New Australian Laws To Censor Terror DVDs

An anonymous reader writes "Within a few weeks, Australia may introduce new laws to censor films and literature deemed by the government to be supportive of terrorism. This is not the first time material has been censored in Australia, which has previously censored films and banned publications, including one titled Defence of the Muslim Lands (censored in mid 2006 by Attorney-General Phillip Ruddock). The proposed laws are aimed to target material such as a DVD by Feiz Mohammad containing some of his past controversial sermons calling for jihad and comparing Jews with pigs. The Office of Film and Literature Classification previously classified this DVD as 'PG', suitable for viewing by anyone under 15 years of age with parental guidance."

Comments

Censor != ban

[mr_matticus]

According to TFA, all they're talking about is changing the designation of films from PG to higher ratings by the *film censors* and not about banning the film from sale or distribution or anything of the sort. The proposed bill would simply require certain topics to have higher censor ratings.

Any free-thinking adult can still buy them.

One rule for you, one for Him

[KeensMustard]

Him in this case, being radio broadcaster Alan Jones, darling of the ruling Liberal Party, who has recently been convicted of encouraging violence against Muslims in remarks he made before the Cronulla Riots last year.This conviction has resulted in a review of the broadcasting guidelines by Helen Coonan, federal Communications Minister, who indicated she thought the judgement wrong.

• I guess it's ok to incite hatred and violence, provided it's directed at Muslims
• I guess it's ok to call other Australians scum, as long as they are Muslim

Re:No censorship.

[Merusdraconis]

You're not debating with the fanatics who're producing the material. You're presenting your counter-claims and viewpoints to the OTHER people who might be listening to them.

Who, if they're going to be taking that stuff seriously, are probably also irrational and impossible to engage in a debate.

While censorship can easily be a slippery-slope, you have to remember that in Australia there are still checks and balances in place. While free speech is enshrined in America, it sometimes seems like that's the only thing defending it there.

In Australia, there's no enshrined free speech, government-owned television and radio and no separation of church and state - and yet, because of the Australian character, any perceived government interference people don't agree with gets pushed back HARD (there's been openly racist political parties, the government-owned media is constantly pulled up for anti-government bias, and church-state mixing is usually given the locking it richly deserves), and in an election year where the Government looks like it's in serious trouble, they're not going to antagonise the electorate by suppressing things that people feel they have a right to know.

(You might ask how people are going to know that things are suppressed. Most of the major papers have a Freedom of Information liaison writing a weekly column on what the bureaucrats are trying to suppress, and the television program Media Watch is famously loud-mouthed - even better, trying to get rid of anything that regularly reports on information suppression automatically paints you as a suppressor in the eyes of Australians, Australians being extra-skeptical about people in charge.)

Re:Optimistically...

[TheDugong]

WTF?

He is the attorney general, not governor general, elected like any other member of parliament.

He is an arsehole, not for the incorrect reasons you have given, but because he is a borderline fascist.

"And why people voted to keep us under a monach I will never know."

Perhaps because they were confused like you? More probably they realised that having as many checks and balances as possible is a good thing for normal people.