Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

more Australian censorship madness

Discussion in 'The Pub' started by loki, Jan 29, 2010.

  1. http://www.inquisitr.com/59633/australian-government-censor-confirms-small-breast-ban-sort-of/

    "In response to Somebody Think of the Children, the Australian Censorship Board (AC8) stated that “publications which contain offensive depictions or descriptions of persons who are or appear to be persons under the age of 18 (whether they are engaged in sexual activity or not) must be classified RC (Refused Classification.)

    Some Australian sites with a pro-censorship bias are reporting that this does not amount to a ban on small breasts, but it is nothing of the sort. While the ACB claims that there is no blanket ban on small breasts as such, women over the age of 18 with small breasts who might look young ARE banned. The problem is that there is a societal norm that women with small breasts are believed to look young because they look underdeveloped, for lack of a better word, so the ban is still well and truly there."
  2. wow, just when will this stupidity stop
  3. It's still got to be 'offensive' though doesn't it?

    Bill Henson would still be safe I suspect.
  4. The operative word there is 'offensive'. Nothing will be banned unless someone (hopefully an intelligent person, as most people employed in censorship usually are), deems it to be offensive.
    The intention is to avoid display of anything that would appeal to, or encourage interest in, anything p***philic. As long as the censor understands that, there shouldn't be a problem.
  5. 'offensive' is purely subjective. there is no objective measure. Unfortunately this means that all is needed is one complaint stating that the complainant is offended by something, and it will be banned.

  6. big mistake. this is the problem with empathetic australia.

    meh its just another staw on the donkeys back... im sure it can carry plenty more before i bother standing up for our continuously eroding civil liberties.

    the donkeys back is already broken people. anarchy is now!
  7. Henson wasn't banned.

    People complain about stuff all the time - rarely do things get 'banned'.

    There's the 'reaonable person' test for starters.
  8. I believe Krudd described the most recent bill henson photo as "disgusting" How many people do you think passed judgement on bill and his works without ever seeing them, based solely on a comment made on the evening news?

    His view does not represent mine, what the classification board thinks is tv may not gel with my views either. Difference is id never know.
  9. No, but there was a police raid on an art exhibition, which is a very dangerous precedent. Regardless of the final, legal outcome, I can assure you that it has resulted in arts organisations and local authorities throughout Australia instituting a heightened level of self-censorship in what they will sponsor or show, sometimes to a ludicrous extent. Not just sexual material either, but, disturbingly, there has been concern about political and social commentary too.

    It may not have made the news, but the effects have been widespread and of great concern.
  10. No argument from me.
  11. Does anyone else see the worrying connection with internet censorship?

    Under this concept, 99% of all perfectly legal p0rn sites would be blocked in australia?
  12. The precedent was set a long time ago, I remember dad telling me about the police shutting down Hair because of the nudity. So nothing new here IMO.
  13. Well, there's not - but Hair was many, many years ago.

    I don't like the sound of this shit at all. What a sad bunch of apathetic cretins us Australians have become.
  14. Hey I didnt like Hensons stuff at all

    but what difference is what he has done with idiots who put pics of their kids naked in bathtubs on facebook

    and has it been legislated that you are not allowed to photograph your kids at sporting events ?

    Ps - F@rk Facebook - I don't need friends.
  15. You can take photos of your kids at sporting events, this has not been outlawed. Some associations have banned it. But it is a local decision, we allow it at our basketball games as long as you are a parent or similair taking pictures of your kids and in my case a coach taking photos or shooting video of my team.

    Dont believe everything on Today Tonight.
  16. I dont own a television :)
  17. I despise this sort of shit on levels that I can not adequately express, and it's just another step closer to me leaving the country. I will not have my tax dollars supporting a totalitarian government that legislates based on emotion with no factual basis to justify what they're doing.
  18. No it doesn't.
    FFS get real with this. What they are talking about is classification by the ACB. The Board is independent. It reviews material that requires classification (such as movies and magazines) and only bans material on a case by case basis. In this case, publications that they decide are likely to promote p***philia may be banned, without the Board having to prove that is actual p***philia is portrayed.
    Internet censorship is an entirely other matter in that it doesn't require classification, and will be administered by a different government instrumentality.
  19. Where would you go?
  20. Why don't they just turn it all off, rename Australia to North Korea v2.0 and be done with it.