Slashdot Mirror
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."
Will that include archival news and documentary footage about the US funding of the taliban and Iran contra?
Censor only those who would censor!
First, "terrorist" means radical Islam.
Next, "terrorist" means minority party.
(IANAL)
Smarter just to let the terrorists have their DVDs legally. You can easily track the distribution for intelligence gathering purposes. Furthermore even if you fail tracking the distribution say you do a covert house search & find such DVDs: at least, at operational level, this points you out to be on right track. Also post doing a house raid if at least you find some "terrorist paraphenalia" you can allay community fears that the bust was random/purely motivated by racial profiling.
So instead of being able to counter racist propaganda with reasoned debate and counter evidence, it all goes underground and spreads unchallenged and unopposed.
Saying that people you disagree with are not allowed to talk makes it look as though you are unable to counter what they say.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
Do religious videos that convince young people to terrorize people who are different them (say, gay people) considered terror videos? Or do they only mean terror videos that involve someone else's god and belief system?
Err.. you mean GTA3.. there were a bunch of GTA games before it ya know.
I really don't think this is the same kind of censorship. GTA3 was removed from store shelves because it failed to meet the required classification of "Mature" and there is no "Restricted" rating for video games.
This, on the other hand, is the deliberate surpression of political speech under the guise of "terrorism".
If you wanna compare the lack of R ratings for video games to something, compare it to our stupid "net bet" laws. Fuckin' nanny state.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Incredibly dumb move. It just draws attention to some material that probably sucks.
Back in 1989, during the 2 Live Crew censorship controversy, I remarked, after listening to their stuff, that without the censorship, they would have never made it off the South Florida club circuit. With the censorship controversy, they hit #29 on the Billboard 200. But by 1991, they'd peaked, and broke up around 1992. There was a "New 2 Live Crew", which went nowhere and broke up in 1995, a reunion in 1998, and another reunion in 2005. Nobody cared much. Wikipedia says "The two core members are still popular within the Miami Bass community and Dancehall goers".
Or, in other words, they're back on the South Florida club circuit where they belong. Censorship gave them their 15 minutes of fame.
Reducing how much exposure such DVDs get may reduce how many are produced, which is hard to argue as a bad thing.
Most of the people producing these things aren't doing it for money. They're doing it because they're true believers. If we give the appearance that any idea, no matter how controversial or stupid, is being suppressed it will only generate more interest in it.
Look at holocaust denial. Everyone who knows anything about the subject knows that the holocaust happened, but giving the appearance of suppression to the way we handle deniers generates interest and grassroots approval for those who deny it.
So yes, it IS a bad thing to censor information, even if you think it's being done for a "good" reason.
If it was up to the current junta one should not read anything but the Bible and should not watch anything but romantic comedies and action films where the all-around good American hero beats/shoots/blows the shit out of all enemies of freedom and democracy or possibly where friendship and courage paves the way to a better future and/or eliminates all vampires, evil aliens and those who do not vote the right (pun intended) way.
Don't forget that this is a country which took Fatcat, a children's programme featuring a big cat off screen on the basis that the cat had no clothes and thus indecently exposed him/herself (hard to know with a cat costume, really) to innocent children. On the other hand, the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and the Power Rangers were perfectly OK. This is a country where on a BBC science show about the human reproduction pixelised the placenta (held by the reporter, no woman or baby in sight) for its explicite sexual nature...
There is already a terror censorship on books, now there will be one on DVDs. Business as usual.
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.
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.
Besides, where is the line drawn? When you allow the government to "censor films and literature deemed by the government to be supportive of terrorism", does that mean the DVDs used as an example? Or does that also include any news story that mentions any weaknesses in any industry, port, airline, or in safety procedues? Any news story critical of the military or armed forces? Any book or website that in any way, discusses anything that conceivably (or inconceivably) could be used as a weapon?
Is disagreeing with your government's stance on terrorism "supportive of terrorism"?
Is all of our news subject to redaction by official goverment goons?
Sorry, but censorship is not "appropriate".
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
In any given human conflict, the attacked side will end up mirroring the enemy to win.
The Bolsheviks are the most obvious case of this- attacking the Czar for classism and his secret police, then setting up the NKVD/KGB and creating a two-class society of party members and dead people.
But also look at the American Revolution- setting up the Constitution in reaction to what they saw as broken about the Magna Carta.
The Islamic extremists are mimicing thier mythology about what the Zionists want to do to them.
Evil always begets evil, no matter what.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Imagine I make two DVDs. In the first DVD I argue that it was quite right and proper for NATO to bomb the Serbian TV station during the Kosovo crisis. I argue that although some 15 civilians were killed, it was a legitimate target since it was a Serbian propaganda tool (which is what NATO argued). On the second DVD I argue that it was quite right and proper for the IRAQ to bomb the BBC because the BBC is a tool of British propaganda.
Both should be condemned as terrorist acts and their justifications dismissed. Governments are just as capable of committing terrorist acts as small non-government groups are. The problem is we allow governments to get away with it time and time again, whereas we actually make some effort to pursue the "small guys".
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.