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 dropped from M to PG. Instead the Review Board has changed the consumer advice from 'Moderate Fantasy violence' to 'Moderate Dark Themes, Moderate Fantasy Violence'.

Australian Government
Classification Review Board
23 November 2005
Media Release

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire classified M upon review 

A 6-member panel of the Classification Review Board in a unanimous decision determined that the film, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire is classified M with the consumer advice, “Moderate dark themes, Moderate fantasy violence.” 

In the Classification Review Board’s opinion, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire warrants an M classification because, “the cumulative sense of threat and menace is moderate rather than mild”, said Classification Board Convenor, Maureen Shelley.

Ms Shelley also said “this film represents a move to darker themes than seen in previous Harry Potter films.” 

“The scenes of Harry experiencing pain and anxiety are more likely to disturb younger children than those depicted in other films in the franchise.” 

M is an advisory classification. Films classified M are not recommended for persons under 15 years of age. 

The Classification Review Board convened today in response to an application from the distributor, Roadshow Film Distributors Pty Ltd, to review the M classification of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire made by the Classification Board on 9 November 2005. 

In reviewing the classification, the Classification Review Board worked within the framework of the National Classification Scheme, applying the provisions of the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995, the National Classification Code and the Guidelines for the Classification of Films and Computer Games. 

The Classification Review Board is an independent merits review body. Meeting in camera, it makes a fresh classification decision upon receipt of an application for review. This Classification Review Board decision takes the place of the original decision made by the Classification Board. 

The Classification Review Board’s reasons for this decision will appear on the OFLC website when finalised.

***

Harry feels the pain as censors hold to M rating. SMH 25.11.05

The director of the Office of Film and Literature Classification, Des Clark, said yesterday that the rating was in line with other countries and softer than the "restrictive" rating in Britain.

"It's at the discretion of parents to look at the consumer advice and look at the maturity of their children to see whether they're able to see it." He said the themes, elements of the story and the violence could trouble young children.

"Go and see the film first yourself if you're worried about young children's responses."

Letters of the law. SMH 26.11.05

As Hollywood makes more confronting children's movies, filmmakers are pushing the limits of the American PG 13 rating, which flags material that may be inappropriate for under-13s. When these movies reach Australia, where there is no equivalent category, they can fall awkwardly between PG (parental guidance recommended) and M (not recommended for those under 15).

Wanting as broad an audience as possible, distributors regularly appeal against M ratings. It happened last year with Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, which was initially rated M15+. The distributors appealed; the sticking point was horror elements in the movie. On appeal, the rating was reduced to PG, including consumer advice that some fantasy scenes might frighten young children. (Since then, the M15+ rating has been rebadged as simply M, to minimise confusion with the tougher MA15+, which legally restricts unaccompanied under-15s.)

******

More on the Polyester Books raid.

Crikey : Friday, 25 November, 2005

34. Polyester Books: a pawn in the censors' p*rn game

Hugo Kelly writes:

Last week's police raid on Melbourne's Polyester Books is a sad sign of the times. The attempt to chase the cheeky Brunswick St shop through the courts again is puzzling – as is the media's apparent refusal to look behind the politics of the ongoing official harassment. We are reliably informed the place is certainly not the only shop selling p*rn in Melbourne or Victoria. Or indeed, in any other state in Australia.

Clearly though, the proprietor's activities are a thorn in someone's side. X-rated material is illegal to purchase over the counter anywhere in Australia other than the ACT and the NT, but can be bought via mail order from the territories in all Australian states.

But this is a law honoured in the breach. Most police have better things to worry about than people buying blue movies. Indeed, the law is ignored so widely now that any kind of crackdown would take up significant police resources. Unless, of course, somebody wants to target someone specifically.

It's intriguing that one small business is targeted when regulators and enforcement agencies turn a blind eye to other, bigger businesses, flouting the law. A disclosure: Polyester Books is an old hangout of mine. The couches aren't as comfy, but you get a broader range of product than Borders or Starbucks care to offer.

The regulator, the Office of Film & Literature Classification, is itself surrounded by shops that openly sell X-rated material over the counter. And, more to the point, the office turns a blind eye to the proliferation of explicit "s*x" unclassified material that would probably be banned for excessive violence if it were classified.

Based in Haymarket, Sydney's Chinatown area, the office is surrounded by video shops selling hundreds of torture and rape videos in languages other than English that have not been classified and, under the current system, will not be classified.

Isn't this more serious than a small business owner in Melbourne trying to make a living from hippies and anarchists?

******

Professor Alan McKee's article 'The Objectification of Women in Mainstream Pornographic Videos in Australia' appears in Volume 42, Number 4, November 2005 of THE JOURNAL OF SEX RESEARCH. The full three-year study is titled 'Understanding Pornography in Australia'.

Porn 'does not make sex objects'. The Australian 24.11.05

Queensland University Professor Alan McKee, who led the study, said researchers compared the way women and men were represented in each video.

"We were surprised at just how active and in control the women were in these videos," Prof McKee said today.

"This study suggests that mainstream pornography in Australia doesn't represent women as sex objects, it shows them as active sexual agents."

Dr Alan McKee said those initial results had shattered the "dirty old man in a trenchcoat" stereotype of pornographic consumers.

Dr McKee said most respondents were Liberal/National voters, which was interesting given those political parties were anti-porn.

******

Australian Government
Office of Film and Literature Classification
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 
Tuesday, 22 November 2005 

MAKE INFORMED FAMILY ENTERTAINMENT CHOICES THESE SUMMER HOLIDAYS 

The Office of Film & Literature Classification (OFLC) has released information for families to help inform and guide entertainment choices this holiday season. 

“Summer holidays are always an intense entertainment period for young people, and it’s important that parents take responsibility for what their children are viewing,” said OFLC Director Des Clark. “The classification system was established with the interests of young people very much in mind. Parents and guardians have a critical role to play in guiding and educating their children about the use of these guidelines. 

“For example, parents should reinforce that children under 15 are not allowed to see a film classified as MA15+ unaccompanied by an adult - not only because it is against the law, but because these films might significantly upset them,” said Mr Clark. 

The OFLC makes the following recommendations to families considering their entertainment choices across the summer period: 

1) Understand and check the classification markings before making your choice: Classification markings (G, PG, M, MA15+ etc) are a good starting point when assessing which films, DVD’s and computer games are suitable for you or your family. The OFLC recently changed to a colour coded classification system to make the markings easier to identify and remember. (See page two for details). Parents should take the time to familiarise themselves and their children with these new coloured markings to help them make easier and clearer choices. 

2) Use the consumer advice panel: Consumer advice identifies content areas in a film or computer game that might worry or upset you or your child. The consumer advice might be something like “Mild Violence”, or “Frequent Coarse Language”. Consumer advice is usually on the front of the case of videos, DVDs and computer games, next to the classification – and on the bottom left-hand corner of advertisements and posters. 

3) Talk to your children about their choices: Classification guidelines provide a consistent benchmark for assessing entertainment content, however it’s also important to keep in mind that everyone has an individual response to content. For 2 example, some people scare more easily, others may be more affected by swearing or violence. Personal responses should be taken into account. 

4) Observe the law. It is illegal for a child under 15 to view a MA15+ restricted movie unaccompanied by an adult. If your children are attending the movies without an adult, ensure your child has a proof of identity card. Minors cannot attend R18+ restricted movies. 

5) If in doubt, consider viewing the movie or game before your child does: Age is not the only determinant for classification – particularly as some children mature later than others. For example, whilst G films are open to viewing by children of all ages, a G rating is not a recommendation for children and may relate to a story line that is of primary interest to adults. If you have not seen the movie yourself, critics reviews can be helpful in assessing content and there are many websites which provide detailed information regarding the content of a movie. 

Media information / interviews: Fleur Brown, mobile: 0419 270 863 or fleur@launchgroup.com.au 
For further information and frequently asked questions regarding the classification system, please visit: www.oflc.gov.au.

Classification marking for films (including DVD’s) and computer games Films and computer games are classified G, PG, M or MA 15+. Films can also be classified R 18+ or X 18+. R 18+ and X 18+ are not classifications for computer games. G is green, PG is yellow, M is blue, MA 15+ is red and R 18+ and X 18+ are both black. 

G: The content of a G film or game is very mild and is suitable for people of all ages. However, not all G films will be of interest to children. 

PG: The content is mild, however some PG films might contain content that children could find confusing or upsetting. It might be a good idea to for children younger than 15 to watch PG films with their mum or dad and parents may want to talk to their children about things they don’t understand in a PG film. 

M: The content is moderate in impact. Films rated M may contain things that might be upsetting or frightening to children aged under 15. If you are younger than 15, it might be a good idea to ask your parents if you can watch an M film or play or purchase an M game. Films classified M are recommended for people aged 15 and older, however the M classification is not legally restricted. 

Classifications below are legally restricted 

MA15+: The content is strong. The MA 15+ category is legally restricted. To see MA 15+ films at the cinema or to hire them on video you need to be with your parent or adult guardian. This is because MA 15+ films contain strong content. Their content is stronger than M. MA 15+ film might show things that would upset someone under 15. That is why, if you are under 15, you can only see MA 15+ films if you are with your parent or legal guardian. 

If you are under the age of 15, you should not try to rent an MA 15+ film, and you should not try to buy a ticket to an MA 15+ film at the cinema, unless you are with your parent or adult guardian. 

R18+: Films only. High level content legally restricted to people over the age of 18. Children under the age of 18 are not allowed to view films - even if they are accompanied by an adult.

******

There has been some discussion of missing footage from the new R4 DVD of RAZORBACK. Umbrella Entertainment have now issued the following statement over at Michael D's.

Umbrella created the new 16:9 master that was then licensed for use by Anchor Bay for R2 - so the quality should be identical (as a side note, it's interesting - and a little strange - that the Anchor Bay featurette doesn't include anybody who actually worked on the film!).
As discussed in the "Jaws on Trotters" documentary, this version is the theatrical release version. The gorier scenes were cut before the film was released and reinserted for the local Roadshow VHS release - they were never seen in the theatrical release.

I discovered that Twenty years later, the original film components of these goriers scene had been lost and they only existed on a 1 inch 4:3 master - there was no film print in existence that included them, so rather than inserting 4:3 pan and scanned footage into a 16:9 transfer (with a 2.35:1 ratio) Umbrella decided to include them on the dvd as a "special feature". Every additional scene from the "uncut" Roadshow VHS release is included on the DVD.
For your info, these scenes have never been seen in any version in the UK or US.

Mark Hartley
DVD Producer

Looks like it could be worth holding on to your old Roadshow VHS tape!

***

Another one to avoid is the new Rialto Entertainment release of THE EXTERMINATOR. This is also reportedly sourced from a cut print. This is despite claiming on the cover:

"Finally witness the Director's cut, featuring never before seen footage from one of the most cold blooded tales of revenge ever to hit the screen"

Again this is not the fault of our censors. The early 80's Thorn-EMI VHS release is complete. 

Shop raided over porn claim. Herald Sun 18.11.05

The raid was in response to a complaint alleging X-rated and unclassified videos and DVDs were openly displayed in the shop.

Officers seized about 500 videos and DVDs.

***

Polyester have a petition available for you to sign.

******

Australia urged to regulate porn films. The Age 18.11.05

In Melbourne for the annual Sexpo, Kay Sunlove from the American Free Speech Coalition had this to say about Australia's porn laws

"It's a fascinating irony that Australia has practical laws and a federal classification system that the states have signed up to, but it is not legal to sell X-rated films in many states," 
"The authorities turn a blind eye in several states to the sale of X-rated films and (the inconsistent laws) could foster a disrespect for the law itself, and that's not what anyone wants.
"We want reasonable regulation. Reasonable regulation by governments implies legitimacy and gives standards to judge behaviour by."

But Ms Sunlove said laws in most Australian states legalising prostitution at licenced brothels, according to strict planning conditions and regular health checks for sex workers, were well ahead of contemporary thinking in the United States.

"It is in stark contrast to what we have in the States, where prostitution is illegal in every state other than in some parts of Nevada,"

******

Roadshow Films are appealing against the M rating awarded to Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire.

Australian Government
Classification Review Board
15 November 2005
MEDIA RELEASE

Review announced for the film Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

The Classification Review Board has received an application to review the classification for the film, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire.

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire was classified M with the consumer advice, "Moderate fantasy violence", by the Classification Board on 9 November 2005.

The Classification Review Board will meet on Wednesday 23 November 2005 to consider the application.

The Classification Review Board’s decision and reasons for its decision will appear on the OFLC website once the review has been finalised.

The Classification Review Board is an independent merits review body. Meeting in camera, it makes a fresh classification decision upon receipt of an application for review. The Classification Review Board decision takes the place of the original decision made by the Classification Board.

******

The full Review Board report for WOLF CREEK has now been released. Roadshow Film failed in their attempt to get the R18+ rating lowered to MA15+. Only the consumer advice was changed, from 'High Level Violence, Coarse Language, Adult Themes' to 'High Level Realistic Violence, Strong Coarse Language'. 

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 Anthony Hetrih
Mrs Gillian Groom

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 Wolf Creek (the film) R 18+ with the consumer advice ‘High level violence, coarse language, Adult themes’.

The Classification Review Board (the Review Board) unanimously classified the film R 18+, with the consumer advice ‘High level realistic violence, Strong coarse language’.

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 3 of the Table under the heading ‘Films’ provides that:

Films (except RC films, X18+ films) that are unsuitable for a minor to see are to be classified ‘R 18+’. The Code also sets out various principles to which classification decisions should give effect, as far as possible.

Section 11 of the 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:

The Review Board convened on 14 September 2005 to determine the validity of the application for review from Roadshow Films received on 30 August 2005, view the film and consider the substance of the application.

Three members of the Review Board viewed the film Wolf Creek at the Review Board’s meeting on 14 September 2005. The Review Board 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:

(i) Roadshow Film’s application for review;
(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.

Using true events as a basis for its story line, Wolf Creek is the chilling story of three young backpackers (Ben, Kristy and Lizzie) travelling in remote Outback Australia. When their vehicle breaks down and as night falls, they accept help from a friendly local, Mick Taylor (John Jarratt) who inspects their vehicle and persuades them to let him tow it, promising to replace the faulty part which he has at his camp. It takes hours to reach his place, an abandoned mining site complete with tunnels, huts and sheds. The travellers cook food while Mick begins to repair their car. The water they drink, provided by Mick, seems to contain a sleep-inducing drug. Mick recalls his life as a professional vermin shooter, and then works on the car as the three backpackers fall asleep. Later, they wake – Lizzie is bound and gagged, Kristy is bound to a post in a shed, being taunted and threatened by Mick and, later, we see Ben has been nailed through his wrists to a horizontal rail, arms outstretched crucifixion- style. Mick has no intention of fixing their vehicle, the engine of which is in parts on the ground. He is a sadistic serial killer.

In its written submission, the Applicant submitted by way of conclusion that it:

"feels that the treatment of violence in this film appears stronger than it actually is simply because it is Australian and because there is no satisfactory end to the film for an audience wanting "the bad guy" to get what is coming to him. When you review the film and take into account each individual scene referred to above in the context of consistent use of the guidelines, we believe that it fits into the impact test for an MA 15+ film as material that is no higher than strong. As a suggestion, the consumer advice could be "high level violence".

In his oral submission, the representative of the Applicant acknowledged that the film was a confronting movie and harrowing. Both the written and oral submissions sought to make a comparison between the treatment of the acts of violence in Wolf Creek and those in the Texas Chainsaw Massacre and House of Wax, arguing that there was inconsistency in the way Wolf Creek on the one hand, and Texas Chainsaw Massacre and House of Wax on the other, have been treated by the Classification Board.

The Applicant analysed the significant scenes of violence in Wolf Creek, arguing that the impact individually and collectively was strong rather than high.

For the reasons which follow, the Review Board does not agree with either submission.

The Review Board found that the film contains scenes reflecting various classifiable elements, namely, adult themes, violence and language.

THEMES

The theme is of a sadistic serial killer who has entrapped his victims, has bound and gagged the two young women and has nailed the young male victim through his wrists. He threatens and performs acts of cruelty upon them and threatens to rape Kristy who is tied to a post. He pursues his victims as they attempt to escape, killing the two women and a male stranger who has stopped his car on an outback road offering help to Kristy. These scenes are high in impact and create an atmosphere of terror.

The lead-up to the scenes of violence (from approximately 14 minutes to approximately 50 minutes) creates a sense of foreboding. Then, as the backpackers awake to a nightmare situation, the violent scenes occur in dim night light, creating an ominous atmosphere. The scenes of concern include the following:

1 At approximately 50 minutes, Lizzie wakens to find herself on the floor of a shed, bound hands and feet and gagged, panicky, crying and struggling with her bonds. She cuts herself free and escapes from the shed.

2 At approximately 54 minutes, Lizzie hears screams coming from a shed. She makes her way across a yard strewn with junk and peers in a window of another shed to see Kristy tied to a post, being taunted and threatened by Mick with a rifle and knife. Kristy is distressed and is pleading for her life. Then Mick fires a shot past Kristy. The scene is prolonged, lasting for at least 6 minutes.

3 At approximately 57 minutes, Mick threatens to rape Kristy while she is tied to the post.

4 At approximately 60 and 62 minutes there are camera shots of mutilated human bodies hanging on the wall of the shed and at the latter time Mick says: "I could cut your tits off, eh."

5 At 63 minutes Lizzie shoots Mick in the neck. He falls to the ground and Lizzie tries to shoot him again but the rifle is out of bullets. She beats him with the rifle butt.

6 At approximately 77minutes to 80 minutes, there is a prolonged scene (lasting for about 3 minutes) where Mick cuts off several of Lizzie’s fingers and there is a shot of her fingers on the ground and a shot of her hand with fingers cut off and blood spurting. Also a close-up of the bloodied knife is shown. Mick has a knife and refers to "a head on a stick once the spine is severed" as he drives the knife into her spine. She is shown on the ground, unable to move her body.

7 At approximately 82 minutes, Kristy is shown being helped by a passerby on the side of the road. Then there is a blood spatter over the rear windscreen as the man is shot in the head.

8 At approximately 85 minutes there is a car chase as Kristy tries to escape and Mick is shown revving a "hot" vehicle before pursuing her. She forces him off the road, he shoots out her rear tyre and she rolls her car, gets out of the vehicle and is shot in the back in a distance shot. Mick is then shown standing over her with the rifle pointed at her and then another shot is heard. For all the scenes since the camera has focused on Kristy bound to a post, she has been shown with bloodied face and blood on her shirt.

9 At approximately 88 minutes, Ben is shown nailed to the wall and is attempting to pull his wrists from the nails to release his arms as a vicious dog in a cage nearby lunges at him. There are close-up camera shots of his bloodied wrists and the movement of the nails as he wrests his wrists free.

The scenes of violence from approximately 50 minutes to about 80 minutes are all in dark and gloomy light, enhancing the fear factor.

There is coarse language throughout the film. "Cunt" and "fuck" are used frequently. The impact of the coarse language, in the view of the Review Board, is strong but when regarded in the context of the film it has the effect of reinforcing the violence.

The Review Board is of the opinion that the documentary style of this film creates a level of realism which heightens the impact of the violence. That violence is frequent and, in some scenes, prolonged. Unlike typical "horror" movies, Wolf Creek does not employ the usual tension-releasing devices (such as exaggerated special effects or comedic relief), nor the stylised approaches to depictions of violence, instead striving for a tone of realism that takes it out of the realm of fantasy. This very realistic tone results in a film of high impact and the impact of the violence is high. The film is not suitable for minors to view.

The Review Board concluded unanimously that the impact of the violence in the film was high and, therefore, the appropriate classification is R 18+ with the consumer advice: "High level realistic violence, Strong coarse language.

******

After making cuts, Calvista have had the rating of WHO FUCKED ROCCO? dropped from RC to X18+.

******

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 Attorney-General in your State. Details can be found here.

R rating back in the game plan. SMH 16.11.05

Victorian Attorney-General Rob Hulls called for an R18+ rating at a November 4 meeting of Australian censorship ministers. The topic will be debated at the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General in March.

Mr Hulls says there should be a consistent rating system spanning films, literature and games.

"It is anomalous that adults can purchase and view R-rated films and literature but are unable to play computer games with a rating higher than MA15+. Children are no more likely to access an R18+ computer game than they would a DVD or videotape," he says.

What a nasty piece of work Queensland Senator Barnaby Joyce is turning out to be. The day he joined the Senate he issued this media release. 

Media Release
Queensland Nationals Senator Barnaby Joyce
Friday, 1 July 2005

Senator Disgusted at Late Night Viewing

 "Inappropriate and insulting" is how the National Senator Barnaby Joyce has labelled the documentary 'In Search of the Perfect Penis', screening tonight on SBS Television.

The Senator is horrified advertising for the documentary in a major newspaper included pictorial references to the Pope.

"It is especially insulting to the Catholic Community and shows a great lack of respect for all Christians," Senator Joyce said.

This really is the lowest form of entertainment and viewers have nothing to gain from tuning in.

"If this is the standard of programming we can expect then I suggest we should be looking at our television licensing agreements and where we're directing our funding

***

This week in Canberra it was Senate Estimates time again. Here Joyce had his first chance to grill SBS. Programs up for discussion included (surprise, surprise) QUEER AS FOLK and the documentary Lost Worlds: The Real Family of Jesus. The latter, a program that prompted Joyce to say:

"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."

Full marks to the Shaun Brown and Julie Eisenburg from SBS for defending the station so well in the face of questioning from this little prick.

A word to Barnaby. If you intend to fill Brian Harradine's boots then you had better do some more research before opening your mouth. Mr Brown and Ms Eisenberg are correct. SBS screened the 1962 Stanley Kubrick film, not the 1997 R18+ rated Adrian Lyne version.

Senator JOYCE—In May you had Lolita on. Lolita is rated R, if you got it from a video store. How did you manage to get that on?

Mr Brown—It was not rated R for—

Ms Eisenberg—Was that the Stanley Kubrick version?

Mr Brown—The Stanley Kubrick 1960s film

Remember, if Howard wants to get important legislation through the Senate, then he needs this mans vote . So if Joyce wants to go after SBS, then the Government may just give him what he wants.

***

ENVIRONMENT, COMMUNICATIONS, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND THE ARTS LEGISLATION COMMITTEE: Special Broadcasting Service: Discussion

Commitree Name: ENVIRONMENT, COMMUNICATIONS, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND THE ARTS LEGISLATION COMMITTEE
Date: 31 October, 2005
Database: Estimates Comm.
Proof: Yes
Source: Senate
Page: 89

Mr Shaun Brown Acting Managing Director
Ms Julie Eisenburg, Head of Policy
Senator Barnaby Joyce

CHAIR—We are waiting for Senator Conroy. In the meantime, perhaps I might ask you about how successful your cricket coverage this year was and what kind of audiences you received.

Mr Brown—It was very successful. It was one of those test series where the action went right to the final day.

CHAIR—It was, yes.

Mr Brown—On the final day we achieved a 21 per cent share, which is an all-time record for SBS, between six and midnight. That is a measure of that success. More than that, it introduced a lot of new viewers to SBS, which was part of our reason for securing that property.

CHAIR—Have you found that it has flowed on? Are you having a bigger audience share now post the series than you did before?

Mr Brown—Yes, we are experiencing what is called a halo effect. Our average audience up till the end of October stands at 6.3 per cent across the year. That is compared to 5.1 per cent last year. So it has had a marked effect. The underlying schedule has been performing more strongly as well.

CHAIR—What about your second channel? Can you tell us how that has been proceeding and how successful it has been?

Mr Brown—Our second channel is exclusively in languages other than English. In essence, it is a rotation of World Watch content with some updates as well. We do not track the ratings on it.

CHAIR—You do not?

Mr Brown—No. I would be surprised if it were pulling big numbers. I am sure it is not in fact. It is more of a service to a smaller group of viewers who cannot see World Watch in a timely fashion and therefore can access it at another time of the day.

CHAIR—Are you getting positive feedback on that?

Mr Brown—Yes. I think it is well received. Obviously, we wish more people had taken advantage of digital technology. But if we continue to get lift-off of that technology then I think it will be a significant service.

CHAIR—The uptake of digital is interesting. In many other parts of the world there is multichannelling and interactivity. Do you think that would assist here? You do have multichannelling yourself, of course.

Mr Brown—I think multichannelling is the key. It provides tangible additional services that create demand. I think unless one has that demand then digital is in danger of being a sort of fringe activity rather than a central one.

CHAIR—It is not so much the picture but the other things, I think, that will attract people to digital.

Mr Brown—I think it is all about content.

CHAIR—The interactivity and the multichannelling, I think.

Mr Brown—The international experience is that interactivity is yet to prove a significant driver, but it is an important part of the mix.

Senator JOYCE—Going to your interpretation of the Office of Film and Literature Classification, how do you operate within that code?

Ms Eisenberg—Under the SBS Act, the SBS board is required to develop programming policies. Those programming policies appear in our codes of practice, and the current SBS codes of practice include a reference to the OFLC principles as a guideline. But obviously in the television context and in the SBS context they are interpreted in a way that is appropriate to that context.

Senator JOYCE—Would there be anything that is specifically to be interpreted by someone watching SBS that would be interpreted differently to someone watching Channel 9 or Channel 7?

Mr Brown—Inasmuch as the content that is produced at all?

Senator JOYCE—Inasmuch as the content.

Mr Brown—Our content does operate under a different set of codes than the commercial free to airs.

Senator JOYCE—Why would that be? Are people intrinsically different who watch your television station? Is there something that personifies them as being peculiar or different?

Mr Brown—No, to the contrary, there is nothing peculiar about the SBS audience. No, I think it is the way it has been set up in legislative terms—that we are responsible for setting codes and ACMA is responsible for finally overseeing them. I believe with the commercial broadcasters it is a different approach.

Senator JOYCE—It seems, though, that there is obviously a disparity between how you see the Office of Film and Literature Classification and how Channel 9, Channel 7 and Channel 10 would?

Ms Eisenberg—It is probably easier to respond to a specific example. That would be helpful.

Senator JOYCE—In May you had Lolita on. Lolita is rated R, if you got it from a video store. How did you manage to get that on?

Mr Brown—It was not rated R for—

Ms Eisenberg—Was that the Stanley Kubrick version?

Mr Brown—The Stanley Kubrick 1960s film.

Ms Eisenberg—I think we would need to take that on notice. There was another version of it which was made a number of years later which had a different rating. R rated content is not permitted on SBS under our codes of practice.

Senator JOYCE—Do you think there is somehow more latitude in SBS? It just seems peculiar. There seems to be a range of examples of things that make it onto SBS—and, being a father of four kids, yes, I know we should put them into bed early at night—that would not make it onto other television stations.

Mr Brown—All of our codes are subject to a formal complaints procedure. From time to time we do get a complaint about classification. In the event of the outcome of that complaint not satisfying the complainant, it can be appealed to the independent authority, which was the ABA and now ACMA. I think I am right in saying that in recent years we have not had any upholds in that area.

Ms Eisenberg—The only one that I am aware of a number of years ago was an issue relating to whether a program—it was a repeat of the Movie Show—should have been rated G or PG. That was one finding where it was found that if should have been classified PG, but it was a borderline breach.

Senator JOYCE—Do you change for different states or does it all come out as a block? Do you have a different timeslot now for Queensland or is it on the same timeslot?

Mr Brown—We have a national signal, but it is shifted so that it is on the same time in each state.

Senator JOYCE—So 10 pm in New South Wales is—

Mr Brown—Would be 10 pm in Queensland.

Senator JOYCE—Without making any assertions about it—I will just read this anyway—on Queer as Folk, which is on at 10 pm:

In tonight’s episode, there is a hot new stud at Babylon and Brian immediately targets him but is amazed when the guy rejects his advances and he won’t accept the fact he’s been given the brush-off because that would mean facing his advancing gay mortality. Michael and Ben are proud of how Hunter is handling the backlash at school, but when Ben goes to school to attend Hunter’s debate, he discovers what has really been going on for Hunter. Emmett is a success at Channel 5 but Brian’s claim that he’s just another sexless fag for ratings leaves Emmett with second thoughts about his TV role. Since having plastic surgery, Ted now looks like a hot stud. His extreme makeover has given him confidence and when a lover from his past passes by, Ted takes the opportunity to pay him back.

Does that sound like the sort of thing that my children and someone else’s children should have access to?

Mr Brown—It is shown at 10 o’clock at night, which I think would be commonly regarded as an adult viewing time. It is preceded by warnings and it is officially classified MA so that it can be shown. It is a program that would be shown in other countries around the world. There is a British version of Queer as Folk.

Senator JOYCE—But is that how we rate things now—that if it is shown in other countries around the world then it is acceptable?

Mr Brown—No. I really only mention that to say that it is not exceptional as being shown here in Australia. It does beg the question of course whether or not Australia should suppress content that is shown elsewhere around the world.

Senator JOYCE—I do not care whether it is two blokes or a bloke and a girl. Either way you put it, it is a dynamic that implies explicitness, even in just how you advertise it.

Mr Brown—The explicitness will be reflected in its classification. I think if you watched it you might form a view that the classification is not inappropriate, not for 10 o’clock at night.

Senator JOYCE—Let us go to something else. Let us talk about things that might be determined by some people to be offensive. Let us go to what is on on Sunday night. This is what is said about Lost Worlds: The Real Family of Jesus:

In part one, genealogist Tony Burroughs deals with the common misconception that Jesus was the single child of a nuclear family.

That is news to me. It goes on:

Evidence from the Gospels, history and archaeology as well as the interpretations of religious experts—

I would love to meet them—

reveal that not only did Mary have other children, but that Joseph had a previous marriage that produced children. Interviews with scholars reveal that Jesus had in fact two half-brothers, James and Joseph, two half-sisters, Salome and Miriam, and two full brothers, Simon and Judas. Other family members are revealed including Jesus’ Uncle Clophas and Mary’s cousin Elisabeth, who was the mother of John the Baptist—another relation and a key spiritual figure in the development of Jesus.

Do you think there are people in the community who might find that offensive?

Mr Brown—It is possible that some people may not be prepared to have an analytical approach to their religious belief.

Senator JOYCE—It is not a matter of being analytical. Do you think people in the community would find that highly offensive?

Mr Brown—My answer stands. I think some people may find it offensive.

Senator JOYCE—I would say some people would find it highly offensive. If you put that on about the Prophet Mohammed, you would be probably end up with bomb threats, wouldn’t you? Would you do the same thing about the Prophet Mohammed?

Mr Brown—I cannot answer that. That is a documentary that we have acquired from overseas. If similar material was available dealing with other faiths, yes, we may well carry it. That is a 7.30 evening slot. I do not think there is a classification issue there. You are suggesting there is a sensitivity to religious beliefs?

Senator JOYCE—I am saying that it would be deemed to be highly insulting to some people. That is what I am saying. I am not asserting that. I am saying that it is highly insulting to a range of people and that it shows absolutely no belief by you that other people would find it highly insulting and that you have actually targeted what is the most fundamental, deepest philosophical belief of a whole range of people in our community without any tempering of it by yourself. Do you think that it is a fair thing for the public money of the taxpayers of Australia to go to that sort of program?

Mr Brown—I do not agree with your premise that that is not a legitimate area for scrutiny by a public broadcaster. I think religious beliefs are something that should be scrutinised and discussed and analysed and debated. Certainly for a multicultural broadcaster that services a number of different religious beliefs, it does not seem to me inappropriate. In this day and age where we are talking about the Da Vinci Code, the Holy Grail, the debate about the Christian faith is wide ranging. I do not think people would ordinarily be offended by the fact that it is being considered and discussed.

Senator JOYCE—But it is using what a lot of people would deem to be the closest most focal point of their lives and basically rubbishing it. What is the factual content of this? This is all new information. Would you stand by this? Do you think this is a factually precise document? You have done the research into it and it has passed your imprimatur as being a factually worthwhile thing to put on television.

Mr Brown—I would have to take that on notice. I have not seen the program. I am reliant on the description you are giving me.

Senator JOYCE—You will get to see it on Sunday night. What is put to me as a representative of the people of Queensland is that this sort of thing prompts them to ask why we bother sponsoring SBS. They give it so much latitude in so many areas, but then it always manages to go that step that just takes it from questioning to insulting.

Mr Brown—I think before one forms that judgment one should see the program.

Senator JOYCE—I am reading what it says. It is on your web site. It is a statement. It makes a statement. It deals with a ‘common misconception that Jesus was the single child of a nuclear family’. That is a statement. It does not say ‘We question’; it says it deals with the ‘common misconception that Jesus was the single child of a nuclear family’. It also states:

Evidence from the Gospels, history and archaeology as well as the interpretations of religious experts reveal ...

It does not question, it does not say it needs to be discussed or that there is an area of doubt. It says ‘reveal that not only did Mary have other children, but that Joseph’ must have been married before and have had children from that marriage. That is interesting. I have grabbed my bible— I cannot find anywhere Joseph’s previous marriage. So where did it come from? It is on your program. It is taxpayers’ money that is going to sponsor this trash.

Mr Brown—As I said, I have not seen the program. I am quite happy to take on notice the consideration of whether that particular listing that you have taken from the web accurately reflects the program.

Senator JOYCE—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.

Mr Brown—I think, with respect, the time to call it garbage is after you have seen it.

Senator JOYCE—I do not have to. This is yours. This is off your web site. This is what it says is going to be on. It does not talk about questioning. It makes statements. It makes statements so my nine-year-old daughter, who can read quite well, can read that and has now come forward with a thing that says, ‘Dad, apparently Joseph was married before and Jesus was not part of a nuclear family and that Mary had other children.’ Who are these half brothers?

Mr Brown—I do not know, because I have not seen the program.

Senator JOYCE—Read your web site, because it is there. We have Queer as Folk on tonight, and that says what it is, and then there is this. I cannot see the reason why we bother sending any money your way. Those are my questions.

******

Calvista have just had the DVD of WHO FUCKED ROCCO? banned. Rocco Siffredi is obviously not the most popular man at the Classification Board as back in August they also gave RC ratings to ROCCO: TOP OF THE WORLD and ROCCO RAVISHES IBIZA 2. 

******

New Zealand is having second thoughts about recognising Australian games classifications. Since 1994 all games up to the M rating have not been required to be checked by the NZ OFLC. 

Games rated in Australia 'too violent' NZ Herald 22.10.05

Australian censors are letting computer games into New Zealand which are so violent they would be restricted under local laws.

New Zealand Chief Censor Bill Hastings says a check on eight violent games approved for unrestricted sale in Australia, and therefore also in New Zealand, resulted in six being restricted to older age groups under New Zealand law.

Only two were allowed to stay unrestricted here.

Australian censorship ratings have applied in New Zealand since 1994. Local censors only reclassify games restricted in Australia.

But the check on the eight unrestricted games showed New Zealand law on violence is much closer to the law in Germany than to Australia.

German censors restricted all eight games to at least 12-year-olds and over. On the other hand, New Zealand was slightly more liberal on a game with sexual content, Leisure Suit Harry. It was rated R20 in Australia, R18 in Germany and only R16 here.

Mr Hastings plans a larger survey of all games given M ratings in Australia, allowing them to be sold with no legal restriction but not recommended for children under 15.

"I want to do a much more comprehensive study on how identical titles are rated in Australia, New Zealand and some benchmark countries such as the UK or Germany, to see whether we should keep Australia rating our unrestricted games."

The eight violent games and Leisure Suit Harry were referred to him by Internal Affairs Department inspectors, so it was possible they were unusual.

If there were only a dozen of them it probably was not a big worry, but if there were more, he would consider recommending a law change to require all games rated M in Australia to be reclassified.

***

A few comments on the above article.

"Australian censors are letting computer games into New Zealand which are so violent they would be restricted under local laws."

It's not the Australian OFLC letting the games in, it's New Zealand! If you try to save money by outsourcing classification decisions then you are obviously going to sometimes get cases where they do not agree.

"On the other hand, New Zealand was slightly more liberal on a game with sexual content, Leisure Suit Harry. It was rated R20 in Australia, R18 in Germany and only R16 here."

Since when did Australia have an R20 rating? The top games rating is MA15+. If by LEISURE SUIT HARRY, the author really means LEISURE SUIT LARRY: MAGMA CUM LAUDE, then it is actually banned in Australia in September 2004. It was passed R16 (Contains Offensive Language and Sexual Themes) by the NZ OFLC in February 2005.

The fact is that New Zealand has an R18+ rating for games, whilst Australia does not. This is the reason why unmodified versions of games such as BMX XXX, GRAND THEFT AUTO 3, and GRAND THEFT AUTO: VICE CITY can be purchased there, but not here.

******

Siren Visual Entertainment has just had the DVD of HYPER STREET RACING TYPE B rated M (Moderate Themes, Moderate Coarse Language). Assuming it would be exempt from classification, Siren intended to release it on October 3rd. That was until the Michael Atkinson stepped in and wrote to the OFLC.

(ARCHIVED) DVD glorifies drivers who flirt with death. Adelaide Advertiser 24.09.05

After viewing it, RAA traffic and safety manager Chris Thomson said the DVD was "totally contrary" to what was being done to try to reduce the road toll, particularly among young males. He listed excessive speed, dangerous overtaking manoeuvres, tailgating, formation driving and the use of breakdown lanes to overtake, along with very narrow safety margins left while doing burnouts, drifting and wheelies.

"This sort of thing comes along and basically destroys overnight all of the gains that have been made in that area in recent years," Mr Thomson said.

"It just makes a mockery of everyone trying to educate about responsible driving behaviour and sets a bad precedent.

The DVD's licensee, however, has defended the decision to release the movie in Australia.

Siren Visual Entertainment spokesman Eric Cherry said turning a blind eye to this type of behaviour "isn't the right thing to do".

"It represents a community of people that are out there," he said. "We are catering to that audience."

Mr Cherry said the DVD avoided classification because it was a "documentary". The State Government, however, said the film has not yet been classified.

"The Office of Film and Literature Classifications advises that Hyper Street Racing Type B has not yet been submitted for classification - despite websites promoting its release date in less than two weeks," Attorney-General Michael Atkinson said.

"Anyone who sells, or even advertises, an unclassified DVD in SA faces a fine of up to $5000.

Street racing movie reckless, says TAC. Melbourne Herald Sun 02.10.05

The censorship ministers are due to meet this coming Friday. The Victorian Attorney General intends to bring up the subject of an R18+ rating for games. In the past month we have seen the Classification Board ban both POSTAL 2 and 50 CENT: BULLETPROOF. 

Vic push for R-rated video games. ABC News 02.11.05

The Victorian Government will push for national laws to allow Australians to buy and play R-rated video games.

Video games deemed to be higher than a MA 15-plus rating are currently refused classification in Australia.

Victorian Attorney-General Rob Hulls says it is an anomaly that adults can watch R-rated films, but cannot play R-rated video games.

He says he will raise the matter at a meeting of censorship ministers on Friday.

***

The Interactive Entertainment Association of Australia (IEAA) have just released a study titled Gameplay Australia 2005. The research collected information about 2009 households and 3708 individuals, and is described as: 

"An independent study on the thoughts and habits of Australians in relation to computer and video games.:

The study found that 70% of games are classified G or G(8+), 21% M, and only 9% MA15+. With an R18+ rating back on the agenda, the study found that 88% of Australians supported the idea.

Level 4. Issues

Computer and video games are a family medium: while 42% of game households include children, only 14% of non-game households have children.

Family Matters

66% of parents who play computer or video games play at least once a month with their children.

61% of Australian parents monitor their children’s game play “a lot”, another 26% monitor it “a little.”

76% of Australian parents set rules about the types of games their children can play.

71% of game purchases or hires are made by a parent or other adult in Australian households.

87% of parents are present or have given permission when games are purchased by their children.

Violence

Parents rank violence in computer and video games second behind violence in TV news.

The types of violence most concerning for parents are:

Graphic/Realistic Violence 61%
Sexualised Violence 58%
Unpunished Violence 19%
Punished Violence 7%
Cartoon Violence 7%
Violence with Moral Lesson 6%
Not concerned about Violence 2%
Unsure 3%

Classification

68% of Australian parents say classification information is “very important” when they hire or purchase a game.

27% of Australians know that Australia has no R(18+) classification for computer and video games.

88% of Australians, regardless of whether they play or have a game device say Australia should have an R(18+) classification for computer and video games.

Yes 88%
No 10%
Unsure 2%

Top reasons for supporting an R(18+) classification for computer and video games are to…

47% Deal with high-level violence.
45% Protect children.
18% Make classification easier to understand.

***

The IEAA have for a long time been campaigning for an R18+ rating. Here is their media release which was made at the time of MANHUNT ban.

Interactive Entertainment Association of Australia (IEAA)

IEAA calls on Government to implement R Classification for Computer and Video Games 

1st October 2004 

With the announcement of yet another ‘Refused Classification’ (RC) video game in Australia on 29th September by the Office of Film & Literature Classification (OFLC), the IEAA are calling on the Government to immediately commence the process to introduce an R18+ restricted classification for computer and video games. 

Australia is the only industrialised western economy without an R classification for computer and video games which allows adults aged 18 and over to consume ‘entertainment software’ of their choice! “More than 70% of video game players are aged over 18 years, yet, unlike many other countries, Australia does not have an R18+ games classification,” said Beverly Jenkin, CEO of IEAA. “On the other hand films and publications can be rated R or X for ‘high impact’, but computer and video games described as such are banned therefore are unavailable for sale, hire or display. In the global market in which we operate this is a farce!” 

The IEAA are seeking a common set of classification markings across all media. Continuity of classification across all media is in the public interest. The IEAA see no compelling reason for the interactive entertainment industry to be excluded from the R classification. 

“There is a perception that computer and video games are only for children,” continued Jenkin. “But more than 70% of players are older than 18, and 20% are more than 39 years old. We believe that adult audiences should have a right to adult material just as for films and publications. It is in the interest of our industry to ensure that the proper classification occurs so that our adult consumers can make educated choices for themselves. In any case 75% of computer and video games are classified by OFLC with a G or PG rating.”

 “Whilst the protection of children is also important, adults’ civil rights should not be eroded. Adults play computer games and should have the choice to play games for adults only. At the end of the day, parents have the responsibility to ensure that children are appropriately supervised in all matters and this includes access to appropriate video games.” 

The commonly expressed concern that adult video games may become available to under-18s in the home could be equally applied to videos, DVDs, alcohol, cigarettes and the like. Indeed, recently the Prime Minister, when talking about addressing children’s obesity, stated that it is “parents who determine and set the eating habits of their children”. The IEAA believes this applies equally with respect to access to appropriate computer and video game content etc in the home.” 

For any media enquiries, please contact: Beverly Jenkin 03 9320 2655 

Interactive Entertainment Association of Australia 
ABN 40 101 586 958 
472 William Street, West Melbourne, Victoria 3003 Australia 
T: +61 3 9320 2666 
F: +61 3 9320 2667 
E: info@ieaa.com.au 

About the IEAA 

IEAA is the Australian not-for-profit trade association dedicated to serving the business and public affairs needs of companies that are responsible for sales, marketing, distribution and development of computer and video games software, hardware and accessories. 

IEAA addresses the needs of the Interactive Entertainment industry in matters such as the protection of intellectual property (anti-piracy), the continued support of classification legislation, the development of rapidly evolving broadband distribution networks for interactive software and consumer/product research. 

IEAA founding members are the leading organisations in the Australian interactive entertainment industry and include: Activision, Atari Australia, Eidos Interactive, Electronic Arts, Microsoft, Mindscape, Nintendo Australia, QV Software, Red Ant, Sony Computer Entertainment, Take 2 Interactive, THQ, Ubi Soft and Vivendi Universal Games.

******

Some interesting debate from the second reading of the NSW Defamation Bill.

NSW Legislative Council Hansard 
Extract from Transcript of Hansard 18/10/2005 (Article No.47)
DEFAMATION BILL Page: 18681
Second Reading

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [5.44 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the Defamation Bill, which repeals and replaces the Defamation Act 1974 and implements the uniform model defamation provisions endorsed by the State and Territory Ministers and the Standing Committee of Attorneys General. I am pleased that the bill has finally been produced after many years of discussion in seeking to have uniform legislation. Unfortunately, my observation is that this bill reflects, in the main, the New South Wales legislation. It is as if New South Wales has not made any concessions in the negotiations, so each change affects the other States; the other States will now come into line with New South Wales legislation. My concern is that there is still room for some improvement in the New South Wales law which would now apply to this Defamation Bill. I hope that the Government, through the annual meetings of the Commonwealth Attorney-General and the State Attorneys General, will review this bill to see whether areas in this new uniform legislation need to be improved and amended if necessary.

In other words, I do not think we should consider that this Defamation Bill is set in cement, or that it cannot be changed in the future if changes are warranted, if there are weaknesses or areas in which it can be improved. I do not regard myself as an expert on defamation, except that I have been the victim of the New South Wales defamation law. I have been sued for defamation on four occasions. On the first occasion I was taken before the Broadcasting Tribunal by the Gay Solidarity organisation when I was broadcasting on 2GB. I spent a great deal of time with barristers discussing the New South Wales defamation law. One case involved being sued by the Chief Censor for criticism of her actions in regard to the Hail Mary film.

Another case involved a former Labor member of this Parliament, George Petersen, who objected to a comment I made on the ABC. I did not refer to him by name but he took offence. On the third occasion I was sued by a person who claimed to be a recognised homosexual minister, but he was not recognised as such. The fourth case involved a leading peddler of pornography in Sydney who took his case to the Australian Capital Territory. All those cases were settled so none of them actually proceeded before the court. In each case the legal advice I received was along these lines: "It's almost impossible to win a defamation case. You should authorise us to do all we can to arrange a settlement. We don't believe you have made any errors in what you have said. You are not guilty of anything, but the way the defamation law works there is always a chance you will be found guilty and that it could cost you tens of thousands of dollars because until this bill came in there was no limit on what could be awarded against you."

I remember that each time the lawyers would say something along the lines of, "You know you'll probably lose your house if you proceed." In other words, it would cost me hundreds of thousands of dollars. When one is making fair comment on social and moral issues it is frustrating suddenly to find the defamation law being used to silence and harass. Under the defamation law, once legal action commences, one receives legal advice that one cannot comment further on the particular matter. So each action becomes a form of censorship. In the chief censor case I sent out a request for prayer. It got into Janet Strickland's hands, and she then issued a second action against me for aggravation of defamation. I aggravated her by making it public that I was being sued. In some way one is supposed to be silent and suffer silently.

The other thing that always troubled me was that lawyers would say, "The only thing they have to prove in court is that you have said something that brings that person into public contempt or odium"—they would use those kinds of words—"and that can be reasonably upheld." This bill talks about establishing truth alone as a defence. In each of my cases that is all I had, truth, but they said truth was not enough under New South Wales defamation laws. According to the Attorney General's briefing note, the bill "establishes truth alone as a defence—the existing and unique position in the NSW law is 'truth plus public interest'". There must be some variation in the way defamation lawyers interpret the previous law, and that would now apply to this bill. I do not think that has clarified the issue as to whether one can be sued for defamation if one is telling the truth.

I think it is an advantage to have uniform legislation in Australia. In one of those cases against me, the person who was responsible for producing pornography took offence when I used the phrase that people who produced pornography were similar to cockroaches. I was talking about cockroaches loving darkness, and I said that pornography was in that category. That person decided to proceed through the Australian Capital Territory courts, and I was told it is a lot easier to win a case in the ACT than in New South Wales. Apparently one can pick the place where one joins an action.

The Hon. Henry Tsang: How did you go in that case?

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: I had to settle and spend a lot of money, except in only one case, when I was dealing with the man who was claiming to be a recognised homosexual minister. The solicitor rang me and told me the case was now ended. I said, "They are not going to proceed with the action?" He said, "No, he has just passed away." That was a relief. The bill is modelled to a large extent on the existing law in New South Wales, with some modifications and improvements. It still has a fair way to go.

The main legislative changes make the publication, rather than the imputation arising from it, the cause of action. The Act now has a statement of the object and principles that apply under the existing New South Wales law. Each of the changes is already part of our existing law. The bill abolishes the distinction between slander and libel. Again this is part of our existing law. The bill also provides a procedure for the resolution of civil disputes without litigation. Again, this is within our existing law. It also retains the limitation period of one year subject to an extension, in limited circumstances, for a period of three years. Again, this is already contained in New South Wales law.

Probably one of the major changes is in regard to actions that can be taken by corporations. The bill precludes corporations, other than small businesses and those operating on a not-for-profit basis, from suing for defamation, like current New South Wales law. A small business is defined as a business that employs fewer than 10 employees. Also, individuals associated with corporations who are personally defamed may continue to sue in their own right. The reference to corporations probably relates to McDonald's, who we know spent millions of dollars in a case in the United Kingdom and probably attempted to do something similar in Australia. A number of groups and individuals are running a campaign against McDonald's as a corporation. They disagree with fast food companies and particularly what they regard as multinational American-based companies. Their campaign is more political and ideological rather than being based on concerns about food.

One of the big improvements in the legislation is that it creates an indexed statutory cap of $250,000 on the amount of damages that may be awarded for non-economic loss. Prior to that cap it was very much open-ended as to how much it would cost someone who lost the case. Damages for economic loss will not be limited. This will bring the tort of defamation into closer alignment with the recent tort law reforms. The legislation continues to provide for costs penalties for conduct such as the unreasonable failure to make or accept settlement offers. This is the existing position under New South Wales law. In a letter I received from FreeTV, the Combined Media Defamation Reform Group indicated support for the legislation and support for the provision that corporations now cannot use the defamation laws. The letter, dated 4 October 2005, states:

While we oppose the right of all corporations to sue for defamation we appreciate the concerns raised in relation to small business and not for capital gain business.

The letter goes on to say:

… under the current proposal, all corporations retain the right to bring an action for criminal libel, injurious or malicious falsehood, slander of title and breach of confidence, or to seek relief under s52 of the Trade Practices Act.

So, corporations still have those avenues open to them. I imagine companies like McDonald's and others, if they wish to take action, will have those opportunities open to them. The Christian Democratic Party supports the bill, but it should be kept under review and it still needs improvement.

The Hon. PETER BREEN [5.56 p.m.]: I share some of Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile's concerns about the defamation law in New South Wales. Although personally I have not been sued for defamation—

The Hon. Charlie Lynn: Yet.

The Hon. PETER BREEN: Yet.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: I have never sued anybody even though I have been defamed regularly.

The Hon. PETER BREEN: Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile makes the point that although he has been sued, he has not sued anyone. Similarly, I have never sued anyone for defamation, although I was sorely tempted during the Independent Commission Against Corruption inquiry. The Australian described me as the corrupt Peter Breen, head of the Unity party. I duly made a protest to the Australian and said, "This was highly defamatory. It damns my reputation and causes me great hurt. I seek an apology." A week after I wrote the letter the Australian published an apology, which said that on such and such a day the Australian "published an article in which Mr Breen was described as the corrupt Mr Breen, leader of the Unity party. The Australian wishes to inform readers that Mr Breen is not the head of the Unity party." That was the apology. That left outstanding the question whether I was corrupt.

I took advice about that and was informed of two things. The first was that the apology itself aggravated the defamation and in the opinion of the person giving the advice that meant that I could substantially increase my damages if I were successful. The other aspect of the advice was that because I was a politician, and because politicians were out in the public arena and supposed to be able to withstand those types of criticisms more than people in private enterprise—

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: You are fair game.

The Hon. PETER BREEN: You are fair game, and I should just cop it on the chin, which I did. I complained to the Press Council, and I found that process quite useful. The Press Council eventually called the newspaper to account and there was some resolution. I was reluctant to sue, if only for the experience of John Marsden, who sued Channel 7 in quite a famous case involving an imputation on two programs broadcast by Channel 7 as to whether he had had underage sex. In that case Mr Marsden was successful in respect of both imputations and got $250,000 for each imputation, but his legal bill was about $7.2 million. The fact that someone has to expend that kind of money on lawyers in order to get an award for damages points to the inadequacy of this State's defamation laws.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: He did get costs too.

The Hon. PETER BREEN: He was extremely lucky to get costs: if the award had been less than $250,000 for each imputation he would not have been awarded costs. Had he not been awarded costs, he would have been bankrupted. As it is, he is suffering terminal cancer, and he believes that the action was responsible for, or precipitated, his medical condition. There are really no winners in defamation law. I agree with Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile that suing for defamation is a foolhardy exercise. I hope that I will never have to do it, as Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile never has. I would like to make an observation about the bill in relation to the defence of truth alone and also in relation to the cap on general damages under clause 34. My initial reaction to the bill was that having uniform defamation laws throughout Australia was a good development. The Federal Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock, has been arguing for it for many years now. Indeed, he threatened to pass a Federal law if the States did not come into line.

The issue of truth was a sticking point for New South Wales because until the bill becomes law, truth alone is not a defence in New South Wales; the defamatory imputation also has to be in the public interest. Amongst the groups that lobbied me on the bill were a group of people from the newspaper industry who said that they were in favour of the new laws. That immediately raised my antenna and I questioned why newspaper proprietors would be so keen for the law to go through. The explanation is that if newspapers can show that material they publish is true, they will avoid any prospect of an action. For example, Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile has been said to have a wall of videos at his house.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: Which is not true.

The Hon. PETER BREEN: Which is not true. But if it were true, and someone published that information in a newspaper, the question that would arise under the present law is: Is it in the public interest to publish that fact? To my mind the public interest test is a good brake on what the newspapers can publish. If it were the case that Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile had R-rated and X-rated videos for research purposes, or for whatever purposes he might want to have them—and given his opposition to the pornography industry over the years and his work in the Christian church—it would not be in the public interest for newspapers to publish that information in a derogatory or defamatory way. But the new law will mean that newspapers would be able to publish such information about a person provided it is true. For example, somebody might be convicted of a sexual offence, even of being a paedophile. That person might have served his sentence and been fully rehabilitated in the community, and then for a malicious purpose a newspaper or other person might publish an article saying that this person is a paedophile or sex offender—without having to overcome the hurdle of the public interest test. In my opinion that is a retrograde step.

Censors seek help. The Australian 18.10.05

The system was largely developed during 1999.

The system is "stretched beyond its original capacity" and requires replacement, according to a tender put out by the agency.

The office is looking for an off-the-shelf system that can be operational by March next year.

The new system will need to provide document management for workflow, rich media and automated web publishing, a contacts management system and an online payment system

About 190,000 classification records will need to be shifted to the new system.

It will need to cope with a maximum of 1100 new classifications monthly.

Ongoing growth of about 30 per cent annually is anticipated.

The next priority will be supporting the tracking of the office's correspondence.

The government agency receives up to 700 letters monthly with an average length of two or three pages.

Recording of correspondence is handled manually.

The office wants to move to electronic capture of the correspondence.

The tender says the agency wants the system to provide an offline database of previous classifications for staff that carry out on-site compliance visits.

***

I believe the current system that is being used is the Business Operations Support System (BOSS) from Fujitsu.

The following is from their website.

Fujitsu gets top rating for OFLC e-system

In a world of saturation media, of megaplex movie theatres, wall-to-wall Internet sites and computer games and the revitalisation of book publishing, there was no rest for the Commonwealth Government's Office of Film and Literature Classification (OFLC).

Amid continuing community concern about the materials available to children and a new regime for classifying Web content, its workload was already on an upwards climb. Meanwhile the sponsors of new movies, books and Web sites were impatient to get their decisions quicker in response to an increasingly competitive media market.

The OFLC asked Fujitsu to analyse its business and recommend an electronic solution to allow it to function more effectively in its changing environment. The result is Business Operations Support System (BOSS), a pervasive e-system which not only revolutionises internal classification workflow but also gives all stakeholders - publishers and film distributors as well as the classifiers and their administrative staff - Internet access to the progress of an individual request. With the status of classifications visible on the Web, clients and the public need less telephone contact with OFLC staff who in turn can be redirected towards what they do best - viewing and classifying material in line with community values.

With Fujitsu's TEAMware workflow and document management software as its central building block, the BOSS e-solution manages the entire "life cycle" of a classification - from the receipt and acknowledgment of requests, via the allocation of work and documentation of decisions, to the final issue of a classification certificate. BOSS is not just about passive record-keeping, but represents true e-Business infrastructure that can, according to established rules configured within TEAMware, automatically queue priority work and escalate overdue files, notifying relevant people by e-mail of approaching deadlines. It even makes use of electronic signatures to allow OFLC employees to take responsibility for work they have completed.

These same BOSS documents, excluding related confidential material such as OFLC internal memos, can be viewed from anywhere in the world by an OFLC client who has made a classification request, using secure password-controlled access from the Net.

And for the general public, another searchable sub-set of the BOSS information is published live on the Web so that parents can check the classification status of a new computer game or video stores validate the rating of an adult movie accurately and immediately. This low-cost facility supersedes an earlier manual process in which the OFLC would publish recent classification decisions on its Web site in weekly batches.

The Fujitsu solution employed an existing hardware platform, and runs on a generic Windows NT server. And the use of a Web browser interface eliminated overnight the problems of having different generations of PCs and Macintosh computers running within the agency, with all information equally visible to all OFLC users.

***

This all brings us nicely to the junk entries that are posted in the OFLC database from time to time. They are entered with the title BOSS (Business Operations Support System) under different categories. Presumably these are used to test the system. The following entry was added on Wednesday, no doubt by the office joker at the OFLC.

BOSS Test CA Issue 2002 Film (35 mm)
Classification: X 18+ (Restricted to 18 and over.)
Consumer Advice: Strong masturbation scenes, Strong fanny farts
Category: Film - Pub Exh
Version: ORIGINAL
Duration: 99 minute(s)
Date of Classification: 19-Oct-05
Author: BLAH
Publisher: BLAH
Production Company: BLAH
Country of Origin: AUSTRALIA
Applicant: BOSS SYSTEM APPLICANT -VIPUL
File Number: T05/5871
Classification Number: 4150716F

As previously mentioned on this site, the consumer warnings are getting very specific. So although it's a joke, a warning of 
'Strong masturbation scenes, Strong fanny farts' may not be far from the truth.

******

A censored version of the previously banned DVD of DP ME... BABY! has now been passed. All X18+ rated titles only carry a consumer warning of 'Explicit Sex'. Maybe the joker at the OFLC has hit on something. This could be one ratings category where more detailed consumer warnings would be most welcomed. Wouldn't X18+ (Double Penetration, Facial Cum Shot, Girl on Girl) let the porn buying public know exactly what they are going to get?

******

The new magazine EXPLODE has received some great publicity from the usual groups.

Sex tips for teens. Herald-Sun 16.10.05

A RACY new magazine that gives boys sex tips and encourages them to drink beer has been criticised by parent and family groups.

But Australian Family Association spokesman Bill Muehlenberg accused the publishers of exploiting children.

"They should be ashamed of themselves," he said.

Mr Muehlenberg said the magazine should be banned.

"He labelled as "irresponsible" a feature titled "Life's great firsts" that instructs readers to learn to love beer or risk being a social outcast.

(ARCHIVED) What teenage boys really need to know. Crikey.com 17.10.05

Family groups are outraged at the new lads mag for pre-pubescent kids, Pacific Magazines' titivatingly titled Explode, a monthly magazine aiming to capture the 12 to 17-year-old teen boy market.

While the Australian Family Association and the Victorian Parents Council are calling for it to be banned for its s*x tips and references to beer, editor Stephen Farrelly told Crikey today: "We want to be controversial and rebellious... Of course there are some uptight parent groups who don't get it, that's the point, boys get it."

The game POSTAL 2: SHARE THE PAIN has just been banned in Australia. The original POSTAL was one of the first games to be rated RC by the Classification Board.

******

The final report into BIG BROTHER 2005 has now been released by the ACMA.

******

Adult Media Group have just had the hardcore title DESPERATE DESIRES banned.

This is joined by the UK magazine ADULT SPY BIG & BUSTY Vol 1. No 2 (2005) which was submitted by Gordon and Gotch. 

******

The Religious Right are calling for censorship of the internet in Australia. 

Porn filtering back on agenda. The Australian 11.10.05

INTERNET content regulation has dropped off the radar for the moment in a world now more concerned with terrorist attacks than pop-up pornography.

But bubbling away in the background there is a growing push across party political lines and the conservative/radical divide for tougher regulation.

It came to the surface over the course of the federal election and tougher filtering, including proxy filtering by ISPs, remains on the agenda for some Liberal and Labor politicians, Christian lobby groups and the Family First Party.

The Fatherhood Foundation and other groups including the Australian Christian Lobby and the Australian Family Association had started a campaign to "mobilise people of goodwill" in favour of ISP-level filtering, Mr Marsh said.

******

Eros Journal Vol.6 No.3 is out now in time for the November (17th-20th) Melbourne Sexpo.

Robbie Swann takes a look at some of the tactics used by the Religious Right in their quest to ban porn. Whilst ex-deputy censor David Haines comments on the MYSTERIOUS SKIN controversy. The Moral Panic section continues The Eros Association's on going documentation of the latest child-molesting priests.

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

******

The full Review Board report has now been released for MYSTERIOUS SKIN.

******

More consumer warning changes. Hoyts Distribution had THE JACKET  rated MA15+ (Strong Violence, Adult Themes) back in June. Last week Sony Pictures Home Entertainment had the DVD re-rated MA15+(Strong Violence, Suicide Themes).

The rating of David Croneberg's new film, A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE has been dropped from R18+ to MA15+ after an appeal by Roadshow Films. The consumer advice has been changed from 'High Level Violence, Sex Scenes' to 'Strong realistic violence, Strong sex scenes'.

Australian Government
Classification Review Board
19 September 2005
MEDIA RELEASE 

Review announced for the film A History of Violence

The Classification Review Board has received an application to review the classification for the film, A History of Violence, directed by David Cronenberg.

A History of Violence was classified R18+ with the consumer advice, “High level violence, Sex scenes” by the Classification Board on 16 August 2005.

The Classification Review Board will meet on Thursday 29 September 2005 to consider the application.

The Classification Review Board’s decision and reasons for its decision will appear on the OFLC website once the review has been finalised.

The Classification Review Board is an independent merits review body. Meeting in camera, it makes a fresh classification decision upon receipt of an application for review. The Classification Review Board decision takes the place of the original decision made by the Classification Board.

Australian Government
Classification Review Board
29 September 2005
MEDIA RELEASE 

A History of Violence classified MA15+ upon review

A 3-member panel of the Classification Review Board has determined, in a majority 2 to 1 decision, that the film, A History of Violence, directed by David Cronenberg, is classified

MA 15+ with the consumer advice, “Strong realistic violence, Strong sex scenes.”

In the Classification Review Board’s opinion, A History of Violence warrants an MA 15+, rather than an R 18+ classification because the impact of the violence is strong rather than high.

“While A History of Violence contains realistic scenes of violence, containing blood splatter and visible wounds, these scenes are brief and infrequent”, said Classification Review Board Deputy Convenor, The Hon Trevor Griffin. “In addition, the film does not condone or glamorize the violent acts.”

MA 15+ is a restricted classification. Films classified MA 15+ are not suitable for persons under 15 years of age. Persons aged under 15 years must be accompanied by a parent or adult guardian in order to gain entry to the film.

The Classification Review Board convened today in response to an application from the distributor, Roadshow Film Distributors Pty Ltd, to review the R 18+ classification of A History of Violence made by the Classification Board on 16 August 2005.

In reviewing the classification, the Classification Review Board worked within the framework of the National Classification Scheme, applying the provisions of the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995, the National Classification Code and the Guidelines for the Classification of Films and Computer Games.

The Classification Review Board is an independent merits review body. Meeting in camera, it makes a fresh classification decision upon receipt of an application for review. This Classification Review Board decision takes the place of the original decision made by the Classification Board.

The Classification Review Board’s reasons for this decision will appear on the OFLC website when finalized.

******

The OFLC have issued a media release in response to an article in the Herald-Sun that claimed unaccompanied children under 15 were being allowed to watch MA15+ films.

(ARCHIVED) Teenager's tale of sex, lies and movie tickets. Melbourne Herald-Sun 30.09.05

CITY cinemas are allowing hordes of underage children to spend their school holidays watching adult films loaded with drugs and sex. Half of the cinemas tested in a Herald Sun probe let an unaccompanied 13-year-old into MA15+ films....

Australian Government
Office of Film and Literature Classification
30 September 2005
MEDIA RELEASE 

MA 15+ films contain strong content that may disturb under 15s

MA 15+ is a restricted classification category, not a recommendation. Films classified MA15+ are not suitable for persons under 15 years of age. They contain strong content. By law, people aged under 15 cannot be admitted to these films at the cinema unless they are accompanied by a parent or adult guardian throughout the film.

These are the messages the Office of Film and Literature Classification wants to reinforce to the film-going public, particularly in the wake of the Sun Herald’s article today that claims under 15s are easily gaining admittance to films classified MA 15+ in cinemas in Melbourne.

“The Classification Board takes the MA 15+ classification category extremely seriously,” Director of the OFLC, Des Clark said. “In a film classified M, the scenes that might feature drug use, violence, profanity, or sex have no more than a moderate impact. Accordingly, M is a recommendation. But there are scenes in MA 15+ films that have a strong impact that might disturb or alarm any person, not just people under 15. That is why MA 15+ carries a restriction. The next step up is R 18+, which is fully restricted to people aged 18 and over for good reason.”

“Parents should take responsibility for what their young children are going to see and reinforce to them that they are not allowed to see these films unaccompanied, not only because it is against the law, but because these films might significantly upset them.”

The OFLC website at www.oflc.gov.au contains an explanation of the difference between MA 15+ and M.

******

Three more Adult titles have been banned.

******

These are joined by two issues of the AUSTRALASIAN SEX PAPER ADULT CONTACT MAGAZINE. No.169 (June-July 2005) and No.170 (July-August 2005) were both banned last Monday.

******

The Sunday Life Magazine of the Sun-Herald last week had a lengthy profile of the Classification Board. It answers some of the most common misconceptions about the board. One of which is that it is a total bludge of a job. Basically they think they earn their salary package of more than $90,000 a year because they have to watch lots of really bad (boring) films.

Senior Classifier Marie-Louise Carroll
"Don't think that you'll be sitting in a cinema all day watching fantastic films"
"There are a lot of-how can I put this politely? - poorly made films. And a lot of work, day in day out, is very mundane"

Des Clark.
"some of the films are so clunky that you sit in there saying, 'What were they thinking"

Poor things! Unfortunately the full article does not appear to be available free on the Fairfax website

(Archived) Censors working overtime. Sydney Sun-Herald 25.09.05

They're accused of being political extremists, exercising personal taste and even bludging. Barry Divola meets the people hand-picked to classify our films, computer games and porn magazines.