Australian Censorship News: September 2007

UPDATES: 9th September 2007
Next RC update will be November 2007!
BANNED FROM TV (and Australia).
RUSSIAN ANGELS: RC Again. 
EVIL VAULT 3: X18+ Censored.
THE DEGRADATION OF EMANUELLE: New to Database.
New Consumer Advice.
ALP to ban anorexia websites.
Porn Banned in Aboriginal NT.
Warrnambool Adult Store Open for Business.
Whining Christians Pt 1: CALIFORNICATION.
Whining Christians Pt 2: Ban X18+.
OUTRAGEOUS FORTUNE: M to MA15+ by ACMA.
ACMA and Sexual References in BERT'S FAMILY FEUD.
Advertising Standards Board: July Complaints.

UPDATES: 1st September 2007
RUSSIAN ANGELS: RC
HELLCATS 13: ATTACK OF SOME BIG ASSES!!!: Censored
Classification Amendment (Terrorist Material) Bill 2007.
Reality Television Report Released.
MANHUNT 2: Modified in the U.S.
NetAlert is launched.
June ASB Complaints.
Commercial TV & Radio Review.
SA Classification Council Annual Report 2006-2007

UPDATES
9th September 2007

Next RC update will be November 2007!

It's time for a holiday. So this will be the last update until around mid-November. During the break please keep all the e-mails coming in, and we'll try and reply to all your questions, comments, news contributions, etc, during that time. 

******

BANNED FROM TV (and Australia).

The death documentary BANNED FROM TV has been rated RC by the Classification Board. This particular genre has always had problems with the Australian censors with several examples of bans over the years. These include:

It's worth noting that THE HANGING (aka Saddam Hussein's Execution Video) was also banned back in February. Although it is not exactly a feature, it presumably didn't make it passed the censors because it was a scene of violence that was devoid of context. This could have been the reason that BANNED FROM TV was rated RC.

Some of the more traditional Mondo documentaries have also ran into problems.

On a related note, thanks to reader HellToPay27, it can now be confirmed that Australian Censorship has reached the USA! The print of SAVAGE MAN, SAVAGE BEAST contained in the new GRINDHOUSE EXPERIENCE box set seems to have been sourced from the censored Palace VHS release from the 80's.

******

RUSSIAN ANGELS: RC Again.
EVIL VAULT 3: X18+ Censored.

Despite being censored, the resubmitted RUSSIAN ANGELS has again been hit with an RC rating. Calvista were more lucky with the censored version of EVIL VAULT 3. This now holds an X18+ (Explicit Sex) rating.

******

THE DEGRADATION OF EMANUELLE: New to Database

Documenting the history of Australian film censorship is at the core of this site. So adding new titles (as long as they are not too recent!) to the database is always of interest. The latest entry takes us back to 1978 when the Censorship Board demanded cuts to Joe D'Amato's THE DEGRADATION OF EMANUELLE. Making this a little more contemporary, there have been recent reports that the DVD of the XXX European Version are being picked up by customs. Something to ponder before you think about placing an order.

******

New Consumer Advice

It's always good to monitor changing standards at the Classification Board. Here are a couple of new ones.

WILD THINGS (1998)

Back in 1998 John McNaughton's WILD THINGS was rated MA15+ by the Classification Board. The DVD has just been re-submitted by Roadshow Entertainment and has again been rated MA15+. The consumer advice has been changed from:

March 1998: Medium level coarse language, Medium level sex scene, Medium level

to

August 2007: Strong coarse language, Strong sex scene, Strong violence 

In 2004 an unrated edition was released in the U.S. which added over six minutes of footage to the original theatrical version. It is unclear if this new  advice is due to it being the unrated edition, or if it is just a case of a tightening of the consumer warnings. 

ATTACK THE GAS STATION (1999)

Back in February 2000 ATTACK THE GAS STATION was rated M (Medium Level Violence) for its theatrical release. The forthcoming Madman DVD has again been classified with an M-rating, with the consumer advice now changed to Moderate Violence.

******

ALP to ban anorexia websites.

We're getting kind of concerned by the all the pro-censorship talk coming from the ALP. The Howard government has never been shy about ramping up the restrictions placed on ordinary Australians. However, in the case of the internet they are still offering choice. The Net Alert initiative will give you a free filter if you wish to restrict your child's web surfing. They even offer optional ISP filtering. Contrast this with the ALP's plan that is almost an exact clone of that of the Religious Right Family First Party.

The ALP and Family First are calling for mandatory ISP filtering. The temptation to ever increase the list of sites that are filtered out will just be too much to resist. Already the ALP are proposing anorexia sites. 

******

Porn Banned in Aboriginal NT

The ban on pornography in Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory has come into effect.

Phillip Ruddock's announcement.

Attorney-General
The Hon Philip Ruddock MP
7 September 2007 
News Release 195/2007 

NORTHERN TERRITORY NATIONAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE – NEW LAWS BANNING PORNOGRAPHY

Attorney-General Philip Ruddock today announced that new laws prohibiting the possession and supply of pornographic material in prescribed areas within the Northern Territory will come into effect from 14 September.

These laws aim to protect Aboriginal children and were introduced by the Australian Government as part of its Emergency Response to the situation in Northern Territory Indigenous communities. 

“To support the introduction of the new laws, the Australian Government will feature print and radio advertisements in Northern Territory media with the aim of increasing awareness of the bans imposed on sexually explicit material,” Mr Ruddock said. 

“We are providing clear and consistent information to communities directly affected by the bans and for people who visit those communities.” 

“These bans help create a safer place for the children, a living environment where they are not exposed to sexually explicit material.” 

The radio and print advertisements aimed at providing information to all Northern Territorians and in particular Indigenous communities will be featured from today in a selection of Northern Territory media. 

A 24-hour information line has been established, 1800 333 995, to provide advice on how the bans will affect individuals and communities. 

Information is also available through the Australian Government’s NTER website www.facsia.gov.au/nter/ including a list of the prescribed areas affected by the bans.

What is banned?

Australian Government
Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs
Northern Territory Emergency Response 
Fact Sheet 13 

Why and how is the Government banning pornography? 

The Little Children are Sacred report found that very young children were being exposed to sexually explicit material within Aboriginal communities, with implications for the well-being of individuals and communities.

The Australian Government is changing legislation to ban the possession of pornography in the areas covered by the emergency response. It is also banning the supply of material into these areas.

Categories to which the ban applies are:

Category 1 Restricted 
Category 2 Restricted 
X18+ films,
 and Refused Classification films, computer games and publications. 

These categories are defined in the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995.

A range of penalties will apply, with higher penalties for ‘traffickers’. Police will be able to seize or destroy prohibited material. The new laws will work together with existing State and Territory classification enforcement legislation.

All publicly-funded computers will be checked for any illegal material.

The Australian Government will work with the Northern Territory Government on training needs for pornography education in Aboriginal communities.

******

Warrnambool Adult Store Open for Business

Back in March, members of the Religious Right formed an organisation called the South West Community Action Group. The aim was to prevent the Foreplay adult store from opening in Warrnambool.  Despite receiving the blessing of the Family First Party the protest failed. The store has now opened for business.

It's true! sex sells Warrnambool Standard 03.09.07

MORE than 500 customers passed through the doors of Warrnambool's controversial new sex shop when it opened on Saturday, manager Deon Drake told The Standard.

He said the strong turn-out vindicated his eight-month battle to open the store in the Silverton Park industrial estate.

Foreplay opened without incident as giggling clientele browsed through the variety of sexual aides, pornography and novelty items on offer.

The South West Community Action Group had lobbied Warrnambool City Council against approving the store.

The moral campaigners took the fight to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

The group and Mr Drake struck an agreement on July 20, which paved the way for the store to open without a tribunal ruling.

Mr Drake was relieved that none of the shop's critics attempted any kind of protest at the opening.

``It was in the back of my mind,'' Mr Drake said yesterday.

A range of shoppers welcomed the sexual wares on offer with vibrators and blow-up dolls the biggest sellers, he said.

Novelty gifts for Father's Day sold well as a range of young people filed through, presenting their identification to security
staff.

``They're coming in in either groups of boys or groups of girls but predominantly, they're couples.''

Manager Brenda Harding said women responded well to having a female salesperson with the range of lingerie popular.

``It's a feel-good environment,'' Ms Harding said of the shop which has been divided into a female and male section.

There is a mixed pornography library at the rear of the shop with DVDs also for sale. ``It made them feel comfortable,'' Ms Harding said. ``It was bright - it wasn't dark and dingy.''

One customer said the controversy lured her to the shop. ``It's actually made you want to look at it even more to see what it's like,'' she said

******

Whining Christians Pt 1: CALIFORNICATION

The first two episodes of CALIFORNICATION have now screened on Channel Ten. The Christians are up in arms about the series and their complaints have already resulted in Holden and Holeproof pulling their advertisements. 

This is a similar tactic that they used against Channel Seven's THE L WORD back in April 2004. Then they managed to get Roche, DaimlerChrysler, Allianz Australia, Centrum and Just Jeans to pull their ads.

So how about contacting Holden and Holeproof and letting them know how you feel about their cowardly action.

******

Whining Christians Pt 2: Ban X18+.

The Religious-Right are gearing up for the coming election by demanding the parties respond to their list of questions. The site could make interesting reading for those of us eager to see where they stand on various censorship issues. Already they are pushing for the ban on X18+ to be extended from the NT Aboriginal Communities, to all of Australia. 

Church demands party doctrines. news.com.au / 07.09.07

POLITICAL parties fielding candidates in the election have been asked by the Australian Christian Lobby to reveal their positions on issues such as abortion, gay marriage, cloning and pornography.

A letter sent by the lobby group to all parties last week asks for a 250-word response to 25 policy questions, which will be included on a website soon to be launched, www.australiavotes.org.

ACL spokesman Jim Wallace said the site would "inform the Christian constituency" on policies that may not come up during the campaign.

Evangelical Christian churches, which have rapidly grown in popularity, have indicated they are prepared to be active in the election, particularly in Queensland, western Sydney and Tasmania. Parties that don't reply to the letter have been warned that their lack of response will also be noted on the site.

As well as parties' stances on gay marriage, adoption and a national ban on X-rated pornography, ACL also sought position statements on industrial relations and climate change.

ACL also asked parties about their views on the Lord's Prayer.

"The preamble to Australia's constitution states that our nation is 'humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God'," the letter said.

"Does your party commit to maintaining the convention of opening parliament each day exclusively with the Lord's Prayer?"

Parties have also been asked whether they would overturn a ban on sending aid money to countries where it could be used to pay for abortion devices, services or drugs.

******

OUTRAGEOUS FORTUNE: M to MA15+ by ACMA

The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) have found that Channel Nine incorrectly classified an episode of the kiwi comedy-drama OUTRAGEOUS FORTUNE with an M-rating.

Australian Government
Australian Communications and Media Authority
28 August 2007 

ACMA finds Nine to have breached M classification provisions The Australian Communications and Media Authority has found that General Television Corporation Pty Ltd (Nine), the licensee of commercial television service GTV Melbourne, breached the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice by incorrectly classifying an episode of the program Outrageous Fortune.

On 22 February 2007 ACMA received a complaint about an episode of Outrageous Fortune, which was broadcast by GTV on 8 January 2007. The complainant alleged that the program contained sexual material that exceeded the M classification.

ACMA determined that the program breached clause 2.4 of the code (Classification of Other Material) by not complying with clauses 4.2 and 4.6 of Appendix 4 (the M Classification) of the code.

In ACMA’s view, the program contained a visual depiction of intimate sexual behaviour that was not restrained, as required by the M guidelines. The licensee also failed to handle an intense theme with care.

In response to the breach finding, Nine has undertaken to re-classify the program MA15+ for any future broadcasts, and, accordingly, will only re-broadcast the program during an MA15+ viewing period.

ACMA is satisfied that Nine has addressed the compliance issues raised by the breach finding.

The investigation report is available on the ACMA website.

Backgrounder 

ACMA conducts various types of investigations under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (the Act). Investigations under Part 11 of the Act are conducted in response to complaints received by ACMA relating to a possible breach by:

a licensed broadcaster: of the Act, the regulations, a licence condition, a class licence or a code of practice; or the ABC or SBS: of a code of practice. If a person wishes to complain about something of concern they have seen or heard on a program broadcast by a radio or TV station, and the matter is covered by a code of practice, the person must, by law, first make a written complaint to the station.

However, if a complaint relates to a matter covered by a licence condition, the person can complain directly to ACMA and need not complain to the station first.

There is a different code of practice for each broadcasting sector, and each code of practice contains a section that explains the complaints process that applies to that sector.

As some codes impose time limits for complaints, it is advisable that persons who wish to make a complaint write to the radio or TV station as soon as possible. For instance, the code of practice that applies to commercial television broadcasters enables them to decide to not respond in writing to complaints that are made more than 30 days after the date of broadcast.

When making a complaint to ACMA, persons must provide a copy of their complaint to the station, a copy of the station’s reply if this has been received, and any other relevant correspondence with the station. ACMA takes all complaints seriously (except for those that are frivolous or vexatious or not made in good faith) and acknowledges all complaints in writing.

For valid complaints, ACMA considers the information provided and offers the relevant station an opportunity to give its side of the story. When all relevant information is available, ACMA assesses the complaint against the relevant licence condition or code of practice. When an investigation is completed, ACMA is required to notify a complainant of the results of an investigation under Part 11 of the Act. The form this is to take is not specified in the Act—sometimes it is in the form of a letter, but more usually it takes the form of an investigation report, which is provided to both the complainant and the licensee concerned.

Generally, personal or private information provided in a complaint, including name and address details, are not disclosed to the licensee concerned if it is a licence condition matter. However, as code complaints are first made to a licensee, code complaints are usually made available to the licensee concerned. ACMA’s usual practice is to not provide personal or private information in an investigation report.

Under the Act, ACMA has discretion whether or not to publish the report of an investigation conducted under Part 11 of the Act. ACMA is not required to publish an investigation report if publication would disclose matter of a confidential character or likely to prejudice the fair trial of a person. If ACMA intends to publish an investigation report that may adversely affect the interests of a person, ACMA must give the person an opportunity to make representations in relation to the matter.

******

ACMA and Sexual References in BERT'S FAMILY FEUD.

GTV Melbourne has been not guilty by the Australian Communications and Media Authority of breaching the G classification for BERT'S FAMILY FEUD.

These are the questions that prompted the complaint.

"Name something you do in a nudist colony"
"Have Sex"

"Name something that is difficult to return"
"A vibrator"

"Name something adults play at a party"
"Pin the penis on the man"

GTV Melbourne was however found guilty of not responding to the complaints within sixty days.

Australian Government
Australian Communications and Media Authority
Media Release 106/2007 
3 September 3 September 2007 

ACMA finds Nine breached complaints handling provisions 

The Australian Communications and Media Authority has found that General Television Corporation Pty Ltd (Nine), the licensee of commercial television service GTV Melbourne, breached the complaints’ handling provisions of the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice.

ACMA investigated a complaint received in January 2007 about three episodes of the game show, Bert’s Family Feud, broadcast by GTV in June 2006. The complainant alleged that the programs contained inappropriate sexual references that exceeded the G classification.

ACMA determined that the Bert’s Family Feud broadcasts did not breach the code as, in ACMA’s view, the sexual references they contained were brief, very mild in impact and did not exceed the guidelines for G programming. However ACMA did find that GTV breached the complaint handling provisions of the code in relation to the complaint.

GTV breached both clause 7.10 and clause 7.12 of the code in this matter because it did not respond to a complaint within 30 working days after receiving the complaint and it failed to advise the complainant that they may refer the matter to ACMA if not satisfied with the licensee’s response.

In response to a number of complaints’ handling breach findings over the last year or so (also see separate Media Release 105/2007 concerning A Current Affair issued today), the Nine Network implemented in March 2007 new procedures to meet its complaints handling obligations. These procedures included a new system of designated Code Compliance Officers; the specific attribution of responsibility for compliance to Code Complaint Officers, Executive Producers and Station Managers; and an updated complaints’ handling manual for stations across the Nine Network, including GTV Melbourne.

As ACMA is due to shortly receive Nine’s first report on its new complaints’ handling procedures for the period ending 30 June 2007, ACMA will be carefully considering the effectiveness of those new procedures.

The investigation report is available on the ACMA website.

Backgrounder 

ACMA conducts various types of investigations under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (the Act). Investigations under Part 11 of the Act are conducted in response to complaints received by ACMA relating to a possible breach by:

a licensed broadcaster: of the Act, the regulations, a licence condition, a class licence or a code of practice; or the ABC or SBS: of a code of practice. If a person wishes to complain about something of concern they have seen or heard on a program broadcast by a radio or TV station, and the matter is covered by a code of practice, the person must, by law, first make a written complaint to the station.

However, if a complaint relates to a matter covered by a licence condition, the person can complain directly to ACMA and need not complain to the station first.

There is a different code of practice for each broadcasting sector, and each code of practice contains a section that explains the complaints process that applies to that sector.

As some codes impose time limits for complaints, it is advisable that persons who wish to make a complaint write to the radio or TV station as soon as possible. For instance, the code of practice that applies to commercial television broadcasters enables them to decide to not respond in writing to complaints that are made more than 30 days after the date of broadcast.

When making a complaint to ACMA, persons must provide a copy of their complaint to the station, a copy of the station’s reply if this has been received, and any other relevant correspondence with the station. ACMA takes all complaints seriously (except for those that are frivolous or vexatious or not made in good faith) and acknowledges all complaints in writing.

For valid complaints, ACMA considers the information provided and offers the relevant station an opportunity to give its side of the story. When all relevant information is available, ACMA assesses the complaint against the relevant licence condition or code of practice. When an investigation is completed, ACMA is required to notify a complainant of the results of an investigation under Part 11 of the Act. The form this is to take is not specified in the Act—sometimes it is in the form of a letter, but more usually it takes the form of an investigation report, which is provided to both the complainant and the licensee concerned.

Generally, personal or private information provided in a complaint, including name and address details, are not disclosed to the licensee concerned if it is a licence condition matter. However, as code complaints are first made to a licensee, code complaints are usually made available to the licensee concerned. ACMA’s usual practice is to not provide personal or private information in an investigation report.

Under the Act, ACMA has discretion whether or not to publish the report of an investigation conducted under Part 11 of the Act. ACMA is not required to publish an investigation report if publication would disclose matter of a confidential character or likely to prejudice the fair trial of a person. If ACMA intends to publish an investigation report that may adversely affect the interests of a person, ACMA must give the person an opportunity to make representations in relation to the matter.

******

Advertising Standards Board: July Complaints 

Here is a breakdown of the complaints heard by the Advertising Standards Board in July. 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.

The following complaints were upheld.

All of the following complaints were dismissed.

Here are a couple of the reports in full. The rest can be found at adstandards.com.au.

Jamster Sexy Ring Tones Ad: Dismissed

Advertising Standards Bureau
Case Report
1. Complaint reference number 184/07 
2. Advertiser Jamba! GmbH (Jamster Sexy Ring Tones) 
3. Product Mobile phone/SMS 
4. Type of advertisement TV 
5. Nature of complaint Portrayal of sex/sexuality/nudity – section 2.3 
6. Date of determination Tuesday, 10 July 2007 
7. DETERMINATION Dismissed

DESCRIPTION OF THE ADVERTISEMENT 
This television advertisement for mobile phone downloads features various video clips of singers performing songs, and visuals of women in gym gear exercising and doing aerobics. 

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

It contained numerous images of women with scanty covering, and camera angles aimed at their crotch and buttocks. It is evident that the advertisement has indeed portrayed women in a way that discriminates against women/mothers for sexual preference and purposes; vilifies women in general through such blatant acts of flaunting sexuality and nudity; and implicates men who are portrayed as accepting sexualised behaviour by women as normal, safe and related to family events. Apart from children there were other adults watching the program who were offended and shocked by the pornographic display.

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

A response had not 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 considered the images depicted in the advertisement and noted that the images are all excerpts from video clips and music clips that are likely to be shown on television. In any case the Board considered the images and noted that the images were of women in various types of clothing including swimwear and exercise wear. The Board noted that the women were not naked and that there was no nudity in the advertisement. The Board considered that the depictions of dancing were not inappropriate to the likely audience for this product. The Board determined that the advertisement did not breach section 2.3 of the Code. The Board also considered that the representations of the women were not demeaning to women or in any way vilifying or discriminatory. The Board also considered that indicating that men were the target audience for this product was not viliifying of men. The Board determined that the advertisement did not discriminate against or vilify either men or women and did not breach section 2.1 of the Code. Finding that the advertisement did not breach the Code on other grounds, the Board dismissed the complaint.

***

Sydney Breast Enlargement & Cosmetic Surgery Ad: Upheld

Advertising Standards Bureau
Case Report
1. Complaint reference number 193/07 
2. Advertiser Sydney Breast Englargement & Cosmetic Surgery (Dr Lai) 
3. Product Professional services 
4. Type of advertisement Radio 
5. Nature of complaint Discrimination or vilification Gender - section 2.1 
6. Date of determination Tuesday, 10 July 2007 
7. DETERMINATION Upheld – discontinued or modified 

DESCRIPTION OF THE ADVERTISEMENT 
This radio advertisement features a femle voiceover asking "Do you have a Belly Apron from pregnancy or weight loss? That ugly, yucky, loose tummy skin covered in stretch marks. It's red, itchy and smelly underneath. And it flops all over! You hate looking in the mirror. And you can't hide your fatty muffin skin roll under any dress! YES there is Help! You can get a flat tummy again. Just see Dr. Lai from Sydney Tummy Tuck, a senior member of the Australian Society of Plastic Surgeons." 

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

Derogatory. Loose tummies after birth or weight loss is a natural occurance (sic). I feel it is written to make the person with the condition feel ugly. 

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

We are of the view that it is clear that the advertisement does not raise any issues under the Code. The complaint states that the advertisement is written to make people with loose tummies after giving birth or weight loss feel "ugly". While the language used in the advertisement is descriptive, it is; 

1. appropriate in the circumstances 

2. not strong or obscene 

3. does not aim to make women feel ugly but rather offers a solution for women who may feel that way. The language accurately describes the feelings that some women have about their stomachs after pregnancy or weight loss using colloquial and descriptive terms. 

In our view the advertisement is not offensive or psychologically damaging to the broader community. The advertisement merely presents the feelings that some women have about their stomachs after giving birth or losing weight and offers them a possible way of resolving these feelings by undergoing tummy tuck surgery. The advertisement must be considered in the context that the procedure being advertised can not be acquired on impulse or as the result of a flippant decision. 

For the reasons outlined we submit that the advertisement is and continues to be suitable for broadcast under the Code. 

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

The Board listened to this radio advertisement several times. The Board recognised that the advertisement is designed to offer a surgical solution to unwanted body features - in particular those resulting from changes to the body following pregnancy and weight loss. 

The Board considered whether the advertisement depicted material in a way that discriminates against or vilifies a person or section of the community on account of sex. The Board considered that the primary audience for the advertisement was women because of the predominant mention of pregnancy. The Board considered that the advertisement used language that would incite contempt for overweight or post partem women. The Board was particularly concerned by the reference to a loose stomach that is 'red, itchy and smelly underneath'. The Board considered that references of this manner to the physical condition of women post partum was in extreme bad taste and did amount to vilification. 

The Board considered also that the references to women's bodies post partum were particularly insensitive and extreme and likely to undermine the important positive health messages given to women following pregnancy by many public health bodies. 

On this basis the Board determined that the advertisement breached sections 2.1 and 2.6 of the Code. 

ADVERTISER'S RESPONSE TO DETERMINATION 
Australian Radio Network is part of Australia's largest radio network. We place strong emphasis on compliance with all standards and codes that apply to the commercial radio industry. All advertisements which may raise an issue under those standards and codes are vetted by experienced managers. As a result we have a long history of compliance with the Advertiser Code of Ethics and with broadcasting standards generally. 

We consider thousands of advertisements broadcast over our network every year. To the best of my knowledge this is the first advertisement broadcast by us, which has been found by the Bureau not to comply with the relevant Code. 

As soon as a complaint was received from our audience in respect of this commercial, we withdrew the advertisement from our broadcast schedule (which was some time before the Bureau became involved), a step that is consistent with our responsiveness to our audience. 

The advertisement in question was directed to an adult audience who, we believe are used to hearing about different health conditions and body shapes. The advertisement offered assistance and hope to people who may not be satisfied with their own body shape. Nevertheless, we accept that the Bureau has a different view and the advertisements in question will not be re broadcast. While we will have regard to the Bureau's Case Report when considering future advertisements, we would also encourage the Board to place emphasis on the nature, content and intended audience of an advertisement, including the diversity and robustness of a mature adult audience. 

Australian Radio Network will continue to monitor the advertising on its network to ensure that our Advertisers comply with advertising and other broadcasting codes and standards. However, it is important that the Bureau place a complaint in context, we broadcast to over half a million people a week and our audience contains a broad range of interests and needs that we are trying to satisfy. 

It is Australian Radio Network’s intention to maintain our excellent record of compliance.

Update September 9th 2007
Refused-Classification.com 

UPDATES
1st September 2007

RUSSIAN ANGELS: RC
HELLCATS 13: ATTACK OF SOME BIG ASSES!!!: Censored

Christoph Clark's RUSSIAN ANGELS is the latest DVD banned by the "Classification Board". Meanwhile, Joey Silvera's HELLCATS 13 has been censored by Calvista and is now free and legal with an X18+ (Explicit Sex) rating. It had previously been banned in early August.

******

Classification Amendment (Terrorist Material) Bill 2007

The bill has now had its second reading in the House of Representatives and has now moved to the Senate. The ALP has shown its support for the bill.

******

Reality Television Report Released

Helen Coonan has finally given the go ahead for the ACMA to release their report into Reality Television. The investigation began following the BIG BROTHER 'Turkey Slap' incident in 2006.

Details of the review and a link to the final report can be found here.

******

MANHUNT 2: Modified in the U.S.

A modified version of MANHUNT 2 has been given an M-rating in the U.S. In June the unmodified version was hit with the uncommercial AO (Adults Only) rating.

Meanwhile, in the UK Rockstar Games are appealing against the BBFC ban of the unmodified version. The Video Appeals Committee has yet to hear the appeal.

 Neither version has yet been submitted to our Classification Board. 

******

NetAlert is launched

Monday saw the official launch of the Government's NetAlert plan. So all you parents out there who take no responsibility for monitoring your Childs internet use can now outsource it to a government approved filter that may, or may not work. Actually the news is just out that a 16 year old from Melbourne has cracked the filter. 

******

Advertising Standards Board: June Complaints 

Here is a breakdown of the complaints heard by the Advertising Standards Board in June. 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.

The following complaints were upheld.

All of the following complaints were dismissed.

***

ZODIAC (2007) Radio Ad

Advertising Standards Bureau
Case Report
1. Complaint reference number 174/07 
2. Advertiser Roadshow Film Distributors (Zodiac) 
3. Product Entertainment 
4. Type of advertisement Radio 
5. Nature of complaint Violence Other – section 2.2 
6. Date of determination Tuesday, 12 June 2007 
7. DETERMINATION Upheld – discontinued or modified 

DESCRIPTION OF THE ADVERTISEMENT 
This radio advertisement begins with a phone ringing and a female police officer answers the call with “Hello, Police Department”. A male voice on other end of the phone tells her “I wanna report a double murder”. The police officer asks for contact details “May I have you name, phone?" but the man on the other end of the phone continues speaking over the officer “If you go one mile east on Columbus Parkway; a public park - you’ll find kids in a brown pond. They were shot with a 9mm Luger. I also killed those kids last year”. There is a pause, then in a sinister voice, the male concludes “Goooodbye” as suspenseful background music begins. 

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

I have two children aged 5 and 7. Even before they heard the ad and were upset by the fact that the man had killed some kids, I personally found the ad offensive. If you want to see/hear stuff like that, go to the movies. I don't need to hear it described on prime time radio. My children asked who the children were that had been killed and the five year old insisted on locking the doors at home so the bad man from the radio didn't come. I have never complained before however I find this ad unnecessary and in really poor taste. 

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

The complaint refers to the ZODIAC radio campaign. Attached to this email, please find attached a MPEG of the radio spot in question. 

The radio spots were booked to air on Triple M (nationally) from Wednesday 16th May to Saturday 19th May. Our campaign for Zodiac is now off air and the spot in question will not run again. 

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

The Board listened to the radio advertisement and noted that the advertising campaign had come to an end at the time that the Board met. The Board considered that although the campaign had concluded it would make a determination in relation to this particular advertisement on the basis that it was in the public interest as this advertisement and the decision in relation to it would provide precedent value for future similar advertising. 

The Board considered the advertisment under clause 2.2 of the Code which provides that advertisements shall not present or portray violence unless it is justifiable in the context of the product or service advertised. 

The Board noted that the product advertised is an MA15+ rated movie of the 'thriller' and 'action' genre and considered that the presentation of some violence in the advertising for such a product would generally be acceptable. 

The Board noted the suspenseful music and mood of this advertisement and noted the dialogue in the advertisement which included 'you'll find kids in a brown pond, They were shot with a 9mm luger. I also killed those kids last year'. The Board considered that this advertisement presented quite a high level of violence in its combination of suspenseful music and dialogue. The Board noted that the advertisement was a radio advertisement and that there was therefore a broad audience for the advertisement, and that such audience would include children. 

The Board considered that the level of violence presented in the advertisement was excessive for the product advertised, particularly considering the age of the potential audience. On this basis the Board determined that the advertisement breached section 2.2 of the Code and upheld the complaint.

ADVERTISER'S RESPONSE TO DETERMINATION 
Comments which the advertiser made in response to the Board’s determination to uphold the complaints included the following: 

I wish to confirm that we have discontinued use of this advertisement.

***

NANDO'S Pole Dancer Ad Complaint

Advertising Standards Bureau
Case Report
1. Complaint reference number 180/07 
2. Advertiser Nando's Australia Pty Ltd (Cinema pole-dancer) 
3. Product Restaurants 
4. Type of advertisement Cinema 
5. Nature of complaint Discrimination or vilification Gender - section 2.1 Portrayal of sex/sexuality/nudity – section 2.3 
6. Date of determination Tuesday, 12 June 2007 
7. DETERMINATION Dismissed 

DESCRIPTION OF THE ADVERTISEMENT 
This cinema advertisement opens on a professional-looking young woman wearing a business suit, walking in the city and telling us "If you're a busy woman like me, you don't have time for cravings". The scene cuts to a club where the woman is seen wearing only a g-string and pole-dancing, smiling at the camera as a male patron enjoys her performance. We see the woman thrust her buttocks towards the man and wiggle and he prepares to place a $20 bank note in the strap of her g-string then draws it back, seemingly put off by the Nando-fix patch she is wearing on her left buttock. The woman's voiceover explains "At work, I used to tame my Peri Peri cravings with the Nando-fix patch - it had its drawbacks though" and she is seen holding her arm across her naked breasts and looks regretful at the loss of a tip. Afterwards, in her dressing room she confides "But now with Nando-fix gum, I can tame my cravings, without taming my clients". On a later occasion she is seen pole-dancing for the same male patron, holding her arm across her naked breasts and blowing a Nando's gum bubble from her mouth, as the man places a $100 banknote in the strap of her g-string, undeterred this time. The final scene shows the woman enjoying a meal with her husband and two children at Nando's and explaining "Of course, nothing beats enjoying Nando's with my family. But Nando-fix gum comes close." An image of the fictitious Nando's gum is seen on screen with the text "Now not available." 

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

This ad was played in a popular public cinema at what is cleary a child friendly session time (5.30pm, the session was nearly full of children under the age of 12 with their parents, showing sexually based advertising content to a young audience is totally inappropriate. 

it is completely offensive to women and undoubtedly produced by a tasteless, sexist, uneducated, male, ad executive. 

We did not come to the movie to watch soft porn. 

The ad is almost as repulsive and sordid about men as it is about women. It exploits the current stupid notion that sexual exploitation is "empowering" for women in order to use sex to sell chicken. It is not empowering to see women respresented as lust objects, nor is it remotely funny. It is just unspeakably demeaning. 

It degrades women and the roles they play in society portraying them as sex objects. This add(sic) makes a mockery of smokers and a serious addiction affecting thousands. 

Shows and glorifies strip joints and venues that are R18 in a cinema full of children. 

It was sexual and provocative and inappropriate for children to view. 

Young children are shown it is acceptable for men to pay for gratuitous behaviour/performances. It promotes working in a strip club as an "ordinary" acceptable vocation for loving, family oriented mothers. It devalues the worth of women into sex objects. 

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

Perhaps a little background regarding this campaign will be instructive. We introduced a fictitious product last year called the Nando-fix patch- a make believe patch, like nicotine patches, to help people through their cravings when they can't get to Nando's. The make-believe Nando-fix patch is now joined by make-believe Nando-fix gum. And to dramatise the gum, who better than somebody, who, for professional reasons, can't wear a patch.

The CAD division at Free TV Australia has seen fit to give the commercial an ‘M’ classification and the execution is being aired during the corresponding permitted film titles. While the commercial does show partial nudity, this is no more than is frequently seen in the content of other commercials and films which are rated ‘M’. 

It should be noted that Pirates of the Caribbean, at World’s End, is rated ‘M’. We do not believe that the nudity shown is gratuitous. Rather, it is central to the idea of the ad. As I mentioned, the concept is to show somebody who, for professional reasons, can’t wear the Nandofix patch. A pole dancer was the ideal choice. Since she is only wearing a g-string, she has nowhere to hide the patch, so she must use the gum instead. (This is the reason that the woman is not wearing a bikini top in the ad. If she were, she could hide the patch under the top.) We believe that the level of nudity portrayed is essential to ensuring authenticity. 

Some complainants have said the ad is degrading to women - this was never the purpose of the commercial. Our intention was the opposite - to show somebody who was clearly in charge of her own destiny. The woman we depict in the commercial is shown to be intelligent, in control and making her own choices. She is not being coerced by the man in any way. She is acting in accordance with her own free will. 

While some complainants have said that the woman is portrayed in a degrading manner, this is a highly subjective interpretation. Nando’s takes the contrary view. Many women see the open display of female sexuality as a forthright display of empowerment. I would also like to note that pole dancing has become a lot more mainstream of late. One of the lead characters in Home And Away, Martha, is a pole dancer. Other portrayals of pole dancing have recently been aired on Dancing With The Stars, as well as the radio station Nova FM, which runs advertisements for a pole dancing school. 

We don’t believe that it is our place, nor our audience’s, to make a judgement about a woman’s fitness as a mother based solely on her professional choices. The woman is certainly not engaged in any activity that shows her being a bad mother. Indeed, she is clearly portrayed in the final scene as an ideal mother who cares for her family. 

This commercial is intended to be humorous and a parody. It is proving extremely popular with our target audience, the great majority of whom understand and appreciate Nando's irreverent sense of humour. 

At Nando's, we are proud of our brand’s bold heritage and irreverent personality. We believe this commercial is simply a reflection of these long-established attributes. That said, we do take this complaint seriously. 

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 had been classified M by CAD which meant that it could only be shown after 8.30pm and during the week from 12-3pm. The Board noted that the advertisement had only been shown at the cinema prior to an M classified movie which means that the movie is recommended for persons over the age of 15. The Board also noted the diverse issues raised in complaints about this advertisement. 

The Board noted the complaints about the inappropriateness of stripping or pole dancing being shown in conjunction with images of a happy family and the disconnect between poledancing or stripping and family values. The Board considered that poledancing was not incompatible with family values and that there was no breach of the Code in this depiction. 

The Board noted complaints that the advertisement vilified men by depicting the man at a pole dancing show, paying for the woman to dance. The Board considered that the man was depicted in a very sterile manner and not in a way that made him appear sexist or sleasy. The Board noted that the advertisement also depicted a man as the father with his family. The Board considered that the advertisement did not vilify men by showing a man enjoying a pole dancing show. 

The Board noted complaints that the advertisement vilified women by depicting the woman poledancing and therefore as a stripper or a prostitute. The Board considered that the depiction of the woman pole dancing was not a depiction of a sleasy or overtly sexual woman and that there was no suggestion that the woman was a prostitute. The Board also noted that poledancing is becoming more mainstream with it currently being a popular form of exercise. While noting the change in attitude towards pole dancing the Board agreed that this change was probably not widespread in the community. Regardless of this the Board considered that this depiction of pole dancing was fairly clinical and not overtly sexual and was therefore not vilifying of women or inappropriately sexual. 

The Board noted complaints that the advertisement's reference to 'nando fix patches' amounted to a stereotypical portrayal of sex workers as addicts. The Board agreed that most members of the community would not see that there was any such suggestion in the advertisement. 

The Board noted many complaints about the depiction of a mother and wife as a pole dancer/prostitute and considered that this vilified women. The Board considered that this advertisement depicted a strong in control woman who went about her work in a professional manner (wearing a suit to work), enjoyed her work, enjoyed being 'sexy' and enjoyed time with her family. The Board considered that this advertisement depicted the woman as being a strong and empowered woman. The Board considered that the advertisement did not vilify women by portraying a woman in both roles or in a manner that demonstrated that she was 'sexy'. The Board considered that such a depiction was not improper as a depiction of someone who was also a mother and wife. 

Lastly the Board considered the pole dancing scene and the woman's near nudity. The Board noted that the woman's breasts were covered (albeit by her hands), and that her nipples and genitals were not shown in the advertisement. The Board considered that the depiction of the woman pole dancing was fairly 'clinical' with no overtly sexual music and no touching by the man. The Board noted that even when the woman pokes her bottom out, the viewer sees this from the side and there is no actual nudity or inappropriately sexual views. 

The Board noted that the advertisement is rated M and is therefore not directed to small children or children under the age of 15 without parental supervision. On this basis the majority of the Board considered that this part of the advertisement did not breach any of the provisions of the Code. The minority of the Board considered that this part of the advertisement was a breach of community standards in relation to sexuality.

All members of the Board noted that the advertiser certainly meant to create an advertisement with some shock value and that this had been achieved. The Board agreed that the diversity of opinion within the Board about the advertisement was likely to reflect community views on the advertisement. 

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

******

Commercial TV & Radio Review

The Commercial Television Industry Codes of Practice and the Commercial Radio Codes of Practice is currently undergoing its three year review. Helen Coonan has announced that the current review will now look at the sexualisation of children.

Review into the Sexualisation of Children

Senator the Hon Helen Coonan
Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts
Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate
Media Release 111/07 
Wednesday 15 August 2007

Howard Government acts to further protect children

The Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator the Hon Helen Coonan said today that the Howard Government was furthering its commitment to protecting children with new measures agreed today in relation to radio and television.

“In addition to the NetAlert – Protecting Australian Families Online initiative which will go live on Monday, the radio and television industry will investigate the short and long term effects of sexualised images of children.

“We take the issue of child exploitation on the internet, television and radio extremely seriously.

“The world leading $189 million NetAlert programme will help Australian families to manage their internet experience as well as provide tough new policing and enforcement measures.

“We are committed to tackling child exploitation from every angle, and today’s motion is another step in the process,” Senator Coonan said.

“Reports about the sexualisation of children in the media are alarming to me, both as a parent and as Communications Minister, and I also know this concern is shared by the broader Australian community.

“This sexualisation can have a detrimental effect on children’s self esteem, emotional development and body image.

“Today, in recognition of these concerns, a joint motion was moved that will address the harmful effect of the sexualisation of our children in the media.”

Senator Coonan said that industry, currently conducting their three year review of the Commercial Television Industry Codes of Practice and the Commercial Radio Codes of Practice, will investigate who benefits from the sexualised images of children and the ramifications it can have on children.

“The Australian Communications and Media Authority must be satisfied that the industry review and any relevant recommendations reflect community values and standards and provide me with a detailed report by March 2008,” Senator Coonan said.

***

Commercial TV Responds

Free TV Australia
 freetv.com.au 
STATEMENT 15 August 2007 

Free TV Response to Minister’s Statement on Sexualisation of Children

The commercial free to air television industry does not support the sexualisation of children. 

All material on commercial free to air television is heavily regulated and all material broadcast is consistent with OFLC guidelines. Further we are unique in the world in having specific standards relating to children’s programming including pre-classification of specialised children’s programming. 

All advertising on television must comply with the classification guidelines and advertising directed to children must “exercise special care and judgment and comply with the Children’s Television Standards”. 

We are therefore confident that the current regulation of commercial free to air television is appropriate in this regard and this is reflected in the very low level of complaints to broadcasters. 

We are amazed to see that other forms of media which ACMA research shows are increasingly accessed by children and which are largely unregulated are not covered by the Minister’s request. In particular although the announcement says it is looking at “television” we note this does not include Pay TV or National Broadcasters. 

Free TV understands the community concerns around this issue and will give the Minister’s letter serious consideration and engage in discussions with the Democrats and other interested parties.

***

SA Classification Council Annual Report 2006-2007

The Annual report of the South Australian Classification Council has just been released. 

Complaints were heard against four films, JINDABYNE, 2.37, SHORTBUS, and 300. All four retained their original ratings. Previously the SACC had raised the R18+ of Michael Winterbottom's 9 SONGS to X18+ due to its depiction of actual sex. SHORTBUS also contains such scenes, but managed to hold on to its R18+.

The report is reproduced below in its entirety as this most useless of bodies does not even list the report on their site.

ANNUAL REPORT of the SOUTH AUSTRALIAN CLASSIFICATION COUNCIL

for the Year Ended 30 June 2007

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

Sir,

Pursuant to the provisions of Section 90 (1) of the Classification (Publications, Films, Computer Games) Act 1995, the South Australian Classification Council respectfully submits this report, to be laid before both Houses of Parliament, on its activities for the year ended 30 June 2006.

COUNCIL MEMBERSHIP

Three members of the Council constitute a quorum.

During the year the Council comprised the following members:

A legal practitioner, Ms Julie Redman, LLB (Chairperson);

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

A person with wide experience in education, Father Phillip Marshall B.A. (Hons)

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

Mr Anthony Durkin LLB

Rev Doctor Robert Iles B.Ed., L.Th., Dip.R.E., M.A., Ph.D. (1/7/2006 - 17/9/2006)

Barbara Biggins (OAM, B.Sc, Grad Dip Lib, AALIA)

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

Registrar

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

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE COMMONWEALTH CLASSIFICATION BOARD AND THE SOUTH AUSTRALIAN CLASSIFICATION COUNCIL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ACTIVITIES OF THE SOUTH AUSTRALIAN CLASSIFICATION COUNCIL

Costs The Council met six times in 2006 - 2007. Its expenditure for the year was $3,900.

Inquiries received from the general public in relation to censorship in SA

During 2006-2007 a number of queries were received relating to censorship in its broad sense. A number of the inquiries related to matters outside the jurisdiction of the South Australian Classification Council. In those cases, people requesting information were directed to the appropriate organisation that could assist them.

Below is a table of all inquiries received in 2006-2007.

Inquiries Received NO RECEIVED 

Complaint about advertising 7 
Query about classification of a computer game 1 
Query about consumer advice 1 
Query about classification of films/video/DVD 2 
Complaint about merchandise 2 
Query about classification of publications 1 
Query about sale of computer game 1 
Complaint about TV content 2 
Query about Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 1 
Query about copyright 2 
Information about censorship 1 
TOTAL 21

Review of Classifications 

1. Publications 

Council considered one publication: " Zoo Weekly Council classified the magazine Unrestricted M- Not recommended for readers under 15 years. See Appendix A for the Council's Report about Zoo Weekly

2. Films T

he Council considered four films: 

" Jindabyne Council declined to classify the film. The film retained its M classification. See Appendix B for the Council's Report about 'Jindabyne'.

" 2:37 Council declined to classify the film. The film retained its R18+ classification. See Appendix C for the Council's Report about '2:37'.

" Shortbus Council declined to classify the film. The film retained its R18+ classification. See Appendix D for the Council's Report about 'Shortbus'.

" 300 Council declined to classify the film. The film retained its M15+ classification. See Appendix E for the Council's Report about '300'.

3. Computer Games 

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

THE CLASSIFICATION OF THEATRICAL PERFORMANCES BOARD

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

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

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

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

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

ACTIVITIES OF THE CLASSIFICATION OF THEATRICAL PERFORMANCES BOARD

The Board did not consider any theatrical performances.

COMMUNITY LIAISON SCHEME

The Community Liaison Scheme (CLS) is a joint State, Territory and Australian Government initiative designed to support the operation of the cooperative national classification scheme. CLS staff provide an education service to industry in each State and Territory involved in distributing, advertising, selling, hiring or exhibiting classified products. These include films, DVD/video, certain publications and computer games. CLS also provides advice and assistance to law enforcement agencies.

Through a program of compliance checks and strategic projects aimed at industry sectors, the CLS works with business so that accurate and timely classification information is available to consumers of classified material, and in particular to those who wish to make informed decisions about the products consumed by those in their care. CLS staff undertake individual checks of retail outlets in all States and Territories, identifying problems and providing advice on how to comply with the legislative requirements of the national classification scheme. Outlets visited include cinemas, DVD and computer game retailers, video hire stores, service stations, newsagents and restricted premises. Where breaches of classification laws are detected, CLS officers generally deal with theses by educating the retailer, exhibitor or distributor concerned or, if appropriate, reporting the matter to police.

In the 2006-07 financial year, CLS staff spent 15 working days in South Australia, undertaking approximately 90 site visits in the Adelaide metropolitan area and south east regional towns.

CLS also handles enquiries and complaints from industry and members of the public in relation to classification issues as well as referrals from States and Territories and other government agencies.

CLASSIFICATION INFORMATION

South Australian Classification Council Website

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

Australian Government Classification Website

This site located at 'www.classification.gov.au' contains information about the operation of the National Classification Scheme in Australia. It includes information about " The Classification Board " The Commonwealth Act and Regulations " Guidelines for the Classification of Publications " Guidelines for the Classification of Films and Computer Games " Classification Database " Decisions of the Classification Review Board " Notice of calls for public submissions on classification matters " Annual reports of the Classification Board and Classification Review Board.

There is also general information for both consumers and industry.

Relevant Acts

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

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

APPENDIX A

Classification of Zoo Magazine published by EMap Australia

Background 

The Council met on 4 October 2006 to consider a complaint made about the August 28, 2006 issue of Zoo Magazine. The complainants were concerned that the magazine was being sold to children and that its contents were unsuitable to such readership.

Complaint 

Specifically, the complaint focused upon matters of a violent content and alleged sexual content, inclusive of that material printed on the cover of the magazine.

The magazine is currently unrestricted in respect of its classification.

An unrestricted classification encompasses a wide range of material. It is not likely to include material that would offend a reasonable adult to the extent that it should be restricted.

The Council had regard to the matters set out in s.19 of the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 ('the Act') and considered the impact of the contents of the magazine together with its cover and felt that it was of moderate impact which impact had a cumulative affect.

Upon due consideration the Council was not moved to reclassify the publication so as to restrict it.

In light of the sexual content and the moderate levels of dealings with violent matters, the Council felt that the publication ought to henceforth be required to carry a consumer advice label, being Classification Marking 1(b) confirming that it is unrestricted but recommended for mature readers and not recommended for persons under 15 years.

The Council considered the appropriate duration of such an adjustment to the classification status of the publication and, pursuant to s.19A of the Act, the requirement to include an advisory that the publication is recommended for mature readers is to apply to all future publications in the 'Zoo' series of magazines.

APPENDIX B

Classification of the film 'Jindabyne' by Ray Lawrence

Complaint 

The Council received a complaint about the film 'Jindabyne' (author Ray Lawrence, producer April Films, classified M by the Office of Film and Literature Classification on 1 June 2006). The complainant, a doctor, expressed concern that: 

1. scenes in this film could cause a heart attack or stroke or other serious health problem to unsuspecting viewers. For example, the complainant suggested that an elderly person watching it might die from shock or a pregnant woman could have a miscarriage due to the stress from watching this film. The complainant suggested that there could be deaths due to audiences watching some of the grisly scenes; 

2. the way in which the woman was murdered would be traumatic for any abused woman or her family or families of murdered women; and 

3. the film could lead to some copy-cat actions or effects on disturbed people including any youth with psychiatric problems. The Council first examined three critical reviews of the film and noted the absence of any comment of this kind or any expression of concern about the violence in the film. The Council also established that there had been no complaints of this type, or any complaints, to the Office of Film and Literature Classification, about this film. Nonetheless, noting the seriousness of the complaint and the professional opinion offered by the complainant, the Council decided to view the film, which it did on 31 July 2006. 

Film content 

The film is set in the present day in the rural community of Jindabyne. It examines the effects on family and social relationships in the town when a group of local fishermen discover the body of a murdered woman but defer reporting it to the authorities in order to enjoy their fishing trip. The film opens with the events leading up to the murder, but it does not depict the murder. Rather, the viewer first sees the encounter between the victim, who is driving alone on a country road, and the murderer, who deceives her into stopping her vehicle, and later sees the victim's body being dumped from the back of a truck into the river. This scene is sufficiently detailed to make clear that this is the same woman and that she has now been killed by the man she had met, but the scene is brief and does not dwell on the detail of her injuries. 

The body is seen again, later in the film, when found by the fishermen in the river near their camp. Two of the men in turn approach the floating body and examine it by turning it over and back again. The depiction of the body in these scenes is more protracted but again the injuries are not dwelt on. The fishermen resolve the problem by tying the body to the riverbank but thereafter leave it alone. 

The only actual depictions of violence in the film occur when 

(a) the protagonist in an outbreak of temper grabs and shakes his wife and later his mother in the course of a domestic dispute and 

(b) a friend of the protagonist unexpectedly punches him in the face in the course of a family barbecue. 

Council deliberations 

The Council noted that although there is a clear sense of menace when the victim is approached by the murderer and induced to stop her car, there is no depiction of violence between the victim and the murderer. The scenes in which the body is shown indicate only the aftermath of this violence. They are not gratuitous but are integral to the film and the depictions of the body are no more than are necessary for the viewer to understand the plot. The other scenes of violence were, in the Council's view, equally distressing if not more so in that they showed deliberate aggression within close relationships. 

The Council noted that, for an M classification, the impact of the violence must be no higher than moderate. An M rating denotes that the film is not recommended for viewers under 15. Commonly, murder-mystery films in which the actual killing is not shown are classified M or lower. The mere inclusion of scenes of the body of a murder victim will not necessarily take the film beyond the M category. By contrast, the MA15+ classification accommodates strong-impact violence. Examples of films with MA-level violence include The Passion of the Christ, Once Were Warriors, Saving Private Ryan, The Silence of the Lambs, L.A. Confidential and Collateral. 

The Council noted that 'Jindabyne' is realistic and of serious intent, which may increase the impact of any violence compared with the impact of similar violence in a film that seeks merely to entertain. Nonetheless, the Council judged that the scenes complained of were of no higher than moderate impact. The Council has no medical expertise, but, judging as lay persons, the Council did not think the grievous consequences predicted by the complainant were likely to result. The Council did not consider that the violence in 'Jindabyne' was of comparable impact with that in the MA15+ films mentioned. 

The Council includes a psychologist who expressed the view that: 

Given the nature of the violence portrayed and the context of the film's style which implies rather than explicitly portrays the violence, I believe that there is little chance of either "copycat" behaviour or trauma reactions in the vulnerable people specified in the complaint. 

The Council noted the partial nudity of the dead body and the recurrence of coarse language in the film but did not consider that these classifiable elements would take the film out of the M category. The film does not contain any other classifiable elements, such as sex or drug use. 

The consumer advice attached by the Classification Board warns of moderate coarse language and moderate violence. The Council judged those warnings to be sufficient. 

Conclusion The Council resolved not to classify the film 'Jindabyne'.

APPENDIX C

Classification of the Film '2.37'

Background 

On 4 October 2006, the Council considered a complaint forwarded to the Attorney General about the recent Australian Film '2.37'.

The film had been given an R18+ rating by the Office of Film and Literature Classification (Commonwealth) and the complaint forwarded to the Honourable Attorney expressed the view that the film, in dealing with significant issues such as teenage suicide deserved a wider audience.

Particularly the complainant asserted that the film amounted to a "powerful condemnation of teen suicide" and that, given the R classification, it was unfortunate that teenagers under 18 were unable to see and appreciate the movie. The complainant felt that the viewing of the movie by such a class of viewers "may save lives".

In its own considerations as to classification, the national Office of Film and Literature Classification felt that the impact of the classifiable elements in the film was high and, in that context, the Classification Office had classified the film R 18+. The film deals with eating disorders, bullying, fitting in in a school context, pregnancy, homosexuality and drug use. Interwoven through these strong themes were themes which in the view of the national body were of a high impact, including incest, rape and suicide.

Applicable Law and Guidelines The Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995, sets out the matters to be taken into account in classification: '19. The matters to be taken into account by the council or the Minister in making a decision on the classification of a publication, film or computer game include: (a) the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults; and (b) the literary, artistic or educational merit (if any) of the publication, film or game; and (c) the general character of the publication, film or game, including whether it is of a medical, legal or scientific character; and (d) the person or class of persons to or amongst whom it is published or is intended or likely to be published.'

The National Classification Code requires that: 'Classification decisions are to give effect, as far as possible, to the following principles: (a) Adults should be able to read, hear and see what they want; (b) Minors should be protected from material likely to harm or disturb them; (c) Everyone should be protected from unsolicited material that they find offensive; (d) The need to take account of community concerns about: (i) depictions that condone or incite violence, particularly sexual violence, and (ii) portrayal of a person in a demeaning manner.'

Council Deliberations In viewing and considering the film, the Council was not of the view that, as an alternative to the present R18+ classification, the film might instead be classified RC (Refused Classification).

As the Council understood the specifics of the subject complaint, the complainant was concerned that an alternative and lesser classification had not been assigned to the film. Specifically, the Council considered the appropriateness or otherwise of reclassifying the film to MA15+, also a restricted classification.

The Council was particularly concerned about the final sequences of the film focusing upon the suicide of one of the young female characters. The high impact and the way that this scene was dwelt upon, when allied with the conveyed responses of other characters to such event gave the Council concern especially in respect of paragraph (b) of the National Classification Code principles, as mentioned hereabove.

The themes of rape, and rape in the context of incest, and of suicide were dealt with by a high impact way, not otherwise relieved by context. Particularly, the dealing with the theme of suicide, and particularly youth suicide, was spoken of by another character in the film as an act to be viewed positively. Further, few if any options for the troubled teens, other than suicide, were presented.

The Council noted that the film was no longer in cinematic release but was imminently to be released on DVD. Given the high impact nature of the fore-mentioned depictions and strong themes, on balance, the Council unanimously expressed the view that no re-classification of the film was appropriate and that the classification assigned by the national board, of R18+, was appropriate. Pursuant to s.17(i)(b) of the Act, the Council declined to classify the film.

APPENDIX D

Classification of the film 'Shortbus'

Background The Council received a complaint from a viewer of the film 'Shortbus', concerned because:

" the film contained offensive pornographic images " the film depicted unprotected sexual activity " there was no adequate warning of the film's content.

The film had been classified R18+ by the national Classification Board on 6 September 2006, with the consumer advice 'High level sex scenes, Actual sexual activity'. This was a majority decision of the Board: the minority would have classified the film RC on the grounds of actual sexual activity, violence and fetishes.

The Council viewed the film and held a meeting to consider the complaint on 30 November 2006.

Film content The film follows the overlapping lives of a group of young people living in New York in the present day, examining their emotions and relationships, which are depicted particularly through their sexual experiences. The title refers to a sex club where various encounters take place among them. The film includes several scenes of realistically-simulated or actual sexual activity, including domination. It also depicts an attempted suicide involving drug use.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The national Classification Code requires that: Classification decisions are to give effect, as far as possible, to the following principles:

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Code further states that the category R18+ contains 'films (except RC films and X films) that are unsuitable for a minor to see'. Films classified R include those the impact of which does not exceed high. The R18+ guideline as to the classifiable element sex states:

Sexual activity may be realistically simulated. The general rule is 'simulation yes, the real thing, no'.

The category X18+ contains films (except RC films) that:

(a) contain real depictions of actual sexual activity between consenting adults in which there is no violence, sexual violence, sexualised violence, coercion, sexually assaultive language, or fetishes or depictions which purposefully demean anyone involved in that activity for the enjoyment of viewers, in a way that is likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult; and

(b) are unsuitable for a minor to see.

The category RC contains films that:

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

Council deliberations 

The film contains some violence in the form of fighting among the characters, some nudity and some coarse language. Themes include suicide, sexuality and relationship breakdown. The Council did not consider that any of these elements would be likely to result in a classification higher than R18+. The Council noted that the principle classifiable element to be weighed in considering whether the film was correctly classified R18+ was sex.

In considering the impact of this element in its context, the Council noted that the film is aimed at an adult audience. Many of the depictions of sexual activity appear to be simulated. As for those that appear to be real, it was considered that their inclusion amidst the many scenes of simulation did not substantially increase the impact of those scenes on an adult audience. The Council also thought that the impact of these scenes was reduced because they are mostly brief and not detailed and because of the generally comedic context of the film.

The Council noted that the complainant had found the sexual depictions in this film offensive. It noted that it is a principle of classification that, in general, adults should be able to see what they want. In and of itself, the potential to offend some adults will therefore not necessarily result in a film's being classified higher than R18+. The Council also noted the complainant's concern that the film depicts unprotected sex. The Council did not consider that to be relevant to classification.

The Council further noted the complainant's concern that there had been nothing in the advertising of the film to alert her to its strong sexual images and that she would not have gone to see it if she had known its content. That is of concern. An important aim of classification is to protect members of the public from exposure to unsolicited material that they may find offensive. This is usually achieved by ensuring that viewers are properly informed about the film's content, through the classification itself and the attached consumer advice. In the present case, the Board had attached advice warning viewers of high-level sex scenes and actual sexual activity. The Council noted that unfortunately in this case the advice had not reached the complainant. Had it done so, it is likely that the advice would have achieved its purpose, in that the complainant would have chosen not to see the film. This cannot, however, found an argument that the film is incorrectly classified.

Overall, the majority of the Council judged that the South Australian public is adequately protected by the R18+ classification together with the consumer advice attached by the national Classification Board. It therefore determined not to classify the film for South Australia.

APPENDIX E

Classification of the film '300' by Zac Snyder

Complaint The Council received a complaint from a viewer of this film who said:

Yesterday (6/4/07) I went and saw the movie '300'. I had seen the previews for it as well as knew the story and thus, expected it to be gory. Because of this I was not expecting what I got. I believe that if the movie was solely violent then the MA15+ would be acceptable for myself as a seventeen year old. However after seeing the movie I was disappointed when aside from violence there were also sex scenes and nudity which I did not expect. I think these scenes make the classification of this movie inacceptable as children can enter the movie if they are with a parent, which was the case in the cinema I was in. I believe this movies rating should be reviewed and reassessed as I believe teenagers my age and younger should not be subjected to these forms of extremes.

The Council was concerned that the viewer had been taken by surprise by some of the film's content. An important consumer-protection purpose of film classification is to ensure that viewers have a good idea of what to expect when they make the decision to view the film. The Council was also concerned that content that this viewer felt to be 'extreme' was not reflected in the consumer advice. It therefore decided to view the film.

Synopsis 

The film, set in 480 B.C., depicts the battle of Thermopylae where 300 Spartan soldiers are said to have fought against a much larger Persian army.

Current classification 

The film is currently classified MA15+ in Australia. This means that children aged 15 and over may lawfully view or hire the film unaccompanied, but those under 15 cannot attend a screening or hire the film unless accompanied by a parent or guardian.

In the United Kingdom, the film was classified 15, meaning that no-one younger than 15 may see it in a cinema or rent or buy it on video or DVD. In New Zealand, the classification decision was 'Objectionable except if the availability of the publication is restricted to persons who have attained the age of 16 years'. In the United States, the MPAA advisory classification is 17, meaning that persons under that age are required to be accompanied by a parent or guardian. The MPAA advice is 'graphic battle sequences throughout; some sexuality and nudity'.

The Council noted that the film is classified MA15+, the Classification Review Board, on appeal by the distributor, having overturned the original R18+ decision of the Classification Board. The consumer advice warns viewers of 'Strong computer-generated battle violence; death and war themes'. Neither the advice nor the Review Board's published reasons mentions sex scenes or nudity. The classifiable elements noted by the Review Board were themes (warfare and death) and violence (battle scenes).

Matters to be considered in classification 

1. The Classification (Publications Films and Computer Games) Act 1995, s. 19, says:

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

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

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

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

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

2. Section 18 says: Publications, films and computer games are to be classified by the Council or the Minister in accordance with the National Classification Code and the national classification guidelines.

Council deliberations

Public standards of morality, decency and propriety 

The Council thought that the South Australian public would be very concerned about films that promote or incite violence, particularly sexual violence, and would be moderately concerned about films that use violence in an entertainment context. The level of concern about the latter might depend on factors such as how realistically the violence is portrayed, whether the violence is personal and whether distancing devices are used. The Council thought that the public is relatively unconcerned about the depiction of nudity or simulated consensual sexual activity in legally-restricted films, where it is justified by context.

Artistic merit 
Reviews of the film differ as to its artistic merit. The Sydney Morning Herald critic said: 'It is violent enough to make you shudder and close enough to fascist art to make your skin crawl.' The Washington Post described the film as 'clueless … a visually overblown document with an IQ in the lower 20s'. The Age commented that 'ham-fisted historical epics can still make for great entertainment'. The BBC Movies reviewer said 'It's going to be widely ridiculed and rightly so, because viewed with the slightest critical distance it becomes extremely funny, but taken on its own terms - as Greek myth meets Looney Tunes - it's a kind of masterpiece'.

The Council did not judge that the artistic merit of the film was such as to exert an influence on its classification.

General character 
The film intends to entertain. It has no medical, legal or scientific character.

Likely or intended audience 
The film is made for teenage to adult viewers and does not seek to appeal to younger children.

Code and Guidelines Under the Code, classification must take account of community concern about depictions that condone or incite violence and about the portrayal of persons in a demeaning manner. Minors should be protected from material likely to harm or disturb them. A film that is unsuitable for any minor to see is classifiable R18+. A film that depicts or deals with matters of sex or violence in such manner as to be unsuitable for viewing by persons under 15 is classifiable MA15+.

The Guidelines elaborate on the Code. The difference between the R18+ category and the MA15+ category is one of impact: strong impact material belongs in MA15+ and high impact material requiring restriction to adults only belongs in R18+. In the MA15+ category, both violence and nudity should be justified by context. Sexual activity may be implied. In the R18+ category, violence and nudity are permitted and sexual activity may be realistically simulated.

Discussion 
The Council noted that the main contentious aspect of the film is, as described by the Review Board, battle violence. Much of the film is taken up with a portrayal of the resistance offered by the Spartan army to the Persian invasion. Factors that increase the impact of this violence include the degree of detail in the depictions of the injuries and deaths, as well as the use of slow motion and the sheer duration of the battle scenes. Nonetheless, the Council did not judge that the impact of the violence was higher than strong.

First, the film lacks psychological depth. Motivation is shallow and the characters remain flat. Sympathy is not evoked and displays of emotion between the characters are few and unconvincing. The story aspect of the film is simply designed as a frame for its main focus, the detailed portrayal of the battle. Thus, the violence has no inter-personal quality and, although sometimes gruesome, has no real sense of menace or threat. Second, much of the battle action comprises fantasy special effects, for example, the presentation of various monsters to be defeated by the heroes. The fighting is stagy and ritualistic. All this lowers the impact of the violence, giving a sense that this is merely a cartoon come to life.

The Council thought the film wholly unsuitable for younger children but did not think the impact of the violence was such that those aged 15 and over should be excluded. They and their parents are likely to be well aware of the content of the film from the consumer advice ('strong computer-generated battle violence; death and war themes) as well as from promotional material.

As to the matters complained of, the Council noted that the film does contain consensual sex scenes, an implied rape and some brief nudity. Both sex and nudity are classifiable elements and depending on impact will influence the film's classification and may necessitate consumer advice.

These scenes are not protracted or detailed and can be justified in the context of the story. The Council did not agree with the complainant's comment that they were 'extremes'. In this case, the Council judged that the impact of these elements in their context was no higher than strong (and probably only moderate) and would not result in the film's being classified higher than MA15+.

The Council considered whether the consumer advice should be changed to warn viewers that the film contains sex scenes and some nudity. It noted that the warning attached by the Motion Picture Association of America does so. In Australia, however, it is usual for the consumer advice to point to those matters that have led to the classification decision rather than to attempt to list all the classifiable elements. For example, the film Saving Private Ryan, also classified MA15+ for its realistic depictions of battle, carries the consumer advice 'graphic war scenes' but does not warn about the coarse language also occasionally used in the film, perhaps because that does not, of itself, contribute to the MA15+ classification.

The Council thought that the impact of these elements in their context was such that no specific warning of this content was required.

Conclusion 
The Council decided not to alter either the classification of the film or its consumer advice.

Update August 26th 2007
Refused-Classification.com 

Updates: August 2007