Australian Censorship News: July 2007

UPDATES: 29th July 2007
States say no to more censorship.
OFLC RIP?
New Deputy Director of CB.
Tasmanian ISP Filtering trial dropped.
TCM (1974): Still R18+.
NEW NIGHTMARE: New Consumer Advice
BLACK SNAKE BITCHES: RC
GANG BANG MY FACE 2: RC

UPDATES: 22nd July 2007
Ban All Porn!: John Anderson
ROCK 'N ROLL ROCCO 2: Censored
LAYOUT: Censored
FURIOUS FUCKERS: Censored
EVIL GEISHAS HOTEL: Censored
Filming Hardcore in Australia
Adult Store rejected in Melbourne

UPDATES: 8th July 2007
May ASB Complaints.
Opinions on the NT X-Rated Restrictions

UPDATES: 1st July 2007
New Pay-TV Codes of Practice
Evil Geishas Hotel: RC
LAYOUT: RC
SEX AND VIOLINS: Censored
X-Rated Restrictions in the Northern Territory
IEAA calls for R-rating for games

UPDATES 
29th July 2007

States say no to more censorship.

On Friday July 26th the State Attorney-Generals met with Philip Ruddock in Hobart to discuss his proposed tightening of the classification laws. New South Wales and South Australia have fallen into line with the other States still holding out. Ruddock is not impressed and is threatening to go it alone. Be sure to read David Marr's excellent opinion piece regarding the likely outcome of Ruddock's plans.

******

OFLC 1988 - 2007 RIP?

The past few weeks has seen the website of the censors change from www.oflc.gov.au to www.classification.gov.au. Entering the old address will now forward you to the new one. This is obviously related to their new links with the Attorney-General's department. Has the OFLC gone for good? 

The Office of Film and Literature Classification (OFLC) was originally created in April 1988, to incorporate the following:

So as you can see, prior to 1988 we called a spade a spade. There was none of this Classification Board double-speak. The government agency that controlled what films we saw was the Film Censorship Board. It was simple, and to the point. John Dickie, the Director of the OFLC even proudly called himself the Chief Censor.

Now we have the Classification Board that although it can and does still ban films, it claims only to classify them. Technically it does by giving them a Refused Classification (RC) rating. This usually ends up with the distributor taking the film away, censoring it themselves, then re-submitting for a rating. 

So if the the OFLC name has gone for good, why not take us back to pre-April 1988 and give us the truth. The Australian Film, Game and Publication Censorship Board has a nice honest ring to it.

******

Olya Booyar: New Deputy Director of the Classification Board

The Attorney General has announced that Paul Hunt has been replaced as Deputy Director of the Classification Board by Olya Booyar.

Paul Hunt had been in the position since May 2003 (following a 2 year period acting in the role), and his appointment expired on May 27th 2007.

The Attorney General
Philip Ruddock MP
Media Release 152/2007 
23 July 2007 

NEW DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CLASSIFICATION BOARD

Attorney-General Philip Ruddock today announced the appointment of Ms Olya Booyar as Deputy Director of the Classification Board.

I am delighted that someone with such credentials and culturally diverse experience has been appointed to the Classification Board, Mr Ruddock said. Ms Booyar has held a number of senior management, planning and policy positions in radio and television and has also worked in publishing.

Most recently, Ms Booyar has served as Corporate and Community Relations Executive at SBS.

Ms Booyar brings a wealth of experience in the broadcasting industry to her new role, Mr Ruddock said.

This background has enabled her to develop an excellent understanding of the current issues and challenges facing the Classification Board, including the impact of technological convergence and globalisation of media interests and products.

Her experience also equips her well to reflect the variety of community values so necessary for the classification of films, computer games and publications.

Ms Booyar was educated in Ukraine, Canada and Germany and is a member of a number of Boards, including the National Association for the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect, the International Association for Women in Radio and Television, and the SBS Youth Orchestra.

Ms Booyar who is 42 and has two teenage children, will take up her three-year appointment on 23 July 2007.

More information about the Classification Board can be found at: www.classification.gov.au.

******

Tasmanian ISP Filtering trial dropped.

There was much foaming at the mouth from Steve Fielding following the news that the Tasmanian ISP filtering trial had been dropped. Fielding is no fan of the governments proposed PC-based filters approach. He basically believes that no one can be trusted with pornography, and that it should all be filtered out before it reaches our homes. This has been said before, but if ISP filtering is introduced, do you really believe it will stop at pornography?

******

THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE (1974): R18+ in 2007
NEW NIGHTMARE: New Consumer Advice

Umbrella Entertainment have just had the original version of THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE passed with an R18+ (High level horror violence) rating. The film was banned in Australia in 1975, only escaping with an R18+ rating in 1984. In 2007 it should easily pass with an MA15+. Remember that the far more violent 2003 remake was awarded an MA15+ (High Level Violence), and in November 2005 the ultra violent and sadistic uncut version of THE DEVIL'S REJECTS escaped with an MA15+ (Strong violence, Strong coarse language, Sex scene) rating. I guess we've never been ones to accuse the censors of being consistent.

On the subject of changing ratings, it's always interesting to compare how a re-submitted title fares at the hands of the censors. For example WES CRAVEN'S NEW NIGHTMARE had an MA15+ (Medium level violence) during its theatrical release back in February 1995. In July 2007 it is still considered MA15+, but the consumer advice has now been increased from 'Medium level violence' to 'Strong violence'. 

******

BLACK SNAKE BITCHES: RC
GANG BANG MY FACE 2: RC

It would be an update without some more banned hardcore to report. BLACK SNAKE BITCHES and GANG BANG MY FACE 2 are the two most recent casualties. The director of both titles was Jake Malone. BITCHES IN HEAT (RC July 2005), and GANG BANG MY FACE (RC January 2007) are two of his other DVDs that were Refused Classification in Australia. As usual Calvista were the company behind the submissions.

Update July 29th 2007
Refused-Classification.com 

UPDATES 
22nd July 2007

Ban All Porn!: John Anderson

The ex-National Party leader John Anderson is calling for a nationwide ban on hardcore pornography. As he says:

"he is no expert"

... when it come to the effects of porn, but he knows a man who is.

Ban all hard-core porn, says Anderson. The Australian 09.07.07

Mr Anderson, who has been lobbying within Coalition ranks to oppose the influx of pornography in indigenous communities, said X-rated material was damaging children across the nation.

“As Noel Pearson put it so beautifully, ask the children if they mind a bit of paternalism when they're cowering under the table,” Mr Anderson said.

“You can't restrict that to just Aboriginal children. That plainly happens in non-indigenous communities as well as indigenous communities.”

Mr Anderson said the evidence was overwhelming that there are real and frightening links between porn and sexual violence.

“What you have here is a giant hypocrisy that no one has wanted to tackle.

“The minute it's questioned, the members who have questioned it are immediately targeted by the X-rated video industry lobby groups.”

Mr Anderson said that by banning pornography flowing into NT Aboriginal communities, the Howard Government had effectively conceded there was a link between watching the material and acting in dysfunctional ways.

“I think what comes out of this is we are now conceding that there's a problem with this stuff, and frankly I think that all Governments ought to have a long hard look at it again,” he said.

“And we ought to say that civil libertarian arguments are not enough in the face of too many young Australian children's lives are being deeply scared even permanently and seriously damaged.”

Mr Anderson said that while he is no expert, he had been told by many experts that porn was like drug addiction.

He said NSW Aboriginal communities also wanted the pornography banned, and challenged the Iemma Government to take immediate action.

***

John Anderson on porn in 2000

Back in March 2000 John Anderson had this to say after viewing Brian Harradine's porn screening. At the time he claimed to be fine with pornography, only the rating labels bothered him. 

Nationals backflip on erotica classification.  ABC The World Today 08.03.00

JOHN ANDERSON: Well, frankly it's pretty - I mean, have you seen it? Have you seen the stuff? You know, as - when forced to describe it, I notice the media described as "sexually explicit," looking for a way to describe it, which is an under-statement.

ALISON CALDWELL: Well, were you shocked, Minister.

JOHN ANDERSON: Well, the obvious answer is "yes."

ALISON CALDWELL: John Anderson says he supports the reforms included in non-violent erotica, he just doesn't like the name. Instead, he wants the label to read "non-violent pornography."

JOHN ANDERSON: Frankly, I believe that in terms of the comments made by the industry, and so forth, I was misled. I certainly support the reforms to ensure that violence and the depiction of children or misleading depiction of - that people make it, look like children, and so forth, ought to be pulled up. I support all of that, but I - you know, the bottom line for my party here is that people feel very strongly, even those who feel strongly that people ought to have the right to view what they like, that you have to tell people what it is. I mean, the way this thing would be classified, the next thing you'd know you'd have people saying, "Oh, well, it's nice, warm, cuddly stuff. Why can't we have a corner of it in the local video shop for it to be available?" Well, people need to know exactly what it is that they're getting.

***

Eros Association on the John Anderson Proposal

Eros Association
Media Release 10.07.07

Former National Party Leader Ignores Real Causes of Child Sex Abuse

Calls by former National Party leader, John Anderson, for a ban on all X rated (non violent erotic) films and all Restricted books and magazines in Australia as a way of protecting children from sexual violence, showed a limited understanding of child sex abuse, the Eros Association said today.

Mr Anderson said that there was ‘overwhelming evidence’ showing that there were links between porn and sexual violence but then cited none.

Eros CEO Fiona Patten said that one of the definitive studies on ‘pornography effects’ had been done by the Australian Institute of Criminology in 1988 (Trends and Issues #9) with a world sweep of all research concluding 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. Such a differentiation allows in the minds of legislators, policy makers and the community, of material with a possible potential to cause harm.”

Ms Patten said that now Mr Anderson was out of the limelight it was clear he had become more involved in his religion and she called on him to use his energies to rid the church of child sex offenders rather than worry about adult’s entertainment choices. “ There are now over 500 church clergy in Australia who have been convicted of a child sex assault (www.deception.com.au; http://brokenrites.alphalink.com.au/nletter/bccrime.html) while there has only ever been one person from the adult retail industry similarly convicted’, she said. “If he is worried about what is causing child sexual abuse in the community he should be looking at the role of alcohol, parenting skills and even religion. He has ignored the plight of children sexually abused by his own kind in the church, to make a cheap political point about porn”.

Ms Patten said that religious calls to ban pornography (X and some R rated films; Category 1 and 2 Restricted publications and some MA Rated computer games) were not supported by the majority of the population (86% support: AC Neilson poll 2006) and could set Australia on a path to extremely conservative attitudes to sex as in Iran and China. To reduce any misuse of adult non-violent material, Australian state governments should regulate and license the sale of it and increase penalties for selling illegal and violent sexual material.

"At the end of the day you have got to say to yourself, unless there is overwhelming evidence that watching those videos (X rated) produces very anti-social behaviour, you can't really tell adults what they should see and hear and read. I don't think I have some kind of moral right to tell people how they should behave and I won't even try". - John Howard, Adelaide Advertiser, 1st May 1997.

******

ROCK 'N ROLL ROCCO 2: Censored
LAYOUT :Censored
FURIOUS FUCKERS :Censored
EVIL GEISHAS HOTEL :Censored

As if the Australian hardcore DVD distributors have not got enough problems with call for a total X18+ ban, they still have to contend with the high levels of censorship that exist in the current category.

These include a couple of titles from the censors favourite Mr Rocco Siffredi. ROCK 'N ROLL ROCCO 2 and FURIOUS FUCKERS are to be released as cut DVDs, both were previously banned by the Classification Board.

Also out of jail are Private Gold 91: Evil Geishas Hotel, and LAYOUT. 

Calvista are the company behind all four titles.

******

Filming Hardcore in Australia

Claire Halliday wrote this interesting article looking at the history and legality of shooting hardcore films in Australia. 

Naked ambition. The Age 15.07.07

According to the man known as the Australian "Godfather of porn", John Lark, it is a move that is long overdue. In sex industry circles, Lark earned his title — and last year's Australian Adult Industry Awards lifetime achievement honour — due to his trail-blazing stint as a porn producer in the late 1980s, when the 20 films he made established local "stars" such as Canberra's Alice Springs and Kelly Blue.

"I have always been surprised that there is not a locally organised film industry in Australia, especially as we have a few main things going for us: legality and locations, not to mention access to local talent and climate conditions for filming," Lark says.

Although he talks about legality, the waters are, in fact, a little muddy.

"It is, technically, illegal to make (porn) films in Australia," says Fiona Patten, executive officer of the Eros Association, Australia's national adult retail and entertainment association.

While the sale of X-rated films is banned in the states and the Northern Territory, the finer points of the ACT Classification Act mean that the production, distribution and sale of X-rated films is possible in the ACT.

The act came into force in 1995, after a parliamentary battle in which the ACT government refused to follow the states and ban the sale of X-rated films.

"It requires that anyone undertaking the above apply to the ACT Office of Fair Trading for a licence. This ($11,000) licence is annual and payable to the ACT government," Patten says.

Despite the apparent restrictions, she isn't aware of anyone being prosecuted for producing an adult film in Australia.

******

Adult Store rejected in Melbourne

Melbourne city council has rejected an application for Tickle n Tease, a woman's adult store in Russel Street.

Women's sex shop fury at council 'wowsers' The Age 06.07.07

Councillors had knocked back Tickle n Tease on moral grounds, said Peter Reynard from Club X, the adult entertainment chain behind the application.

Tickle n Tease was to compete with Bliss for Women, in nearby Lonsdale Street. Bliss is the city's only existing adult shop exclusively for women, and promotes itself as "the adult shop where women are the customers, not the merchandise".

Club X, which has 26 stores across Victoria, will go to the state planning tribunal in a bid to have the council's "wowser-ish" ruling overturned.

"It's a typically ill-informed judgement from people who think this store will attract all sorts of 'undesirables'," he said. "But that's just not true — our stores attract people like you and me."

Mr Reynard said the 250-square-metre store would stock a range of erotica and sex toys, lingerie and massage oils, and have an "emphasis on ambience" to make female customers feel more comfortable.

But Councillor David Wilson, a Wesleyan Methodist pastor who was among four councillors to vote against the proposal, feared it would run down Chinatown.

"Cleaning up Russell Street and making it a great place to be is central to the whole Chinese cultural precinct," said Cr Wilson, part of Lord Mayor John So's team on the council.

An initial council report recommended that Club X be given permission for the store. But that first report was called in by councillors, concerned about potential damage to Russell Street — previously notorious for its problems with heroin dealers.

A second report, presented at Tuesday night's committee meeting, recommended the application be rejected. It said the store would affect the character and image of Russell Street.

Greens councillor Fraser Brindley was one of two councillors to vote for the shop to go ahead, because it met all the council's planning laws. "Our job is to consider the planning scheme when we make decisions," he said. "This seems to have been decided on political grounds."

Only two objections were received to the proposed shop, which was to have no street signage.

Update July 22nd 2007
Refused-Classification.com 

UPDATES
8th July 2007

Advertising Standards Board: May Complaints

Here is a breakdown of the complaints heard by the Advertising Standards Board in May. Go to their website (adstandards.com.au) to read full reports for each one. Thanks to that wonderful thing called the internet many of these advertisements can still be viewed on video share sites.

There were no complaints upheld in May.

All of the following complaints were dismissed.

Here are the full reports for several of the complaints.

***

SHOOTER Outdoor Poster Complaint

Advertising Standards Bureau
Case Report
1. Complaint reference number 144/07 
2. Advertiser Paramount Pictures Australia (Shooter) 
3. Product Entertainment 
4. Type of advertisement Outdoor 
5. Nature of complaint Violence Other – section 2.2 
6. Date of determination Tuesday, 8 May 2007 
7. DETERMINATION Dismissed

DESCRIPTION OF THE ADVERTISEMENT 
This outdoor advertisement for the movie "Shooter" features Mark Wahlberg facing away from the camera and holding a rifle in his hand. Text on the image reads "Yesterday was about honor. Today is about justice". 

THE COMPLAINT 
A sample of comments which the complainant/s made regarding this advertisement included the following: 

The billboard appears on a bus shelter out the front of the Melbourne Grammar Junior School. Oorong Road, Caulfield which is walked past by many 5-12 year olds and their younger siblings twice a day. It had a huge impact on my 7 year old son today who thought such a big weapon was cool (endorsed by adults). I find a billboard such as this to be very inappropriate. Especially when placed directly outside a primary school parking area. 

THE ADVERTISER’S RESPONSE 
Comments which the advertiser made in response to the complaint/s regarding this advertisement included the following: 

The paid element of this advertising campaign commended on Monday 9th april and ceased on Sunday 22nd April. There are some bonus panels that may remain up for two weeks after the 22nd but they will be therefore removed no later than this Sunday 6th May. 

In general, we are of the opinion that we cannot stop advertising films on the grounds that certain sections of the public may deem certain aspects of the advertising material to be offensive. The poster does not show the man firing the gun at anyone; he is merely standing with the gun held loosely in one hand. 

Please note that the billboard at the location of the complaint was immediately taken down on receipt of your email; it had been inadvertently placed outside that school by the media supplier and thus we requested that they immediately remove it (and also any other billboards that had been placed outside schools by the media supplier without our knowledge.) 

THE DETERMINATION 
The Advertising Standards Board (“Board”) considered whether this advertisement breaches Section 2 of the Advertiser Code of Ethics (the “Code”). 

The Board noted that the complainant's concern appeared to be that the advertisement, due to its proximity to a school, sent an inappropriate message to children about the use or acceptability of  firearms. 

The Board noted that the advertiser had removed the billboard immediately following receipt of the complaint and agreed not to place this advertisement near schools. The Board commended the advertiser for this action. 

The Board considered the advertisement against the Code. The Board noted that the advertisement was for a movie called 'Shooter'. The Board noted that the advertisement depicted a man holding a large weapon but that there was no active violence or use of the weapon depicted in the advertisement. The Board considered that the advertisement was not violent and that the depiction of a weapon (and any implication of violence that may flow from that) was justifiable in the context of an advertisement for this film. 

The Board determined that the advertisement did not breach clause 2.2 of the Code. Finding that the advertisement did not breach the Code on other grounds, the Board dismissed the complaint.

***

GIRLS GONE WILD TV Ad Complaint

Advertising Standards Bureau
Case Report
1. Complaint reference number 116/07 
2. Advertiser Stealthnet (Girls Gone Wild DVD)
3. Product Entertainment 
4. Type of advertisement Outdoor 
5. Nature of complaint Portrayal of sex/sexuality/nudity – section 2.3 
6. Date of determination Tuesday, 8 May 2007 
7. DETERMINATION Dismissed 

DESCRIPTION OF THE ADVERTISEMENT 
This television advertisement features a male voice over describing how they searched all over America for the college girls featured in the DVD who are taking off their clothes, playing games and sporting activities naked, and having one-on-one sexual encounters etc. Film is shown of girls baring their breasts (the breasts are obscured in the advertisement). 

THE COMPLAINT 
A sample of comments which the complainant/s made regarding this advertisement included the following: 

...puts women in a position to be sexualised and humiliated and uses them as the COMMODITY BEING SOLD, whereas many other offensive ads featuring women use the women as "window dressing:. In all the ads I am complaining about, the women are not used as a selling tool; they are the thing being sold and this is unacceptable, regardless of the timeslot. 

I found it very offensive as an adult woman, as I too was a girl and know people can take advantage of naive girls. I believe this ad is very dangerous in many ways. I am totally appalled it made it to our screens. 

THE ADVERTISER’S RESPONSE 
Comments which the advertiser made in response to the complaint/s regarding this advertisement included the following:

No response had been received from the advertiser at the time of determination. 

THE DETERMINATION 
The Advertising Standards Board (“Board”) considered whether this advertisement breaches Section 2 of the Advertiser Code of Ethics (the “Code”). 

The Board noted that the advertiser was selling a sex-related product. The Board considered that some of the complaints about the advertisement were actually about the product being sold; a number of R18+ rated DVDs featuring mainly sexual content, specifically young women engaging in various activities. The Board noted that it is not the role of the Board to prevent advertising of legal products unless the advertisement in question breaches the Code. 

The Board noted that the advertisement depicts a number of young women, described as 'college girls', engaged in games and provocative poses in various types of dress. The Board noted that the advertisement primarily featured women engaging in games and competitions, but that there were two brief images of women on a bed and in one of those the women appear to be kissing. The Board noted that although the women were in provocative poses throughout the advertisement the advertiser had edited the advertisement to ensure that there were no images of nudity, nor of genitals or uncovered breasts. 

The Board was of the opinion that the scenes depicted in the advertisement and the voice over referring to, for example, 'hot college girls getting naked for you' were particularly explicit. However, the Board noted that the advertisement had been broadcast at 12.15am within its correct classification time-zone. 

The Board determined that the advertisement did treat sex, sexuality and nudity appropriately given the relevant audience and also the relevant program time-zone. The Board found that the advertisement did not breach the provisions of the Code relating to the portrayal of sex, sexuality or nudity. Further finding that the advertisement did not breach the provisions of the Code on any other grounds, the Board dismissed the complaint.

***

Jamster Fun Manga Games TV Ad Complaint

Advertising Standards Bureau
Case Report
1. Complaint reference number 151/07 
2. Advertiser Jamba! GmbH (Jamster Fun Manga Games) 
3. Product Mobile phones/SMS 
4. Type of advertisement TV 
5. Nature of complaint Discrimination or vilification Gender - section 2.1 Portrayal of sex/sexuality/nudity – section 2.3 
6. Date of determination Tuesday, 8 May 2007 
7. DETERMINATION Dismissed

DESCRIPTION OF THE ADVERTISEMENT 
This advertisement in cartoon form details the downloads available from Manga Games including "the hottest lingerie party this year, see all of Yuki's friends in their see-through panties..." (with cartoon images of females in lingerie); "or do you want to poker?... " (with images of females with stars covering breasts and the words "strip poker" mentioned); "or get the Cute Manga girlfriends uncensored edition - no clothes, just raw girl on girl passion..." (with only a blurred still image and the words "TV censored" across the screen; "and finally for the highly erotic Manga Diamonds mobile game..." (with a female with stars covering her breasts and another image of a female behind a barrier of "diamonds" which gradually disappear. 

THE COMPLAINT 
A sample of comments which the complainant/s made regarding this advertisement included the following: 

I am sick of seeing and hearing sex sound effects and motions...these ads fall just short of porn. 

THE ADVERTISER’S RESPONSE 
Comments which the advertiser made in response to the complaint/s regarding this advertisement included the following: 

We have undertaken an internal review of the complaint and through this response seek to address the issues raised. We believe that this TVC was aired at the appropriate timeslot and it does not contain any sex noises or sex moves as claimed by the email. 

We launched our operations over 2 years ago in Australia and work closely with regulatory advertising bodies including AANA and Commercials Advice / Free TV and all of our media partners to ensure we meet the standards of the Australian society. Moreover, I completed the Mobile Content Assessment course held by the Office of Film and Literature, in May 2006 to ensure all of our content is compliant with the standards set. 

We respectfully disagree with the complainant’s claim that our advertisement was inappropriate due to its sexual nature. The images of the TVC are of a cartoon nature which decreases the sexual impact and nature. Moreover, it does not contain sexual noises or movement as claimed in the email. 

THE DETERMINATION 

The Advertising Standards Board (“Board”) considered whether this advertisement breaches Section 2 of the Advertiser Code of Ethics (the “Code”).  The Board noted that the advertisement is for mobile phone download wallpaper and games. The Board noted that the advertisement depicted cartoon images of women dressed in lingerie and posing provocatively. The Board also noted that there was no sex sound effects during the advertisement only the voice of the narrator as described above. The Board considered however that the advertisement was sexual in nature and did feature sexual images. 

The Board considered that the treatment of the sexual themes in the advertisement was sensitive considering the product and the relevant late night audience. The Board considered that the animated images, although sexually posed, were also not insensitive as they were still images, there was no nudity (with all breasts covered by stars) and those images that were likely to have been explicit were blurred and covered up by text saying 'TV Censored'. On this basis the Board considered that the advertisement did not breach clause 2.3 of the Code. 

The Board noted that some members of the public would be offended by advertisements for this type of product, regardless of the images used in the advertiesment, but that advertisers have a right to advertise these products, provided that the advertisements meet the Code of Ethics.

Finding that the advertisement did not breach the Code on other grounds, the Board dismissed the complaint.

***

Surf 'n' Skate Radio Ad Complaint

Advertising Standards Bureau
Case Report
1. Complaint reference number 146/07 
2. Advertiser Surf Industries Combined Pty Ltd (SIC Surf 'n' Skate) 
3. Product Clothing 
4. Type of advertisement Radio 
5. Nature of complaint Discrimination or vilification Religion – section 2.1 
6. Date of determination Tuesday, 8 May 2007 
7. DETERMINATION Dismissed

DESCRIPTION OF THE ADVERTISEMENT 
This radio advertisement, backed by sacred-sounding music and choir, features a male voice announcing "God, thank Christ for Easter. Sic Surf & Skate is crucifying prices like Christians to the lions. With 40% off all Summer stock, heaven knows every Tom Dick and Harry, Peter Paul and John will be heading to Sic Surf & Skate. But hurry, because Pete swears on a stack of Bibles that 40% off all Summer stock won't last 40 days and 40 nights. Sic Surf & Skate Westfield Warrawong - Jesus, with 40% off all Summer stock, excluding fibreglass surfboards, you'll want to pray you don't miss out!" 

THE COMPLAINT 
A sample of comments which the complainant/s made regarding this advertisement included the following: 

This ad is based on the Christian religious theme of Easter, with specific mention of aspects of the Christian Easter story, including the crucifiction of Christ, the period prior to the crucifiction when Jesus went out into the wilderness and fasted for 40 days and 40 nights. Jesus was crucified, we Christians believe, for our salvation. In this ad these Christian beliefs are used to promote the sale of products from a certain shop. The religious theme of crucifiction is used as being for bargains. It dismisses what we regard as a deeply painful and significant act of Jesus being crucified, reducing it to a level of saying how cheap their product bargains are, and referring to crucifiction for bargains, when we Christians believe that Jesus was crucified for our salvation. "God thank Christ for Easter" is again disrepectful of Christian beliefs when it is used to promote commercial products of the advertiser and has noting to do with our Christian festival of Easter. If an ad was done in similar vein of Muslim beliefs there would be an outcry. I would like to know if this shop plans to run a similar ad on muslim themes for the end of Ramadan? Why should the religious beliefs of one group be more easily "sent up" and used as a vehicle for advertising goods, than another? 

THE ADVERTISER’S RESPONSE 
Comments which the advertiser made in response to the complaint/s regarding this advertisement included the following: 

In response to the complaint regarding our most recent radio advertisement we categorically believe that it does not breach any advertising code of standards. We are known for our quirky and fun radio commercials. Certainly it pushes the boundaries ...but in no way does it discriminate against or vilify Christians or their beliefs. Indeed, we are both Christians and saw it in the light of the humor with which it was intended. We would never be party to something that we thought was vilifying our beliefs as Christians. 

The complaint states that: “Christian beliefs are being used to promote the sale of products”. The actual beliefs of Christians are not being used at all but common everyday “religious inspired” phrasing is, and there is a big difference. And if these beliefs were being used would it be any different to say, the Bible being for sale. The Bible is a product that is sold to people based on their beliefs or to people who those selling the Bible wish to create a belief. Outside churches you see billboards promoting God, sermons, opening hours and special events. Some use clever religious based headline phrases to make people think about God and the church and bring them into the fold. This is still advertising a product and being of a religious nature should be irrelevant. 

Aspects of Christianity and Christianity itself have for a long time been used in all mediums to market products, draw advertising and make money. Religion is also used without discrimination or vilification in music heard every day... so common is the use of religious based reference in our everyday language that John Lennon’s “Ballad of John and Yoko” used it directly in the lines “Christ you know it ain’t easy, you know how hard it can be, the way things are going, they’re going to crucify me”. 

Leading up to Easter every company that promotes an Easter Sale with Easter Bargains or specials for Easter Only is using Easter and therefore Easter’s religious meaning as a way to sell its product. Easter is the most direct religious reference you can make at this time of year and if the complainant is serious about Christian beliefs being used to sell a product then every company that has an Easter or Christmas sale and advertises it using these specific words (Easter/Christmas) should be accountable to this person and the advertising codes. 

The whole basis of the complaint is the use of Christian beliefs to sell a product. The complainant has taken the words from the advertisement and changed the context from one of humor and irreverence to one of personal insult but this does not mean we breached the code. There has been no discrimination or vilification of Christianity, the beliefs of Christians or God or Jesus as entities. Have we used religious reference to promote a commercial that sells a product? Yes, but in context. In the common vernacular religious phrases are used every day without malicious intent. “Jesus that was good””, “Christ that must have hurt”, “God I love you”, “Thank God for that”, “Good God look at that” and so on. This was the context with which our radio commercial was created. Did it tie in with the lead up to Easter? Yes. Was it meant to insult or offend? No. Was it supposed to be taken lightly and with common sense? Yes. Was it designed to grab attention? Of course. 

We believe the complaint is more about this person’s own extreme beliefs than the breaking of an advertising code which we absolutely deny we have done. 

THE DETERMINATION 
The Advertising Standards Board (“Board”) considered whether this advertisement breaches Section 2 of the Advertiser Code of Ethics (the “Code”). 

The Board considered that the advertisement used religious themes in an irreverant and disrespectful manner and agreed that some members of the community would be offended rather than amused by this. However the Board considered that most members of the community would not be offended by the advertisement. 

The Board considered the religious references and determined that, while their use would be considered by some to be in bad taste, the advertisement did not discriminate or vilifiy the Christian religion or members of the Christian faith. 

The Board determined that the advertisement did not breach clause 2.1 of the Code. Finding that the advertisement did not breach the Code on other grounds, the Board dismissed the complaint.

******

Opinions on the NT X-Rated Restrictions

Another week has gone by and we still have no clearer understanding of how the Federal Government's plans to ban Aboriginals access to pornography in the Northern Territory.

David Barnett's Opinions.

Writing in the Canberra Times, David Barnett had this opinion piece  Here is what he had to say about the ban on X-rated pornography. 

Our experiment with apartheid has failed. Canberra Times 05.07.07

Nobody took any notice, of course, any more than they took notice of representations from the peak body for the sex industry, the Eros Foundation. X-rated means explicit sex, but no violence or horror, which is rated R. Not even spanking husbands who have been naughty and deserve to be punished gets an X. Swirlies are a no-no. That's when anal rape is performed on someone whose head is held in a lavatory bowl which is then flushed at the appropriate moment. That's how a murder was depicted on a Channel Nine police drama on Tuesday night.

For four years the Eros Foundation has been making representations to territory and Commonwealth authorities about the activities of four Darwin distributors illegally selling films into the Aboriginal communities that have never been submitted to the Office of Film and Literature Classification, and which contain both explicit sex and violence.

At every level Chief Minister, attorneys-general, chief of police it was ignored.

Now, X-rated videos are to be banned in prescribed areas. That won't make any difference. Those are not the videos they watch.

***

Fiona Patten's Opinions

Speaking to Brisbane's WestEnder, the CEO of the Eros Foundation had this to say on proposed X-rating ban.

PM’s Call for Ban on X Material Misguided and Fraudulent  WestEnder

Eros CEO, Fiona Patten said that the problem in the communities was with sexually violent films and publications that were Refused Classification or R rated – not with non-violent sexually explicit X rated. “Mr Howard’s statement says nothing about these films and publications and ostensibly leaves the way open to rogue traders who supply this sort of material to continue pumping it into these communities like they have been doing for 10 years now”, she said. “The government needs to prevent children being exposed to all varieties of inappropriate material and a prohibition on adults accessing adult material will not do this.”

Ms Patten estimated that 80% of the banned (ie Refused Classification) pornography coming onto the communities has been coming from four pirate operators in Darwin who do not sell X rated material but sell illegal material for ridiculously low prices like $5 per DVD. “The Prime Minister has been very badly advised about the situation on the ground and is making a huge mistake for the purposes of trying to assure the community that he is doing something”, she said.

“The federal government should be prosecuting these rogue operators and stem the flow at its source rather than try and place unworkable bans on certain geographic locations. People on these communities do not send $50 cheques to Canberra operators for classified X rated ‘couples’ films when they can buy $5 banned films from Darwin”.

She said that Mr Howard had ignored the effect of the big commercial R rated film companies who sold Texas Chainsaw Massacre films, simulated rape fantasies and other monstrously violent material which also ended up on the communities and were noted as being the major visual problems in the recommendations of the NT Report.

“We were the first ones to alert government and the authorities to the fact that banned pornography was turning up on these communities so what do they do? Ban the legal material and forget about the bad stuff. No wonder they are not making a dent on the problem.”

Update July 8th 2007
Refused-Classification.com 

UPDATES
1st July 2007

New Pay-TV Codes of Practice

The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) have finally released the new codes of practice for subscription television and radio services and open narrowcast radio services. The Australian Subscription Television and Radio Association (ASTRA) had asked for public input back in October 2006.

R18+ rated programs remain banned on Subscription Broadcast Television. This covers such Pay-TV movie channels as Showtime, Showtime Greats, Movie One, Movie Extra, and Movie Greats. If a film has been rated R18+ by the OFLC, then it is going to screen as a censored MA15+ version on these channels.

"(3) (b) the licensee will not broadcast films that are classified as “R 18+” unless the films have been modified as mentioned in paragraph 123(3C)(b)."

From: ASTRA CODES OF PRACTICE 
Attachment C 
BROADCASTING SERVICES ACT 1992 SCHEDULE 2 - STANDARD CONDITIONS

So the R-rated THE HILLS HAVE EYES remake that is due to premiere on Showtime on Friday 13th July will be censored. Will Showtime tell you this? Not a chance! If more people knew that they were paying money to view censored product then maybe Foxtel would push harder to have the law changed. 

3.2 Programs not to be Broadcast 

Licensees will ensure that access to programs classified as "R18+", if and when permitted by Parliament, can be restricted by disabling devices acceptable to the ACMA.

Note: It is a condition of licence that: X18+ rated programs and programs classified ‘RC’ (refused classification) by the Office of Film and Literature Classification will not be broadcast by Licensees. Programs classified as "R18+" will not be broadcast by Licensees until Parliament has approved the broadcast of such programs on subscription television.

From
ASTRA
Codes of Practice 2007  
Subscription Broadcast Television

The only channels that are allowed to screen R18+ product are so-called Subscription Narrowcast ones like World Movies, and the Adult channels.

3.4 Material rated R18+ will be restricted to access by those with appropriate disabling devices. 

From
ASTRA
Codes of Practice 2007 
Subscription Narrowcast Television
CODE NO. 3 

Here is a run-down of the new guidelines as they apply to classifications issues.

Subscription Broadcast Television

ASTRA
Codes of Practice 2007  
Subscription Broadcast Television

3. PROGRAM CLASSIFICATION CODE

Licensees will classify films and drama programs, applying the program classification system contained in the Guidelines for the Classification of Films and Computer Games (‘Guidelines’) which appear below (relevant extract - The Categories). Classifications, together with appropriate consumer advice, will be provided to ensure adequate warning regarding program content as set out in clauses 3.4 and 3.5. 

Licensees will use their best endeavours to ensure that, where other programs are classified they will carry only classification symbols (identified below in the Classification Categories). This classification will have particular regard to the protection of children and will take into account relevant aspects of the Guidelines. 

3.1 Program Classifications Licensees will apply relevant aspects of the Guidelines to all films and drama programs. The full text of the Guidelines can be found as an Annexure to these Codes. 

The Guidelines are a tool for classifying films and drama programs. They help explain the different classification categories, and the scope and limits of material suitable for each category. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

(ii) the portrayal of persons in a demeaning manner. Classification categories 

3.2 Programs not to be Broadcast 

Licensees will ensure that access to programs classified as "R18+", if and when permitted by Parliament, can be restricted by disabling devices acceptable to the ACMA.

Note: It is a condition of licence that: X18+ rated programs and programs classified ‘RC’ (refused classification) by the Office of Film and Literature Classification will not be broadcast by Licensees. Programs classified as "R18+" will not be broadcast by Licensees until Parliament has approved the broadcast of such programs on subscription television.

3.3 Disabling Devices 

Licensees will ensure that information on the operation of such disabling devices will be provided to subscribers on installation.

3.4 Television Classification Symbols 

For programs classified “PG” and above, the classification symbol (identified in the Classification categories above) for the film or drama program being shown will be clearly displayed at the commencement of the program and in program guides.

3.5 Consumer Advice 

For "M" and "MA15+" films and drama programs consumer advice concerning the reasons for a classification must be given at the commencement of a program. The advice will be in a style consistent with relevant aspects of the Guidelines.

***

Subscription Narrowcast Television

ASTRA
Codes of Practice 2007 
Subscription Narrowcast Television
CODE NO. 3 
CLASSIFICATION AND PLACEMENT OF PROGRAMMING

3.1 Television subscription narrowcasters will classify films and drama programs, applying relevant aspects of the program classification system contained in the Guidelines for the Classification of Film and Computer Games (‘Guidelines’) Program classification categories are contained at section 3.1 of the Subscription Broadcast Television Codes of Practice (STB Codes) and the full text of the Guidelines are attached as an Annexure to the STB Codes. 

3.2 Written and spoken consumer advice on the reasons for program classification will be given at the commencement of film and drama programs in such cases where the program would be classified as M or higher under the Guidelines. Where the narrowcaster is broadcasting programs predominantly in a language other than English, the narrowcaster will, where practicable, ensure such consumer advice will be provided in the appropriate language. 

3.3 Programs that are either classified X18 + or are refused classification (or which would be if presented for classification) will not be broadcast by television subscription narrowcasters. 

3.4 Material rated R18+ will be restricted to access by those with appropriate disabling devices. 

3.5 Narrowcasters will have particular regard to ensure the protection of children from harmful or distressing material in the selection and scheduling of programs, program promotions and advertisements.

***

ASTRA Codes of Practice: Attachment C

ASTRA CODES OF PRACTICE 
Attachment C 
BROADCASTING SERVICES ACT 1992 SCHEDULE 2 - STANDARD CONDITIONS

11 Conditions applicable to broadcasting services provided under class licences 

(1) The following conditions apply to the provision by a person of a broadcasting service under a class licence: 

(a) the licensee will not, in contravention of the Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Act 1992 , broadcast a tobacco advertisement within the meaning of that Act; 

(ab) in the case of a person who provides an open narrowcasting television service or a subscription television narrowcasting service—the person will comply with subsection 121E(2) (section 121E is about requiring the ACMA’s permission to provide certain television services in regional areas); 

(b) the person will comply with program standards applicable to the licence under Part 9 of this Act; 

(c) the person will not use the broadcasting service in the commission of an offence against another Act or a law of a State or Territory; 

(d) the person will comply with the requirements of clauses 3, 3A, 4, 5 and 6. 

(2) The provision by a person of a subscription broadcasting service or a subscription narrowcasting service under a class licence is also subject to the condition that subscription fees will continue to be the predominant source of revenue for the service. 

(3) The provision by a person of an open narrowcasting television service under a class licence is also subject to the following conditions: 

(a) the licensee will not broadcast a program that has been classified RC or X 18+ by the Classification Board; 

(b) the licensee will not broadcast films that are classified as “R 18+” unless the films have been modified as mentioned in paragraph 123(3C)(b). 

(4) The provision by a person of a subscription television narrowcasting service under a class licence is also subject to the condition that the licensee will not broadcast a program that has been classified RC or X 18+ by the Classification Board.

******

Evil Geishas Hotel: RC
LAYOUT: RC
SEX AND VIOLINS: Censored

We are now back off and running with two new banned titles. Evil Geishas Hotel and LAYOUT join Calvista's long list of RC titles. 

SEX AND VIOLINS, one of their previously banned titles has now been censored and passed with an X18+(Explicit Sex) rating.

EVIL GEISHAS HOTEL Film (DVD)
Classification RC
Consumer Advice
Category Film - Sale/Hire
Version ORIGINAL
Duration variable
Date of Classification 27 June 2007
Author X-OFF
Publisher NOT SHOWN
Production Company PRIVATE
Country of Origin EUROPE
Applicant CALVISTA AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
File Number T07/3028
Classification Number 5050456B

LAYOUT Film (DVD)
Classification RC
Consumer Advice
Category Film - Sale/Hire
Version ORIGINAL
Duration variable
Date of Classification 21 June 2007
Author PAUL THOMAS
Publisher NOT SHOWN
Production Company VIVID
Country of Origin USA
Applicant CALVISTA AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
File Number T07/2845
Classification Number 50514449

******

X-Rated Restrictions in the Northern Territory

The Federal Government's plans for restricting the availability of pornography in indigenous communities is still no clearer. The usual suspects are calling any ban to be extended to all Australians. 

Here Robbie Swann from the Eros Association comments on the Australian Christian Lobby's call for an ACT ban. 

Robbie Swann's Opinion

Backing for porn industry. ABC News 25.06.07

"For four years we've been giving them intelligence and information about these traders in illegal pornography in Darwin who were the ones who were sending these extremely cheap discs into the communities, and nothing has happened," he said.

"And for the Prime Minister and the Christian Lobby to say that R rated, X rated material from Canberra is the problem is just a monumental lie."

The ACT Attorney General Simon Corbell has also defended the Canberra pornography industry, saying it had not contributed to problems in remote communities.

"That material is not available from the ACT, and in fact the Federal Government's own investigations into this matter reveal that much of that pornography is sold illegally through post office boxes in the Northern Territory by people who do not participate in any licenced or regulated scheme," he said.

***

Australian Customs Service on Importing Porn

Customs have taken the opportunity to warn all Australian's that you are potentially being watched should you try and import pornography that falls outside the OFLC's X-Rated guidelines.

Australian Customs Service
Media Release
Illegal pornography goes beyond children 
Monday, 25th June 2007

Customs has reminded any Australians thinking about importing pornography that a wide range of material is prohibited, not just images and publications featuring children.

Customs National Investigations Manager Richard Janeczko said today, "Just because it is available does not mean it can be legally imported."

Mr Janeczko said that anyone found importing pornography that contravened Regulation 4A of the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations 1956 could be prosecuted by Customs.

"Customs regularly detects attempts to import child and other prohibited pornography," Mr Janeczko said.

The warning follows an operation earlier this month in Willeton, WA, where a team of Customs investigators searched a house and seized more than 80 DVDs and 30 magazines suspected of containing offensive pornography that had been imported from The Netherlands.

The search was authorised after Customs intercepted several packages between December 2006 and May 2007 at Perth's Gateway International Mail Handling Facility.

A Customs officer trained by the Office of Film and Literature Classification has already viewed some of the seized pornographic material and deemed that it contained "revolting or abhorrent phenomena" contrary to Regulation 4A.

Mr Janeczko said investigations were continuing into the seizure and charges were expected to be laid.

"None of the material in this seizure contained child pornography. However, there is a lot of a sexual material available overseas, that doesn't include child porn, that would still be illegal if someone tried to import it into Australia."

Mr Janeckzo said the definition of offensive pornography under Regulation 4A was not restricted to child pornography and included material that "describe, depict... matters of sex, drug misuse or addiction, crime, cruelty or violence or revolting or abhorrent phenomena in such a way that they offend against the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults."

***

John Howard and the Aboriginal porn ban

Here John Howard denies that his Government will try and extend the ban to the wider Australian community.

"We are not contemplating further general restrictions for the rest of the Australian community," Mr Howard said on Southern Cross radio.

Mr Howard said it was evident that pornography had been used in a very harmful way in the Northern Territory and the Government must ensure it was not happening elsewhere.

"We're not proposing a general tightening - we will have a discussion about this and there are linkages between the ACT and the Territory because they're both territories and their laws are a bit different than what they are in the states."

***

By the end of the week, details of the plan were slowly beginning to emerge. Some of these proposals do seem like a ban on porn in the ACT could be considered. It looks as if the Howard Government is using this issue not only to take control of Aboriginal affairs, but also to achieve the long held goal of banning the X-Rating. Currently it is only legal to buy X-Rated titles from the ACT or NT. You cannot buy them from within any of the States, however, you can legally import, and own them from the ACT or NT. So as you can see, if the two Territories ban the X-Rating, then this effectively means it is nationwide.

Porn faces stricter control. The Australian 29.06.07

Federal Attorney-General Philip Ruddock yesterday told The Australian he was discussing with his Territory counterpart Syd Stirling bringing the Territory's laws into line with state rules.

"We believe the Territory law needs to be strengthened," Mr Ruddock said yesterday.

A spokeswoman for Mr Stirling said there was in-principle support to ban, under commonwealth law, X-rated pornography in certain indigenous communities.

Mr Stirling would also consider stopping the sale and distribution of the same material across the Territory but noted such a change would need to be nationwide in order for it to be effective.

The breakdown of community policing had also undermined the effort to enforce the law against illegal material, he said. That could be addressed by secondment of federal and state police.

Mr Ruddock restated last week's commitment that government-funded computers would be searched to see if they had been used to access pornography.

There is no plan at present to override the ACT's liberal classification laws, which have allowed mail-order pornography to thrive.

But Communications Minister Helen Coonan is examining whether restrictions could be placed on either the distribution of material - through Australia Post or other means - or even the supply within the ACT.

Her office yesterday said that she "stands ready to assist in any way she can with issues within her portfolio responsibilities".

Details of the changes are still to be negotiated and both governments are on a tight schedule to get the modifications drafted before parliament is recalled for a special sitting next month.

ACT Attorney-General Simon Corbell said he would look seriously at restricting the distribution of X-rated pornography to the Territory if it emerged that material sourced from the ACT was part of the problem the Howard plan was designed to address. But he said there was "no evidence" adult material from the ACT contributed to abuse within indigenous communities and so he saw no reason for legal reform.

He said most of the material came from the states, or from suppliers based in the Territory itself who sold DVDs that had been refused classification.

The chief executive of the Eros Foundation, Fiona Patten, said it would be unconstitutional to ban the interstate sale of pornography, as the constitution enshrined a right to free trade across state borders. She said that right extended to the ACT because, "for constitutional arguments, territories are considered states".

Ms Patten said that in all states and territories it was legal to buy and own X-rated pornography, but only in the ACT and the Territory was it legal to sell it.

If the Prime Minister seriously believed pornography could be harmful, he could ban it, she said.

***

Christian and the Porn ban.

Meanwhile in Griffith the Christians are smelling blood.

Reverend calls for ban on pornography. Area.news.com.au

OUTSPOKEN local minister Kevin Webb has called for a blanket ban on pornography in New South Wales, but concedes people might baulk at the idea of increased censorship. 

 Rev Webb said he believed exposure to pornography could damage adult relationships and proved especially destructive for children.

“I would love it if it was banned because I believe that it affects people’s relationships and is a denigrating kind of activity,” he said. 

“I think children should be protected from pornography in every possible way because kids younger and younger are onto the internet and they are actually getting exposed to all sorts of sexual behaviour from a very early age.” Although current NSW law prohibits the possession of X-rated pornography, such material is readily available on both the internet and from territories with less stringent restrictions. 

Griffith psychotherapist Anne-Charlotte Patrilla said although pornography might have a place in the lives of consenting adults, often it was an indication of sexual and behavioural dysfunction within individuals. “Viewing pornography is a sign of isolation and loneliness within,” Ms Patrilla said. 

Griffith’s Risque Adult Boutique proprietor Pat Tripodi said exposure to pornography was not linked to sexual assaults, according to a 1987 study by the Australian Institute of Criminology. 

“The adult industry in Australia is tightly regulated and people under 18 can’t even enter adult shops, yet every owner of a computer and mobile phone can access pornography with no restrictions,” Mr Tripodi said. 

Rev Webb said he suspected any efforts to toughen pornography laws would be met with public opposition given its widespread consumption in Australian society. 

“If you look at the figures on the usage of pornography, the usage is very high, so if two-thirds of the population are already viewing pornography, then two-thirds of the population are not going to like it very much,” he said.

***

Bettina Arndt Opnions

Finally Bettina Arndt, writing in the Herald Sun accurately sums up the situation. The whole porn issue is being used to increase censorship, maybe for all of us.

It's the rivers of grog, not the sex videos. Herald-Sun 29.06.07

THERE'S widespread relief that the Federal Government has decided to take decisive action to try to protect women and children in violent indigenous communities.

But while some of the plan makes sense, controlling alcohol and using welfare payments to ensure school participation, the ban on X-rated porn is nonsensical.

Yes, pornography is part of this vile scene and there are reports of pornographic videos running continuously on large screens in some communities.

Yet, the X-rated material the Government is talking about banning is mild compared to the steady stream of unclassified sexual material that for years has been sold in Darwin and advertised in local newspapers for only a few dollars a film.

The Northern Territory is being flooded with hundreds of illegal films that depict violent, anal and oral rapes, women being chained up and beaten in dungeons, incest and other violent sexual practices.

They are sexual practices that could never be shown in X-rated material, which is restricted to non-violent, consensual sex.

While it clearly isn't in children's interest to be exposed to any of this material, it makes no sense to suggest it is this which creates the climate for abuse, when these kids are growing up witnessing actual sexual violence all around them, in their own families and communities where they live.

Yes, a sexually violent video may have some impact on a boy's sexual attitudes, but it counts for little compared with growing up with a relative who boasts of raping 12-year old girls.

The Little Children are Sacred Report does mention pornography but, surprisingly, the indigenous communities consulted in the report define porn as including music videos, the Austar Pay TV service and even SBS television, which is named as a major source of porn, all rather different from the material the Government has in mind.

So, what does the report actually recommend?

Not banning X-rated movies, they don't even rate a mention. Rather the report proposes enforcing of the criminal code already in place, which makes it an offence to expose children to sexually explicit material plus an education campaign to get that message across.

That makes sense, but clearly this issue is minor compared with the Herculean task of creating outback Aboriginal communities where women and children are protected, where violence is unacceptable and where vulnerable children are heard.

That's never going to happen unless the key issue at the heart of all the problems is tackled.

First and foremost is "the river of grog" that one of the Little Children are Sacred authors, Pat Anderson, so eloquently described at the launch of the report as "destroying our communities and our families."

As Noel Pearson has repeatedly told us, drug dependency is the critical factor in child abuse and the Government is right on the mark in making grog and policing their number one priorities.

Porn is a red herring and banning sexy videos will have no impact on the complex drug-fuelled interplay of social and cultural factors that leads to the rape of a three-year-old child.

******

IEAA calls for R-rating for games

The Interactive Entertainment Association of Australia are once again calling for the introduction of an R-rating for games

The acting director-general Office of Film and Literature Classification's, Jeremy Fenton had this to say on the reasons why Australia was out of step with other countries.

"....overseas classifications, while they might be interesting - and I certainly understand the media's interest in the comparisons - I think that it's a little bit like chalk and cheese."

Despite what Mr Fenton may say, I think it is important to compare how other classification systems work. Since the November 1971 introduction of the R-rating for films, Australian film censorship has, and still is more liberal than that operated by the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC). There are odd instances such as SALO where a film may get an 18-rating in the UK, and an RC here, but overall the OFLC are much more lenient. This can be seen in any number of films that receive MA15+-ratings here, and 18-ratings in the UK.

However, because we lack an R18+-rating for games, it stands to reason that some titles will be banned because they fall outside the MA15+. However a quick comparison of some of the more recent controversial games shows that the OFLC are still more liberal than the BBFC.

THE DARKNESS
BBFC18 (Contains strong bloody violence)
OFLC MA15+ (Strong violence and horror themes, Strong coarse language)

DEAD RISING
BBFC18 (Contains strong bloody violence)
OFLC MA15+ (Strong horror violence, Blood and gore)

GEARS OF WAR
BBFC18 (Contains strong bloody violence)
OFLC MA15+ (Strong violence)

GOD OF WAR II
BBFC18 (Contains strong bloody violence)
OFLC MA15+ (Strong violence, Sexual references)

So if the UK can cope with a restricted 18 rating why can't we?

Mr Fenton goes on to say that the OFLC 

"....are here to represent the Australian community and the standards inherent in that community," 

Presumably he means that the reason we do not have an R18+ for games is because Australian's do not want it. Actually the reason we do not have it is because the South Australian Attorney-General Michael Atkinson vetoed it. The other States would have allowed it to go ahead.

Game fans are some of the most active anti-censorship campaigners that we have. Check-out the Annual Reports of the Classification and Review Board to see how much correspondence they receive from disgruntled gamers complaining about bans and the absence of an R18+-rating. If film fans were even half as interested then maybe their voice would be heard a little more.

Gaming industry urges classification review. ABC News 27.06.07

The Interactive Entertainment Association of Australia wants the classification system used for games to be the same as that used for films.

CEO Chris Hanlon says the current system is out-of-date.

"When the classification system was being developed in the early 90s the censorship ministers were directed to enforce more stringently the classifications for video and computer games, because at the time there was little research done into the social effects of games," he said.

"Also it was felt that it's primarily a form of entertainment just for kids, so they were specifically directed to enforce it more harshly."

But the Office of Film and Literature Classification's acting director-general, Jeremy Fenton, says games and films are vastly different forms of entertainment and have to be judged accordingly.

"With computer games, obviously one of the key differences is ... the interactivity that's involved," he said.

Mr Hanlon disagrees.

"The most current research that has been done was done by the British Board of Film Classification only six weeks ago. What they found regarding the impact of interactive content was that there are no serious or negative or standout affects from games," he said.

"If anything films, because they are much more realistic, have a much more immersive [sic] effect."

'Behind the times'

Mr Hanlon says the classification board's unwillingness to change is restricting the growth of Australia's gaming industry.

"The evidence that I hear from Australian game developers when they go overseas is that Australia's is seen as behind the times and a bit of a laughing stock because our classification system hasn't kept with world practice," he said.

In fact, Australia and Singapore are the only two countries in the world that do not have a R classification for games.

"[Singapore] are about to introduce a comprehensive classification system for games which includes a R rating," Mr Hanlon said.

"So soon we'll be the only country in the world with no R for games."

Mr Hanlon says the gaming industry is rapidly evolving and classification boards need to keep up.

"The best way to do that is to have an effective classification system that covers the full spectrum of content," he said.

"If we had a R rating in Australia I believe that parents would be much better served, because if a game is rated R or a film's rated R it means it's something that you need pay a lot more closer attention to, to see whether or not it's appropriate to have in your house or not."

Bans

Since 2000, Mr Fenton says the Office of Film and Literature Classification has banned 15 to 20 games.

The British Board of Film Classification has only banned one game in the past 10 years - Manhunt 2.

Mr Hanlon says it is a decision that classification boards should take very seriously.

"[British Board of Film Classification] research indicates that that when you ban a game you only increase the amount of media attention it gets and you increase the uptake of that game," Mr Hanlon said.

"Our view is that it's better to classify products and give parents the appropriate tools to make decisions about what's appropriate, rather than ban them."

But Mr Fenton says comparing Australia's classification system to other systems is like comparing "chalk and cheese".

"We are here to represent the Australian community and the standards inherent in that community," he said.

"So overseas classifications, while they might be interesting - and I certainly understand the media's interest in the comparisons - I think that it's a little bit like chalk and cheese."

New technology

Meanwhile Mr Hanlon says the industry is going beyond just printing the classification on games' boxes.

"The industry now embeds the classification code in the disk at the point of manufacture, so that parents can set their video game consoles to only play appropriately rated games," he said.

"This is being done voluntary, it being done above the requirements of the classification code and it's an effective tool that gives parents control over what they [their children] play in the home."

Update July 1st 2007
Refused-Classification.com 

Updates: June 2007 Part 1