Australian Censorship News: April-May 2007
UPDATES 20th May 2007
Another R18+ Games Push.
TITTY BABES: RC.
HERE CUMS THE BRIDEGROOM: X18+.
GGW-FIRST TIMERS: RC More
UPDATES 12th May 2007
Smoking ban.
Eros Magazine Vol.8 No2.
Content Services Bill 2007. More
UPDATES 5th May 2007
Advocating Terrorism Review.
The ALP and X18+.
X18+ in SA.
HOTWIFE COMPENDIUM: RC
KELLY'S LOST MOVIE: Cut.
PP's EROTIC BABES: Modified. More
UPDATES 28th April 2007
McDonald: New CB Director.
SPOTLIGHT: R18+.
HOT IN HERE: X18+.
THE G-STRING SHOW: Cut.
TRANS-SEX CLIMAX 9: RC
PICTURE PREMIUM 105: Modified. More
UPDATES 23rd April 2007
PP HANDBOOK: RB Report.
HERE CUMS THE BRIDEGROOM: RC
KELLY'S LOST MOVIE RC.
2x BARELY LEGAL DVD's RC.More
UPDATES 15th April 2007
Donald MacDonald: New Censor?
Promotion of Terrorism.
PP The Download
Rockdale Adult Store.
CHEEK FREAKS: Cut.
BUTTHOLE WHORES: Cut. More
UPDATES 9th April 2007
Warrnambool Adult Store OK.
LE KINK: Cut.
March ASB Complaints. More
UPDATES
20th May 2007
Games R18+ rating
The Interactive Entertainment Association of Australia (IEAA), is once again pushing for an R18+ for games
Push for new game rating. SMH 16.05.07
Aside from Singapore, which is now reviewing its classification system, Australia is the only country in the western world that does not have an R18+ rating for games, said Chris Hanlon, chief executive of the IEAA.
As a result, games that do not meet the MA15+ standard - such as those with excessive violence or sexual content - are simply banned from sale.
Mr Hanlon argues these bans have the opposite effect to that intended, as they bring an enormous amount of attention to the banned game and encourage its uptake through other means, such as the internet.
He said the games classification system should be the same as that for films, and noted the irony in the recent banning of the Reservoir Dogs game despite the film version passing through the OFLC unscathed.
"You are better to give parents the tools for them to make their own decision - there is no doubt that a common classification system for games and films is the way to do that," Mr Hanlon said.
"An R classification obviously sends a stronger message to parents about games with high impact."
Mr Hanlon said the lack of an R18+ classification meant adult gamers did not have the freedom to make their own decisions as to the appropriateness of a game's content.
In Australia, significant changes to classification policy must be agreed on unanimously by the Australian, State and Territory censorship ministers, who are usually the attorneys-general.
A spokeswoman for the Federal Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock, said censorship minister meetings typically occured twice a year at the same time as the Standing Committee on Attorneys-General (SCAG).
"Censorship ministers discussed the R18+ classification for computer games at their November 2005 meeting," the spokeswoman said.
"The Interactive Entertainment Association of Australia also demonstrated parental locking technology at a censorship ministers meeting in 2006."
Mr Hanlon said about a year ago the IEAA also visted each attorney-general individually.
But despite this little progress has been made and Mr Ruddock's spokeswoman said there was "no timeframe for when this issue may [again] be discussed by censorship ministers meetings".
She said she was aware of support for an R18+ classification but "due to concerns about the 'interactive' nature of computer games and the impact on, and potential for harm to, minors, MA15+ is the highest classification".
The spokeswoman also noted that not all games platforms included a parental lock feature to prevent children from accessing adult content.
However, that argument is fast becoming void as Microsoft's recently released Windows Vista, as well as the Xbox 360, Playstation 3 and Playstation Portable, all allow parents to block games based on their classification.
Mr Hanlon said he stressed this point in letters he sent this week to all attorneys-general.
He believed the IEAA would be given another opportunity in "a few months time" to present its case to the attorneys-general in person.
Mr Ruddock's spokeswoman said the next SCAG meeting "will probably be in November", but contrary to Hanlon's claims there were no plans to continue discussing the issue.
Meanwhile, some, including former chief censor Des Clark, argue that classification laws are losing relevance in a digital era.
In March, Mr Clark told the Australian Financial Review "... we live in an age where national borders are increasingly porous".
Days later, the Australian software distributor Mindscape began selling a banned game, Marc Ecko's Getting Up: Contents Under Pressure, through its new online store quicky.com.au.
But since the store was hosted on computer servers in the US, it was technically beyond the reach of Australian classification law.
Mr Clark has since been replaced by former ABC chairman Donald McDonald, but a spokesman for the OFLC said regardless of the opinion of the chief censor, all decisions on changes to classification law were made by the attorneys-general.
***
Do you support an R18+ rating for games? SMH 16.05.07
Our politicians, particularly the attorneys-general, seem blissfully ignorant to the fact that Australia will soon be the only country in the western world without an R18+ classification for games.
Or maybe they're too absorbed in their archaic pro-censorship arguments to care?
In my opinion, adults should be able to choose the type of content they expose themselves too, and it should be fair enough to leave the onus on parents to ensure that any R18+ games don't fall into the hands of their children (which is becoming easier to do now that the PC, Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 offer parental locks).
But maybe i'm in the minority - is an R18+ rating for games a good idea?
Posted by Asher Moses May 16, 2007 3:02 PM
******
TITTY BABES RC
Calvista have had yet another title banned by the Classification Board. TITTY BABES was Refused Classification on Tuesday.
TITTY BABES Film (DVD)
Classification RC
Consumer Advice
Category Film - Sale/Hire
Version ORIGINAL
Duration variable
Date of Classification 15 May 2007
Author DAVID LORD
Publisher NOT SHOWN
Production Company AMERICAN HARDCORE
Country of Origin USA
Applicant CALVISTA AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
File Number T07/2210
Classification Number 5271742D
***
HERE CUMS THE BRIDEGROOM Censored
In slightly more positive news Calvista finally managed to get the gay hardcore DVD HERE CUMS THE BRIDEGROOM passed X18+ (Explicit Sex). It was originally banned in March, and again in April.
***
GIRLS GONE WILD: FIRST TIMERS: RC
Zeal Entertainment has had the DVD GIRLS GONE WILD: FIRST TIMERS banned by the Classification Board.
GIRLS GONE WILD - FIRST TIMERS Film (DVD)
Classification RC
Consumer Advice
Category Film - Sale/Hire
Version ORIGINAL
Duration variable
Date of Classification 9 May 2007
Author NOT SHOWN
Publisher NOT SHOWN
Production Company MANTRA FILMS
Country of Origin USA
Applicant ZEAL ENTERTAINMENT
File Number T07/2108
Classification Number 4271740F
Update May 20th 2007
Refused-Classification.com
UPDATES
12th May 2007
Rating smoking in Australia
The news that the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) are considering increasing the ratings of movies that contain smoking has seen calls for the same to happen here.
Smoking could earn R rating. Herald Sun 12.05.07
Australian audiences may soon see the same tough guidelines, with Attorney-General Philip Ruddock to quiz local censors on how smoking is taken into account when films are rated.
Local health and family groups have applauded the US action, saying the same powers should be given to Australian censors.
Mr Ruddock said he would seek clarification from the Classification Board on the issue.
"The board is already required to take drug use into consideration as one of the classifiable elements when looking at any product," Mr Ruddock said. "This can include depictions of smoking."
Mr Ruddock said he wanted to "ensure that the board is taking smoking into account when classifying films and computer games".
******
Eros Magazine Vol.8 No2
Eros Magazine Vol.8 No2 is out now. Subscription information, and a selection of some of the articles can be found at the Eros website.
******
COMMUNICATIONS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (CONTENT SERVICES) BILL 2007
The details of the CONTENT SERVICES BILL 2007 have just been released. All you need to know that it means more censorship. X18+ will be banned, as will electronic versions of Category 1 and 2 publications. So much for standardising the classifications.
Communications Legislation Amendment (Content
Services) Bill 2007
EM type EM
Bill number 07071
Date 10 May, 2007
Database Explanatory memoranda
Source House
2004-2005-2006-2007
THE PARLIAMENT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
COMMUNICATIONS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT
(CONTENT SERVICES) BILL 2007
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM
(Circulated by authority of the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator the Honourable Helen Coonan)
OUTLINE
The Communications Legislation Amendment (Content Services) Bill 2007 (the Bill) amends the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (BSA) to provide for the regulation of content services delivered over convergent devices, such as broadband services to mobile handsets, and new types of content provided over the Internet.
The existing Schedule 5 to the BSA already provides a regulatory framework for stored content made available over the Internet. However, this framework does not currently extend to ephemeral content such as live streamed audiovisual services, nor to services over other types of networks such as the mobile telephone network. Therefore, the Bill establishes a new regulatory framework for content that will be provided by a new Schedule 7 to the BSA. The new Schedule will replace Schedule 5 to the extent that it regulates Internet content hosts, and will in addition regulate live streamed content services, mobile phone-based services, and services that provide links to content.
The new framework imposes obligations on content providers that supply content services to ensure that they are provided in a manner which is not likely to result in children being exposed to material that would be likely to offend a reasonable adult. Service providers who do no more than provide a carriage service that enables content to be accessed or delivered are excluded from the regime.
The main elements of the proposed new framework are:
content that is, or potentially would be rated X 18+ and above must not be delivered or made available to the public, and access to material that is likely to be rated R18+ must be subject to appropriate age verification mechanisms;
where access to content is provided by a content service to the public for a fee (other than a news or current affairs service), and the content does not wholly consist of text or still visual images, and is likely to be classified MA 15+ or above, access to that content must be subject to appropriate age verification mechanisms. Similar arrangements will apply to content provided by premium mobile services;
the above limitations relating to prohibited content and age verification mechanisms will also apply in relation to live streamed services;
electronic editions of publications such as books and magazines which have been classified ‘Restricted-Category 1’, ‘Restricted – Category 2’ or ‘Refused Classification’ will be prohibited;
certain types of content services, including those which provide content regulated under existing broadcasting regulatory frameworks, and the content of private users’ personal communications will be excluded from the scope of the new regulatory framework;
carriage service providers who do no more than provide a carriage service that enables content to be delivered or accessed are not providing a content service, but may be required to remove access to a service where it is considered to contain prohibited material;
the scheme will be based on a model which removes access to prohibited content or potential prohibited content via the issuing of ‘take-down’ notices for stored or static content, or ‘service-cessation’ notices for live content and ‘link deletion’ notices for links to content;
to strengthen the ability of the scheme to respond to repeated and deliberate offences, the Bill proposes to enable the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) to issue a notice to a content service provider to remove content that is substantially similar to content already subject to a take-down notice;
where a content service provider fails to comply with a take-down, service-cessation or link deletion notice, including where, in ACMA’s opinion it supplies content that is substantially similar to content which is already subject to such a notice, civil or criminal penalties may be pursued;
industry codes of practice will be required to give effect to certain content service provider obligations, such as engaging appropriately trained content assessors to provide advice on the likely classification of live services, arrangements for the provision of consumer information and awareness mechanisms; and
where necessary, ACMA will have the power to determine industry standards where it considers that industry codes are deficient in ensuring that content services are provided in accordance with prevailing community standards.
Schedule 3 to the Bill would amend the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act 1999 to include the Indian Ocean Territories in reviews by the Regional Telecommunications Independent Review Committee.
FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT
The proposed new regulatory framework for emerging content services includes a significant role for ACMA, including registration and approval of industry codes of practice, and the determination of industry standards and service provider rules.
ACMA’s existing role as a complaints handling body in relation to broadcasting and online content regulation would be expanded to include complaints relating to new content services. Under the proposed arrangements for new content services, ACMA will be empowered to receive direct complaints relating to possible breaches of content service provider rules, as well as possible breaches of code of practice requirements.
As a result of these additional responsibilities, ACMA will be required to periodically refer material that has been the subject of complaint to the Classification Board for classification and to pay the associated fee.
The financial impact on content service providers of the new legislative arrangements is not expected to be great. A considerable proportion of the proposed obligations which will apply to mobile phone-based services are broadly consistent with those currently in place under the ACMA Determination for mobile premium services, which have been accepted and supported by industry. Further, it is reasonable that, where content service providers offer services on a commercial basis, they should meet the costs of ensuring that adequate safeguards are in place to protect children in particular from the risk of exposure to offensive or harmful content that could be accessed using their service.
The inclusion of the Indian Ocean Territories in reviews by the Regional Telecommunications Independent Review Committee is expected to have a negligible impact on the cost of the reviews.
REGULATION IMPACT STATEMENT
Background
The Review of the Regulation of Content Delivered over Convergent Devices
On 13 May 2004, the then Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts tabled the Report of the Review of the Operation of Schedule 5 to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (the Schedule 5 review). This review evaluated the Australian Government’s online content scheme, which is enacted through Schedule 5 to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (BSA).
One of the issues considered by the Schedule 5 review was the impact that convergent devices may have on the operation of the online content scheme. In this context, the term ‘convergent devices’ is used to mean mobile phones and other mobile communications devices that can act as multimedia platforms, and, in particular, deliver audiovisual content.
The Schedule 5 review found that:
…there is a need to ensure that appropriate protections are in place for end-users, especially children who may access this audiovisual content as it becomes available on convergent devices.1 DCITA, Report of the Review of the Operation of Schedule 5 to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, DCITA, Canberra, 2004, p. 42. 1
Further, the Schedule 5 review noted that:
In the short-term, these protections may be achieved in relation to content delivered on SMS and MMS through service provider rules imposed under the Telecommunications Act 1997. In the longer term, a review should consider whether future regulatory arrangements are required and take into account the nature of these and other new and emerging services.2 Ibid. 2
To address this in the short-term, also on 13 May 2004, the then Minister directed the Australian Communications Authority (ACA) to establish controls on access to adult content supplied via mobile phones, whether that content was supplied by premium rate SMS and MMS or on proprietary content portals or so-called ‘walled gardens’.3 ACA (Service Provider Determination) Direction 2004 (No 2), clause 4. 3
The ACA made the Telecommunications Service Provider (Mobile Premium Services) Determination (No. 1) 2005 (the SPD) to establish these rules on 29 June 2005.4 Further information about the service provider determination can be found at www.acma.gov.au/ACMAINTER.1900860:STANDARD:453308348:pc=PC_2547, viewed 6 July 2005. 4 Together with industry codes of practice made by the Internet Industry Association (IIA), this measure is serving as an interim arrangement, pending the outcome of a review by the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts (DCITA) into the appropriate longer-term regulatory approach.
The Review of the Regulation of Content Delivered over Convergent Devices (the DCITA review), has reported its findings to the Minister. The review report proposes establishment of a new regulatory framework for convergent content services in Australia.
Content Regulation in Australia
The Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 (the Classification Act) establishes the classification system for film, computer games and certain publications, including the National Classification Code (the Code) and the Guidelines for the Classification of Films and Computer Games (the Classification Guidelines).
The Classification Board and the Classification Review Board are the statutory bodies that, under the Classification Act, respectively classify and review classification decisions in relation to films, computer games and certain publications.
The Code sets out a number of principles that classification decisions are required to give effect to. These principles include: that adults should be able to read, hear and see what they want; that everyone should be protected from exposure to unsolicited material that they find offensive; and the need to take account of community concerns about depictions that condone or incite violence and the portrayal of a person in a demeaning manner.
Classifications are ranked in a hierarchy of ‘impact’ that take into account the treatment in the film or computer game of ‘classifiable elements’ and also their cumulative effect. These include violence, sex, nudity and language.
Decisions on the classification categories are conveyed to consumers through the use of accessible symbols and consumer advice that are determined from time to time under the provisions of the Classification Act. With respect to film content, the ‘G’, ‘PG’ and ‘M’ categories are ‘advisory’ categories, and do not legally restrict anyone from seeing or hiring the film. The ‘MA15+’, ‘R18+’ and ‘X18+’ categories are ‘legally restricted’ and age restrictions apply.
The BSA sets the regulatory framework for broadcasting, datacasting and Internet content in Australia. The approach to content regulation under the BSA is co-regulatory. Legislation underpins the development of industry codes of practice that are registered and enforced by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), which is the independent statutory regulator.
While there are variations in the regulatory obligations on different types of broadcasting services under the BSA, there are nonetheless objects that apply consistently across all broadcasting services regulation, including: to encourage providers of broadcasting services to respect community standards in the provision of program material; and to ensure that providers of broadcasting services place a high priority on the protection of children from exposure to program material which may be harmful to them.
Under the BSA, all broadcasting industry sectors are prohibited from providing content that has been classified X18+ or refused classification by the Classification Board.
Further, specific requirements that have to be addressed in the development of all industry sector codes of practice include: preventing the broadcasting of programs that, in accordance with community standards, are not suitable to be broadcast by that section of the industry; methods of ensuring that the protection of children from exposure to program material which may be harmful to them; methods of classifying programs that reflect community standards; and complaints procedures for dealing with concerns about programming matters, with escalated complaints to be referred to ACMA.
The national broadcasting services, the ABC and the SBS, operate independently of Government under their own legislation. However, the ABC and SBS are required to submit codes of practice to ACMA, which uses them to assess complaints against the national broadcasters.
Schedule 5 to the BSA provides for the Online Content Scheme (the Scheme), which has been in operation since 1 January 2000. The Scheme establishes a complaints-based regime, using the national classification system established under the Classification Act to regulate the Internet content delivered via an Internet carriage service and seeks to protect end-users, especially children, from inappropriate content online. It has three main components: complaints investigation; Internet industry codes of practice; and non-legislative initiatives such as community education, research and international liaison.
The Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act 1999 (the TCPSSA Act) regulates access to premium rate voice sex services. Voice sex services are identified as a certain ‘genre’ of services with associated restrictions and requirements placed on the operation of those services. This differs from the approach applied under Schedule 5 to the BSA which uses the national classification system established under the Classification Act as the basis for defining prohibited content or potentially prohibited content under the Online Content Scheme.
Problem
The rapidly increasing bandwidth available over mobile communications networks and the advanced technical features of convergent devices, such as 3G mobile phones and hand-held computers, provides new business opportunities for mobile carriage service providers (CSPs). CSPs can now offer access to broadcasting, Internet and telephone content on a single, mobile device.
These convergent content services can be expected to bring substantial benefits including improved services for consumers and new business opportunities for CSPs and content service providers. In this context, the term ‘convergent content services’ is used to denote media-rich audiovisual services delivered over new platforms (mobile Internet access, online games, retransmitted broadcasting content, mobile chat rooms and proprietary network content portals are some examples of the kinds of services available over mobile phones and other communications devices).
Increasingly, consumers will expect to access audiovisual content, on the move and at any time. Platform-specific differences between content services are unlikely to be obvious.
At the same time, however, convergent content services potentially offer a new delivery platform for potentially offensive or harmful content, management of which is regulated over other media.
Existing arrangements for content regulation in Australia have been based on certain assumptions about how content is accessed and viewed. For example, that broadcasting content was watched on a large bulky device in the lounge room, enabling easy parental supervision; Internet content on a desktop computer and telephone sex services via the home telephone. Until now, mobile phones which may be less amenable to parental supervision, were unable to provide access to audiovisual material.
Convergent content services undercut these assumptions. A consumer with a single convergent communications device could access a premium voice service, a telephone sex service, a premium mobile service (text or audiovisual content) and Internet content. The platform specific nature of the current arrangements for content regulation mean that there would be differences in the regulation of each of these services.
This has given rise to uncertainty about the extent to which convergent content services are already regulated and concern about the potential for inconsistent regulatory treatment of essentially the same content.
The regulatory uncertainty that surrounds this market has already delayed the introduction of some services and may hinder new service development and deprive industry of potentially significant revenue streams.
Certain of the technical features and capabilities of convergent communications devices, notably their ability to connect strangers through interactive services such as chat and identify the location of the user with increasing accuracy, have also given rise to concern about their potential misuse to facilitate inappropriate contact, especially with children.
Objectives
The first objective of the proposed new regulatory framework is that providers of convergent content services should be required to respect community standards and to establish measures that protect children from exposure to content that would be inappropriate or harmful to them. In so doing, the framework will be consistent with content regulation over other media in Australia.
The second objective, which is again focussed on children, is that service providers should be required to establish safety measures to address the potential misuse of certain new services for the purpose of making inappropriate contact. In so doing, the framework recognises the important role of consumer education in promoting safe use in the modern communications environment.
The third objective is to provide a regulatory framework that has sufficient flexibility to accommodate changing technological developments and market structures in the communications sector. As noted in paragraph 24 above, existing regulatory approaches have tended to be platform-based.
The fourth objective of the new framework is to achieve the regulatory policy of the BSA that regulation should not impose unnecessary financial and administrative burdens on industry and should encourage the development of communications technologies and their take-up in Australia. This will be achieved through a co-regulatory approach that provides the flexibility of industry developed codes of practice.
Finally, the new framework aims to harmonise the regulation of existing communications content and to reduce the complexity encountered by consumers, industry and regulators.
Options
There are four broad issues to be addressed in assessing options for the regulation of convergent content services: what arrangements should apply to ‘stored’ convergent content services; what arrangements should apply to live, or ‘ephemeral’ convergent content services; what is the appropriate response to the risk of inappropriate contact arising from content services which potentially combine live interactive services such as chat, audiovisual capabilities and location determination; and what arrangements should apply to mobile Internet access.
Stored Content
Content services can be categorised as being either stored or ‘ephemeral’. Ephemeral services are essentially live and include streamed audiovisual material and interactive chat services. They are not pre-recorded or stored prior to delivery and so cannot be classified or pre-assessed in the same manner as stored content.
Stored content services, on the other hand, can be classified or otherwise assessed prior to delivery so that consumers can be given information to assist in making informed choices about the content they view and so that access restrictions can be imposed as necessary. There are essentially three options for regulating stored convergent content services that are offered commercially: to rely entirely on industry self-regulation; to continue the interim arrangements established by the ACA SPD and the IIA codes; to establish a new framework as proposed in the DCITA review report.
Impact Analysis
Option (a) – Self regulation
To achieve an entirely self-regulatory outcome, it would be necessary to revoke the ACA’s service provider determination for premium mobile services (SPD). Except for the restriction of adult SMS/MMS services to the 195 and 196 number ranges, industry would then self-regulate convergent content services. This would provide the mobile content industry with the greatest flexibility to introduce new services.
The SPD contains measures to prohibit content assessed as X18+ or refused classification, restrict content assessed as R18+ or MA15+ and requires industry members to establish a complaints-handling process including an independent escalated complaints-handling body.
The IIA codes which are, with respect to mobile content services, essentially self regulatory would continue. While they complement the rules imposed by the SPD, they only partially cover the range of service offerings possible on convergent devices. They do not, for example, apply to premium rate services and there is legal uncertainty about their application to CSP content portals.
Under this option, the community would not be assured of the same protections with respect to inappropriate content as exist for other media. Much convergent content is expected to be derivative of content on traditional media. For instance, ‘mobisodes’ drawn from television series, ‘teasers’ for cinema release movies and video-on-demand or information updates from news and sporting events. However, under this approach, mobile CSPs and content service providers would be subject to significantly lesser obligations than those imposed, for example, on broadcasters or film distributors.
Further, in the absence of guidelines about assessment of content and consumer information, an entirely self-regulatory approach may lead to a proliferation of approaches to content assessment which are unlikely in themselves to be well understood by consumers and may have a negative impact on consumer awareness of the categories of the national classification scheme.
Without a legislative basis to industry self-regulation, there would not be an effective remedy to address service providers that failed to comply with the self-regulatory scheme. Nor would there be any guarantee that industry would develop appropriate safety measures and community education initiatives to address the risk of inappropriate contact.
Mobile CSPs and content service providers actively engaged in the development of the SPD and worked cooperatively in that process. It is unlikely, however, that industry groups would have progressed so far towards a self-regulatory scheme without the prospect of stronger regulatory intervention suggested by the SPD.
Mobile CSPs and content service providers have allocated staffing resources and are in the process of undertaking adjustments to their operations to meet the obligations imposed by the SPD. These regulatory costs would have been imposed unnecessarily in the event the SPD was to be revoked.
Option (b) – Continue the interim arrangements
Under this option, the SPD and the IIA codes of practice would provide the regulatory framework for convergent content services in the longer term.
This would not be an optimal approach. It would perpetuate platform-specific regulation which is already anachronistic. There would be co-existing regulatory structures operating under different legislation and with different industry self-regulatory bodies. There are also different complaints handling processes, enforcement provisions and penalties for non-compliance between the two measures that would be inappropriate and potentially burdensome in the longer term.
While sub-optimal, this approach was adopted pending the outcome of the DCITA review because of legal constraints that prevented existing regulatory models under either broadcasting or telecommunications legislation having effect across the range of convergent content services.
While industry would be assured that resources allocated to the development of the SPD and IIA were not wasted, there would be the potential for unforeseen regulatory burdens. Further, while the SPD and IIA codes are broadly consistent, they potentially overlap with respect to certain services and may create confusion for consumers and lead to regulatory ‘shopping’.
In order to mitigate the potential for regulatory ‘shopping’, ACMA has underlined to industry that where the SPD imposes stronger requirements than the IIA codes of practice, they are legally bound to meet those stronger obligations. Compliance with the IIA codes would not be sufficient. While this approach is acceptable as an interim measure, it would not be appropriate that it continue in the longer term.
Option (c) – New legislative framework for convergent content services
The DCITA review has found that new convergent content services cut across existing regulatory approaches under the BSA and telecommunications legislation. These approaches have been implemented to address public interest considerations about access to inappropriate content, especially by minors, as they have arisen. They are underpinned by assumptions about how and where content will be accessed that can no longer be made with any certainty.
In the face of rapid technology and market developments, the challenge for government is to provide a coherent regulatory framework for all non-broadcasting content that is provided commercially over communications networks.
As mentioned previously, while audiovisual services on convergent devices, such as new-generation mobile handsets, are new and potentially innovative because they are delivered to people on the move, much of the content is likely to be derivative of traditional media. In this context, it would be preferable to align regulation of these services with the general approach to content regulation under the BSA and to provide that consumers receive broadly equivalent levels of consumer information expressed in consistent terms with traditional media.
The DCITA review has found that mobile CSPs are generally able to control the convergent content services that are accessed on their networks either directly because they are offered as branded content, or indirectly through contractual arrangements, with CSPs taking a share of revenue for the sale of content or information services. The review has found that mobile CSPs and content service providers should be required to exercise this ability to provide consumer information and restricted access to content that would not be suitable for children.
The review recommends that where CSPs offer content services over which they have either direct control (branded content on their own content portal), or contractual control (such as third party content made available on a revenue share basis), they will be subject to obligations that would require pre-assessment of content, consumer information and complaints handling.
Further, regulation based on the level of control exercised by service providers rather than the communications delivery platform is likely to be more robust and adaptable in the face of new and innovative service offerings. By avoiding platform specificity, the proposed approach will be better able to accommodate technological and market change. The proposed framework would be co-regulatory.
Industry participants who develop complaints-handling procedures under an Industry code of practice to which they agree to be bound would receive consumer complaints in the first instance. This mechanism provides service providers with the opportunity to investigate whether prohibited or potentially prohibited content has been erroneously supplied as part of their service and quickly remedy the problem. If the situation can not be resolved the complaint would be escalated to the ACMA. In cases where a service provider has not implemented code-compliant mechanisms, consumers would be able to complain directly to ACMA for its investigation as to whether a breach has occurred.
ACMA would have a range of options to prevent regulatory breaches, including the power to determine service provider rules and issue remedial directions to ensure ongoing compliance with regulatory obligations.
The DCITA review has found that it would be unreasonably burdensome to require classification of convergent content services under the national classification scheme. This is because of the dynamic nature of the content, the number of content items likely to be involved, their time specific value and their rapid refreshment rate.
Rather, the framework proposed under this option would implement an adapted model. While aligned with the national classification scheme, the requirements for pre-assessment of convergent content would reflect the commercial and technical realities of the mobile convergent environment.
Under this option, material meeting the descriptors for the X18+ and RC classifications would be prohibited in Australia from delivery over convergent communications devices. Material likely to meet the classifiable elements associated with MA15+ and R18+ would be so assessed and subject to restricted access systems approved by ACMA. Except for the restriction of content that would be MA15+ to persons of 18 years and over, these requirements are generally comparable with those imposed on traditional media.
The requirement that material that would be MA15+ should be restricted is a more stringent one than applies, for instance, with respect to cinema release films classified MA15+ which are not legally restricted for minors aged 15 years or over. At the current time, however, the only reliable and efficient mechanisms to verify the age of consumers is to do so by reference to whether or not they are 18 years of age.
In relation to convergent content that had already been classified under the national classification scheme or assessed under the framework for regulating broadcasting services provided by the BSA, the classification granted under those arrangements would stand within the meaning of the proposed new regulatory framework.
By utilising the expertise of ACMA in relation to broadcasting and online content regulation, the proposed framework can be expected to generate regulatory efficiencies and to be aligned to the greatest extent practicable with broadcasting content regulation which is generally well understood by consumers and industry alike.
However, as it is proposed to include much of the detail of the proposed new framework in industry codes of practice, the specific impact in terms of compliance costs for the four main mobile network operators, and the broader mobile content industry, is difficult to quantify at this early stage.
The framework proposed under this option would not extend to general communications consumer issues such as prices, terms and conditions. These would continue to be regulated under telecommunications legislation with cross-referrals between regulatory agencies as appropriate.
Conclusion and recommended option
While option (a) would provide the mobile content industry with maximum flexibility in the introduction of convergent content services, it is highly likely to result in lesser consumer protections than are required for traditional media. This would run counter to the objective of achieving consistency between the regulation of content delivered over traditional and new media. It would also fail to address valid community expectations about the safe availability of new communications services.
Option (b) would be a sub-optimal outcome in that it utilises existing regulatory measures that were either not designed for content regulation or cannot apply to the full range of convergent content service offerings. This approach can provide sufficient protection from inappropriate content and contact in the short to medium term but, if extended further, is likely to lead to unforeseen regulatory burdens.
Option(c) which is consistent with what was proposed by the DCITA review is, therefore, the recommended option. It will provide certainty for mobile CSPs and content service providers and enable the responsible rollout of innovative services for consumers.
Regulation based on the level of control exercised by service providers rather than the communications delivery platform, as provided by option (c), is likely to be more robust and adaptable in the face of new technologies and the development of innovative content services.
Ephemeral Content Services
Ephemeral content services that are offered commercially include interactive chat and streamed audiovisual services. Except for the regulation of telephone sex services, content regulation in Australia is currently focussed overwhelmingly on stored content. In considering whether this is appropriate to continue in the future, three options have been identified: no action; to extend the existing ‘genre’ based approach used in the regulation of telephone sex services to new and emerging services; to establish a new framework as proposed in the DCITA review report.
Impact Analysis
Option (a) – No action
As mentioned above, content regulation in Australia is currently focussed on stored content. The national classification scheme does not extend to transitory or ephemeral content. Schedule 5 to the BSA which establishes the online content scheme explicitly defines Internet content as information that is kept on a data storage device. And content streamed over the Internet is excluded from the definition of a broadcasting service under the BSA.
This lack of focus on regulating ephemeral content services is partly explained by the inherent difficulty of regulating live content and partly by the fact that, until now, there has not been a significant market for ephemeral content that is offered on a commercial basis.
While chat services on the Internet are highly popular and have experienced considerable growth, they are generally not offered commercially. And it would be inappropriate to seek to regulate the free exchange of information between individuals except to the extent it breaches the criminal law.
In translating chat services from the Internet to mobile platforms, however, service providers have developed a commercial proposition for service delivery. Early experience suggests that, unlike on the Internet, mobile consumers are prepared to pay for chat and potentially other ephemeral, interactive services.
Given the popularity of chat services generally and the early growth of commercially provided chat services over mobile platforms, it is likely that ephemeral services offered on a commercial basis will become significant drivers of the growth of convergent content services.
There is community concern in Australia and overseas about potential risks arising from children engaging with live services. These risks fall into two broad types. The first is that children might be exposed to material that is inappropriate or harmful to them. The second is that they may be lured into unsafe contact. Options to mitigate this second risk are addressed below.
Where mobile CSPs and content service providers offer ephemeral services commercially, they have a measure of control over the service. They target particular demographics or interest groups - both through the labelling of the service and through the means and placement of advertisements. For commercial reasons, therefore, service providers make informed assessments about the types of content particular services are likely to attract.
The IIA codes that were developed pending the outcome of the DCITA review provide that service providers may assess the likely or anticipated nature of content that has a live or real-time component. Where services are likely or anticipated to contain adult content, the codes require that an appropriate warning message should be displayed prior to the consumer accessing the service. These provisions of the codes are currently entirely self-regulatory. Given the likely revenue stream to the mobile content industry from these services, it would not be overly burdensome or unreasonable to require more than would be provided under this option.
The DCITA review has found that it would be feasible to develop an assessment model for ephemeral content services that are offered commercially that, by reference to the classification categories of the national classification scheme, provides information to consumers about the strength of the content to which they or their families are likely to be exposed.
While ephemeral services are not amenable to classification in the strict sense, they could be assessed in terms that are consistent with the national classification scheme. This would have the benefit of providing generally consistent levels of consumer information as commercial ephemeral services move into the mainstream on convergent devices.
Under option (a), however, the only consumer protections against inappropriate material on commercial ephemeral content services would be those provided by the IIA codes. They are significantly weaker obligations than those that apply to commercial stored content and have no legislative basis. There would be no effective remedy in the event of non-compliance.
Given the likely popularity of commercial ephemeral services on convergent devices, especially amongst children, it would be inappropriate to regulate them as though they are, or will continue to be, niche services. Rather, it would be desirable to align the regulation of such services, to the extent possible, with other content regulation in Australia and with the approach proposed for commercial stored content.
Option (b) – Extend the genre-based framework for telephone sex services to other commercial ephemeral content services
The regulatory framework for telephone sex services in Australia is provided by Part 9A of the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act 1999 (TCPSSA). It is conceptually different from other content regulation in Australia.
Telephone sex services regulation relies on a ‘genre-based’ technique which does not contain consumer information of the sort provided by reference to classification categories of the national classification scheme. Under this approach, a service either is or is not a telephone sex service as defined by the TCPSSA. In the event that it is, it is required to be placed behind a restricted access system.
While this binary test provides adequate consumer information where services are targeting a niche market and are offered only on restricted number ranges, it is not nuanced and does not provide consumers with information that is expressed in terms that are consistent with other media.
ACMA is responsible for the administration of telephone sex service regulation in Australia and has advised the DCITA review of practical concerns with respect to effective enforcement of the scheme. ACMA’s role as regulator of Part 9A derives from the statement of its telecommunications functions in the Australian Communications and Media Authority Act 2005.
Prior to the establishment of the merged regulator, the ACA would refer suspect services for investigation to the Australian Broadcasting Authority (ABA). Part 9A provides for the ABA to issue an evidentiary certificate which would constitute prima facie evidence that a service was a telephone sex service. Where the ABA concluded that a service was likely to be a telephone sex service, the ACA could take enforcement action if the CSP or telephone sex service provider was in breach of the legislative requirements. This procedural separation is to be continued within ACMA.
The process to determine whether to issue an evidentiary certificate requires ACMA staff to interact with the service under investigation. This has proved problematic and also presents difficulties in accurately determining the nature of the service.
Option (c) – Establish a new framework as proposed in the DCITA review report
As foreshadowed in the discussion of option (a) above, the DCITA review has found that it would be feasible to develop a co-regulatory framework for the regulation of commercial ephemeral content services that requires pre-assessment of content, access restrictions or prohibition where appropriate and complaints handling processes. The DCITA review has also found that it would be desirable to align this framework with that proposed for commercial stored content where practicable. In order to do this effectively, industry assessors would be required to receive appropriate content assessment training.
This approach would have the benefit of providing generally consistent levels of consumer information as commercial ephemeral services move into the mainstream on convergent devices. Consumers are also likely to better understand and feel more generally comfortable with content information expressed in familiar terms.
As mentioned in the discussion of option (b) above, there have been practical problems with the evidentiary certificate process for the enforcement of telephone sex service regulation. In that context, the DCITA review has found that it would be preferable to establish a process for investigating complaints about commercial ephemeral content services that does not require interaction with the service by employees of either the CSP or the regulator.
The complaints handling processes for ephemeral content proposed under this option would be generally consistent with those for stored content as outlined in paragraph 56. Where a content service provider has developed a complaints mechanism in accordance with an industry code of practice, they will be identified as the first point of complaint about services that are thought to have been incorrectly assessed. Escalated complaints and complaints about content provided by service providers who have not instituted code-compliant complaints mechanisms would be decided by ACMA.
Under this option, consumers would have the benefit of increased information about the services that they and their children access. They would be able to complain about content that they believed had been incorrectly assessed and, from the consumers’ perspective the procedures to be followed would be consistent with complaints processes for content available on other media.
There would be some additional costs for industry as a result of this option. As the first point of complaint, however, they would be able to respond in a timely manner to breaches and would, appropriately, be aware of community reaction to the services they make available on their networks. Being aligned with the framework for stored content, service providers should be able to streamline their operations so as to reduce compliance costs. Costs to industry would, moreover, be minimised as a result of the complaints-based nature of the framework.
Providing scope for complaints to be directed to ACMA where a content service provider has not established a complaints handling mechanism strikes an appropriate balance between allowing for flexibility in industry self-regulation and ensuring that consumer complaints are always dealt with appropriately.
Under this option, the regulation of telephone sex services would be brought under the proposed framework for commercial ephemeral content. Historically, these and other premium rate services have been regulated under telecommunications legislation because they have been services delivered specifically to telephone handsets. The DCITA review has found, however, that market and technology developments will lead to the availability of significantly similar audiovisual content services across a range of platforms and devices, including fixed and mobile phone handsets.
In this context, there would be little justification for retaining a discrete regulatory framework for premium rate services under telecommunications legislation. Moreover, the new framework would address the practical problems that have been identified in the enforcement of telephone sex service regulation.
Conclusion and recommended option
The DCITA review has found that commercial ephemeral content services are likely to become mainstream on convergent devices. There is community concern about the exposure of minors to inappropriate content through services such as chat rooms – including, for instance, a recent example of a chat room focussed on the discussion of rape.
While the IIA have moved some way to addressing these concerns with respect to the mobile environment, the obligations imposed are considerably weaker than those that would apply under the proposed framework for commercial stored convergent content.
Under option (a) there is an unacceptable risk that children will be able to access inappropriate commercial ephemeral content. This would fall short of the policies of successive governments for content regulation in Australia.
In the light of an identified and practicable alternative that would provide consumer protections consistent with traditional media and those proposed for commercial stored content, option (a) is unjustified.
Option (b) would not be optimal. It would perpetuate platform-specific regulation of content when essentially the same content services are expected to be widely available through a range of delivery platforms. It would create inflexible regulatory silos in the face of technology and market developments.
The level of consumer information possible under option (b) is restricted and would not be consistent with that proposed for stored convergent content.
Further, option (b) would not address the practical problems that have been identified with the enforcement of current telephone sex service regulation. Extending that approach to services that are likely to become mainstream will only exacerbate those problems and may lead to ineffective regulation.
Option (c) would utilise the well understood concepts of the national classification scheme and leverage the proposed approach to commercial stored convergent content to establish a practicable solution. As a complaints-based, co-regulatory scheme, this option would not impose unjustifiable regulatory burdens on industry. For these reasons, option (c) is recommended.
Inappropriate Contact
Convergent communications devices combine live interactive services such as chat, audiovisual capabilities and increasingly accurate device location determination. This has given rise to concerns about personal safety, especially with respect to children. While the provisions of the criminal code address illegal behaviour, there is scope for mobile CSPs and content service providers to implement preventive measures that would mitigate those risks. It may also be desirable to impose legislated restrictions on the offering of certain services. Three options have been identified: no regulatory action; to rely on the chat safety obligations imposed by the ACA SPD; to implement a co-regulatory approach with industry codes of practice underpinned by legislative requirements as appropriate.
Impact Analysis
Option (a) – Self regulation
To achieve an entirely self regulatory outcome, the chat safety obligations of the ACA SPD would need to be revoked. In that event, there would be no guarantee that the mobile content industry would develop appropriate safety measures and community education initiatives to address the risk of inappropriate contact.
As in the case of other aspects of the SPD, mobile CSPs and content service providers actively engaged in the development of the chat safety provisions and worked cooperatively in that process. It is unlikely, however, that industry groups would have progressed so far towards a self-regulatory scheme without the prospect of stronger regulatory intervention suggested by the SPD.
As noted in the discussion of option (a) for stored content, mobile CSPs and content service providers have allocated staffing resources and are in the process of developing safety measures to meet the obligations imposed by the SPD. These regulatory costs would have been imposed unnecessarily in the event the SPD was to be revoked.
Option (b) – Continue the interim arrangements
Recognising the potential risks associated with certain types of chat services and the scope for preventive interventions by industry, the SPD requires that mobile CSPs and chat service providers develop and implement chat safety measures. In this respect the SPD goes further than the direction given to it by the then Minister.
Under the SPD, service providers will be guided by a safety measures notice developed by ACMA. The scheme will be enforced through codes of practice at the industry-wide level and compliance plans at the service provider level. By this means, mobile CSPs and chat service providers can tailor their response to the obligations imposed by the SPD to suit their particular technical and commercial structures.
This approach recognises the operational and commercial differences that exist between members of the mobile content industry and allows them to develop and implement safety measures that are likely to be most effective in their circumstances. It is expected to avoid unforeseen or variable regulatory burdens.
The compliance plan and code development processes required by the SPD recognise that mobile CSPs and chat service providers are best able to understand their service offerings and assess the effectiveness of potential safety measures.
While this approach is likely to result in effective chat safety measures, it would not be appropriate to rely on the SPD to address potential safety concerns arising from convergent communications devices in the long term. The ACA did not consider the potential impact of location-based (LB) services which were considered in the DCITA review. Nor would the SPD flexibly encompass new, as yet unidentified, services that raised safety concerns. As a result, this option would only partially address concerns about inappropriate contact associated with convergent communications devices.
Option (c) – Implement a co-regulatory approach with industry codes of practice underpinned by legislative requirements as appropriate
The DCITA review has found that there are grounds for community concern that mobile chat and other interactive services will potentially lead to inappropriate contact, especially with children. However, it has also identified countervailing factors that, utilised correctly, mitigate that concern.
For instance, in submissions to the DCITA review, mobile CSPs have all attested to the commercial importance of brand image and to community expectations about the safe provision of services. Such considerations will be effectively harnessed under a co-regulatory approach.
Further, mobile CSPs have greater control over the content accessed by consumers where they are receiving a share of the revenue of the content service. This applies both to content on their portals and to third-party content accessed through their portals. The control that they can exercise extends to the application of safety measures to certain services, including chat and potentially other interactive content.
Under this option, mobile CSPs that offer chat services commercially, would be required to ensure that safety measures are in place that are appropriate to the risk associated with the particular service. The mobile content industry would be required to develop codes of practice addressing contact issues in the mobile environment. These codes would be approved and registered by ACMA.
Recognising that this is a dynamic market in which new types of chat and interactive services are constantly being created, the DCITA review suggests that industry is best placed to anticipate and understand service offerings. Likewise, the range of safety measures that can be applied to new services can be expected to be dynamic. Some safety measures may be more practicable and effective for one service than for another.
As a result, the proposed co-regulatory framework would be designed to allow individual industry members some flexibility to determine the combination of safety measures that best suit their service offerings and their commercial and network structures. In circumstances where ACMA considers that safety concerns are not being adequately dealt with through the co-regulatory framework, it could require certain measures to be implemented through the development of a service provider rule or industry standard.
The work being undertaken by industry and ACMA on chat safety under the SPD is expected to provide a valuable basis for the co-regulatory approach under this option. Understanding that the SPD was to be an interim measure pending the outcome of the DCITA review, the two processes were coordinated so that there could be as smooth as possible a transition from one to the other. This will minimise any unnecessary regulatory burdens and facilitate the efficient implementation of the long term approach.
While, in an immediate sense, the obligation to implement safety measures would be focussed on chat services, it would encompass other convergent services that potentially raise safety concerns. For instance, certain location-based (LB) services that are not currently available in Australia would raise concerns about inappropriate contact with children. In the event that those services were to be made commercially available, the mobile content industry safety codes would be required to address those concerns. ACMA and industry, in cooperation with law enforcement agencies, would work together to identify services of potential concern.
Under the framework proposed by this option, one of the legislative requirements upon mobile CSPs would be to ensure that LB services are commercially available only with the consent of the account holder. This would go a significant way towards addressing the concern that commercial LB services could be offered to identify the location of an end-user to another person without that user’s consent or knowledge.
Notwithstanding this requirement, there would be residual concerns about a service which allowed an account holder to track the location of a second handset (operated under the same account). In this scenario, a tracking service could be initiated by the account holder without the knowledge or consent of the person operating that handset.
Under this option, the mobile content industry safety codes would be required to provide safeguards so that where account holders agree to location-based services that would locate secondary account holders that are minors, they have the legal authority as parent or guardian to do so.
This option would require the mobile content industry to address community concerns about the safe use of convergent content services. It will flexibly encompass new service offerings in a highly dynamic commercial environment. Being co-regulatory, it recognises that the mobile content industry is best placed to anticipate and understand service offerings and that some safety measures may be more practicable and effective for one service than for another. At the same time, its legislative basis provides an assurance that non-compliance can be addressed.
Conclusion and recommended option
There is a risk that interactive or other convergent services could potentially facilitate inappropriate contact. While the provisions of the Criminal Code will address illegal behaviour, mobile CSPs and content service providers have the capacity to develop and implement preventive interventions that would mitigate the risk of that occurring. They should be required to do so.
Option (a) would not provide a sufficient response to community expectations about the safe provision of convergent services. It would lack an effective mechanism to address non-compliance and would not provide a reliable process for the identification of new services that would potentially raise safety concerns.
Option (b) only provides measures to address services of current concern. It will not flexibly encompass new and emerging services and does not provide measures to address certain LB services - already available overseas - that are known potentially to be of concern.
Option (c) would require the Australian mobile content industry to be actively engaged in identifying services of potential risk and in developing and implementing preventive safety measures. It would be sufficiently flexible to encompass new services and to accommodate operational and commercial differences between service providers. This would provide regulatory certainty to the mobile content industry. The service provider rule and industry standard mechanisms also allow for ACMA to cause measures to be put in place if it considers that service providers are not adequately addressing safety issues related to ephemeral services.
While there will be compliance costs for industry in meeting the obligations of option (c), they will only be in response to services with an identifiable potential for misuse. Further, these would be services which industry had identified as providing a viable revenue stream that would mitigate the compliance costs of a safety measures requirement.
Also, work being undertaken in the context of the SPD will be utilised under option (c) thereby minimising unnecessary regulatory burdens. Option (c) is therefore the recommended approach.
Mobile Internet Access
Convergent communications devices have the technical capability to access the Internet. Whether mobile CSPs make Internet access available as part of their service offering is likely to be a commercial decision. The potential popularity of mobile Internet access, is however, expected to be high.
Where mobile CSPs provide access to the open Internet using convergent communications devices, they are providing the same service as a traditional Internet service provider (ISP) and do not have control over the content accessed by consumers. While they would not be subject to the proposed regulatory framework for convergent content, they would be subject to the regulatory obligations imposed by the online content scheme, namely, Schedule 5 to the BSA and the Internet industry codes of practice.
The requirement under the online content scheme that ISPs make content filters available to their customers upon request on a cost price basis, is not currently practicable for mobile CSPs that provide Internet access. This potentially impacts on the effectiveness of the online content scheme and two options have been identified: no action; amend the online content scheme to provide the Minister with flexibility to determine a non-filtering protocol.
Impact Analysis
Option (a) – No action
Filtering technologies can limit the Internet content consumers can access by preventing or blocking access to specified types of content. Their availability of filter products is a central component of the online content scheme.
Filter products are not yet commercially available in the mobile environment with the effect that mobile CSPs offering Internet access would appear to be non-compliant with the code requirements of the online content scheme.
In the event mobile CSPs were directed by ACMA to comply with the codes, they would currently be unable to do so and would be guilty of an offence under the BSA.
Option (b) - Amend the online content scheme to provide the Minister with flexibility to determine a non-filtering protocol
This is the option proposed in the DCITA review report. It would require amendment to Schedule 5 of the BSA to provide the Minister with the flexibility to exempt ISPs from filtering requirements in situations where the development of filter technologies lags behind new devices and operating systems that enable Internet access. Such exemptions would be conditional on CSPs providing Internet access having implemented sufficient non-filtering based community safeguards.
Parliament’s intention in establishing the online content scheme was that inappropriate Internet content be addressed in some way. The explanatory memorandum to the Bill that enacted Schedule 5 stated the Government’s view that ‘…it is not acceptable to make no attempt at all on the basis that it may be difficult’.5 Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Bill 1999 Revised Explanatory Memorandum, p. 2. 5
Under this option CSPs would be required to investigate the application of filters and alternative access controls as technologies emerge for which filter products are initially not available. At such time as filter technologies become commercially feasible, the Minister should remove the exemption from filtering requirements for that access technology.
In the meantime, the Internet industry would be required to implement procedures so that consumers purchasing Internet enabled devices or Internet access services for which content filters are not available are advised of that fact and offered the option of selecting another device or barring Internet access.
This arrangement would approximate the requirement that a scheduled content filter be available to ISPs’ subscribers on demand and that ISPs have a responsibility to promote content filters to their subscribers.
Conclusion and Recommended Option
Option (a) would do nothing to address the possible difficulties that may be encountered by mobile CSPs that provide Internet access in complying with the online content scheme. Given the commercial investments made already, the likely consumer demand for mobile content services and the significant economic and personal benefits likely to be gained from greater connectivity, this would not be a desirable outcome.
Further, given that the development of filter technologies can be expected to lag behind the development of access technologies, this situation is likely to be repeated in the future as new access technologies are developed. This would lead to the risk of stifled innovation, delayed service availability and revenue streams together with regulatory uncertainty for industry.
On the other hand, option (b) would provide the Minister with flexibility to determine an alternative approach to providing community safeguards pending development of filter products. It would provide that Parliament’s intention to address inappropriate Internet content is addressed in a way that avoids delaying valuable service introduction. It is the recommended approach.
Consultation
The DCITA review involved wide-ranging consultation including 19 submissions from industry, government agencies and other interested parties. DCITA also conducted a series of interviews with industry and other stakeholders so as to understand the commercial and technical structures that support the convergent content industry.
The ACA’s SPD involved extensive consultation including release of a draft SPD for public comment and industry submissions. Where appropriate, these views informed the DCITA review. Discussions with CSPs and mobile content service providers in the context of the ACA’s SPD indicate that a favourable response to the kinds of measures proposed by the review is likely.
A draft report of the review was provided to ACMA, the OFLC, and the Attorney-General’s Department. Further, the proposed regulatory framework for convergent content has been discussed in broad terms with industry.
Implementation and review
The new framework for the regulation of convergent content would be introduced through amendment to the BSA.
The new framework would be administered by ACMA and would be the subject of statutory review within three years.
Update May 12th 2007
Refused-Classification.com
UPDATES
5th May 2007
Discussion Paper: Material That Advocates Terrorist Acts.
The Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock has released a discussion paper titled Material That Advocates Terrorist Acts.
His aim is to get the following clause included in the current REFUSED CLASSIFICATION guidelines.
TERRORIST ACTS
Advocating terrorist acts.
You have until Tuesday May 29th to get your opinions into the review.
***
The Eros Association have been pushing the ALP to modify their views on the X18+ rating.
The Eros Association
Media Release: 29 April 07
Adult Retailers Demand Action at ALP Conference
Australia’s adult retailers have written to Labor President Warren Mundine urging him to take a closer look at the ALP’s platform on free speech and the party’s attitudes to sex.
In a letter to Mundine and all State Labor Secretaries, Eros CEO Fiona Patten, said that the long-standing free speech statements in Section 63 of the ALP Platform were those used by Attorney General Gareth Evans in 1983-4 to construct a national classification scheme and to include an X rating for non- violent explicit erotica. Ms Patten said that all state Labor Attorneys had chosen to ignore Section 63 in framing their own Classification Enforcement Acts which meant they had excluded the X rating from their own state regimes. “The National Conference should modify Section 63 to say that “Adults should be entitled to read, hear and see what they wish in private and in public, except when material involves depictions of actual sex” or they should direct the State Labor Attorneys to enact laws that reflect the party’s Platform.
She said that conference delegates should be appalled that the party was continuing to state in Section 64 that “(Labor) will conduct research into the impact of the portrayal of violence on our society”, when they had done none at all. “The reason that they have not done this is because it will be an embarrassment to the State Labor governments”, she said. “Federal Labor did this research in 1988 through the Australian Institute of Criminology (Trends and Issues #9) and were told that, “In voicing this concern over the possible harmful effects of sexually violent material, we would urge that such material be clearly differentiated from non-violent sexual material, suggested to be less of a threat or no threat to the community in quoted research.”
She said that Labor’s refusal to regulate the adult industry in the states and to ensure that only non-violent sexual material was available, was an unnecessary fop to hard line religious and morals groups which only encouraged unclassified and sexually violent material to be available under the counter.
“Labor risks being seen as a wowser party by the four million voters who buy X18+ films”, she said. “Young Australians in particular, look to Labor for policies that encourage personal freedoms and keep abreast of changing community standards around sex.”
Ms Patten said that even the Prime Minister was more forward –looking on these issues when he said about X rated films “Unless there is overwhelming evidence that watching these videos produces very anti-social behaviour, you can’t really tell adults what they should see and hear and read. I don’t think that I have some kind of moral right to tell people how they should behave and I won’t even try.”(Adelaide Advertiser 1/5/97)
“Young and baby-boomer Australians like their sex and do not want to have the ALP shaking its finger at them like the conservative parties do”, she said. “The Greens are the only party to have written policies on sex and censorship that actually encompass Section 63 of the ALP Platform and Labor will push large numbers of young voters to the Greens if they do not stick to their own rhetoric on this issue.
Fiona Patten
0413 734 613
02 6285 2477
***
Adelaide Sexpo
The above media release was also timed to coincide with the Adelaide Sexpo which was being held between the 3rd and 6th of May at the Adelaide Showgrounds.
Adult industry wants shift on film ban. SMH 03.05.07
"Federal Labor policy now firmly states that adults in South Australia have a right to purchase adult material as long as it is not sold to minors, is not sold through family areas and as long as there is no degrading or demeaning imagery in it," Ms Patten said.
"All these criteria are met by selling X18+ films through the restricted adult shop network that already exists in South Australia."
Ms Patten said if South Australian Attorney-General Michael Atkinson was serious about a prohibition on adult films then he should extend bans to include buying and possession, and not just outlaw the sale.
"By banning sale alone, he has made it quite legal for politicians, police and magistrates to all legally buy and take home X18+ films but then asks them to turn around and prosecute the same people who sold the product to them," she said.
******
HOTWIFE COMPENDIUM EBOOK VOLUME 1: RC
On Friday, the HOTWIFE COMPENDIUM EBOOK VOLUME 1 was Refused Classification. This was due to be sold at the Adelaide Sexpo.
HOTWIFE COMPENDIUM EBOOK VOLUME 1 Film (CD-ROM)
Classification RC
Consumer Advice
Category Film - Sale/Hire
Version ORIGINAL
Duration variable
Date of Classification 4 May 2007
Author DAVID ADKIN
Publisher DAVID ADKIN
Production Company HOTWIFE COMPENDIUM ENTERPRISES
Country of Origin AUSTRALIA
Applicant HOTWIFE COMPENDIUM ENTERPRISES
File Number T07/1934
Classification Number 73611606
***
KELLY'S LOST MOVIE: RC
Calvista have censored the recently banned KELLY'S LOST MOVIE and have been rewarded with an X18+ (Explicit Sex) rating.
KELLY'S LOST MOVIE Film (DVD)
Classification RC
Consumer Advice
Category Film - Sale/Hire
Version ORIGINAL
Duration variable
Date of Classification 12 April 2007
Author ROCCO SIFFREDI
Publisher ROCCO SIFFREDI
Production Company EVIL EMPIRE
Country of Origin USA
Applicant CALVISTA AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
File Number T07/1594
Classification Number 764A2614
KELLY'S LOST MOVIE Film (DVD)
Classification X 18+ (Restricted to 18 and over.)
Consumer Advice Explicit sex
Category Film - Sale/Hire
Version REVISED
Duration variable
Date of Classification 3 May 2007
Author ROCCO SIFFREDI
Publisher ROCCO SIFFREDI
Production Company EVIL EMPIRE
Country of Origin USA
Applicant CALVISTA AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
File Number T07/1594
Classification Number 5271043E
***
THE PICTURE PREMIUM'S EROTIC BABES JUNE 2007: Modified
Proof prints of THE PICTURE PREMIUM'S EROTIC BABES JUNE 2007 magazine have ran into problems with the censors. The Unrestricted version was rated Category 1, and the Category 1 version rated Category 2. Modifications have now been made and both now sport the ratings that were intended.
THE PICTURE PREMIUM'S EROTIC BABES JUNE 2007
(said to be RESTRICTED)
Publication (Magazine)
Classification Category 2 Restricted
Consumer Advice
Category Publication
Version PROOF PRINT
Duration 106 page(s)
Date of Classification 30 April 2007
Author NOT SHOWN
Publisher ACP EXTRA
Production Company NOT SHOWN
Country of Origin AUSTRALIA
Applicant ACP EXTRA - PICTURE
File Number L07/58
Classification Number 5270442D
THE PICTURE PREMIUM'S EROTIC BABES JUNE 2007
(said to be RESTRICTED)
Publication (Magazine)
Classification Category 1 Restricted
Consumer Advice
Category Publication
Version MODIFIED PROOF PRINT
Duration 106 page(s)
Date of Classification 3 May 2007
Author NOT SHOWN
Publisher ACP EXTRA
Production Company NOT SHOWN
Country of Origin AUSTRALIA
Applicant ACP EXTRA - PICTURE PREMIUM
File Number L07/58
Classification Number 63603705
THE PICTURE PREMIUM'S EROTIC BABES JUNE 2007
(said to be UNRESTRICTED)
Publication (Magazine)
Classification Category 1 Restricted
Consumer Advice
Category Publication
Version PROOF PRINT
Duration 106 page(s)
Date of Classification 27 April 2007
Author NOT SHOWN
Publisher ACP EXTRA
Production Company NOT SHOWN
Country of Origin AUSTRALIA
Applicant ACP EXTRA - PICTURE PREMIUM
File Number L07/59
Classification Number 5270053C
THE PICTURE PREMIUM'S EROTIC BABES JUNE 2007
(said to be UNRESTRICTED)
Publication (Magazine)
Classification Unrestricted
Consumer Advice M - not recommended for readers under 15 years.
Category Publication
Version MODIFIED PROOF PRINT
Duration 106 page(s)
Date of Classification 3 May 2007
Author NOT SHOWN
Publisher ACP EXTRA
Production Company NOT SHOWN
Country of Origin AUSTRALIA
Applicant ACP EXTRA - PICTURE PREMIUM
File Number L07/59
Classification Number 6771240C
Update May 5th 2007
Refused-Classification.com
UPDATES
28th April 2007
Donald McDonald New Chief Censor
There are no surprises in the news that John Howard's best mate, Donald McDonald, has been appointed the new Director of the Classification Board. This was first put on the table at the meeting of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General.
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
THE HON PHILIP RUDDOCK MP
NEWS RELEASE
26 April 2007 074/2007
NEW DIRECTOR FOR CLASSIFICATION BOARD
Attorney-General Philip Ruddock today announced the appointment of Mr Donald McDonald AC as Director of the Classification Board.
"I am delighted that such an exceptional leader has agreed to head up the Board," Mr Ruddock said.
"Mr McDonald has the right credentials for the role, given his broad experience in the entertainment field and his history of working with industry and governments of all persuasions. This background has also allowed him to develop an excellent understanding of the emerging issues facing the industry.
"Mr McDonald will be a valuable asset to the Board."
The Classification Board is responsible for the classification of films, computer games and some publications under the National Classification Scheme. The Board also classifies some internet content referred to it by the Australian Communications and Media Authority.
The National Classification Scheme is a co-operative Commonwealth/State and Territory scheme. 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 the standards of reasonable adults in the community.
Mr McDonald, 68, will take up his four-year appointment on Tuesday 1 May. His previous positions include Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation from 1996 to 2006, Chief Executive of Opera Australia from 1987 to 1996 and General Manager of the Sydney Theatre Company from 1980 to 1986.
He has also served on numerous boards, including as Director of the Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games (SOCOG), Chairman of the SOCOG Cultural Commission and Director of the Australiana Fund.
***
PM had 'no say' in new national censor. The Age 27.04.07
Mr Howard said he supported the attorney-general's decision but did not have anything to do with the appointment.
"I, in fact, absented myself from the cabinet room when the appointment was discussed," Mr Howard told Southern Cross Radio.
"I didn't have to, but I did it because everyone knows Donald is a very close friend of mine.
"The idea of appointing him to that position did in fact come from the relevant minister, Philip Ruddock, but I certainly voiced no objection to it when he mentioned it to me."
Mr Howard said Mr McDonald was the right person for the job, regardless of their friendship.
"I think he'll do it very well," he said.
"I think he was quite respected in the job he did in the ABC and the fact that he's a friend of mine is not in itself a disqualification for office."
***
Ruddock snubs states on censor. The Age 27.04.07
Victorian Attorney-General Rob Hulls lashed out at the Federal Government yesterday, describing Mr McDonald's appointment as "an absolute disgrace".
"The process and appointment of Mr McDonald stinks to high heaven and it shows that the Federal Government and the Attorney-General no longer even pretend to engage in a proper process," he said.
***
New chief censor had eyes wide shut. The Australian 28.04.07
The details of the position were "all a bit sketchy", Mr McDonald said yesterday.
"I'm really looking forward to studying the material, the research and published articles in the area, and line it up alongside the legislation."
Mr McDonald described his new position as "an agreeable prospect".
"Much of this position is not unlike what I have done for 40 years of my working life," he said. "This seemed intriguing and interesting."
Mr McDonald said he was neither an "antipodean male Mary Whitehouse", referring to the British campaigner for Christian values, nor an "old-fashioned libertarian".
******
SPOTLIGHT: Censored
Between January and May 2006, Siren Visual Entertainment had four hentai DVDs banned by the Classification Board. The titles were DARLING, HOOLIGAN, SPOTLIGHT, and MY BROTHER'S WIFE.
In February, after censoring some of the problematic content, Siren managed to get an R18+ rating for MY BROTHER'S WIFE. Their attempt to do the same with SPOTLIGHT did not go so quite so smoothly. In March the censored version was again hit with an RC rating. Yesterday (the third submission) it was finally awarded an R18+ (High Level Animated Sex Scenes) rating.
SPOTLIGHT Film (DVD)
Classification RC
Consumer Advice
Category Film - Sale/Hire
Version ORIGINAL
Duration variable
Date of Classification 10 May 2006
Author NOT SHOWN
Publisher SHIYUUTA BIWAJIMA, CHIKARA NIKI
Production Company BLUE GALE
Country of Origin JAPAN
Applicant SIREN VISUAL ENTERTAINMENT
File Number T06/1778
Classification Number 4150742B
SPOTLIGHT Film (DVD)
Classification RC
Consumer Advice Category
Film - Sale/Hire
Version REVISED
Duration variable
Date of Classification 21 March 2007
Author HIJIRI ITOU
Publisher SHIYUUTA BIWAJIMA, CHIKARA NIKI, SHAWNE KLEKNER, NORKO AI
Production Company CRITICAL MASS
Country of Origin JAPAN
Applicant SIREN VISUAL ENTERTAINMENT
File Number T06/1778
Classification Number 5250452E
SPOTLIGHT Film (DVD)
Classification R 18+ (Restricted to 18 and over)
Consumer Advice High level animated sex scenes
Category Film - Sale/Hire
Version REVISED
Duration variable
Date of Classification 27 April 2007
Author HIJIRI ITOU
Publisher SHIYUUTA BIWAJIMA, CHIKARA NIKI, SHAWNE KLEKNER, NORKO AI
Production Company CRITICAL MASS
Country of Origin JAPAN
Applicant SIREN VISUAL ENTERTAINMENT
File Number T06/1778
Classification Number 4370542D
******
HOT IN HERE Vol 1: X18+
It's always interesting to monitor the border of the R18+/X18+ ratings. When does the sex in a presumably R18+ feature push it over the edge into X18+?
A couple of examples of this have recently appeared. First up is the hip-hop DVD titled HOT IN HERE VOLUME 1, which was classified X18+ (Explicit Sex) by the Classification Board.
HOT IN HERE - VOLUME ONE Film (DVD)
Classification X 18+ (Restricted to 18 and over.)
Consumer Advice Explicit sex
Category Film - Sale/Hire
Version ORIGINAL
Duration variable
Date of Classification 17 April 2007
Author DJ VLAD
Publisher DJ VLAD
Production Company WWW.DJVLAD.COM
Country of Origin USA
Applicant CENTRAL STATION PTY LTD
File Number T07/1484
Classification Number 5252442D
It's described as:
Featuring: Fat Joe speaks on 50 Cent Mr Marcus - Live on the Porn Set Fabolous & Paul Cain The AVN Awards Amerie - What She Wants in a Man Justin Slayer - Porn Star Ying Yang Twins Baby Bash & Akon Trey Songz f. Flawless & AG Crackheads
SCREENSHOTS FROM "HOT IN HERE" DVD RIO DE JANEIRO FABOLOUS FAT JOE YING YANG TWINS LIVE IN BRAZIL PORN AWARDS PORN STARS CRACKHEADS
At the same time Volumes 2 and 3 were given the lower R18+ (High Level Sexualised Nudity, Coarse Language) ratings.
***
THE G-STRING SHOW: R18+ Censored
The second example is THE G-STRING SHOW which was classified X18+ (Explicit Sex), before being censored to R18+ (High Level Sexualised Nudity). MRA Entertainment does not distribute X18+ titles, so the just released censored R18+ DVD is all we are going to see.
MRA Entertainment has been picking up a number of these soft-core adult titles, and so far all the others have been passed in their original versions with R18+ ratings.
THE G-STRING SHOW Film (DVD)
Classification X 18+ (Restricted to 18 and over.)
Consumer Advice Explicit sex
Category Film - Sale/Hire
Version ORIGINAL
Duration variable
Date of Classification 16 January 2007
Author NOT SHOWN
Publisher NOT SHOWN
Production Company ASIA DIVA TEAM
Country of Origin USA
Applicant MRA ENTERTAINMENT GROUP PTY LTD
File Number T07/134
Classification Number 61785736
THE G-STRING SHOW Film (DVD)
Classification R 18+ (Restricted to 18 and over)
Consumer Advice High level sexualised nudity
Category Film - Sale/Hire
Version REVISED
Duration variable
Date of Classification 6 March 2007
Author NOT SHOWN
Publisher NOT SHOWN
Production Company ASIA DIVA TEAM
Country of Origin USA
Applicant MRA ENTERTAINMENT GROUP PTY LTD
File Number T07/134
Classification Number 5350452D
MRA Entertainment
Catalogue Number: D1060
Format : DVD
Barcode : 9316797424600
Genre : Adult
Label : Wild Honeyz
Pricecode : DB10
Release Date : 11-Apr-07
Rating : TBA
Consumer Advice : TBA
G-strings, v-strings, and sometimes no strings! This video is all about flossing that bootay and then un-flossing. Watch as these models surrender on a king bed, and let their inhibitions run wild. Featuring ex-playboy nightcalls and dog eat dog model Nicole Oring, Mia Valerio, Cee Jay and Leah Giovanni.
DVD Details :
Format : NTSC, Colour
Region : 0
Aspect Ratio : 4:3
Audio : 2.0 Dolby Digital Running
Time : Approx. 53 minutes
******
TRANS-SEX CLIMAX NO 9 OCTOBER 2006: RC
We have yet another magazine to add to the banned list. TRANS-SEX CLIMAX #9 was banned on April 13th.
TRANS-SEX CLIMAX NO 9 OCTOBER 2006 Publication
(Magazine)
Classification RC
Consumer Advice
Category Publication
Version ORIGINAL
Duration 84 page(s)
Date of Classification 13 April 2007
Author NOT SHOWN
Publisher ZBF GMBH
Production Company
NOT SHOWN
Country of Origin GERMANY
Applicant CLAREDALE DISTRIBUTORS (A/ASIA) PTY LTD File Number L07/48
Classification Number 5353442C
******
THE PICTURE PREMIUM #105: Modified
Proof prints of THE PICTURE PREMIUM magazine have again ran into problems with the censors. Both the Unrestricted and Category 1 versions of issue 105 have been hit with Category 2 ratings. Modifications have now been made and both versions now sport the ratings that were intended.
THE PICTURE PREMIUM NO 105 (said to be
unrestricted) Publication (Magazine)
Classification Category 2 Restricted
Consumer Advice
Category Publication
Version PROOF PRINT
Duration 106 page(s)
Date of Classification 17 April 2007
Author NOT SHOWN
Publisher ACP EXTRA
Production Company NOT SHOWN
Country of Origin AUSTRALIA
Applicant ACP EXTRA - PICTURE PREMIUM
File Number L07/53
Classification Number 5352243D
THE PICTURE PREMIUM NO 105 (said to be
unrestricted) Publication (Magazine)
Classification Unrestricted
Consumer Advice M - not recommended for readers under 15 years.
Category Publication
Version MODIFIED PROOF PRINT
Duration 106 page(s)
Date of Classification 20 April 2007
Author NOT SHOWN
Publisher ACP EXTRA
Production Company NOT SHOWN
Country of Origin AUSTRALIA
Applicant ACP EXTRA - PICTURE PREMIUM
File Number L07/53
Classification Number 5370540D
THE PICTURE PREMIUM NO 105 (said to be
restricted) Publication (Magazine)
Classification Category 2 Restricted
Consumer Advice
Category Publication
Version PROOF PRINT
Duration 106 page(s)
Date of Classification 17 April 2007
Author NOT SHOWN
Publisher ACP EXTRA
Production Company NOT SHOWN
Country of Origin AUSTRALIA
Applicant ACP EXTRA - PICTURE
File Number L07/54
Classification Number 5352652D
THE PICTURE PREMIUM NO 105 (said to be
restricted) Publication (Magazine)
Classification Category 1 Restricted
Consumer Advice
Category Publication
Version MODIFIED PROOF PRINT
Duration 106 page(s)
Date of Classification 20 April 2007
Author NOT SHOWN
Publisher ACP EXTRA
Production Company NOT SHOWN
Country of Origin AUSTRALIA
Applicant ACP EXTRA - PICTURE PREMIUM
File Number L07/54
Classification Number 5370550D
Update April 28th 2007
Refused-Classification.com
UPDATES
23rd April 2007
THE PEACEFUL PILL HANDBOOK: RB Report
The Review Board report into the banning of THE PEACEFUL PILL HANDBOOK has finally been released. At 36 pages it is one of the most in-depth yet. The book itself only has 200 pages!
***
HERE CUMS THE BRIDEGROOM: RC
KELLY'S LOST MOVIE: RC
A couple more RC titles for Calvista. The gay hardcore DVD HERE CUMS THE BRIDEGROOM has been banned for a second time. Joining it was Rocco Siffredi's KELLY'S LOST MOVIE.
HERE CUMS THE BRIDEGROOM (said to be HERE COMES
THE BRIDEGROOM (PRIVATE MAN 12) Film (DVD)
Classification RC
Consumer Advice
Category Film - Sale/Hire
Version REVISED
Duration variable
Date of Classification 13 April 2007
Author TOM BRADFORD
Publisher NOT SHOWN
Production Company FRASERSIDE HOLDINGS LTD
Country of Origin EUROPE
Applicant CALVISTA AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
File Number T07/1417
Classification Number 4352642D
KELLY'S LOST MOVIE Film (DVD)
Classification RC
Consumer Advice
Category Film - Sale/Hire
Version ORIGINAL
Duration variable
Date of Classification 12 April 2007
Author ROCCO SIFFREDI
Publisher ROCCO SIFFREDI
Production Company EVIL EMPIRE
Country of Origin USA
Applicant CALVISTA AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
File Number T07/1594
Classification Number 764A2614
***
HUSTLER'S BARELY LEGAL #63: RC
HUSTLER'S BARELY LEGAL 18TH BIRTHDAY: RC
A new company called DVD.com Pty Ltd has got off to a poor start with the Classification Board. HUSTLER'S BARELY LEGAL #63 and HUSTLER'S BARELY LEGAL 18TH BIRTHDAY were both hit with RC ratings.
BARELY LEGAL 18TH BIRTHDAY (said to be
HUSTLER'S BARELY LEGAL 18TH BIRTHDAY) Film (VHS for DVD)
Classification RC
Consumer Advice
Category Film - Sale/Hire
Version ORIGINAL
Duration variable
Date of Classification 11 April 2007
Author LUC WYLDER
Publisher NOT SHOWN
Production Company LFP
Country of Origin USA
Applicant DVD.COM PTY LTD
File Number T07/1256
Classification Number 5251642C
HUSTLER'S BARELY LEGAL #63 Film (VHS for DVD)
Classification RC
Consumer Advice
Category Film - Sale/Hire
Version ORIGINAL
Duration variable
Date of Classification 3 April 2007
Author ANDRE MADNESS
Publisher NOT SHOWN
Production Company LFP
Country of Origin USA
Applicant DVD.COM PTY LTD
File Number T07/1257
Classification Number 5251243D
Update April 23rd 2007
Refused-Classification.com
UPDATES
15th April 2007
Donald McDonald: New Chief Censor?
Friday the 13the was the meeting day of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General. Two topics relating to censorship were discussed. The first was the proposed appointment of John and Janet Howard's good friend Donald McDonald to replace Des Clark as the Director of the OFLC. This was despite an independent board recommending another candidate.
The Attorney-General
Philip Ruddock MP
Interview Transcript
Date: 13 Ap