American adult magazines often have problems with the Classification Board.
Many sit on the softcore/hardcore border, which makes for an uneasy fit into the Australian rating system.
Busty Beauties
aka Hustler Busty Beauties
Publisher OBT Publications / USA
The magazine was originally launched in 1988, as HUSTLER BUSTY BEAUTIES, and has historically been rated either Category 1 or 2.
Many of the previous classifications are listed as being ‘Modified’ before submission.
No. 61: Banned
In June 2008, a 96-page edition of BUSTY BEAUTIES No. 61 (May 2008) was banned by the Classification Board.
June 2008
Pubs 1(a)&(b) The publication is classified RC in accordance with the National Classification Code, Publications Table, 1.(a) as publications that “describe, 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 and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults to the extent that they should not be classified,” and
(b) “describe or depict in a way that is likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult, a person who is, or appears to be, a child under 18 (whether the person is engaged in sexual activity or not).”
– Classification Board
This was the first issue to be Refused Classification in Australia.
The submission before this was in October 2005, when a modified version of BUSTY BEAUTIES No. 25 was passed with a Category 1 rating.
Celebrity Skin
Publisher Man’s World Publications / USA / Wikipedia
CELEBRITY SKIN magazine was first classified in the late-80s/early-90s. These issues were either Category 1 or Unrestricted. By the mid-90s, the ratings were creeping up, with many issues being awarded Category 2.
Many of those classified Category 2 were immediately censored (i.e. the pages were removed) and re-submitted for Category 1.
No. 112: Banned & Censored
In January 2003, Volume 24 No. 112 became the first edition of CELEBRITY SKIN to be banned in Australia.
Eight pages were removed, and in March 2003, it was awarded a Category 1 rating.
AC Circulation was the applicant.
No. 175: Banned
In July 2008, Volume 30 No. 175 of CELEBRITY SKIN was banned by the Classification Board.
This 92-page issue was submitted by NAMDA.
July 2008
Pubs 1(a) The publication is classified RC in accordance with the National Classification Code, Publications Table, 1.(a) as publications that “describe, 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 and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults to the extent that they should not be classified,”.
– Classification Board
September 21, 2009
Publications classified RC cannot be sold or displayed in Australia. During the reporting period, of the total of 180 publications classified, five publications were classified RC .CELEBRITY SKIN Volume 30 Number 175 March 2008 was also classified RC as it contained sexual violence that warranted an RC classification in accordance with item 1(a) of the publications table.
– Classification Board, Annual Report 2008-2009
Gallery
Publisher Montcalm Publishing Corporation / USA / Wikipedia
The first issue of GALLERY magazine in the National Classification Database is Volume 13 No. 9 (September 1985). This was rated Category 1 in August 1985.
Early issues of GALLERY were rated Category 1, or even Unrestricted. Some later issues were Category 2, though censored versions were usually dropped to Category 1.
Vol. 36 No. 4: Banned
In July 2008, a 144-page edition of GALLERY magazine Volume 36 No. 4 was banned by the Classification Board. This was the first issue to receive an RC-rating.
NAMDA was the applicant
June 2008
Pubs 1(b) The publication is classified RC in accordance with the National Classification Code, Publications Table, 1.(b) as publications that “describe or depict in a way that is likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult, a person who is, or appears to be, a child under 18 (whether the person is engaged in sexual activity or not).”
– Classification Board
Hustler Barely Legal
Publisher LFP Publishing Group / USA / Wikipedia
HUSTLER BARELY LEGAL Volume 1 No. 1 was passed with a Category 1 in August 1993. Since then it has often been censored before submission and its ratings move between Category 1 and 2.
The Australian edition of HUSTLER BARELY LEGAL Volume 6 (2001) remains the only other issue to be banned. JT Publishing had a 100-page proof print rated RC in May 2001. It was modified, and The following month, after modifications, it passed as Category 1.
Vol. 15 No 11: Banned
In July 2008, a 138-page edition of HUSTLER BARELY LEGAL Volume 15 No. 11 (July 2008) was Refused Classification.
July 2008
Pubs 1(a) The publication is classified RC in accordance with the National Classification Code, Publications Table, 1.(a) as publications that “describe, 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 and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults to the extent that they should not be classified.”
– Classification Board
NAMDA was the applicant.
September 21, 2009
– Classification Board, Annual Report 2008-2009
HUSTLER BARELY LEGAL Volume 15 Number 11 July 2008 was classified RC as it contained content which constituted an offensive fantasy.
Vol. 18 No 3: Banned
In April 2011, a 132-page edition of HUSTLER BARELY LEGAL Volume 18 No. 3 (November 2010) was Refused Classification.
April 2011
Pubs 1(a)&(b) The publication is classified RC in accordance with the National Classification Code, Publications Table, 1.(a) as publications that “describe, 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 and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults to the extent that they should not be classified,” and
(b) “describe or depict in a way that is likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult, a person who is, or appears to be, a child under 18 (whether the person is engaged in sexual activity or not).”
– Classification Board
The Investigation Branch of Queensland’s Office of Fair Trading was the applicant. At the same time, they had five other DVDs and magazines classified as either RC, X18+ or Category 2.
Just 18
aka Swank’s Just 18
Publisher by Magna Publishing Group / USA
In July 1997, JUST 18 (July 1997) magazine was passed with a Category 1 rating.
Since then, it has usually been censored before submission and passed as Category 1. Several issues have been Category 2 and RC.
This is not to be confused with the British JUST 18 magazine.
No. 31: Censored & Refused
In July 2000, a 110-page ‘modified version’ of SWANK’S JUST 18 No. 31 (May 2000) was banned by the OFLC.
It was submitted by Premium Publications.
No. 34: Censored & Refused
In September 2000, a 112-page ‘modified version’ of SWANK’S JUST 18 No. 34 (August 2000) was banned by the OFLC.
It was submitted by Windsor Wholesale.
No. 44: Censored & Refused
In May 2001, a 90-page ‘modified version’ of SWANK’S JUST 18 No. 44 (April 2001) was banned by the OFLC.
It was submitted by Premium Publications.
No. 52: Censored & Refused
In March 2002, a 116-page ‘modified version’ of JUST 18 No. 52 (December 2001) was banned by the OFLC.
It was submitted by NAMDA DW.
No. 136: Refused
In July 2010, a 100-page edition of JUST 18 No. 136 (March 2009) was banned by the Classification Board.
It had been submitted by the Australian Federal Police ACT Operations Monitoring Centre.
July 2010
Pubs 1(a)&(b) The publication is classified RC in accordance with the National Classification Code, Publications Table, 1.(a) as publications that “describe, 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 and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults to the extent that they should not be classified,” and
(b) “describe or depict in a way that is likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult, a person who is, or appears to be, a child under 18 (whether the person is engaged in sexual activity or not).”
– Classification Board
The ‘small breast ban’ controversy
In early 2010, the Australian Classification Board made headlines around the world with their rumoured ban on small breast models.
January 28, 2010
Fiona Patten from the Australian Sex Party (ASP) said she attended a ACB training session late last year where they showed examples of publications that had been Refused Classification due to the size of the woman’s breasts.‘That information is not provided to the applicant when their publication is Refused Classification. When a publication classification is revoked sometimes a little more information is provided’ she said.
According to Patten some of the titles banned included BARELY LEGAL (HUSTLER), FINALLY LEGAL and PURELY 18.
‘The general comments on the publications mentioned were that the model appeared under 18’ she said.
However, the titles mentioned are all regulated and records of each model’s age are required to be kept by 18 U.S.C. 2257 and 28 C.F.R. part 75. These regulations are enforced by the FBI.
Fiona Patten has provided additional comment:
“I would like to clarify a few points. In the last 18 months the Classification Board has revoked over 30 serial classifications for a range of reasons, one major one being that the models appear to be under 18. These revoked classifications do not appear on the classification database.”
“Late last year I attended a classification publications training session with three adult magazine distributors and one publisher. We were shown a range of images and the notes made by the board were read out. The underdeveloped nature of the model’s breasts was cited as a reason for the image to be refused classification numerous times.”
Patten also added that the four companies that attended the meeting with her have now drastically reassessed the publications that they will import or publish.
“All the publications that have been refused classification adhere to the very strict US laws that enforce model age verification in adult publications and films. These laws are upheld by the FBI. There is no chance that any of the models were under 18.”
– Classification Board responds to small breasts ban
– article @ somebodythinkofthechildren.com
The origins of this story were documented by Crikey.
January 29, 2010
The story was kickstarted by a press release on Wednesday from the Australian Sex Party…The piece was seized upon by website ‘Somebody Think of the Children’ (“discussing censorship and moral panic in Australia”), blaring the headline “Australia bans small breasts”.
– Has Australia really banned small breasts?
– article @ crikey.com.au
Donald McDonald, the Director of the Classification Board, would go on to describe the accusation as ‘categorically untrue’.
July 14, 2010
So is there anything that might be considered ‘lewd and scandalous’ in contemporary Australia? I’ve no doubt that there are people who would point to the proliferation of adult magazines – despite their regulation –as lewd and scandalous. However, complaints are limited and more likely to target concerns around potential depictions of minors rather than the availability or the content of the magazines in and of themselves.On this matter, over the past 18 months a prominent issue raised in public complaints, has been the content and availability of unclassified ‘teen title’ adult publications sold in unrestricted premises such as petrol stations and convenience stores.
With titles such as PURELY 18 and FINALLY LEGAL, it is safe to assume and I can indeed confirm, that such publications contain images of young persons who are depicted to be on the borderline of 18 years old.
Classification guidelines in Australia expressly state that exploitative or offensive depictions or descriptions involving someone who is or appears to be under the age of 18 years, must be Refused Classification.
Investigations into the matter revealed that the publications being sold had either not been classified by the Board or were different to the versions that the Board had classified.
The Board found in many, but not all instances, that the content in these publications contained offensive depictions and descriptions of persons who were or appeared to be under 18 years.
In other instances, the Board found that the content was higher in impact than that allowed to be sold in unrestricted premises, and therefore be should be sold in restricted, adult only premises.
Interestingly and perhaps the most ‘scandalous’ accusation recently directed at the Board – likely to have been prompted by the Boards attention to the breaches I have just discussed above – is that we display a bias against small breasted women…and on this basis… are banning material!
Criticisms have been levelled at the Board regarding the factors it considers when determining the age of persons depicted in publications, particularly the accusation that small breasted women are determined by the Board to appear to be children. This is categorically untrue.
The Board members take their responsibilities seriously and consider the overall appearance of persons and the context in which they are depicted, including text, props and poses when making classification decisions.
Depicting small-breasted women is not grounds for a publication to be Refused Classification, nor do the classification guidelines refer to the size of a woman’s breasts!
– To Deprave and Corrupt: Forbidden, Hidden and Censored Books
– Opening speech of the BSANZ Conference
– The Australian Classification Board: History, Current Policies and Future Challenges
– Donald McDonald, Director of the Classification Board (2007-current)
Naughty Neighbours
Publisher The Score Group / USA
NAUGHTY NEIGHBOURS was launched in 1995 and has usually been passed as Category 1, and occasionally, Category 2.
Three issues were Refused Classification in 1999 and 2000.
September 2015: Refused
In August 2015, a 100-page edition of NAUGHTY NEIGHBOURS – SPECIAL 20TH ANNIVERSARY ISSUE (September 2015) was banned by the Classification Board.
The applicant was AC Circulation Pty Ltd.
August 2015
Pubs 1(a)&(b) The publication is classified RC in accordance with the National Classification Code, Publications Table, 1.(a) as publications that “describe, 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 and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults to the extent that they should not be classified,” and
(b) “describe or depict in a way that is likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult, a person who is, or appears to be, a child under 18 (whether the person is engaged in sexual activity or not).”
– Classification Board
Vol. 22 No. 5: Category 1 & Refused
In August 2016, a 100-page edition of NAUGHTY NEIGHBOURS VOL.22 NO.5 – SEPTEMBER 2016 was passed with a Category 1 rating.
The following month saw the same issue banned. Here the submission was listed as a ‘serial classification’. No reason was given for the RC-rating.
The applicant was AC Circulation Pty Ltd.
