On Tuesday Labor released their policy on Internet Censorship.

******

Calvista have just had the DVD of BELLADONNA: FETISH FANATIC 2 Refused Classification. Spanking and bondage would probably have been the main issues with this title. The first part was banned back in July 2005, but was eventually (twice) censored before being passed.

******

The Australian Communications and Media Authority have released a second report into BIG BROTHER 2005. The first was issued in October 2005. This new report has found further breaches of the TV code.

******

The Australian Communications and Media Authority have found that 2DAY FM breached the code of practice during an interview with Jim Rose, and porn actress Amber Pie.

Australian Government 
Australian Communications and Media Authority
24 March 2006
MR 32/2006

ACMA finds 2DAY FM breached codes of practice by broadcasting inappropriate sexual material during Lowie’s Hot 30 Countdown

The Australian Communications and Media Authority has found that Today FM Sydney Pty Ltd, the licensee of commercial radio service 2DAY Sydney, breached the Commercial Radio Codes of Practice by broadcasting inappropriate sexual material in the Lowie’s Hot 30 Countdown program.

On 17 November 2005, ACMA received a complaint about the program Lowie’s Hot 30 Countdown, broadcast by 2DAY FM on 14 November 2005. The complainant alleged that the program contained inappropriate sexual content, particularly as the program has a significant number of young listeners.

ACMA found that the licensee breached clause 1.5 (a) of the Commercial Radio Codes of Practice (the codes), as the program did not meet contemporary standards of decency having regard to the likely characteristics of the audience of the licensee’s service. It also found the licensee breached clause 1.7 of the codes, as the program was broadcast prior to 9.30 pm and contained an explicit sexual theme as its core component.

To address the compliance issues raised by this breach finding, the licensee has taken action, including:

on 25 January 2006, the Lowie’s Hot Countdown team (the host and presenter) underwent intensive re-training on the requirements of the Commercial Radio Codes of Practice by Austereo’s General Counsel, with specific discussion focussed on this complaint; during these re-training sessions particular attention was paid to discussion of contemporary standards of decency, the anticipated audience and of broadcasting sexually explicit material outside the permitted hours of 9.30 pm and 5.00 am; and a commitment has been received from the 2Day FM Program Director (and communicated to the Hot 30 Team as well as other on-air and off-air staff) that all interviews that have the potential to be of a slightly risqué nature will be pre-recorded. This will enable Austereo to edit content as required to ensure adherence to the codes and to allow it to make an editorial decision not to run the interview (or parts thereof) if it is considered to be in potential breach of the codes. ACMA considers that these actions are currently adequate to address the compliance issues raised by the investigation although ACMA will continue to monitor the licensee’s performance in this regard. A copy of the investigation report is available on the ACMA website

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

***

Australian Government 
Australian Communications and Media Authority
Investigation Report No. 1628

File No: 2005/1230
Licensee Network: Today FM Sydney Pty Ltd 
Station: 2DAY Sydney
Type of Service: Commercial Radio
Name of Program: Lowie’s Hot 30 Countdown
Date/s of Broadcast: 14 November 2005
Relevant Legislation/Code: 1.5(a) and 1.7 of the Commercial Radio Codes of Practice 2004

Investigation conclusion 

The licensee of 2Day, Today FM Sydney Pty Ltd, in relation to the broadcast of Lowie’s Hot 30 Countdown broadcast on 14 November 2005: 

• breached clause 1.5 (a) of the Commercial Radio Codes of Practice, as the program did not meet contemporary standards of decency having regard to the likely characteristics of the audience of the licensee’s service, and 

• breached clause 1.7 of the code, as the program was broadcast prior to 9.30 pm and contained an explicit sexual theme as its core component.

The complaint 

On 17 November 2005, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) received a written complaint about the Lowie’s Hot 30 Countdown program of 14 November 2005, broadcast by Today FM Sydney Pty Ltd (the licensee). 

The complainant alleged that the program contained inappropriate sexual content, particularly as the program has a significant number of young listeners. Not satisfied with the response provided on behalf of the licensee, the complainant forwarded the matter to ACMA for investigation.

The program 

Lowie’s Hot 30 Countdown is broadcast on weekdays between 7.00 pm and 10.00 pm on 2DAY FM in Sydney, and other stations in the Austereo Network. (1) The program format includes a music countdown where listeners vote to determine the evening’s play list, prize giveaways and interviews with musicians and other celebrities. 

(1) FOXFM in Melbourne, B105 FM in Brisbane, SAFM in Adelaide and NXFM in Newcastle 

On 14 November 2005, the program’s guests were Jim Rose and Amber Pie, who were touring Australia as part of the Jim Rose Circus, a show which was described in The Age as follows: 

Back in 1991, the Jim Rose Circus emerged as a modern-day freakshow celebrating ‘lost Americana’, with performers swallowing coat-hangers and so forth. The next phase concentrated on 20th century phobias - chainsaws, lawnmowers, super glue, that type of thing.(2 )

(2) The Age, ‘Arts Review’, 6 November 2005 - http://www.theage.com.au/news
/arts/the-flowering-of-jimrose/ 
2005/11/03/1130823343374.html 

The program’s presenter introduced the guests at approximately 8.05 pm and conducted intermittent discussions with Jim Rose and Amber Pie during the following 42 minutes. 

As part of a competition to win a portable music player, listeners were invited by the program presenter to phone the station with questions for Amber Pie, who was introduced as a porn actress.

Assessment 

The assessment is based on a compact disc recording of the segment provided by the licensee, submissions by the complainant and the licensee, and information from Nielsen Media Research Survey No 8 2005 (conducted 18 September – 26 November 2005). 

ACMA has assessed the complaint under clauses 1.5(a) and 1.7 of the Commercial Radio Codes of Practice 2004 (the code). 

Clause 1.5(a) states: 

All program content must meet contemporary standards of decency, having regard to the likely characteristics of the audience of the licensee’s service. 

Clause 1.7 states: 

Licensees must not broadcast a feature program which has an explicit sexual theme as its core component unless it is broadcast between 9.30 pm and 5.00 am and an appropriate warning is made prior to commencement of the program and at hourly intervals during broadcast of the program.

Complainant’s submission 

The complainant submitted that the program contained references to ‘sexual acts, bisexuality, anal sex, STDs, and discrimination’ which were inappropriate in a timeslot where young people were listening. 

In his faxed letter of complaint to the licensee, dated 15 November 2005, the complainant submitted: 

I feel the content of this program is entirely inappropriate for a 7.00 pm timeslot and was horrified last night at what I heard. My 12 year-old daughter likes to listen to this show for the musical content but I have had to limit her listening and counsel her on matters raised by on-air staff. Last nights program was particularly inappropriate and disturbing as asking your audience (who are largely children) to ring in and ask a female porn actress questions (and promoting the most bizarre question for a prize) was in no way appropriate. Comments like ‘when was the first time you took it in the crap snapper’, ‘any girl at Schoolies wearing a t-shirt that says I am STD free is a liar’ and the reference to the ‘Battle of the Sexes’ where male and female genitalia are tied together for a tug of war in some form of ‘sport’, repeated foul language, bi-sexual references and in general a tidal wave of sexual innuendo, discrimination, gross generalisations and extremely poor taste radio when listened to by young and impressionable ears is in my view a disgrace. 

Licensee’s submission 

The licensee submitted that: 

• both the General Manager and Program Director called the complainant on 18 November 2005 and during the telephone conversation they agreed that the content during the program was ‘fairly intense’ for an 8.00 pm timeslot 

• the program’s host advised listeners twice during the course of the broadcast that it was an ‘adults only’ show that night 

• most of the inappropriate comments were made by Jim Rose and not the program’s host 

• the program’s host and producer did attempt to control the discussion, and 

• the program’s host and producer have both been counselled about their judgement in relation to the guests and the nature of the commentary being broadcast and the program’s entire team have been told that the content and its timing was inappropriate. 

Finding 

The delegate is of the view that the program broadcast on 14 November 2005 did not meet contemporary standards of decency, having regard to the likely characteristics of the audience of the licensee’s service. Accordingly, the licensee has breached clause 1.5(a) of the code. 

The delegate is also of the view that the licensee broadcast a feature program which had an explicit sexual theme as its core component outside the hours of 9.30 pm and 5.00 am. Accordingly, the licensee has breached clause 1.7 of the code. 

Reasons 

Clause 1.5(a) 

There are two elements that must be considered to determine whether the program content is in breach of clause 1.5(a): 

• the likely characteristics of 2DAY’s audience, and 

• whether, having regard to the audience characteristics, the content of the program in question met contemporary standards of decency. 

The likely characteristics of the audience 

Although the licensee did not refer to the likely characteristics of its audience in its submission, a Nielsen Media Research survey of the Sydney radio listening audience conducted from September to November 2005 (3) indicated that 2DAY’s audience had the highest share of the 10 to 17 year old demographic (30.4 per cent) and the second highest share of the 18 to 24 year old demographic (21.5 per cent). 

(3) Nielsen Media Research Survey No. 8 2005, 18 September –26 November 2005 http://www.nielsenmedia.com.au/
en/pdf/mri/11/SydneySurvey8-2005.pdf 

Clause 1.5(a) of the code specifies that it is the characteristics of the audience of the licensee’s service generally which must be considered in this case, as opposed to the characteristics of the audience of a particular program. 

The Nielsen Media Research Survey results indicate that the likely characteristics of 2DAY’s audience would be listeners aged between 10 and 24 years old, in particular the 10 to 17 year old age group. For the purposes of this assessment, it is not necessary to examine characteristics of the audience other than age. 

Whether the program content met contemporary standards of decency, having regard to the characteristics of the audience 

Having reviewed the content of the broadcast, it is clear that the discussion between the program host and the two guests focused on adult themes and contained numerous sexual references (see Attachment A).

The discussion focused on the adult sex industry and in the ensuing conversation there were numerous references to sexual activity. The audience and/or their parents would not have expected to hear material of this type at the hour it was broadcast, and having regard to the nature of the program. 

It was foreseeable that inviting a guest introduced as a ’porn actress’ to discuss her work in an early evening time slot might lead to the broadcast of explicit material. The situation was exacerbated by the offer of an attractive prize (an iPod nano) to the listener who rang in with the ‘dumbest question’ for the ‘porn actress’. 

As such, the graphic and explicit sexual content of the program does not meet contemporary standards of decency, considering in particular, the licensee’s high audience share in the 10 to 17 year old age group. 

Clause 1.7 

Clause 1.7 of the code allows licensees to broadcast a feature program which has an explicit sexual theme as its core component, provided an appropriate warning is made prior to the commencement of the program and at hourly intervals during the broadcast of the program. However, clause 1.7 of the code also stipulates that such a program may only be broadcast between the hours of 9.30 pm and 5.00 am. 

The licensee submitted that the program content was ‘fairly intense’ for an 8.00 pm timeslot and that the program host had twice advised listeners that the show was ‘adults only’. However, the broadcast in question occurred before the permissible 9.30 pm timeslot. 

The licensee also submitted that most of the inappropriate comments were made by the guest, and not the program’s host, and that the program’s host and producer attempted to control the situation. However, whether or not this is the case, the source of the inappropriate comments is not relevant to an assessment of this provision under the code. The code provision relates to the program itself, and whether or not it has an explicit sexual theme as its core component. 

In this instance, the edition of Lowie’s Hot 30 Countdown was broadcast between the hours of 7.00 pm and 10.00 pm. The program material which was the subject of the complaint was broadcast between approximately 8.05 pm and 8.50 pm. 

Did the program have an explicit sexual theme? 

As noted previously, the discussion between the program host and the two guests focuses on adult themes and contained numerous sexual references. It focused on the adult sex industry and in the ensuing conversation there were numerous references to sexual activity (see Attachment A). The segment in question therefore had an explicit sexual theme. 

Was the explicit sexual theme the ‘core component’ of the program? 

The material in question involved discussions of an explicit sexual nature, and it was broadcast before 9.30 pm. However, for a breach finding to be made under clause 1.7 of the code, the explicit sexual theme must also be the “core component” of the program. 

As noted above, the format for Lowie’s Hot 30 Countdown includes a music countdown where listeners vote to determine the evening’s play list, prize giveaways and interviews with musicians and other celebrities. 

During the edition broadcast on 14 November 2005, Jim Rose and Amber Pie were introduced as the guests, and a competition required listeners to pose questions to either Jim Rose or Amber Pie. 

A number of references were made to the fact that the show for that evening was an “adults only show”. A jingle, which had been recorded specifically for the program in question, or a variant of the jingle, was played a number of times throughout the program. 

The interview comprised 42 minutes of Lowie’s Hot 30 Countdown that evening, and its theme was the longest and most prominent component of the program. 

Given the above, it is the opinion of the delegate that the program of 14 November 2005 contained an explicit sexual theme as its core component.

Conclusion 

The program contained strong, extended adult themes which do not meet contemporary standards of decency, having regard to the likely age of a significant proportion of the audience. The licensee has therefore breached clause 1.5(a) of the code. 

The program was broadcast prior to 9.30 pm, and contained an explicit sexual theme as its core component. The licensee has therefore breached clause 1.7 of the code. 

Action taken 

ACMA notes that in response to the breach finding, the licensee has taken the following steps: 

• on 25 January 2006, the Lowie’s Hot 30 Countdown team (the host and presenter) underwent an intensive re-training of the Commercial Radio Codes of Practice by Austereo’s General Counsel, with specific discussion focused on this particular complaint 

• during these re-training sessions particular attention was paid to discussion around contemporary standards of decency, the anticipated audience and of broadcasting sexually explicit material outside the permitted hours of 9.30 pm and 5.00 am 

• codes training is conducted at all Austereo radio stations every six months and all attendees are required to sign a form to confirm their attendance and full understanding of the codes – attendees are also made aware during training that the General Counsel, Austereo Legal Team and General Manager are available at any time to discuss the codes and any programming ideas and plans 

• a commitment has been received from the 2Day FM Program Director (and communicated to the Hot 30 Team) that all interviews that have the potential to be of even a slightly risqué nature will be pre-recorded and this will enable Austereo to edit content as required to ensure adherence to the codes and to allow it to make an editorial decision not to run the interview (or parts thereof) if it is deemed to be in potential breach of the codes. 

ACMA considers these actions address the compliance issues raised by the investigation and will continue to monitor the licensee’s performance in this regard. 

Decision 

I, Vincent Humphries, Acting Executive Manager, Codes Content and Education Branch, being the appropriate delegated officer of the Australian Communications and Media Authority, determine for the above reasons that the licensee of 2DAY, Today FM Sydney Pty Ltd, in relation to the broadcast of Lowie’s Hot 30 Countdown broadcast on 14 November 2005: 

• breached clause 1.5 (a) of the Commercial Radio Codes of Practice, as the program did not meet contemporary standards of decency having regard to the likely characteristics of the audience of the licensee’s service, and 

• breached clause 1.7 of the code, as the program was broadcast prior to 9.30 pm and contained an explicit sexual theme as its core component.

Signed: Vincent Humphries dated this day of February 2006 

Attachment A 

Comments made during the broadcast that are considered unlikely to meet contemporary standards of decency, having regard to the likely characteristics of the audience of the licensee’s service, included the following: 

Discussion describing Jim Rose’s circus acts and the act of swallowing long balloons to demonstrate sexual agility 
JR: Yeah last time I stapled BeBe the Circus Queen’s arse with a staple gun. 

Presenter:…and it was an amazing thing. I haven’t seen anyone stapled in the arse like that since I was in boy’s prison. 

[…] 

JR: Well I mean she goes through a couple of different tennis rackets. She’s a contortionist. She also swallows, like she will blow up one of those real long balloons …just to show how good she is sexually…She swallows the entire balloon and you know at the end of the show, Lowie, we throw out hundreds of condoms…whoever gets the blue one…gets half an hour with her after the show. We’ve got a dressing room with a bed and candle-lit…and so, you know sex is an art. 

Discussion with first female caller who asked about Amber Pie’s parents reactions upon learning that she was a porn actress 
JR: There’s one movie where she gobbles on eight or nine different guys.

Discussion with second female caller who asked Amber Pie how much money she made from porn movies 
Presenter: Jesus, I’m getting into porn.

JR: Are you hung for it?…when it comes to that part of the body are you, do you take after your mother? 

Host: I take after my mum and my handicapped cousin. 

Discussion with first male caller who asked Amber Pie if she had a boyfriend 
Caller: Have you got a boyfriend? 

AP: I don’t now, I have in the past, but a lot of the time they get very possessive. They get very jealous of the other people I’m in the movies with. 

Caller: Yeah, I was thinking it must be hard sometimes. 

AP: It is. 

Host: It is, but it takes a couple of Viagra, oh we’re not talking about the actors in the film right now, are we? 

JR: Hey it starts off, it starts off where they are really, supposedly understanding and then they see her slop off a couple of man-hammers and it all changes. 

AP: It’s true. 

Host: The thing is Amber and I, we’re keeping it PG13 and Jim will burst out ‘and this chick was just cocking it’. Ah, I love it. 

Discussion with third female caller who asks where is the most awkward place Amber Pie has been recognised 
AP: One of the Customs Officers. Hey aren’t you, aren’t you? 

Host: Was he frisking you at the time? 

AP: He actually had the metal detector thingo and there was a line-up of people behind me. 

Host: Damn, I’ve got a picture of this dude with a rubber glove, ‘can you just bend over – hey I know that. What, oh my God’. 

JR: A full cavity search. 

Discussion with fourth female caller who asks if Amber Pie has had sex with any celebrities 
Host: Nothing wrong with the short guys munch-kin, ain’t nothing wrong with the shorties, we’re bringing heat because we never know where the next one’s coming from. 

AP: Short ones usually are the ones who are packing. 

Host: Me and Jim are just looking at each other going yeah. 

JR: Oh yeah. Bigger, meaner, harder than the Alaskan pipeline and carries more spew. I’ll freeze your seed before it hits the restroom tile. It’s got a heart, a lung and a mind all of its own. We feed it sugar cubes. It’s like a baby’s arm holding an apple. Harder than Chinese arithmetic, a cat couldn’t scratch it, you could jack up your car, strike a match on it. It’s so big it’s got an elbow. 

Discussion concerning one of the Jim Rose’s circus acts 
Host: For those of you who do not know what ‘Battle of the Sexes’ is on the Jim Rose’s famous circus, it’s when two people’s genitals get attached to one another and then a tie…tug-of-war is battled off. 

JR: There’s a chain in-between. 

Host: That’s awesome. I’m going to try and bring that up at my next family reunion. I don’t think it would work. But, only in Tasmania. 

JR: Who do you think will win? 

Host: Out of what? Me and Amber? 

JR: Penis, Vagina? 

Host: I’m going for the penis, it’s got more elasticity. Ah, but does it Lowie? 

AP: Mmm, how many have you stretched out? 

Host: [Cough] Ah I went to a public school. 

Discussion with fifth female caller who asks Amber Pie if she ‘fakes it’ in the movies 
JR: Have you ever been with a girl? 

Caller: Me. No.

[…] 

JR: Bye bye Melissa. When was the first time you had it in the crap snapper?

***

Also released is the Review Board report for Roadshow Film Distributors failed attempt to get Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire dropped from M to PG. Instead the Review Board changed the consumer advice from 'Moderate Fantasy Violence' to 'Moderate Dark Themes, Moderate Fantasy Violence'.

23-33 MARY STREET SURRY HILLS, NSW 

MEMBERS: Ms Maureen Shelley (Convenor) The Hon Trevor Griffin (Deputy Convenor) Mrs Kathryn Smith Mr Rob Shilkin Mrs Gillian Groom Mr Anthony Hetrih 

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

BUSINESS: To review the Classification Board’s decision to classify the film Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (the film) M (Mature) with the consumer advice ‘Moderate fantasy violence’. 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION 
1. Decision 
The Classification Review Board (the Review Board) in a unanimous decision, classified the film M, with the consumer advice ‘Moderate dark themes, Moderate fantasy violence’. 

2. Legislative provisions 
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 5 of the Table under the heading ‘Films’ provides that: 

Films (except RC films, X18+ films, R18+ films and MA15+ films) that cannot be recommended for viewing by persons who are under 15 are to be classified ‘M’. 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 importance of context; 

· The assessment of impact; 

· And the six classifiable elements – themes, violence, sex, language, drug use and nudity.

3. Procedure 
The Review Board convened on 23 November 2005 to determine the validity of the application for review from, Roadshow Films, received on 10 November 2005, view the film and consider the substance of the application. Six members of the Review Board viewed the film Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire at the Board’s meeting on 23 November 2005. 

The Review Board received an oral submission from Mr Brett Rosengarten on behalf of Roadshow Films, in addition to the written submission provided. The Review Board then considered the matter. 

4 Evidence and other material taken into account 
In reaching its decision the Review Board had regard to the following: 

(i) Roadshow’s application for review; 

(ii) Roadshow’s written and oral submissions; 

(iii) The film; 

(iv) The relevant provisions in the Act;

(v) The relevant provisions in the Code;

(vi) The Classification Board’s report; and 

(vii) The Guidelines for the Classification of Films and Computer Games 2005. 

5 Synopsis 
Harry's fourth summer and the following year at Hogwarts are marked by the Quidditch World Cup and the Triwizard Tournament, in which student representatives from three different wizarding schools compete in a series of increasingly challenging contests. However, Voldemort's Death Eaters are gaining strength and even creating the Dark Mark giving evidence that the Dark Lord is ready to rise again. In the unsuspecting lives of the young wizard and witches at Hogwarts the competitors are selected by the goblet of fire, which this year makes a very surprising announcement: Hogwarts will have two representatives in the tournament, including Harry Potter. 

6 Findings on material questions of fact 
The Review Board found that Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire contains the classifiable elements of themes and violence, which generally present with a moderate sense of threat or menace and a corresponding moderate impact. These elements are justified by the context of the setting. The violence within the film is fantasy violence and is resolved through the use of magic or wizardry. The themes - of witchcraft and wizardry and that of the death of one of the Hogwarts’ students - are treated in a way that requires a mature perspective. 

(a) Themes and (b) violence – fantasy violence and dark themes are depicted. Specifically the following scenes were noted by the Review Board as having moderate impact: 

At approximately 3 minutes Harry wakens from a dream where he sees Lord Voldemort, Wormtail and a snake meeting in a darkened house. An old caretaker is implicitly killed and his screams are heard. 

At approximately 10 minutes there are scary scenes at the Quidditch World Cup when Lord Voldemort’s Death Eaters appear at the camp attacking a Muggles family, setting fire to tents and an image of Voldemort is seen hanging in the sky. Harry, Hermione and Ron are depicted looking very scared. Harry and Hermione are shown being kicked by trampling feet as witches and wizards flee in panic. 

In the first challenge of the Triwizard Tournament, Harry has to avoid a dragon to retrieve a golden sphere. The scene, which is extensive and commences at approximately 60 minutes, shows Harry being thrown against rocks, being chased by the fire-breathing dragon, falling from great heights, and being burned on his arm. 

At approximately 90 minutes Harry is undertaking another challenge in the lake, where he is attacked by sea creatures, he experiences pain from high-pitched screaming and is confronted by what appears to be his friends floating, seemingly drowned, in the lake. At 97 minutes Harry almost drowns. 

The final challenge is to find and bring back the Cup, which is in the centre of a maze. The maze moves threateningly, grows over the contestants and seizes them dragging them to the ground. At approximately 118 minutes, Cedric is shown screaming as the maze attacks him.

At approximately 120 minutes, Lord Voldemort attacks Harry and Cedric. Cedric is killed. Lord Voldemort tells Harry that he is going to kill him and that he (Harry) will beg for death. Harry escapes and takes Cedric’s body back to the tournament where Cedric’s father is depicted grieving over his son. The scene is tense and requires a mature perspective. 

(c) Sex – the film contained no explicit sexual references. However, the emerging issue of sexual difference and modesty between the teenage Hogwarts students was depicted in a mild way in the scene at 87 minutes where the ghost Moaning Myrtle and Harry share a bath. Moaning Myrtle wriggles and giggles as she “sits” in the bath and says: “Oh Harry” as he removes his towel and enters the bath water. The water is liberally coated in bubbles. 

At approximately 82 minutes, an older wizard squeezes the buttocks of one of the female teachers. 

(d) Drug use – There is implied use of “potions” to assist Barty Crouch Jr to appear to be the character of Mad-Eye Moody. However, the impact of this is mild. 

(e) Language – There is infrequent use of mild expletives in the film. 

(f) Nudity – there is chest nudity of Harry as he sits in the bath at approximately 87 minutes and implied nudity as he enters the bath and his towel is removed from his lower torso. The impact of this is mild. 

7 Reasons for the decision 
The Review Board considered that the context of the film was important. This film is based on a very popular children’s fantasy book and film series, with which a large part of the audience would be familiar. However, the Review Board determined that the film represents a move to darker themes than seen in previous Harry Potter films. The scenes of the central character of Harry experiencing pain and anxiety are more likely to disturb younger children than those depicted in other films in the franchise. Further, the death of one of Harry’s school mates is treated in such a way that requires a more mature perspective than themes in the previous film offerings. 

It is the determination of the Classification Review Board, that the film Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire warrants an M classification because the cumulative sense of threat and menace is moderate rather than mild. 

8 Summary 
The Review Board concluded that the impact of the classifiable elements in the film could be accommodated in the M classification. The impact of the elements was moderate. The themes and violence were justified by the overall context of the film. The Review Board was unanimously of the view that an M classification was warranted.

***

Paul Kalina takes a look at the parallel importation of DVDs.

The long wait for entertainment. The Age 17.03.06

The law is an ass when it comes to DVD imports. Paul Kalina reports.

Whereas bans on the parallel importation of other copyright products such as CDs, computer software and books have been removed or relaxed, restrictions apply, and are being increasingly enforced, on movie and television DVDs.

The Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft has stepped up efforts to police the ban on parallel imports. Last year, the federation prosecuted Melbourne retailer Minotaur, which was hit with $100,000 in costs and penalties, and it has begun proceedings against a video shop in Cranbourne for selling region-one DVDs.

Retailers selling region-one DVDs not only contravene copyright law but also censorship regulations that make it an offence to sell DVDs that do not carry Australian classification markings (the fine is up to $5000 a DVD). The practice also means Australian viewers are subject to another country's censorship guidelines.

Despite last year having had THE GORE GORE GIRLS, and IN A GLASS CAGE banned, Siren have continued presenting controversial titles to our censors. For that they deserve your support.

******

Ten years after first being submitted, Gregory Dark's SNAKE PIT has been banned again. 

******

Back in January, Twentieth Century Fox won their appeal to have the M rating of BIG MOMMA'S HOUSE 2 dropped to PG. The full report is as follows.

Australian Government
Classification Review Board

23 January 2006 

23-33 MARY STREET SURRY HILLS, 
NSW 

MEMBERS: 
The Hon Trevor Griffin (Deputy Convenor) 
Mrs Gillian Groom 
Mr Anthony Hetrih 

APPLICANT: Twentieth Century Fox Film Distributors Pty Ltd (Fox), original applicant for classification, represented by Mr Marcos Oliveira (Managing Director, Fox); Mr Chris Smith (National Print Controller, Fox) and Mr John Dickie (Consultant, Fox). 

BUSINESS: To review the Classification Board’s decision to classify the film Big Momma’s House 2 ‘M’ (Mature) with the consumer advice ‘Moderate sexual references’. 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION 

1. Decision 
The Classification Review Board (the Review Board) in a unanimous decision, classified the film Big Momma’s House 2 (the film) PG (Parental Guidance), with the consumer advice ‘Mild sexual references, Mild violence’. 

2. Legislative provisions 
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 6 of the Table under the heading ‘Films’ provides that: 

Films (except RC films, X 18+ films, R 18+ films, MA 15+ films and M films) that cannot be recommended for viewing by persons who are under 15 without the guidance of their parents or guardians 

are to be classified ‘PG’. 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 importance of context; 

· The assessment of impact; and 

· The six classifiable elements – themes, violence, sex, language, drug use and nudity. 

3.Procedure 
The Review Board convened on 23 January 2006 to determine the validity of the application for review from Fox, received on 12 January 2006, view the film, and consider the substance of the application. Three members of the Review Board viewed the film Big Momma’s House 2 at the Board’s meeting on 23 January 2006. 

The Review Board then received an oral submission from Mr John Dickie on behalf of the applicant, in addition to the written submission provided. The Review Board then considered the matter. 

4. Evidence and other material taken into account 
In reaching its decision the Review Board had regard to the following: 

(i) Fox’s application for review; 

(ii) Fox’s written and oral submissions; 

(iii) The film; 

(iv) The relevant provisions in the Act; 

(v) The relevant provisions in the Code; 

(vi) The Classification Board’s report; and 

(vii) The Guidelines for the Classification of Films and Computer Games 2005. 

5 Synopsis 
Martin Lawrence returns as FBI agent Malcolm Turner, a master of disguise who again goes undercover as the corpulent "Big Momma". To avert a national security disaster, Big Momma becomes a nanny housekeeper in the suspect's household - only to find him/herself becoming attached to the three children of the dysfunctional clan.

6 Findings on material questions of fact 
The Review Board found that the film contains aspects or scenes of importance, under the classifiable elements of violence and sex. 

(a) Violence – Most of the violence comes in the last few minutes of the film At approximately 81 minutes, Big Momma and Molly are tied up in the back of a van being driven at speed and being thrown around as the vehicle corners. 

At approximately 86 minutes, there is a scene involving a chase and search by the gangsters for Big Momma. Big Momma stands on two piles of timber pallets, legs astride an aisle waiting for a searcher to walk below “her”. A gang member sneaks along the walkway, gun drawn, and at the last minute looks up as Big Momma brings a piece of “2x4” timber down on his head, knocking him out. The context is more comical than threatening. 

In both these scenes there are no wounds or blood visible, and no musical build up to assist in developing a threatening mood. In some respects, the violence could be described as “slapstick”. The acts of violence are infrequent. 

(b) Sex – At approximately 14 minutes, at a job interview, one of the young women applicants is the object of the Big Momma’s comments – “You can only get a full-over tan like that if you are butt-naked”. 

At approximately 29 minutes, as Big Momma is being searched, a wand beeps as it passes over Big Momma’s breasts. She observes: “That’s my support wire – it keeps these funbags off the floor”. 

At approximately 57 minutes, in a women’s dressing-room, female models are changing clothes. One model asks Big Momma to undo her bra from the front as she squeezes her breasts together. Big Momma acts coyly and looks away and leaves without touching the bra.

At approximately 65 minutes, Big Momma is riding a motorised scooter (a Segway) which appears to be out of control. Big Momma slips between two young women wearing bikinis. As Big Momma passes rapidly between them, the handlebars of the scooter catch the bikini tops of the two women, pulling them off. The women cover their bare breasts with their hands quickly. The scene is fleeting and bare breasts are not visually depicted at any stage. 

At approximately 79 minutes, Big Momma is in a dance-hall after being called by Molly for help and tells a dancing woman: “That’s my leg you’re humping”. 

None of these examples is prolonged or repetitious and there is no explicit sexual activity. There are no special effects to accentuate any sexual references. 

The Review Board does not think that the cumulative effect of these scenes is to take the impact into the moderate category. In the Review Board’s view, the sexual activity is infrequent and mild. 

7 Reasons for the decision 
While the film contains sexual references, they occur in a comedic context and, both separately and together, are no higher than mild in impact. There is also some violence depicted in the film but, again, these instances are mild in impact, relatively infrequent in occurrence, are justified by context and do not carry any threat or menace. 

8 Summary 
The Review Board determined that Big Momma’s House 2 should be classified PG, with the consumer advice "Mild sexual references, Mild violence". 

The Review Board's decision was unanimous.

******

Umbrella Entertainment have just released HAIL MARY on DVD. Twenty years ago F*** Nile created quite a fuss during the theatrical release. Here is what he had to say about it in his 2004 review of THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST.

"I have condemned many anti-Christian, blasphemous, pornographic films during the years, such as Hail Mary and The Last Temptation of Christ, which I said were produced by the devil in the studios of hell.

As I said at the time, this would make a perfect promotion for the film.

HAIL MARY
"Produced by the devil in the studios of hell"
Fred Nile

Wouldn't you rent it?

******

On the subject of Nile. 

NSW Legislative Council Hansard Extract from Transcript of Hansard 01/12/2005 (Article No.29)

CARINGBAH SEX SHOP LOCATION 
Page: 20425

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: I ask the Minister for Finance, representing the Minister for Planning, a question without notice. It is a fact that on 7 April 2005 at a Land and Environment Court hearing Commissioner Robert Hussey stated, "I don't think two sex shops for Caringbah would be a problem, maybe three or four." The commissioner gave approval for a second pornography shop less than 100 metres from a preschool and within 200 metres of two schools, a baby health centre, a library and the YWCA. Within two months of its opening there have been two attempted abductions of children in Caringbah, both in close proximity to the second shop. Why does the Government allow these pornography shops to operate so close to schools and family-oriented services and the overall wishes of local councils, especially the wishes of parents and residents of the area, thereby putting the lives of children at risk? What action will the Government take to change the objectives, priorities and policies of the Land and Environment Court, which is completely out of touch with community standards?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: Obviously, this is a question for the Minister for Planning. I certainly will refer it to him. I am not aware of the comments, and I am not aware of any police evidence that shows any causal connection between the events that were outlined, but maybe there is. I will refer the matter to the Minister for Planning.

***

NSW Legislative Council Hansard Extract from Transcript of Hansard 28/02/2006 (Article No.83)

CARINGBAH SEX SHOP LOCATION 
Page: 20671 

On 1 December 2005 Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile asked the Minister for Finance, representing the Minister for Planning, a question without notice regarding the Caringbah sex shop location. The Minister for Planning provided the following response:

Adult shops are a land use subject to the same provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as any other land use. Council is the consent authority for such developments and I do not have a role in their assessment.

The operation and control of any unauthorised or illegal land uses (including adult shops) is also the responsibility of the local councils.

******

On the face of it the following looks like future OFLC policy will be set by the government.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL THE HON PHILIP RUDDOCK MP 
Media Release 023/2006
23 February 2006 
New Administrative Arrangements for Classification.

The Classification Board and Classification Review Board will be separated from the other functions of the Office of Film and Literature Classification (OFLC) under new administrative arrangements introduced by the Australian Government. 

Attorney-General Philip Ruddock announced today the OFLC’s policy and administrative functions will be folded into the Attorney-General’s Department. 

The Classification Board and Classification Review Boards will continue to make classification decisions, serviced by a secretariat from the Attorney-General’s Department. 

“The important work of the Classification Board and the Classification Review Board in informing the entertainment choices of Australians will be unchanged,” Mr Ruddock said. 

“Classification decisions will continue to be made by independent Boards,” he said. The National Classification Scheme – a cooperative arrangement under which the Classification Board classifies films, computer games and certain publications on behalf of the States and Territories – will not be affected. 

“The Commonwealth will continue to consult fully with the States and Territories on matters of classification policy and in relation to appointments to the Classification Board and the Classification Review Board,” he said. 

“I have written to State and Territory Censorship Ministers to inform them of the new arrangements.”

The positions of Director and Deputy Director of the Classification Board, and Convenor of the Review Board, will remain. 

“Both the current Director, Des Clark, and Deputy Director Paul Hunt have provided excellent service and will be closely involved with my Department in developing the transitional arrangements,” Mr Ruddock said. 

A staged transition process is expected to be completed by 1 July 2007. 

Media Contact: Charlie McKillop (02) 6277 7300/0419 278 715

******

Censored versions of PRIVATE ADVENTURES OF PIERRE WOODMAN 10: BEHIND THE SCENES and BELLADONNA: NO WARNING have been passed X18+. Both DVD's had previously been banned by the Classification Board.

******

A censored version of the game 50 CENT: BULLETPROOF has been passed with an MA15+ (Strong Violence, Strong Coarse Language) rating. It is due for release on April 6th.

******

Not content with seeing his game 50 CENT: BULLETPROOF banned, and censored in Australia, 'family groups' are now calling for the man himself to be rated.  Sharryn Brownlee of the Parents and Citizens Council is correct in what she says below. Why don't parents take some responsibility for their children instead of outsourcing it to some government agency?

50 Cent gig sparks family fury. 17.02.06 NineMSN

Tonight he will perform at the Sydney Superdome to a sold-out crowd including children, sparking calls by the Australian Family Association to apply age restrictions in the same way cinemas restrict viewers of movies with an MA+ rating.

Other family groups are also complaining of the double standard, which allows artists to perform on stage in front of children but keeps them banned from movies with similar subject material.

Sharryn Brownlee from the Parents and Citizens Council warned that trying to prevent young people from attending concerts may actually make them more appealing.

She said it was up to parents to decide what music is appropriate for children to listen to.

(ARCHIVED) Families slam Fiddy. 17.02.06 News.Com.Au

"Very young children go into these concerts, they're 10 and up," national secretary Gabrielle Walsh said. "I think age limits would help and 18-plus would be good."

******

Eros Magazine Vol.7 No1 is out now. Subscription information, and a selection of some of the articles can be found here.

The Eros Association Inc
Media Release 12/2/06
MP’s Threat to Censor Parliamentary Mail

A Tasmanian Member of the Legislative Council, Paul Harriss, has threatened to take legal action (and possibly contempt charges) to stop a national industry association from sending its newsletter to him. 

In a letter to Australia’s national adult industry association in December, Mr Harriss MLC, claimed that the Eros Journal was being sent to him ‘unsolicited’ and was therefore illegal. 

Eros Chief Executive, Fiona Patten said that her newsletter was not a commercial product and did not contain explicit imagery. “The Eros Journal is a professional communiqué from Australia’s adult retail industry that outlines industry policies, ethics and protocols in a non-jargonistic way”, she said. “I send a copy to Mr Harriss because my members in Tasmania want him to understand their views on industry issues that are, or may be, before the Tasmanian Parliament. If he chooses to ignore the industry’s views, then he can put the newsletter in the bin. But legal action to stop me from sending it to him shows Mr Harriss to be intolerant and unnecessarily aggressive toward a legal industry.” 

Ms Patten said that any attempt to use ‘contempt’ powers by Mr Harriss to stop citizens or lobby groups from sending unsolicited submissions or views could well constitute a Contempt of Parliament in itself. She had written to the Chair of the Legislative Council’s Privileges Committee to complain about Mr Harriss’ actions and to ascertain whether or not his threat to stop information from entering the Parliament may constitute a contempt of the Parliament in itself. “As an elected member, it is his duty to accept unsolicited submissions”, she said. “That’s part of his job description. As long as a petition or letter or newsletter is not obscene or threatening, he has no right to threaten community or industry groups with legal action for sending it. If he is so offended by a newsletter that could be sold in every newsagent in the country, he is not suited to the rough and tumble of state politics”, she said. 

Ms Patten said that the issue was of national significance and that the Council of Australian Governments should investigate how often community groups and individuals were threatened or cajoled by politicians into withdrawing or failing to present their views on issues, simply because they did not accord with that politician’s personal or party views. 

The Eros Journal’s editor, Ms Yasmin Element, said she was shocked and offended at Mr Harriss’ tone. “His letter was rude and macho”, she said. “I never expected politicians to be like that’, she said. “He recently voted on a Bill to ban prostitution in Tasmania that could see some sex workers go to jail for up to 10 years. My magazine carries information that could have affected his vote on that issue. To turn around and threaten me for sending it to him is inconsiderate and unparliamentary”. 

Media Contact: Fiona Patten: 0413 734 613 

Mail PO Box 69 Deakin West ACT 2600 Ph 02 6285 2477 Fax 02 6282 1499 eros@eros.org.au

***

Robbie Swann
Eros Magazine Vol.7 No1
Tasmanian MP Threatens Eros 

This censorship of sexual ideas in Australia has hit a new low. A Tasmanian politician has threatened Eros with legal action for sending him a copy of this journal. Although this is the first time such extreme censorship has been threatened, we are sometimes asked by members of parliament not to send them our journal. They do this by writing to us and asking to be taken off our mailing list, claiming that the journal is not requested and often that they find it offensive.

But we do not hold mailing lists of politician’s names. At the time of distribution, Eros examines whether or not there is an issue in the journal that is relevant to its members interests in a given jurisdiction and if there is, we simply mail directly to the members currently listed on the Parliament House web site of that jurisdiction. We want them to see those issues but if they do not want it when it arrives, they are at liberty to simply put it in the bin. But to ask us not to send it in the first place is an abrogation of their responsibility as an elected representative that they be open and accessible to issues that affect their constituents.

The Eros Journal is not sexually explicit and neither is it ‘offensive’ or ‘objectionable’ under the definitions used in the Classification Act. It clearly has nothing like the impact of Unrestricted magazines in newsagents like People or Picture magazines, and it deals with serious issues of sex and censorship. That a member of parliament would be so outraged and offended by it that they would censor the publication by threatening legal action for sending it, is in itself a form of ‘book-burning’. And yet that is exactly what Eros has been threatened with by Tasmanian Upper House member, Graham Harriss (see letter).

Mr Harrass complained about having been sent Vol 6 #4 of the Eros Journal, unsolicited.

Our argument to Mr Harriss is that by virtue of the fact that he has offered himself up for public office, he not only has a responsibility to consider all lawful material that is put before him but that he cannot claim that lawful mail of any kind addressed to him, is ‘unsolicited’. As a member of parliament, it is part of his job to accept unsolicited mail from constituents and those representing them.

His threat raises serious issues around the rights and responsibilities of members of parliament to hear dissenting voices in their community and also the use of Contempt of Parliament charges to censor legitimate community views.

Clearly Mr Harriss has no action available to him under the Post and Telecommunications Act. He is not being harassed or threatened by receiving the Eros journal. Clearly his threat then can only be a resort to use the Contempt powers.

It would be easy for Eros to acquiesce in this situation and agree to this man’s unreasonable request. But how many other groups will he threaten in the same way? His maiden speech in the Tasmanian parliament was almost totally consumed with conservative anti-gay and anti-lesbian rhetoric. Would he similarly invoke the Contempt powers for these groups if they sent him Lesbians on the Loose or the Sydney Star Observer? And what about anti-logging groups who disagree with him on clear felling old growth forests; atheists who want him to get rid of prayers before parliament or Republicans who don’t want the Queen?

No. Mr Harriss should not be able to tell different community groups that they can or cannot send him mail on issues that they want to raise. In a democracy everyone has the right to send an elected member their point of view.

Mr Harriss should read his maiden speech again. Remarkably, he finished it by saying, “ we ought to defend to the death, as Voltaire said, people's right to their view and their right to have their say.” Did he have a brainsnap over our last editorial on Tasmanian prostitution laws …or is he just another hypocrite in the parliament?

Write to him and let him know what you think: paul.harriss@parliament.tas.gov.au

By Robbie Swan - First published January 2006

******

There have been several new appointments to the Classification Board.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL THE HON PHILIP RUDDOCK MP 
NEWS RELEASE 
15 February 2006 
015/2006 

NEW APPOINTMENTS TO THE CLASSIFICATION BOARD 

Attorney-General Philip Ruddock today announced the appointment of nine members of the Classification Board. 

The Classification Board is responsible for classifying films, publications and computer games on behalf of the Australian Government, State Governments and Territory Governments. It is based in Sydney at the Office of Film and Literature Classification. 

Members of the Board are chosen to be broadly representative of the Australian community. In making classification decisions, Board members are required to apply the relevant law and guidelines to reflect as objectively as possible what is considered to be the standards of reasonable adults in the community. 

Each appointment is for three years commencing on 3 April 2006. 

“The diverse experience and skills of these new appointees will be invaluable to the Classification Board as it continues to ensure our classification system appropriately reflects community attitudes and expectations,” Mr Ruddock said. 

Sally Bryant, 45, resides in Bourke, NSW. She is a journalist currently working as a Community Facilitator for the River Towns Project and, previously, worked with the Western Herald. Ms Bryant has extensive involvement in the Bourke community through committees and groups dealing with a broad range of social, environmental and educational issues. 

Georgina Dridan, 34, is a Project Officer with the Department for Victorian Communities. Ms Dridan has two children, resides in Melbourne and grew up in a small rural community in Victoria. Ms Dridan previously worked for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), firstly as a producer/researcher and later with the project team establishing the ABC’s digital youth network, Fly TV. 

Stephen Dunham, 49, resides in Darwin and was born and raised in the Northern Territory. He has five children and one grandchild. He served in the Northern Territory Government between 1997 and June 2005, including as Minister for Health, Community Services and Essential Services. Mr Dunham also has worked as a public servant in the Northern Territory

******

Eli Roth's HOSTEL was rated R18+ (High Level Horror Violence, Sex Scenes) on February 15th.

When art imitates a sick world, it's a horror story. The Age 05.02.06 

Are horror films merely entertainment, or do they reflect a violent society? Hostel, opening this month, certainly seems inspired by all-too-real torture.

Hostel's purported political subtext is unlikely to deter members of Australia's Office of Film and Literature Classification from slapping an R rating on the film when the board meets later this week.

"If a film is going to be controversial or difficult we will make a judgement about how many board members view it," says the office's director, Des Clark. "With Hostel we might put all the board onto it because it is a controversial film."

******

The new Australian film SUBURBAN MAYHEM has been receiving some useful pre-release publicity.

Call for ban on murder movies. The Sunday Mail 05.02.06

The demand comes as a new film apparently based on one of Australia's most chilling murders is set to be released.

The storyline of Suburban Mayhem closely resembles a notorious 2000 murder case in NSW – which involved the gay-hate killing of Wollongong mayor Frank Arkell – although the film's producers deny it is based on the crime.

******

The ACMA has found that Australian Capital Television breached the code by broadcasting an episode of MONK that fell outside the PG rating. The complaint was made after:

"....a child, explained that she felt extremely scared after viewing the image of the wounded man"

Australian Government
Australian Communications and Media Authority
Media Release
25 January 2006 
MR 4/2006 
Investigation finds Australian Capital Television breached code 

The Australian Communications and Media Authority has found that Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd, the licensee of commercial television service CTC Southern New South Wales, breached the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice 2004 by broadcasting an episode of Monk which failed to comply with the PG classification guidelines.

On 30 August 2005, ACMA received a complaint about an episode of Monk broadcast by CTC on 11 June 2005. The complainant expressed concern about the violent content in the program.

The licensee admitted that due to a technical error the material containing the violent content was not edited from the episode and mistakenly broadcast. ACMA determined that the licensee of CTC breached clause 2.4 of the Code, by failing to classify material in accordance with Television Classification Guidelines set out in clause 3.1 of Appendix 4, which provides for the level of violence permitted in material classified PG.

The licensee accepted the breach finding and has rechecked all Monk programs to ensure they are correctly edited and broadcast. The licensee has also brought the classification error to the attention of all relevant staff, including program editors and classifiers.

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

The investigation report is available on the ACMA website.

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

***

Australian Government
Australian Communications and Media Authority
Investigation Report No. 1597

File no:. 2005/2230 
Licensee: Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd 
Station: CTC Southern New South Wales 
Type of service: Commercial Television 
Name of program: Monk 
Date of broadcast: 11 June 2005 
Relevant legislation/code: Clause 2.4 of the Commercial
Television Industry Code of Practice  2004

Investigation conclusion 
The licensee of CTC Southern New South Wales, Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd, breached clause 2.4 of Section 2 of the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice 2004, by failing to classify material in accordance with the PG classification guidelines. 

The complaint 
On 30 August 2005 the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) received a complaint concerning the program Monk broadcast by Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd (the licensee) on 11 June 2005.

The complainant expressed concern about the violent content in the program, specifically a scene showing an image of a man ‘with a screwdriver stabbed in his ear and a knife in his heart’. The complainant was dissatisfied with the written response provided by the licensee, and forwarded the matter to ACMA for investigation. 

The program 
The program, Monk, is broadcast on Saturday evenings at 6.30 pm. The series follows the experiences of Adrian Monk, a gifted detective who suffers from numerous phobias, including a fear of germs and small places. Monk is assisted at home and in his professional duties by his personal nurse, Sharona, a single mother of a young boy. 

In the opening scene of the episode in question, ‘Mr Monk and the Girl who Cried Wolf’, Sharona and Monk go to the bank. Monk refuses to enter the underground car park, leaving Sharona to park the car alone. Sharona becomes fearful after seeing moving shadows and hearing footsteps in the seemingly empty carpark. A wounded and bloodied man suddenly appears before her. He has a screwdriver protruding from his ear and a knife in his chest. He stammers the words, ‘Douglas is worried about you’ and slumps to the ground. Sharona runs off to seek help, however on her return she discovers that the man has inexplicably disappeared.

The images of the injured man appear before Sharona a further three times during the episode, including in a scene in which Sharona encounters the man apparently hanging by the neck from a roof rafter in the washroom of her psychologist’s office. 

Assessment 
The assessment considered comments supplied by the complainant and the licensee, as well as a copy of the program provided on a DVD recording. 

The delegate considered whether the broadcast of the program breached clause 2.4 of section 2 of the code, which requires all material to be classified according to the Television Classification Guidelines (the guidelines), at Appendix 4 to the code. 

Classification of Other Material 

2.4 All other material for broadcast: Subject to Clauses 2.3 and 2.4.1, all other material for broadcast must be classified according to the Television Classification Guidelines (set out in Appendix 4) or, where applicable, the stricter requirements of Section 3: Program Promotions and Section 6: Classification and Placement of Commercials. 

The criteria relating to the PG classification of programs is set out in clause 3 of the guidelines. The relevant provision relating to the portrayal of violence is as follows: 

The Parental Guidance Recommended (PG) Classification

3. Material classified PG may contain careful presentations of adult themes or concepts but must be mild in impact and remain suitable for children to watch with supervision. … 

3.1 Violence: Visual depiction of violence must be inexplicit, restrained and justified by the story line or program context. More leeway is permitted when the depiction is stylised rather than realistic, but all violence shown must be mild in impact, taking into account also the language, sounds and special effects used. 

Complainant’s submissions 
The complainant, a child, explained that she felt extremely scared after viewing the image of the wounded man and requested that the licensee re-classify Monk with an M rating. 

Issue: Was the program suitably classified as PG? 
On the basis of clause 2.4, the issue is whether the program has been classified in accordance with the code. The program has therefore been assessed against the PG classification requirements in clause 3.1 of Appendix 4, which provides for the level of violence permitted in material classified PG. 

Licensee’s submissions 
The licensee explained that due to a technical oversight, an unedited version of Monk was mistakenly broadcast, in breach of the PG classification requirements of the code: 

While we run Monk as a ‘PG’, program, unedited episodes do sometimes contain ‘M’ material. Each Monk episode is therefore viewed by classifiers who identify any unsuitable material and request that it is edited out before broadcast. In this instance the episode was viewed by classifiers who requested some modifications, including the excision from the program of the violence at the episode’s outset. Unfortunately, due to a technical oversight the unedited version of Monk was mistakenly broadcast. … 

We understand that the broadcast of the material was in breach of the Commercial Television Code of Practice and we are fully aware of the seriousness of the issue. We strive to ensure all programming complies with the relevant Codes and we wish to reiterate that we did not deliberately broadcast an unedited version of the program Monk. 

Finding 
The delegate concurs with the licensee that the material broadcast was not consistent with the criteria in clause 3.1 of Appendix 4 and was not classified according to the guidelines. The licensee therefore breached clause 2.4 of section 2 of the code. 

Reasons 

• The episode contains close-up visuals of wounds to the man’s head and chest, implying that violence has been perpetrated against him. A screwdriver is clearly protruding from the man’s ear and the side of his head appears to be covered with blood. The chest injury is shown as having been caused by a knife, which is protruding from his chest. His shirt appears to be soaked with blood. These images are not inexplicit, restrained or mild in impact. 

• The impact of the material is heightened by the repetition of the image of the wounded man several times throughout the episode, the first occurring in the opening scene. 

• Some scenes featuring the wounded man are accompanied by dramatic and suspenseful music, which adds to the impact of the visual material shown. 

• While the conclusion of the episode explains that the man was not actually injured, or a figment of Sharona’s imagination, his visible wounds were portrayed in a realistic manner.

Action taken 
The delegate notes that in response to the complaint, the licensee has admitted to the breach of the code and stated that every effort will be made to guard against a similar occurrence. The following steps have been taken: 

• all Monk programs have been subsequently rechecked to ensure they are correctly edited and broadcast and 

• the classification error was brought to the attention of all relevant staff, including program editors and classifiers. The delegate considers these actions address the compliance issues raised by the investigation and notes that the licensee has not breached this provision of the code during the last three years. The licensee’s performance in this regard will continue to be monitored.

Decision 
I, Sharon Trotter, Acting Executive Manager, Industry Performance and Review Branch, being the appropriate delegated officer of the Australian Communications and Media Authority, determine for the above reasons that the licensee, Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd in relation to the broadcast of Monk on 11 June 2005, breached clause 2.4 of section 2 of the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice 2004. 

******

As the producer of THE NAKED BUNYIP back in 1970, Phillip Adams knows a thing or two about censorship. Here is his opinion piece from from The Australian in which he takes a look at the impossibility of censorship in the age of the internet. As he correctly states.

"These days censorship is only advertising."

Sacred or profane, it's all on the web. 14.02.06 The Australian

Even before we were entangled in the net and the web, censorship was finished. For example, no sooner was the Xerox machine out and about than the Soviet Union was doomed. The publication of illegal journals and samizdat books could no longer be prevented and dissent could flourish. In Australia, po-faced officialdom could no longer censor citizens' sex lives. While Customs officials were still searching our suitcases, home video was on the march, so porn became DIY. Good heavens, the Los Angeles police couldn't even beat up Rodney King in peace and quiet.

So here's the message for extremists of all persuasions: Sorry folks, censorship and the repression of ideas, images and even insults are over and what you don't want to hear will be heard. These days censorship is only advertising.

******

The game POSTAL 2: SHARE THE PAIN was banned by the Classification Board in October 2005. The following month the US distributors announced that the game would be available for download, thus bypassing the censors. The following article by Mitchell Bingemann is from PC WORLD Magazine. It's an informative look at the consequences of this decision, and further proof that the censors are having a hard time keeping up with technology. Des Clark from the OFLC calls it:

......a matter for the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA).

The ACMA then state the obvious fact that:

.... preventing distribution was not conclusive and the only fullproof method of stopping people downloading banned content was "if they chose not to".

Remember what Phillip Adams said in his article above:

"These days censorship is only advertising."

Banned games find unchecked entry into Australia. PC World 13.02.06

Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA)

However, ACMA's hotline manager of content assessment, Mike Barnard, conceded that preventing distribution was not conclusive and the only fullproof method of stopping people downloading banned content was "if they chose not to".

******

Yet another Belladonna title has been banned by the Classification Board. Calvista have just been hit with an RC rating for the DVD of BELLADONNA: NO WARNING. 

In the past year the censors have also banned BELLADONNA: DO NOT DISTURB, BELLADONNA: FETISH FANATIC, and BELLADONNA'S FUCKING GIRLS.

The Adult industry is at the forefront when it comes to making their product available for download. At Belladonna's site it is possible (for a price) to do just that for all these titles, as well as view trailers for free. 

So in a week that saw GETTING UP: CONTENTS UNDER PRESSURE banned (online stores in New Zealand are no doubt already planning for big business), I'll leave you once more with Phillip Adams's wise words.

"These days censorship is only advertising"

******

A censored version of BELLADONNA: FETISH FANATIC has finally been passed X18+. In December last year, Calvista had it banned twice.

Twentieth Century Fox have won their appeal to have the M rating of BIG MOMMA'S HOUSE 2 dropped to PG.

Australian Government
Classification Review Board
12 January 2006
Media Release

Review announced for the film Big Momma’s House 2

The Classification Review Board has received an application to review the classification for the film, Big Momma’s House 2.

Big Momma’s House 2 was classified M with the consumer advice, "Moderate sexual references", by the Classification Board on 6 January 2006.

The Classification Review Board will meet on Monday 23 January 2006 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
23 January 2006 
MEDIA RELEASE 
Big Momma’s House 2 classified PG upon review 

A 3-member panel of the Classification Review Board has determined, in a unanimous decision, that the film, Big Momma’s House 2 is classified PG with the consumer advice, “Mild sexual references, Mild violence”. 

In the Classification Review Board’s opinion, Big Momma’s House 2 warrants a PG classification because, while there are sexual references, they occur in a comedic context, and both separately and cumulatively, are no higher than mild in impact. 

Classification Review Board Deputy Convenor, The Hon Trevor Griffin said, “There is also some violence depicted and, again, these instances are mild in impact, relatively infrequent in occurrence and justified by context.” PG means “Parental guidance recommended”. It is not recommended for viewing by persons under the age of 15 without guidance from parents or guardians. The classification means that the film may contain material which some children find confusing or upsetting and may require guidance. 

The Classification Review Board convened today in response to an application from the distributor, Twentieth Century Fox Film Distributors, to review the M classification of Big Momma’s House 2 made by the Classification Board on 6 January 2006. 

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. 

******

A censored version of THE NEW DEVIL IN MISS JONES has just been passed X18+. It