Jump to content

Talk:Censorship in Australia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 59.167.111.154 (talk) at 02:53, 12 August 2014 (→‎Actual Censorship and Free Speech). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Removed

The opening paragraph says this:

-- In contrast, Censorship of Television and Films in Australia are amongst the most relaxed in the world.

Which is patently untrue, so I've removed it. Ramore (talk) 23:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Park

During the great Sydney Film Festival debate on Ken Park of 2003, I heard on Radio National (I think) that Denmark has no censorship guidelines. I haven't been able to verify this (apart from noting the broad sale of pornographic material in unlikely places) but that would make the opening sentence incorrect! Anyone know this to be true??? I suspect they still must have some form of classification, and I find it odd they wouldn't restrict the sale of material that shows acts that would be illegal, such as paedophilea...

Censorship decreasing?

The article is mistaken in assuming that censorship has uniformly lessened in Australia. Censorship has actually increased significantly since the 1970's and many programs that would have been shown on broadcast television now could not be shown. It might be worth pointing out that of the five movies mentioned as being banned, at least two (Baise Moi and I Spit on Your Grave) were previously not banned - censorship is increasing.

Please provide _evidence_ for censorship "increasing significantly". Your say-so isn't enough, I'm afraid. The publicity surrounding the tiny number of "refused classification" calls that OFLC has made recently has certainly been high, and the number of works on which they have been asked to rule has certainly increased, but to say that censorship has "increased" since the 70s is just, IMO, completely insupportable. I'll be the first to congratulate you if the figures say otherwise. --Shannonr 14:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AO

It's a bit before my time, but I know Australia used to have another classification level — I think it was called AO? And I think it was instead of R? — which meant "restricted to over 21". It'd be good to see some info about that in the article. — Danc 11:59, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

IIRC, AO was simply the old version of M, although it actually encompassed both M and MA. MA was introduced as a separate classification sometime in the Keating era. At any rate, it's really more of a change of name than a radically different scheme. Lacrimosus 23:48, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Lacrimosus is right. I don't know what rating movies received that would now be rated R (I was only a kiddy when the system changed), but AO was roughly equivalent to M now. Ambivalenthysteria 13:47, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
If I recall correctly, AO (Adults Only) was a rating specific to television broadcasts. At that time there was also a 'C' rating for children's programming, and PG was PGR (Parental Guidance Recommended). Sometime in the late 80s/early 90s (?) the classification system for TV was adjusted to closer match the film guidelines. La hapalo 04:28, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
(on reflection, it's possible that AO was a historical film classification level; if so it was well before my time) La hapalo 04:28, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There was also an AO-Mod (Modified for TV). And a Spy V Spy song too, A.O. Mod. TV. Ver. or something like that. --Paul 30 June 2005 09:47 (UTC)

OFLC redirect

Just a note on the edit I made (bolding Office of Film and Literature Classification): Strictly speaking, Office of Film and Literature Classification doesn't redirect here. It is a disambig, between Office of Film and Literature Classification (Australia) (which DOES redirect here) and its NZ counterpart. I have seen Australian Office of Film and Literature Classification linked from other sites so I will create that as a redirect to here as well. -- Chuq 02:26, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Cutting

Under little Johnny Howard censorship is skyrocketing. Australia is getting highly censored versions of films which is in many ways more evil than completely banning a film as people are generally ignorant to the fact that what they are seeing has been censored. I saw Kill Bill at a cinema in Japan, a country notorious for their censorship, and there were atleast three parts taken out of the Australian version. Also, I recently bought the Australian version of Commando on DVD and found that massive chunks had been taken out from the version released on VHS some 20 odd years ago. It's only getting worse.

The differences between the Japanese version of Kill Bill and the US/International cut are actually more to do with the American rating system, and the fact that Japanese audiences (in the director's opinion) would be more receptive to violence. Although I don't have any proof (or knowledge of the film), I think it's likely that similar issues affected the Commando DVD release (I don't think many companies would bother to re-author a DVD for the Australian market, either to cut things out for us, or put them back in) La hapalo 04:40, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Many companies do edit their films for australian audiences, as do computer game manufacturers.
Kill Bill's "black-and-white edited bit for everywhere except Japan" has been _extensively_ documented elsewhere and has _nothing whatsoever_ to do with John Howard or Australian censorship. Please take your poorly researched political slander elsewhere, thanks. If you can provide any evidence _whatsoever_ to support the assertion that the OFLC has been politically influenced to ban either "more" or "more types" of works under John Howard, then that would be truly newsworthy and of interest to far more people than the Wikipedia audience. If you have _any_ such evidence I encourage you to come forward with it immediately. I rather suspect, however, that all your info on this subject is as well researched as your Kill Bill assertion. I would love to be proved wrong.--Shannonr 14:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jeeze, a little angry there, ne? He made a mistake and you acted like a wolf. I'm sure he has proof besides that, because it seems like it's out there, but he didn't reply because it was two years before your post. Yours is 3 before mine, but you acted so ridiculously that I felt obligated to reply. 75.67.47.56 (talk) 05:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Needs work

I tried to fix up the page but it still needs work, it incorrectly stated that the OFLC was responsible for Television, and had a horrible mishmash of OFLC ratings up against TV timezones and television shows against OFLC guidelines.

Bleeped words?

Does anyone know if there is an official reference to which words are "bleeped" on television? Or otherwise know which words are currently bleeped? -- Barrylb 15:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe after 9 anything goes, and before that you can't say fuck or cunt, though midday movies have those in them so I don't know. There's a TAC ad that says shit and is shown at times when, according to this article, PG rated shows are not allowed to be shown. Planetstasiak 12:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

> There are certain times that certain ratings can be shown - read the code of practice for more detail.

Choice of examples

The examples of the M rating are all american pg-13 movies, but the M rating extends into the lower end of R and even 1 NC-17 movie (Henry and June). This means that the examples are potentially misleading as to the breadth of the M rating.

Radio?

Should we have a section for radio censorship? Like when the skyhooks were banned etc etc or should it be part of the music sectionJeffklib 09:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria to create "R" rating for games?

I seem to recall that Steve Bracks made a comment a while back saying 'if the federal government doesn't introduce R rating for games, we will'. Has anyone got any details on this, or what happened? I'm checking Google now, but not finding much - but I remember it did happen... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DWZ (talk • contribs) 11:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Unfortunately such a thing would have to be a country wide thing, not just an individual state. On the plus side, horribly behind the times TV show Good Game announced that the all mighty Attorneys-General would consult us, lowly peons, on whether we should have a R rating or not. Check out their Gamer News section on episode 17 (http://www.abc.net.au/tv/goodgame/video/). When this will happen I do not know, although knowing GG, this might have already been done by the time they aired this information. (Honestly, announcing that Fallout 3 was banned 4 days after its resubmission was allowed! How slow are they?) I've given up on the local industry when it comes to re-releasing foreign things and have moved onto USA imports. Cheaper and no censors! Of course there's the risk that it might get caught at customs but I haven't been caught yet, then again I haven't imported anything that was banned in this country, not including the questionable legality of parallel importing. Why wait for Brawl when you can have it for almost half the price and 3 months before the rest of Australia gets it? Of course you need a USA Wii too but I got one of those too ;). Back to the topic, if anybody is reading this and is of legal voting age and resides in Michael Atkinson's electorate of Croydon, South Australia. Don't vote for that old fuddy duddy. He is the sole reason we don't have R games! That or he's a scapegoat. Either way, burn the witch! Metaphorically. Serrin (talk) 12:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fuddy duddy? Your saying it wrong, it pronounced ***** **** ***** in a ***** **** ***** up his ***** **** *** ***** and a **** **** ***** **** baboon. -That's censorship for you NobodyPro (talk) 09:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Music Artwork

I've added two links to this section refering to satire now being legally protected. I'll also move that paragraph out of the Music section and into the Politics section. That seems a more appropriate place for it.Draffa 23:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citing Galore!

Right, I've sited the crap out of this article over the last week. Someone else can take the ball and run with it. Draffa 18:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm now removing the 'citations missing' infobox. Draffa 18:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Television classifications

Television stations seem to have adopted the OFLC colour classifications. Should the OFLC logos replace the current ones in the article? MrTwig 08:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine then lol. I'll try and do it myself. MrTwig 02:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History

Is the history section ever going to be completed? I remember coming on this page about 4 or 5 years ago and those same points were there with a note to the effect of "to be completed". If no one is going to turn those points into a couple of paragraphs - and I'm certainly not - then it should either be deleted or replaced with some actual encyclopedic content that can be cited. That would make an otherwise good article great. --58.105.156.48 (talk) 04:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What does AV15+ stand for?

What does AV15+ stand for?

AV15+ stands for "Adult Violence" - Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice - 2 July 2004 (see page 26) - Zzblog (talk) 06:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image Image:OFLC small E.svg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --08:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

R18+ rating for Computer games

From the contact page of the OFLC website (http://www.classification.gov.au/special.html?p=8)

Responses to R 18+ classification for computer games

A large number of enquiries have been received about an R 18+ (Restricted) classification for computer games. In March 2008, the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General (Censorship) agreed in principle to conduct broad consultation seeking community views on whether an R 18+ classification should be introduced for computer games. Censorship Ministers are currently considering the content of a discussion paper with a view to releasing it early 2009. You may like to participate in the consultation when it is announced and make a submission.

I wonder if they noticed that they called themselves "Censorship Ministers" WookMuff (talk) 12:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


R18+ Ratings have been accepted, and will start on 1/1/2013. (Link) 210.50.30.133 (talk) 07:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Censorship" of personal injury cases

The rather large section that has been added to this article on personal injury lawyers being forbidden to publicise their cases appears irrelevant, rather self-serving, and smacks of NPOV. It is rather mischievous and intellectually dishonest for that editor to claim that their for-profit business being restrained by good public policy to discourage a litigation free-for-all, constitutes "censorship". I suggest that this section be removed completely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrUpsetter (talk • contribs) 17:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It could possibly be edited down to note that some laws and industry codes of practice restrict promotion of some products for public policy purposes: alcohol, cigarettes, legal services, pharmaceuticals, speeding vehicles, firearms, prostitution; and restrict some forms of promotion: business signage, touting, door-to-door promotion. However, these restrictions are not usually considered censorship. 150.101.30.44 (talk) 23:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

any good reason?

any good reason to why an island created by criminals (england are history's criminal 'lol') have such strict censorship? historically it makes no sense, and this page doesn't give any good reasoning as to why? if you look at the starting history of Australia, you would expect a country of greater liberty and be strongly against censorship yet they have no freedom when it comes to video games "where even adults aren't allowed to get game content, that classifies as having no freedom". Markthemac (talk) 12:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um... what? Dude, the settlers used the convicts to do the slave jobs and stuff, plus why would criminals have anything against censorship? And the island wasn't ruled by criminals or anything, that would probably be the dumbest thing I've heard. Do you think all Australians are like "Let's go and steal some jumbucks t'day!" or "Let's go and steal from Farmer Jack!" Dude... the convicts didn't wipe out the settlers and prevent people from migrating here or anything, it's not some criminal paradise or anything. That's really dumb. Sorry, you've caught me in a bad mood, but that insulted me... plus it doesn't make any logical sense. Kausill (Talk) (Contribs) 13:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
created with criminals and it's only less than 200 years ago (history), the censorship deal doesn't make sense. Markthemac (talk) 13:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
there is no good foundation as to why Australia is as crazy with censorship as they are, if you have failed to notice i wasn't talking about present day people, i was wondering where this crazy amount of censorship comes from based on the past? it's beyond comprehension Markthemac (talk) 13:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daryl Cohen jailed for selling pornography

I propose to write a new section on the recent jailing of Daryl Cohen, an adult shop proprietor, for selling pornography, within the 'Recent Controversies' section.(http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2927840.htm) MFdeS (talk) 10:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:OFLC small MA15+.svg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:OFLC small MA15+.svg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 18 November 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actual Censorship and Free Speech

This article talks only about bans on extreme violence and pornography in entertainment, but doesn't mention laws (or other pressures) about what you can and can't say, except a brief and buried mention that Australia has no free speech. And that mention has with no explanation about what Australians can't say.

The article should include a summary of these Wikipedia articles: Hate speech laws in Australia, Blasphemy law in Australia, Australian sedition law, Defamation#Australia, Journalism in Australia, Australian Communications and Media Authority, and any others I may have missed.

Compare this article to the equivalent article for China: "Censorship in the People's Republic of China (PRC) is implemented or mandated by the PRC's ruling party, the Communist Party of China (CPC). Notable censored subjects include but are not limited to, democracy, the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, Maoism, Falun Gong, ethnic independence movements, corruption, police brutality, anarchism, gossip, disparity of wealth, food safety, pornography, news sources that report on these issues, religious content, and many other websites.[1] Censored media include essentially all capable of reaching a wide audience including television, print media, radio, film, theater, text messaging, instant messaging, video games, literature and the Internet. Chinese officials have access to uncensored information via an internal document system. Reporters Without Borders ranks China's press situation as "very serious", the worst ranking on their five-point scale.[2] China's Internet censorship policy is labeled as "pervasive" by the OpenNet Initiative's global Internet filtering map, also the worst ranking used.[3] Freedom House ranks the press there as "not free", the worst ranking, saying that "state control over the news media in China is achieved through a complex combination of party monitoring of news content, legal restrictions on journalists, and financial incentives for self-censorship."[4]"

So the Australian equivalent should start like this: "Censorship in Australia is implemented or mandated by Australia's ruling party, the Australian Labor Party (ALP), and previously by the Liberal Party. Notable censored subjects include but are not limited to: race, culture, Islam, Scientology, sedition, white independence movements, systemic corruption, defamation, disability, homosexuality, gender, news sources that report on these issues, religious criticism, and some websites hosted in Australia.

Censored media include essentially all capable of reaching a wide audience including television, print media, radio, film, text messaging, instant messaging, video games, literature and the Internet. Australian officials do not have access to uncensored information via an internal document system, and believe and act on the censored version... etc." Carl Kenner (talk) 19:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, this is wikipedia, not an opinion blog. Like I get it, I really do, as a former Indymedia editor I was directly involved in fighting off numerous attempts by the government and lawyers to censor our work (We even had a motto "Learn to embrace the cease and desist") but we have to stick to the facts. First, political parties do not implement censorship schemes in australia, the government does and they are not the same thing, Civics 101! Race , culture and Islam are freely discussed as are homosexuality and gender. I don't know what a "white independence movement" is, but I'll assume its Neo-Nazi nonsense and yes in some states light penalties apply for stiring up race hatred, however what you refer to seems to be a laundry list of the usual moaning coming from far right comentators like Andrew Bolt who appears to think being criticized is censorship (And in an ironic twist calls for his critics to be silenced). There are plenty of venues on the internet to moan about this sort of thing, however wikipedia is mandated to stick to ,as the detective says, "Just the facts m'am.". Australia has plenty of problems with censorship, quite serious ones in fact, and you appear to have missed all of them on your laundry list. 59.167.111.154 (talk) 02:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added an image

I've added an image here to this article:


Usage of the Children's interest style of rhetoric as form of protest in Australia by supporter of Electronic Frontiers Australia.

with this caption: Usage of the Children's interest style of rhetoric as form of protest in Australia by supporter of Electronic Frontiers Australia. — Cirt (talk) 16:38, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to change it as you wish. — Cirt (talk) 17:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Book bans through super-injunction

I am aware of two books about the same topic which are 'not available'. Although information on super-injunctions is obviously verboten, piecing some puzzle snippets together, it has been mentioned more than once that it is the ruler of an oil exporting country who zapped one book. These are not books by anyone, one is by an accomplished author, together with a partcipant in the murky world of Sydney Inc., the other by two accomplished, still working, journalists.

These books are not banned by the Censors or by refusal of classification; they are banned through the private action(s) by one or several individuals who have the money to seek a super-injunction because they'd like to keep their activities hidden. They really must have something to hide. One could argue that there's still a court case or two coming out of the topic and thus the two books could be prejudicial, but the judiciary hasn't dealt with the case in 5 years which also serves to keep things under wraps. We need to be aware that we are being duped. I do not want to provide the ISBNs of the books because one page has already disappeared. 121.209.56.25 (talk) 05:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Censorship_in_Australia&oldid=620860193"