• Justice and Related Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2005 (Tas)

• Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) (Enforcement)(Amendment) Bill 2005 (Vic) 

• Censorship Amendment Bill 2005 (WA) 

Amendment Act No 2 (2004) 
Ministers noted the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment Act (No 2) 2004 which introduced minor technical amendments designed to ensure that prosecutions for child pornography and related offences do not fail for technical reasons related to applications for classification. The Act received Royal Assent and commenced on 14 December 2004. 

National Classification Code 
Ministers amended the Code to give effect to Australia’s international obligations regarding the elimination of child pornography under the International Labour Organisation Convention concerning the Prohibition and Immediate Action for the Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labour (ILO 182). 

Ministers also agreed to amendments to the Code necessary to incorporate the new common classification types introduced by the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment Act 2004. Specifically, the references in the Code to the current classification types were replaced with references to the new classification types. These amendments were solely consequential to the Amendment Act and do not affect the types of material permitted within each classification. 

Guidelines for the Classification of Films and Computer Games 
Ministers agreed to amendments to the Guidelines for the Classification of Films and Computer Games (2003) to ensure consistency with the Code in relation to ILO 182 and implement the new common classification types introduced by the Amendment Act. The amendments were solely consequential to the Amendment Act and ILO 182 provisions and do not affect the type of material permitted within each classification. 

Guidelines for the Classification of Publications 
Ministers agreed to consequential amendments to the Guidelines for the Classification of Publications (September 1999) to ensure consistency with the Code in relation to ILO 182. 

Ministers also agreed to an additional minor amendment to the publications guidelines to correct an incorrect reference to the jurisdictions which participate in the national classification scheme for publications. 

New and Emerging Technology Ministers noted the report of the OLFC consultancy arrangement with the Convergent Communications Research Group (CCRG) of the University of Adelaide to report on emerging and complementary media. Ministers also received a presentation relating to new and emerging technology. 

Recoded Music Labelling Code of Practice Annual Report 
Ministers noted the Annual Report on the operation of the Recorded Music Labelling Code of Practice for the period 1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004.

SCAG (Censorship) Annual Report 
Ministers agreed to the public release of the SCAG (Censorship) Annual Report for 2003-04. 

Communiqués 
Ministers also agreed to the release of one communiqué during the reporting period. This communiqué was: 

• Report shows Classification Board in line with Australian standards (21 March 2005) (Attachment A) 

Secretariat The Office of Film and Literature Classification provides secretariat and policy support for SCAG (Censorship) Ministers. The secretariat can be contacted at: SCAG (Censorship Secretariat) Office of Film and Literature Classification Locked Bag 3 HAYMARKET NSW 1240 Telephone: (02) 9289 7100 Facsimile: (02) 9289 7101 Email: oflcswitch@oflc.gov.au

******

The full Review Board report for A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE has now been released. Roadshow Films succeeded in getting the R18+ rating lowered to MA15+. The consumer advice was changed, from 'High Level Violence, Sex Scenes' to 'Strong Realistic Violence, Strong Sex Scenes'.

If you have yet to see the film then it is best to avoid the following report. It contains some major plot spoilers.

MEMBERS: 
The Hon Trevor Griffin (Deputy Convenor)
Mr Rob Shilkin
Mr Anthony Hetrih

APPLICANT: Roadshow Films, original applicant for classification, represented by: Mr Brett Rosengarten (National Sales Manager).

BUSINESS: To review the Classification Board’s decision to classify the film A History of Violence (the film) R 18+ with the consumer advice ‘High level violence, Sex scenes’.

The Classification Review Board (the Review Board) in a majority decision classified the film MA 15+, with the consumer advice ‘Strong realistic violence, Strong sex scenes’.

The Classification (Publications, Film and Computer Games) Act 1995 (the Act) governs the classification of films and the review of classification decisions. Section 9 of the Act provides that films are to be classified in accordance with the National Classification Code (the Code) and the classification guidelines.

Relevantly, the Code in paragraph 4 of the Table under the heading ‘Films’ provides that:

Films (except RC films, X18+ films, R18+ films) that depict, express or otherwise deal with sex, violence or coarse language in such a manner as to be unsuitable for viewing by persons under 15 (are to be classified ‘MA 15+)’.

and

Films (except RC Films and X18+ films) that are unsuitable for a minor to see (are to be classified R18+).

The Code also sets out various principles to which classification decisions should give effect, as far as possible.

Section 11 of the Classification Act requires that the matters to be taken into account in making a decision on the classification of a film include:

(a) the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults; and

(b) the literary, artistic or educational merit (if any) of the film; and

(c) the general character of the film, including whether it is of a medical, legal or scientific character; and

(d) the persons or class of persons to or amongst whom it is published or is intended or likely to be published.

Three essential principles underlie the use of the 2005 Guidelines for the Classification of Films and Computer Games (the Guidelines), determined under s.12 of the Act:

• Assessing impact

 Six classifiable elements – themes, violence, sex, language, drug use and nudity.

3. Procedure

The Review Board met on 29 September 2005 in response to the receipt of a valid application from the applicant, Roadshow Films, on 12 September 2005.

Three members of the Review Board viewed the film A History of Violence at the Board’s meeting on 29 September 2005.

The Review Board then received an oral submission from Mr Brett Rosengarten representing the Applicant. This was provided in addition to a written submission.

The Review Board then considered the matter.

In reaching its decision the Review Board had regard to the following:

(ii) Roadshow Film’s written and oral submissions;

(iii) The film;

(iv) The relevant provisions in the Act;

(v) The relevant provisions in the Code, as amended in accordance with s.6 of the Act

(vi) The Classification Board’s report; and

(vii) The Guidelines for the Classification of Films and Computer Games.

5 Synopsis

Tom Stalls (Mortensen) is living a quiet life with his wife and their two children in the small town of Millbrook, Indiana. Their quiet family life is shattered when Tom foils an attempted robbery in his cafe. Faced with a serious threat to him and his staff by two men who have entered his cafe, he kills the two criminals.

Heralded as a hero by the national media, forcing him into the public spotlight, Tom’s quiet life is changed overnight. Tom tries to return to the normalcy of his ordinary life only to be confronted by a mysterious man (Harris), who believes Tom is, in fact, Joey, a former criminal who has wronged him in the past.

Like father like son: A subplot depicts harassment and bullying of Tom’s teenage son in school until he is forced to react with violence against the school bullies.

The Review Board found that the film contains aspects or scenes of importance, under various classifiable elements:

The violence, in the majority’s view, is strong in impact. It is infrequent and not relished or glamorised and is justified by context.

• At approximately five minutes a scene in the front office of a motel shows a young man (who later in the film enters Tom’s café) entering the office, a man’s dead body slumped in a chair, with blood on his face, and a woman is lying on the floor in a pool of blood. A young girl clutching a doll enters, whimpering. The young man puts his finger on his lips and says: "sshh", pulls a gun and points it at the girl and pulls the trigger, impliedly shooting her.

• At approximately 22 to 25 minutes, Tom is in his cafe with his staff and the two men from the motel enter and demand coffee. The younger man grabs the waitress and pushes her to the ground and is threatening. Sitting at the counter one man pulls a gun from his belt, Tom reacts swiftly by smashing a hot coffee pot in that man’s face and then shoots both men. One falls back through a glass door (with some blood splatter) while the other, who is on the floor, stabs Tom in the foot. The latter is shot in the face and, in a brief post-action visual, flesh is shown hanging from his face with blood detail.

• At 48 minutes, the scene is a school corridor with students milling about. A bully taunts Tom’s son, Jack – who is approximately 15, until Jack reacts by hitting the bully and his mate. The bully is on the ground and blood is shown flowing from his mouth and Jack has to be restrained by other students. The violence in the scene is no higher than strong.

• At around 55 minutes, a man called Fogarty arrives at Tom’s farmhouse with two other men, holding Tom’s son as hostage. These three men are part of Tom’s brother’s organised crime syndicate. Jack is released in substitution for Tom. As Tom is moving towards the three men and it seems as if he is about to be held by one of the three. Tom reacts swiftly and appears to break the arm of that man and "open-hands" him in the face, breaking his nose with an audible "crack". There is a brief post-action visual of a nose bloodied, which is depicted as pushed back into the face, with blood spurts. Tom shoots the second bodyguard. Shortly, Jack appears from the house with a shotgun and shoots Fogarty in the chest. Fogarty is depicted with a large and bloody wound and blood is shown splattering extensively over Tom.

• From approximately 84 to 87 minutes there is a scene where Tom is in his brother’s house. His brother is the leader of an organised crime syndicate. One male tries to strangle Tom from behind and, after a brief struggle, Tom manages to free himself. He shoots that male and steps on the neck of another assailant. Blood is shown spurting from that person’s mouth. After a search for Tom, he is found by his brother and a bodyguard. Tom shoots the bodyguard in the chest, blood spatter is depicted, and then Tom shoots his brother in the forehead. The brother is shown on the ground with blood pooling from his head.

6.2 Sex

There are two sex scenes where sexual activity is implied:

• At approximately 17 minutes, Edie enters the bedroom wearing a cheerleader’s outfit. She shows her underwear and then pulls off Tom’s belt. The pair fall on the bed as Tom removes Edie’s underwear and lifts up her skirt. He then puts his head between her legs and performs implied cunnilingus (obscured by Edie’s skirt) as Edie lays her head back. Edie then moves around and implicitly fellates Tom as he continues to perform obscured cunnilingus.

• At approximately 67 minutes, Tom and Edie argue. She physically fights with him in the stairwell until they fall over and begin to kiss. Tom pulls down Edie’s underwear and is shown buttock naked, thrusting into her. They are then depicted thrusting against the wall and kissing until they again move positions. Tom is shown thrusting into Edie for a little longer. Edie then kicks Tom off and walks up the stairs. This scene runs for approximately 2 minutes.

This latter scene seemed to start as a potentially non-consensual act and developed into clearly consensual sexual activity. The impact was strong but the whole Review Board concluded that these scenes can be accommodated within the MA15+ classification.

6.3 Drug use

• There is one scene depicting apparent drug use at approximately 20 minutes when a marijuana joint is shared by Jack’s girlfriend with him as they talk in the street.

6.4 Language

• At approximately 22 minutes in the scene in the cafe discussed above when the two men are threatening Tom and his staff there is some coarse language.

• At approximately 48 minutes in the scene where Tom’s son is being bullied there is aggressive coarse language.

• At approximately 84 minutes, in the scene at Tom’s brother’s house there is a series involving coarse language, some aggressive. Such language can be accommodated in the MA15+ classification.

The Review Board was unanimous that the relevant classifiable elements for the purposes of determining whether the film should be classified MA15+ or R18+ were violence and sex.

The Guidelines state that the impact of material classified MA15+ should be no higher than strong.

In relation to violence, the Guidelines for MA15+ films states that "violence should be justified by context".

The majority view is that the violent scenes in the film both separately and together create an impact that is no higher than strong. The majority view was that:

• There are only three or four scenes of violence in the film. The violence is neither sustained nor constant throughout the film and there is significant respite for the audience.

• The scenes of "gore" (such as the depictions of flesh, blood splatter and a broken nose in the scenes at 22 minutes and 55 minutes) are fleeting, which lessens their impact.

• The violence inflicted by the main character Tom, while strong, always takes place out of absolute necessity in order to save his life or that of his family and friends. No more violence than is necessary to achieve this purpose is inflicted and so the violence is always contextually justified.

• The acts of violence are not glamorised. Indeed, by showing the realistic consequences of violence, the film demonstrates the ugliness of violence, rather than celebrating or trivialising it. There appears to be a strong underlying message in the advice by Tom to his son that violence should not be used to settle disputes, particularly in Jack’s response to the school bullies confronting him.

• Having regard to the standards of the community, the majority felt that the scenes of violence in this film were of no greater - and in some instances of lower - impact, than other films that have been routinely classified MA15. The majority of the Review Board concluded that the community would, as a whole, anticipate scenes of violence of the strength depicted in this film at an MA15+ classification.

The view of the minority is that the scenes depicting violence in the cafe, at Tom’s home and in Tom’s brother’s house are each of high impact. The minority also considered that considered together with the other scenes referred to above, the cumulative impact is high. Therefore, it was the view of the minority that sequences outlined cannot be accommodated in the MA 15+ classification and the film should be classified R18+.

In relation to sex, the Review Board was unanimous that the scenes could be accommodated at an MA15+ classification. The sex scenes between the married couple were implied, consensual, and very little detail was shown.

Thematically, the two sex scenes were contextually justified - the first scene at 17 minutes showed a fun, loving, carefree scene of sex, while the second - after the intrusion of violence into Tom and Edie's life - was rougher, colder and more menacing. The sex scenes therefore seemed to be used partly as a device to advance the film's message that once violence enters someone's life, it becomes pervasive and controlling.

The Classification Review Board, in a majority 2 to 1 decision, determined that A History of Violence should be classified MA 15+ with the consumer advice "Strong realistic violence, Strong sex scenes".

The majority of the Review Board concluded that the impact of the violence is strong, rather than high. The film contains realistic scenes of violence, including blood splatter and visible wounds, but those scenes are brief and infrequent and the violent acts are not glamorised or celebrated.

******

Des Clark has been busy spreading the word of the OFLC media release from last week. The link below also contains an audio interview with Des Clark conducted by Ross Peddlesden.

Watch this space: what film ratings mean. ABC Online 29.11.05

On HARRY POTTER.
"If you're going to let your kids go to it, you're going to have to know about the content, and read the consumer advice.
"Research the film a bit before you let them go,"

On MA15+.
"Because this MA15+ cuts in for kids under 15, they're acutely conscious of what that rating means and that they have to have their parents with them," 
"They may think, 'well that's OK for other kids but I'm big enough and mature enough to make my own decision', but they are conscious of what the ratings are, and it's helpful to parents that kids do understand them."

***

Do film classifications protect us or interfere with our rights. The Age 5.12.05

The information provided by the OFLC through its classifications helps people make decisions about the suitability of films, DVDs, videos, computer games and other publications before watching or using them.

The ratings advice helps individuals protect themselves and their families from content they may consider inappropriate.
But sometimes, when content is deemed too extreme, it is denied classification, making it illegal. Some argue that in doing this the OFLC is practising censorship that compromises the freedoms of adult Australians.

Film critic and president of lobby group Watch on Censorship, Margaret Pomeranz, has often criticised the OFLC for refusing classification to films that other countries have approved. She believes it should be the right of adults to make their own informed decisions about the films they view.

Others argue that the OFLC is merely helping to protect Australia's social standards in its decisions to ban content that breaks those standards.

******

TV sex shame. Herald-Sun 27.11.05

Advocates on family matters and children's issues accuse TV networks of hurling a barrage of barbaric and lurid images -- with potentially lasting damaging affects -- at the young.

The study compared the number of prime-time AO (adults only) rated shows in the week beginning November 21, 1985, with the number of M-rated (today's equivalent of AO) in the week from November 13 this year.

Among this year's shows were the Quentin Tarantino-directed CSI finale on Channel 9, which showed a man buried alive, a man shot and raped outside a gay bar on Channel 10's Law & Order: SVU and graphic medical operations on Nine's RPA.

******

Channel 10 in Perth are in trouble over a promo for THE OC.

Australian Communications and Media Authority
29 November 2005
Media Release 53/2005

The Australian Communications and Media Authority has found that Network Ten Perth Pty Ltd, the licensee of commercial television service NEW Perth, breached the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice 2004 (the code) by broadcasting a promotion for the program The OC that contained coarse language unsuitable for G time.

On 1 June 2005, the former Australian Broadcasting Authority (ABA) received a complaint regarding a promotion for the M-classified program The OC broadcast by Network Ten Perth Pty Ltd on 15 March 2005. The promotion was screened during a G viewing period, and the complainant alleged that the promotion contained language unsuitable for this viewing period.

The Australian Communications and Media Authority took over the role and responsibilities of the ABA from 1 July 2005 and continued the investigation. The complaint was investigated against clause 2.4 of Section 2 of the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice 2004.

ACMA determined that the licensee of NEW breached clause 2.4 of the code by failing to broadcast material in accordance with the Television Classification Guidelines, which provide for the level of coarse language permitted in G viewing periods.

The code states that all program promotions broadcast in G time must comply with the G classification requirements in Appendix 4 of the code. These state that very mild coarse language generally considered socially offensive or discriminatory may only be used infrequently when absolutely justified by the story line or program context.

In ACMA’s view the language in the program promotion did not meet these requirements and therefore exceeded what is permitted at this classification.

The licensee accepted the breach finding and has undertaken to distribute the finding to classifiers and program producers and discuss the finding with promotions staff. The finding will also be used as an example in regular code training sessions with staff.

ACMA considers this action addresses the compliance issue raised by the investigation and will continue to monitor the licensee’s performance in this regard.

The investigation report is available on the ACMA website.

Media contact: Donald Robertson, ACMA Media Manager on (02) 9334 7980.

The actual promotion is detailed in the report as follows. From Investigation Report No. 1550.

The OC is an M classified program broadcast at 8.30 pm. The licensee describes the program as a soap opera/drama that follows the relationships of a rich set of Californian families. The promotion which is the subject of the complaint is 30 seconds in duration and features visuals from the program along with narration and dialogue. The following commentary and program dialogue accompanied the visuals from the promotion.

1st female character: Get off of me! I’m the daughter of a thief and a slut.

Narrator: What is making everyone in the OC act psycho?

2nd female character: You stole a car?

1st male character: Yep.

Narrator: What could be so big, it’s tearing the OC apart?

If you don’t already watch the OC on Tuesdays, you’d better start because it’s about to get real hot!

1st female character: Do you think I’m really going to leave my girlfriend alone with you overnight?

2nd female character: I thought she wasn’t your girlfriend?

1st female character: Well think again.

Narrator: All new OC, 8.30 Tuesday.

Okay, instead of bitching about this to your fellow geeks on games message boards, why not do something constructive for once? Write to your Attorney-General! As mentioned in the last update, the R18+ rating for games is due to be debated at the Standing Committee of Attorney-General in March 2006. Between now and then it is time to act and contact the AG in your State. Details can be found here.

******

Whilst on the subject of banned games. Running With Scissors, the company behind the RC rated POSTAL 2: SHARE THE PAIN have just issued this press release. It really does illustrate how futile censorship is becoming. Give it a classification and public will soon find out how poor the game is, ban it, and they want it.

******

Killer logic bans screen lovemaking but not murder. The Australian 24.11.05

Ruddock's website shows there is no adults-only category for such games. There's only an M or MA rating available. Why? Because South Australia's Christian and family values Attorney-General Michael Atkinson won't agree to an R-rated category.

There are 25 computer games with "Kill" or "Killer" in their title that have been classified as suitable for children. Banned is the computer game Strip Poker 3 because it shows adults getting naked around the card table. In my opinion, Atkinson's logic is as crazy as the logic that Ruddock uses in allowing him to veto every other attorney-general in the country who wants an R rating for computer games.

Surely it is unacceptable to formally rate sex as more offensive and more harmful than violence.

******

On the subject of protest letters, thanks to Brett for this one that he sent to Senator Barnaby Joyce. It is in response to his attack on SBS in Senate Estimates on October 31st. Remember what he had this to say about the screening of QUEER AS FOLK and the documentary Lost Worlds: The Real Family of Jesus. 

"I want you to take it on notice that we are on notice, that we are watching and that every time this sort of garbage comes out we are going to haul you to task over it."

"I cannot see the reason why we bother sending any money your way."

Brett responded:

Dear Mr Joyce,

I'd like to take this opportunity to remind you that SBS is a national broadcaster, not an exclusively Queensland broadcaster. Your attempts to interfere with SBS programming effect me even though you are not my elected representative in the senate. So, can I respectfully request that you leave SBS alone?

As a tax payer, I am very happy with SBS programming. SBS provides very clear consumer warnings for programs that may contain potentially offensive material, and schedule such programs well after my children's bed time. SBS programming is diverse, thought-provoking, and responsible. Which is a lot more than I can say for the commercial television stations that you implicitly seem to hold in such high regard.

If you are serious about cutting wasted Government broadcasting expenditure, perhaps you could focus your attention on the tax dollars being frittered away on the new Industrial Relations Policy advertisements. I find the fact that your government is spending such large amounts of tax payer's money on these ads far more offensive than anything I've ever seen on SBS.

Please do not abuse the power you have, Mr Joyce. Leave SBS alone and stick to what you know best, whatever that is.

******

Roadshow Film Distributors have failed in their attempt to get Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire d