Australia's Bizarre Classification System For Internet Censorship

stavros-59 writes "Australia's internet censorship watchdog, ACMA, uses an internet classification system originally intended for children's PC filters. ACMA has now made what must be the most amazing recent decisions of the whole bizarre censorship debate. The Register today has a story about ACMA's decision to force Apple to withdraw their ITMS gift feature from Australia on the basis that MA+ (over 15 and maybe sex) rated movies could not be given to children using the gift cards. The films are also banned on the internet but not at local video/DVD stores as detailed in this Whirlpool Forum post. At the same time, the photographic work of Robert Mapplethorpe (not for the fainthearted) has been classified as PG (Parental Guidance) by the Classification Board — which is not part of ACMA, but an agency under the Attorney General's Department."

Comments

great

[Anonymous Coward]

Great, so now we have goatse links in the fucking articles themselves.

Re:great

[Anonymous Coward]

A NSFW tag would have been appreciated

Re:great

[Just Some Guy]

Don't be a dumbass. First, this is the Internet and there are unpleasant things here. Second, if your temperament or employer can't handle you looking at grownup stuff, then don't fucking click links labeled "not for the fainthearted". Take a little responsibility for yourself and quit blaming others when your common sense fails you.

Re:great

[Obyron]

The link was marked as not for the faint hearted. Would you have still complained if the image had been violent, or perhaps a tasteful photo of naked breasts? What exactly did you expect to see that's not for the faint-hearted, but is simultaneously sterile and inoffensive enough for the workplace? Perhaps your complaint has more to do with you personally disagreeing with the content of the work.

Re:great

[Anonymous Coward]

You are allowed to read Slashdot at work?

Re:great

[clone53421]

Most workplaces would have no problem with a news article about a gruesome murder or mass killings in some foreign country. Most workplaces would have a problem with a tasteful photo of naked breasts.

Regardless of whether you think that sort of standard is silly, it's the way things are. Violence is okay. Sex is not.

Re:great

[Anonymous Coward]

The summary is so poorly written, it is completely unclear what the relation between the MA+ rating and said photographs is. "Not for the fainthearted" sounded like sarcasm to me. From the description of the MA+ rating, I figured it meant something like omgboobies. This is no problem in my workplace.

Goatse however, is a problem. I don't expect /b/ images in slashdot articles.

Re:great

[K. S. Kyosuke]

A NSFW tag would have been appreciated

Not safe for work? On the top of the page it says: "FOR CLASSROOM USE ONLY". Are you a teacher?

Re:great

[sadness203]

Since when do people read the articles anyway ?

Re:great

[Anonymous Coward]

yay... even more reason to never read the article.

Re:great

[Anonymous Coward]

First, this is the Internet and there are unpleasant things here.

Granted, but you don't expect to see goatse-like images linked directly from an article on Slashdot. You wouldn't expect to turn on 60 Minutes and see hard-core pornography, would you?

Second, if your temperament or employer can't handle you looking at grownup stuff, then don't fucking click links labeled "not for the fainthearted".

Generally speaking the employer doesn't care what you look at; they are more concerned about another prude employee seeing you look at it and filing some kind of harassment suit against them. Given all the bullshit lawsuits that go on in this country, I can't say I blame them. Also, "not for the fainthearted" is not a strong enough disclaimer; it doesn't do a good enough job describing what the imagery is. "NSFW" is tried and true.

Re:great

[philmack]

new tag: footse

Re:great

[Eevee]

Why? If your management complains, point out that it's classified as PG (Parental Guidance) and thus must be safe for work. After all, who knows better, your boss or the Aussies?

Re:great

[dimeglio]

I defined/interpreted faint hearted as NSFW and didn't click the link. Common sense failed you otherwise. Thanks for letting me know it was goatse. Now I'll definitively, send the article to my Australian friends in the office. However, it will likely be filtered.

Re:great

[Just Some Guy]

Granted, but you don't expect to see goatse-like images linked directly from an article on Slashdot.

That's exactly what I expect to find linked directly from an article on Slashdot. Why do you think no one reads the articles?

Seriously, though, the subject at hand is the censorship of Robert Mapplethorpe. Were you expecting pink unicorns and daffodils? Well, the pink unicorns perhaps, but only in the context of gay S&M.

Re:great

[SpockLogic]

. Violence is okay. Sex is not.

You must be american.

Re:great

[Coren22]

I didn't study the picture very hard, but it appeared to be an arm to me....

Re:great

[the_womble]

Violent images do not get employers sued.

Re:great

[mcgrew]

A NSFW tag would have been appreciated

NSFW. Happy now?

Re:great

[Kell Bengal]

My boss is an aussie, you insensitive clod!

Re:great

[PitaBred]

Violent images do not get employers sued yet.

Fixed that for you

Re:great

[Anonymous Coward]

Censorship can cover a broad range of things; I don't know exactly what I was expecting, but it sure as hell wasn't goatse.

Re:great

[GameboyRMH]

When it said "not for the fainthearted" I thought it might be "dark and disturbing" as some would put it. My heart has no problem with nudity, but my employers sure as hell will. Luckily nobody was around when I scrolled to the photo of a man holding his dick. Although it's been tagged NSFW already, I didn't get to the tags when I opened the link...it would have been nice to put NSFW in brackets directly after the link.

Re:great

[Hurricane78]

And it won't change, because of people like you. Don't you get that?

I, for one, say: It's the way things are? Says who? And why should I care? I have my own set of values. Sex is the reason we exist. Violence is a reason some don't. Both is natural. But it's perverse, to prefer the latter. Are you perverse, Mr. Boss?

Sure, this way is not for those with a weak reality and no spine. Luckily, not everyone is like that.
(But I stopped to work for others two years ago, started to just do what I love, and attract the people who like it too.)

Re:great

[Hurricane78]

Hey, that IS my work, you insensitive clod!

Re:great

[Anarchitect_in_oz]

New South F%&$^$ Walse has nothing to do with this It's a Federal thing.

Re:great

[Alsee]

It wasn't actually goatse.

There are three images. One, a pinky inserted partway into a penis. Second, Saint Thomas inserting his finger into spear-wound in Jesus's chest. Three, a halfway-to-the-elbow anal fisting. That final photo was pretty much as "tame tasteful and artistic" as an explicit fisting photo can reasonably be.

By the way, there is a warning at the top of the page:
*FOR CLASSROOM USE ONLY*

-

Re:great

[g0at]

Then for cripes sake, quit reading Slashdot and do your job then, if that's a problem where you work.

Re:great

[Anonymous Coward]

the subject at hand is the censorship of Robert Mapplethorpe. Were you expecting pink unicorns and daffodils?

To expect anything one would need to know who Robert Mapplethorpe is. Not everyone is familiar with gay S&M art.

Re:great

[Anonymous Coward]

relax guy, it's only rated PG!

Re:great

[iainl]

Given his stunning photographs of orchids, I suppose daffodils aren't out of the question, either...

Re:great

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know exactly what I was expecting

Then, if you were at work, why did you click the link?

Take responsibility for your actions, and stop blaming everyone and everything else for your own inability to make informed decisions and being surprised when this happens to bite you.

Re:great

[Just Some Guy]

To expect anything one would need to know who Robert Mapplethorpe is. Not everyone is familiar with gay S&M art.

Everyone was a few years ago when public funding for his works was a big public debate. Even without that knowledge, astute younger readers might have picked up that he was being used as the counterexample: "his work was only rated PG, OMG WTF!"

Re:great

[Dan541]

How about doing some work instead of reading /.

Internet Censorship:

[ZekoMal]

'Cause when they first start doing it, it makes no damn sense at all. Give 'em another twenty years or so and all the little holes will be patched up and we'll all be criminals.

Re:Internet Censorship:

[ShieldW0lf]

I think this is a great idea. In addition, since children and psychopaths can use money to purchase drugs, prostitutes and weapons, we should ban that too.

Re:Internet Censorship:

[moon3]

A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people."
-- John F. Kennedy


"Censorship reflects a society's lack of confidence in itself."
-- Potter Stewart

Re:Internet Censorship:

[ZekoMal]

Not far enough. Ban metals because they can be melted down into guns and knives, ban fire because it can be used for arson, ban soil because you can grow pot in it, ban oxygen because criminals breathe!

In 4,000 years, I can see it being an entirely plastic world, where metals are reserved for the military. Fire is only used by the government, soil is only used by tightly regulated food producers, and everybody has specially assigned air tanks: if you aren't wearing your air tank, it clearly means that you are trying to hide what you're doing.

So, give it a few generations and we'll finally be censored completely; by then it'll be illegal to even attempt to question the government. /stopsfreakingout

Re:Internet Censorship:

[icebraining]

Then criminals will use John Malcovich's Plastic Gun!

Re:Internet Censorship:

[ShieldW0lf]

Sorry... um... I wasn't trying to be funny... I was serious...

Re:Internet Censorship:

[Anonymous Coward]

...Give 'em another twenty years or so and all the little holes will be patched up...

It's gonna take a lot longer than 20 years to patch a hole that had somebody's arm in it.

Re:Internet Censorship:

[ZekoMal]

Neither was I; but if you really don't think that they would go to such measures, just go to your local school and check out their cafeteria. First they took our plastic knives, for they could be used as weapons. Then our forks, for they could also be used in such a way. Finally, we were left with just sporks. Meanwhile, we used scissors and other, far sharper instruments in our classes. Were they expecting kids to hide the plastic cutlery in their pockets and then stab people with it? There are also laws (in Maryland at least) stating that a kid does not need to go to the bathroom during class, so a teacher can go ahead and refuse them this basic function (it went to court because some kid pissed herself when her teacher refused to let her go).

If you doubt the most absurd sounding censorship, ask a kid what they can't do at school.

wait...what?

[Anonymous Coward]

"ACMA's decision to force Apple to withdraw their ITMS gift feature from Australia on the basis that MA+ (over 15 and maybe sex) rated movies could not be given to children using the gift cards."

So they want kids to get the movies?

Re:wait...what?

[Verdatum]

Yeah summary is confusing. iTunes won't let kids get R rated movies, but Aussies rate some R movies as "slightly less than R", so they feel kids should have access to them. 16 year olds, for example, should only be restricted from the reeely R and NC-17 movies, according to them.

Re:wait...what?

[mjwx]

Yeah summary is confusing. iTunes won't let kids get R rated movies, but Aussies rate some R movies as "slightly less than R", so they feel kids should have access to them. 16 year olds, for example, should only be restricted from the reeely R and NC-17 movies, according to them.

There is no NC-17 in Australia. The ratings for films are as follows:

These are unrestricted categories.
E - Exempt from rating. For various reasons, news broadcasts, documentaries and material that could not be considered for the M rating.
G - General. Mild content.
PG - Parental Guidance recommended. Things like animated violence
M - Recommended for Mature audiences. This is reserved for violent movies like action films or films that contain adult references. This rating has almost been replaced by the MA 15+ rating.

These are the restricted categories.
MA 15+ - Mature Audiences. this means someone under the age of 15 must be accompanied by a person over the age of 15. This covers frequent coarse language, frequent violence, sexual references and mild nudity. In answer to the parents question it is entirely legal for a person over the age of 15 to purchase an MA rated film and give it to a person under the age of 15.

R 18+ - Restricted. People under the age of 18 are not permitted to purchase these movies or view them in a theatre. This covers graphic violence, sex scenes, frequent sexual references and frequent nudity. Some pornography falls into this category.

X 18+ - Restricted. This is only used for the more extreme pornography. X rated films are only available for sale in the Northern Territory or Australian Capital Territory but may be ordered (via mail order) from the other Australian states.

There are two final categories,
Unclassified - films that have not been classified by the OFLC.
Refused Classification (RC) - films that have been reviewed by the OFLC and refused classification.
It is not legal to sell unclassified films and illegal to sell RC films.

Most Australians would be happy if this system was applied to all forms of media (games, audio and literature). Right now it is possible to purchase unclassified or refused classification material from overseas under our grey importing laws as possession of this material is not illegal, only distribution.

Don't click the last link then scroll to the end

[sakdoctor]

Unless you want to see artsy goatse.

Re:Don't click the last link then scroll to the en

[ComaVN]

Seriously, what's bizarre about rating goatse-like pictures as PG?

Why is that the solution?

[Anonymusing]

Couldn't Apple just implement a method of checking the age of the purchaser for a given movie? Why would they have to disable the gifting feature?

Re:Why is that the solution?

[Anonymous Coward]

The ACMA told Apple they could not continue the gifting feature _as is_. Apple could easily implement what you suggest, and they may. (not likely, imho, but, still possible.)

Re:Why is that the solution?

[Verdatum]

Apple does check the age, just not the way the aussie overlords want. They feel, "Damnit, Apple, 15 year olds should be able to watch V for Vendetta, so I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore!" So is it Apple's job to work out the rating system and age correlation for every country?

Re:Why is that the solution?

[schon]

So is it Apple's job to work out the rating system and age correlation for every country?

No, only the countries in which they want to do business.

Just like anything else, if you want a business presence in a country, you have to abide by that country's laws.

Re:Why is that the solution?

[Attila Dimedici]

So, my understanding is that Apple decided that it wasn't worth doing business in Australia (at least that particular form of business) and disabled the gifting feature for Itunes in Australia.

Re:Why is that the solution?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would they have to disable the fisting feature?

FTFY

Re:Why is that the solution?

[Anonymous Coward]

Haven't Apple always been claiming they make next to nothing off the content sales?

Remove feature low/no margin feature vs add technical implements and an entire chain of bureaucracy to handle filtering...

I'm all for it, the movie studios loose some residual profit, but who cares, they already made return on the creation of the movie.

Re:Why is that the solution?

[TheRaven64]

Haven't Apple always been claiming they make next to nothing off the content sales?

No. When they launched the iTunes Music Store, they said that it didn't need to make a profit (just come close to breaking even) because it existed to sell iPods. If you've looked at their quarterly financial statements since then, you'll have noticed that the iTunes store is now a very profitable venture for Apple. They only make something like 5-10Â per song (it varies based on the number you buy due to the agreement that they have with their credit card processor, which is why they try to batch purchases), but when you multiply that by the six billion songs they've sold, that adds up to a big wad of money. It's not their most profitable division, but it's certainly not a loss maker.

Re:Don't click the last link then scroll to the en

[Verdatum]

Artsy goatse...Try saying that 5 times fast...right now...and don't worry, your cubicle neighbors won't question it.

Re:Don't click the last link then scroll to the en

[LordAndrewSama]

nice one. How many people are going to wonder how goatse can possibly be 'artsy', and click the link to find out, I wonder. you've doomed thousands. I'm just glad i'm at work so I can't possibly click on it, and i'll forget all about it by the time I get home.

Thanks for the warning though, this story needs an NSFW tag.

"Not for fainthearted" is an understatement

[Anonymous Coward]

"Not for the fainthearted" doesn't quite cover that link as a warning. "(Warning: NSFW and Similar to Goatse)" would have prevented me from clicking and my retinas from being tainted with another tasteless image.

Re:"Not for fainthearted" is an understatement

[OzPeter]

Given Maplethorpe's body of work, those images were on the tame end of what he did.

Re:"Not for fainthearted" is an understatement

[Attila Dimedici]

You don't seem to understand, Robert Mapplethorpe's work is not "similar to goatse" it is "high art". I haven't quite figured out how it is more "artistic" than goatse, although, I think it is because in addition to being sick and twisted it is specifically offensive to Christians. I'm not sure on the last, since I have never viewed any of Robert Mapplethorpe's work, but that appears to be the position taken by his champions the last time there was a controversy over tax dollars being used to fund a display of his work.

Re:"Not for fainthearted" is an understatement

[paimin]

He's only one of the most famous photographers in history. Jesus, if you haven't seen that image before, maybe it's time to move out of mom's basement and get an apartment. Or at least go visit an art museum once in a while.

Re:"Not for fainthearted" is an understatement

[Anonymous Coward]

'm not sure on the last, since I have never viewed any of Robert Mapplethorpe's work

Up to this point, I tended to agree with your position. But if you have never actually seen any work, you're just trolling. (Even if you happen to be right by chance)

Re:"Not for fainthearted" is an understatement

[Anonymous Coward]

I haven't quite figured out how it is more "artistic" than goatse, although, I think it is because in addition to being sick and twisted it is specifically offensive to Christians. I'm not sure on the last, since I have never viewed any of Robert Mapplethorpe's work,...

You don't understand what you have never seen?
I'm shocked!

Re:"Not for fainthearted" is an understatement

[Bigjeff5]

It's "high art" because it's in black and white.

Everybody knows that if you take a photo in black and white, it's artistic, be it a man shoving a finger into his penis, going elbow deep into a woman's ass, or what have you.

Totally art.

Excuse me, I think I just threw up a little bit in my mouth.

Re:"Not for fainthearted" is an understatement

[Bigjeff5]

He's only one of the most famous photographers in history.

He shouldn't be, I've seen a lot of amature stuff that is frankly, quite a bit better than his work.

It's a sad state of society when what amounts to a fetish porno photographer is considered a top photographer.

Why is his crap artistic? Because he shot in black and white? Seriously, there is a lot of stuff like his out there, and in color. Most people wouldn't consider it "high art". Is it the B&W that makes it art? If so, artsy people are idiots.

Re:"Not for fainthearted" is an understatement

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm glad we degraded into offensive talk. I would very much doubt much correlation between living in mom's basement to not having seen this image before. I would expect a much higher correlation between heterosexual, of an age range when public funding for displaying his works was not in the media, and/or outside the art community and having not seen this image before. No art museum I've been to has displayed work such as this. Having said that my interests are in tech/science/engineering (thus being on /.) and not homosexual eroticism as wikipedia describes his work. I suspect my lack of exposure is likely due to my location being southeastern US and may also be impacted by me having (respectfully) no interest in homosexual eroticism.

Re:"Not for fainthearted" is an understatement

[paimin]

I'm not really interested in debating art here. Regardless of your personal feelings about it, it's a fact this his work is very well-known, and should be no cause for excitement on Slashdot.

Re:"Not for fainthearted" is an understatement

[Bigjeff5]

Meh, just because it is well known doesn't mean it is any good. You're arguing against personal feelings in an industry that is 100% subjective. Shit is shit, that some people are tittilated by shit isn't really any surprise, but it doesn't mean it's worth much. People buy what they want though, so more power to him.

What is backwards is the fact that a rather benign picture of a pair of breasts will be banned, while a man shoving his fist up a woman's anus is a-ok.

Do you see the disconnect there?

Re:"Not for fainthearted" is an understatement

[mujadaddy]

So he's the Britney Spears of Photography?

Re:"Not for fainthearted" is an understatement

[paimin]

I never said anything about "good". And, FYI, Mapelthorpe is long dead, so he doesn't give a rats ass if people buy the photographs. Oh, and that's not a woman.

Re:"Not for fainthearted" is an understatement

[Anonymous Coward]

It is called art because his quality as a photographer was exceptional. I have a book of his photographs called "Flowers". Just flowers in vases, still lives. Looking through that book has made me cry on several occasions, the beauty is that intense, the compositions are that perfect. Google for "mapplethorpe flowers" to get an idea.

He has made beautiful portraits, did beautiful nudes, often erotic, sometimes S&M. I've seen some photos in the latter category I don't want to see again (the ones in the article don't come close). That doesn't prevent me from seeing the artistic quality of his work. He is one of the most famous photographers in history for a reason, he really was that good.

Your remarks about B&W and color are pretty stupid, by the way. If they reflect your level of sophistication in visual arts then perhaps you shouldn't call "artsy people" idiots but recognise that you yourself are the idiot in this particular area.

Re:"Not for fainthearted" is an understatement

[Anonymous Coward]

Meh, just because it is well known doesn't mean it is any good.

How nice for you to realize that. On the other hand, nobody but you is interested in debating the merits of his art. People are responding to the complaint that they should have been warned, when really they're just philistines.

Re:"Not for fainthearted" is an understatement

[mcgrew]

He shouldn't be, I've seen a lot of amature stuff that is frankly, quite a bit better than his work.

"My kid could paint better than that!"

You're showing a complete and utter lack of what art is. Like most who haven't studied it, you likely say "I don't know what art is, but I know what I like." I had an instructor once who was fond of saying "I don't know what I like, but I know what art is".

I wrote a parody of art, art school, and the art world back in 1997 and posted it on my now defunct web site. I posted it at K5 in 2004 without, alas, the illustrations. Even remembering that it's tongue in cheek humor, you might learn from it.

Insults for the art student (see The Critique, above)

"Gee, that's really nice"! "Nice" is the worst insult you can give to an artist (See Art History, below).

Call a sculpture a "statue". Besides "nice", "statue" is the worst thing you can call a sculptor's work. The only person who hates "statue" worse than a sculptor is an actor.

Call a painting a "picture". Go ahead, show your ignorance!

Call the work "pretty". This is an insult to every artist except Audry Flack.

Those of you who are art students or have been art students understand this. Those who aren't have probably hit the "back" button (or the "get me the hell out of here right now" button) already. For those of you non-art students who've stayed with me (i.e., so stoned out of your mind that even this is entertaining even though you don't understand a bit of it), although the original purpose of art was decoration, it no longer is. "Decorative art" is considered by those who know and understand art an Oxymoron. Art stimulates the mind, the brain, the senses, or better yet, all three at once. If it doesn't make you think and/or feel, it isn't art. See Art History, below

Re:"Not for fainthearted" is an understatement

[Anonymous Coward]

"Excuse me, I think I just threw up a little bit in my mouth."

Whoa, whoa, wait a sec, let me get a picture of that.

-Mapplethorpe

Re:"Not for fainthearted" is an understatement

[delaine1975]

And from being tagged in my corporate filter as infringing the company's policy.

Re:"Not for fainthearted" is an understatement

[Anonymous Coward]

Because "pleasing to the eye" doesn't define art. Symbolism does. It's not the artists fault you can't see the symbolism in a man's arm up another man's anus, and that you'd prefer a pretty little landscape picture.

Re:"Not for fainthearted" is an understatement

[Anonymous Coward]

Art stimulates the mind, the brain, the senses, or better yet, all three at once. If it doesn't make you think and/or feel, it isn't art.

If it doesn't make you think or feel it doesn't exist, physically or abstractedly. Think and feel is what humans are wired to do all the time. The guy who started this discussion was disgusted by the word. That's a feeling. Hell, you can watch the cheapest produced porn and you'll have some feeling about it, either good or bad. You can have thoughts about how civilization is going down the shitter because people pay for stuff like that (either because you dislike porn or because it was really bad porn, take your pick).

The other thing is that it's entirely possible for two people to observe the same thing and have completely different interpretations. For that reason it's completely unreasonable to be offended when all someone saw your in your painting was that it was "pretty." Maybe you had some deep social commentary embedded in that painting that went completely over the dude's head. You can't reach everyone, and you can't expect to. At least take pride that even a layman was able to appreciate your technical skill, even if he could not share your vision. Similarly, when people think that their "kid could paint better," that's something a good artist will use, not shy away from.

ignorant politicians

[Lord Ender]

I just want to point out that human history is full of ignorant politicians trying to ban or limit new technology for whatever reason (fear of what they don't understand, protecting business interests, maintain the status quo). But technology has always won in the end.

One of my favorite examples is when the Church banned crossbows. How'd that work out for them?

My point is that we should get upset with them, but we shouldn't overreact. Their stupidity will eventually be overturned.

Re:ignorant politicians

[happy_place]

"One of my favorite examples is when the Church banned crossbows. How'd that work out for them?"

Oh, I dunno. Just how many crossbows do you possess? See! It works! ;)

Physical Media?

[Ohio Calvinist]

I don't know about Australia, but after the South Park movie, American cinemas (particularly the corp-owned multiplexes) started checking IDs for R-rated movies. Recently some retailers began following the ESRB ratings for games, but I have never seen a clerk at any store bat an eye over an R-rated (or Unrated) DVD sale to anyone regardless of age.

I always assumed it was just a "gentleman's agreement" to avoid regulation on the film/game industry, but that there was no legal mandate to follow the ratings recommendations. Does anyone know in the US if there is a legal requirement (anywhere?) and likewise in Australia are there restrictions on buying physical DVDs based on their ratings?

Re:Physical Media?

[dbet]

No idea, but if I ran a store, I wouldn't sell porno to kids. However, I define kids as 12 and under. Teens are not kids, even if they're not quite adults. They can certainly handle porno, FPS games, and The Godfather.

Re:Physical Media?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does anyone know in the US if there is a legal requirement (anywhere?) and likewise in Australia are there restrictions on buying physical DVDs based on their ratings?

Nope, there are no laws that require a retailer follow the ratings on the game box or ratings given to movies in the US. Gamestop could sell M or AO games to 5 year olds if they wanted to. They don't because it would bad PR for business because the soccer moms would be outraged by such a thing as they continue to blindly not read the video game box or even take two seconds to think if the M rated game in their hand would be appropriate for their child. The government might also try and get involved then. (I don't know that it would stand up to a court challenge though)

Re:Physical Media?

[BradleyAndersen]

Um ... no. Do you have children? 12 year olds, while they may appear to be something they are not quite yet, should have no such access to 'porno'.

Re:Physical Media?

[Duradin]

He defined a kid as being 12 and under. Kid = 12. He wouldn't sell to kids. Thus he wouldn't sell to 12 year olds.

Shortly after 12 though their biology will start telling them they should be interested in porno.

And remember, the (English speaking) world's most famous love story / tragedy involves a 14 year old.

Re:Physical Media?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does anyone know in the US if there is a legal requirement (anywhere?) and likewise in Australia are there restrictions on buying physical DVDs based on their ratings?

I don't think there are any states in the US that currently have it as a legal requirement, I know Utah tried to pass a law making it illegal to sell M+/MA titles to kids, but there was a loophole where it was not a legal requirement to HAVE a rating, and so the law would have not applied to unrated titles. Because they couldn't get the votes to actually require the ratings, they dropped the law before passing it.

There might be some specific cities that have local ordinances, but in general the video game ratings are a voluntary thing. Sort of an unwritten "deal" where the industry polices itself and the politicians leave it alone. Most retail stores like gamestop, best buy, wal mart, etc. will have it as policy to require ID and not sell MA games to anyone under 17 or 18, but you will often find clerks and small shops that don't care.

Australia? No idea, mate.

Re:Physical Media?

[story645]

You can't sell porn to minors under obscenity laws.

Re:Physical Media?

[Anonymous Coward]

a 14 year old
Juliet was "a fortnight and odd days" shy of fourteen. Faith, I can tell her age unto an hour.

Re:Physical Media?

[Blakey Rat]

Generally, it is a "gentleman's agreement" in the US. Retailers and theaters will require ID, but that's not a legal requirement, it's just company policy. And, like you suggested, big box stores are usually pretty casual about it, and until recent video game stores were *really* casual about it-- but they've gotten some bad press since the last GTA and, strangely, Halo 2 (which isn't very violent, IMO), so that's changing quickly.

The MPAA and ESRB ratings systems are both run by industry groups, with minimal government involvement. The RIAA's rating system was mandated by the government, but as far as I know the government doesn't interfere in day-to-day operations at all. The Comics Code was voluntary, and run by an industry group, although I believe modern comics generally don't bother getting that certification anymore, except for books clearly intended for kids.

Strangely, books have no rating system (that I'm aware of), no store policies, and there's nothing stopping a 12-year-old from walking into a bookstore and buying, say, "American Psycho." This hasn't come up, but I'd love to see an expose of this practice-- it's only fair that book publishers go through the same bullshit all other entertainment industries have.

So far, the US has done a very good job of upholding the First Amendment, and all the proposed laws to censor video games or music have been quashed. That doesn't stop the government from, say, enacting music labeling laws, or requiring "V-chips" on TVs. This could all change if Hillary Clinton's popularity rises, since censoring video games is one of her pet issues, and she probably has the contacts to make it happen.

Pop quiz: Has anybody in the US ever, in your entire life, seen a TV with the V-chip enabled? I've seen TVs with channels blocked at the cable/satellite box, but I've never seen a V-chip in action. What a waste of time and money that requirement is.

Re:Physical Media?

[Fulcrum of Evil]

ntil recent video game stores were *really* casual about it

Well sure - tell mom that little timmy might not be old enough for the latest Silent Hill game and she'll get mad because you're slowing her down, then she'll come back the next day and get pissed that you sold it to her. You can't really win, so don't even try :)

Re:Physical Media?

[mcgrew]

And remember, the (English speaking) world's most famous love story / tragedy involves a 14 year old.

And also remember that the average person at the time never lived to the age of 40, and any girl who wasn't married by age 18 was an old maid.

Re:Physical Media?

[Duradin]

Average life span is such a wonderfully misleading figure. The average life span of those who entered adulthood was much higher than a measly 40 years. Throwing a lot of zeroes in for high infant mortality brings down the total average rather quickly.

And for Juliet, she was already close to being an old maid at 14, most other girls her age were already married. Extended adolescence is a modern ideal.

Re:Physical Media?

[TheTurtlesMoves]

And at 14 back then you had a full time job and helped with the rent and food for the household (and was still hungry). While today you get to leach of your parents for an extra 10 years, and blame everything wrong in your personalty on them.

Re:Physical Media?

[jaraxle]

*shrug*

At 13 (agreed, it's not 12), my dad and I went on a fishing trip and on the beach one night I found an old Hustler magazine laying amongst some rocks. My dad allowed me to peruse through it so long as I didn't bring it home since he knew my mom wouldn't agree. He also allowed me to use "soft swears" such as "hell", "damn", and even "shit". However, the basic deal was if I was allowed to do this, I had to behave responsibly, as one old enough see and do such things as well. I found that out the minute I caught my finger on a fishing hook and started with the "owie owie" whining (it wasn't that bad, barely even bled)... he told me to suck it up, and if I couldn't then I wasn't able to have the other privileges he allowed me.

It's a memorable experience, and a good one in my opinion.

Personally, I had access to porn (my parents had a big satellite dish, back before DirecTV, etc, where you changed the channel and the damn thing turned on its base) as a youngster and I can't say it did any damage to me. I may be a bit crass at times, but all in all I lead a healthy life... married, 3 kids, good job, and a fairly healthy outlook in general. I know my kids are going to be curious about a great many things, I just hope we all as a family can be open and honest about it, and that they can have healthy discussions with my wife and I should they have any questions.

~jaraxle

Re:Physical Media?

[jaraxle]

Ack, I should say by "youngster" I mean young teen (13 - 15). It's a matter of personal morality, and possibly even hypocritical to an extent, but I personally don't think younger is appropriate. I also don't mean that parents should go out and buy porn for their kids, but if they happen to come across it, curiosity is natural in those circumstances.

~jaraxle

Re:Physical Media?

[Anonymous Coward]

Get with the times, you prudish twat. Your teenage kids have already seen porn and there's a high probability they've already begun to experiment sexually.

Also, Captain Pedantic would like to point out that GP specifically said "I wouldn't sell porno to kids... I define kids as 12 and under", which means that 12-year-olds are "kids". Thus he would seem to agree with your sentiment that "12 year olds... should have no such access to 'porno'."

Re:Physical Media?

[bh_doc]

I understand that the ratings system in the US is a voluntary industry system.

In Australia, the rating system is legislated and mandatory, by various agreements between State and Federal governments. Stores can (sometimes do) find themselves in legal trouble if they sell certain stock to people who aren't old enough.

I can't remember much specifics off the top of my head, but it's certainly true that there are restrictions on the sale of DVDs and other media based on their ratings, here.

Re:Physical Media?

[Alsee]

Oh, goddammit!
Now how am I going to pay for all the beer they drink if I have to give them the porn for free?

-

Maplethorpe

[OzPeter]

Maplethorpe had an "interesting" career documenting the gay S&M culture of NYC, but as such he is a canonical 20th century photographer. Some of his pics can be very disturbing (ie genitalia mutilations) but he has also taken some fantastic classical nude images. But in a twist of reality he has also taken some of the most beautiful photos of flowers that I have ever seen. Hopefully the flowers are not being censored.

One ironic thing about Maplethorpe is that as a teen he struggled to win his fathers approval because of Maplethorpes artistic leanings and his struggle with his obvious gay sexuality. In order to "prove" himself to his father, Maplethrpe joined the most hardcore ROTC unit at his college and the irony was in the hazing routine - pure homoerotic S&M. So he seemed to be doomed! It all makes for his biography to be an interesting read

Re:Maplethorpe

[Obyron]

One ironic thing about Maplethorpe

One ironic thing about your post is that you know so much about Mapplethorpe, but cannot spell his name.

Re:Maplethorpe

[OzPeter]

Guilty as charged. Can I blame it on my keyboard?

Re:Maplethorpe

[Anonymous Coward]

Nno.

Re:Maplethorpe

[MikeRT]

Some of his pics can be very disturbing (ie genitalia mutilations) but he has also taken some fantastic classical nude images

In the majority of human civilization, such pictures (the ones of mutilation) would not be regarded as artistic, but rather as obscene. In modern times, we've turned freedom of speech into a license to do wholesale degradation to beauty, truth, human sexuality, etc. to such a degree that even the most perverse things as tolerable.

While I fear empowered censors more than the effects of such "art," we should at least have the honesty to admit that such "art" expresses the worst of humanity. I'm not even 30 yet, and quite frankly I've grown sick of the self-assured, hipster posers who think this trash is edgy and avant-garde.

Re:Maplethorpe

[Anonymous Coward]

...Maplethrpe joined the most hardcore ROTC unit at his college and the irony was in the hazing routine - pure homoerotic S&M.

So it was a Marine ROTC then?

Re:Maplethorpe

[OzPeter]

I'm not even 30 yet, and quite frankly I've grown sick of the self-assured, hipster posers who think this trash is edgy and avant-garde.

I am not going to claim that all of Mapplethorpes work is art worthy as I don't know the full extent of his catalogue and you can like or dislike his work as you see fit. However in defense of Mapplethorpe he was documenting the world around him as it happened in a subculture that few people knew about at the time. So it is of historical significance in the very least.

Images like this are not meant to make you feel good. They are meant to challenge you and make you confront your own feelings and beliefs. Would you say the same thing about documentary photos showing the atrocities of war? Or poverty or starvation? These are all subjects that other canonical photographers have sought out and created famous images from - Have you seen the classical figure of the napalmed girl running down the road in Vietnam? Or even the Farm Bureau pics of depression era USA?

Art is not all about cute kittens and puppies and flowers

Re:Maplethorpe

[jbezorg]

In modern times, we've turned freedom of speech into a license to do wholesale degradation to beauty, truth, human sexuality, etc. to such a degree that even the most perverse things as tolerable.

So the torture, murder, suicide, fratricide & incest in Shakespeare's plays are not okay then?

Re:Maplethorpe

[Anonymous Coward]

In the majority of human civilization, such pictures (the ones of mutilation) would not be regarded as artistic, but rather as obscene

Big whooping deal. In a large percentage of human civilization, it is considered obscene for a woman to show her neck or ankles. In a large portion of the world, something an American or Brit would wear to the beach is considered obscene.

It's really only during the last 100 years (less actually) that the Western world has relaxed its "standards", prior to the 1900's it was considered scandalous for a woman to reveal her legs or neckline here, while not a capital offense like in many parts of the world.

In modern times, we've turned freedom of speech into a license to do wholesale degradation to beauty, truth, human sexuality, etc. to such a degree that even the most perverse things as tolerable.

In modern times? Have you ever bothered to look at the art of ancient Greece? Tribal paintings? How about the work of people like Goya during the Inquisition? You obviously have never studied any history in terms of art and culture of any civilization if you maintain such a viewpoint.
Most of your ideas of what is "proper" are a direct result of the religious doctrines of the Catholic church (and more recently its offshoots such as most Protestant branches of Christianity).

The funny part to me, is that your words are essentially the same thing that many of the Roman scholars said, complaining about youth, their low moral standards, the trash called art "these days", etc. Every generation has people like you, who simply believe that anything you don't understand is "bad".

Hey, I think I see some kids on your lawn!

Re:Maplethorpe

[0xdeadbeef]

I'm not even 30 yet, and quite frankly I've grown sick of the self-assured, hipster posers who think this trash is edgy and avant-garde.

I think there's some kids on your lawn. You'd better go shake your fist and scare them off!

Re:Maplethorpe

[Anonymous Coward]

Look, Shakespeare had characters breaking out in yo mamma routines, opera has murder, death and suicide, most of the world's litterature and art is geared towards either war, religion, or ribaldry, complain all you want, but you have a damn poor leg to stand on. You're one of these pretentious pricks who goes on about high art but is completely oblivious to the fact that high art is just the fucking same - more than half of Shakespeare is about sex, and Romeo & Juliet is a sarcastic farce about two teens who are too dumb to just have a shag and let go.

So I'll conclude in the fashion of true art - Thy mother.

Re:Maplethorpe

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's about documenting the world around you. I admint I don't know much about Maplethorp, and perhaps he was truely documenting the word around him, but I doubt this.

A person taking pictures of a war is a silent observer, attempting to show the drama that is unfolding within a war torn area and to draw attention to the forgotten aspects of war.

A person who gets others to pose, or poses himself in manners that are not naturally occuring is creating a world to be photographed. Rather than speak something true about the world, they make up a world and then speak about it.

I have much less respect for this type of art. It allows you to make up your own structure of the world, your own beliefs and then point to your own art as proof of that structure.

A well structured argument is challenging. An image of something may challenge you, but only if it represents something of the truth about the world around you. If your art makes it's own truth, then it ceases to be challenging as it does not invite you to question it, or to question the world. It simply shows you the predetermined view of the artist. It claims to be a challenge, but it is a fraud.

Re:Maplethorpe

[agnosticnixie]

No, it doesn't exist actually... Oh who am I kidding, I think this type of poser just does it for the prestige and doesn't realize that half these plays are about people getting drunk, or murder, or sex. Hell, I'm pretty sure 99% of the people who acclaimed Eugen Onegin at the Chicago Opera House when it was there have absolutely no clue that Tschaikovsky used the duel in it to build up homosexual tension between the male characters. It's just music/theater/etc, why of course it has no hidden meaning where the author is obviously passing as much crap behind the censors as can be done, if there's even censors to satisfy.

Re:Maplethorpe

[thisnamestoolong]

In the majority of human civilization, such pictures (the ones of mutilation) would not be regarded as artistic, but rather as obscene. In modern times, we've turned freedom of speech into a license to do wholesale degradation to beauty, truth, human sexuality, etc. to such a degree that even the most perverse things as tolerable.

While I fear empowered censors more than the effects of such "art," we should at least have the honesty to admit that such "art" expresses the worst of humanity. I'm not even 30 yet, and quite frankly I've grown sick of the self-assured, hipster posers who think this trash is edgy and avant-garde.

Some of the art out there certainly does express the worst of humanity. This does not make it one bit less valid as art, though. There are many out there (myself included) who feel that to experience all that it is to be human you need to be aware of the good, the bad, and the ugly sectors of human society. Furthermore, you could not have missed the mark any further in stating that "obscene" work degrades the truth -- these things you consider to be obscene are part of the human experience and thus are intricately interwoven with the fabric of truth. The logic behind your assertion that avoiding this sort of art will preserve truth is backward at best, and totalitarian at worst.

Re:Maplethorpe

[dissy]

In the majority of human civilization, such pictures (the ones of mutilation) would not be regarded as artistic, but rather as obscene. In modern times, we've turned freedom of speech into a license to do wholesale degradation to beauty, truth, human sexuality, etc. to such a degree that even the most perverse things as tolerable.

So in your world, you would be OK with your government banning the practice of your wife and daughters getting their ears pierced?
How bout the shaving public hair for sanitary reasons?

It is the same body mutilation, degrading the natural body and truth.

Sad, that.

Re:Maplethorpe

[Anonymous Coward]

In the majority of human civilization, such pictures (the ones of mutilation) would not be regarded as artistic, but rather as obscene.

And which would be also true of many other forms of non-erotic, non-mutilating art as well. Art is in the eye of the beholder, and while I'm neither gay, nor interested in BSDM, I do find his photos to have an artistic quality in that, in the right mindset, you do question a lot of things regarding the photo itself, situations, lighting, what not. Perhaps YOU don't, but your personal taste is not the definition of art. That said, take a look at the flower photos. They are EXTREMELY erotic if you understand the context from the intricate detail. And no, you don't need drugs to recognize it either.

If you don't like it, just don't look at it. You're provided the freedom. The irony of his works is that I could probably see the art in the photo, while someone that is gay and into BSDM would probably be the one that only sees porn. Don't tell me those nude paintings from the Renaissance didn't give you ideas when you were 14.

Re:Maplethorpe

[Anonymous Coward]

Who are you to decide what is and is not art?

Well, since you are doing just that, clearly you don't mind when others decide what is and is not art.

So, as it stands, someone else other than you is saying that type of images are art. Thus, you should be equally OK and accepting of that answer, as much as you expect us to be accepting of yours.

Re:Maplethorpe

[sexconker]

No.
"Art" like that doesn't challenge anyone or make them confront their own feelings or beliefs.

A mutilated dick doesn't challenge me. It says "I'm fucked up and I want attention".
It doesn't make me confront my feelings or beliefs, it reaffirms them. Shit be nasty, some people are fucked up.

Hell no I wouldn't say the same thing about those other subjects - those subjects are serious business to all of humanity. Some guy shoving a needle through his dick because he has daddy issues is not something that very many people will ever relate to or be affected by. It is a willful choice made by a small group of deranged individuals. Eating feces and vomit is not performance art. You can't graphically reenact the rape and murder of your child through interpretive dance and expect a full house.

It may be "art" to the artist and the subjects, but that doesn't make it so. Eye of the beholder, and all. As you can see from the posts here, most that behold this shit (3 of his much tamer photographs linked in TFS) aren't exactly giving it the thumbs up.

Much of today's art and fashion is simply weird for the sake of being weird or gross for the sake of getting attention.

You're right - the world isn't cute and fuzzy all the time.
Chopin produced his greatest works during a period of personal anguish (over not being able to support the failed revolution).
Poe was most certainly not about teh happy.
Van Gogh was insane.

But I doubt any of these guys ever shoved a nail through their dick and screamed "Look at me, I've got issues!".

Re:Maplethorpe

[agnosticnixie]

You're a moron

Poe died of his alcoholism and Van Gogh drove cut his fucking ear.

Re:Maplethorpe

[Anonymous Coward]

You missed the point completely.

Their work isn't given attention or appreciated because of those facts.

(Well, there is the one self-portrait.)

Re:Maplethorpe

[tmosley]

FYI, Victorian era prudishness didn't hold sway anywhere in the world prior to *GASP* the Victorian Era. For the vast majority of human history, sex has been public, and sexual "deviance" accepted wholeheartedly. The only possible exception is the followers of God, in their various forms, who didn't take kindly to any "deviance" from any "norm", including sexuality, so much so that they kill each other over minor differences in their books.

Re:Maplethorpe

[Sique]

In the majority of human civilization, such pictures (the ones of mutilation) would not be regarded as artistic, but rather as obscene. In modern times, we've turned freedom of speech into a license to do wholesale degradation to beauty, truth, human sexuality, etc. to such a degree that even the most perverse things as tolerable.

I take it you only know the Disney side of world heritage. You have never read the Bible (recommended: Judges 19 and Lamentations), you know nothing about the Aztec or the Greek creation myths (and by the way about most creation myths anyway, the norse or the slavic ones are no less violent), you've never seen a painting from Hieronymus Bosch, and you might never ever have read Grimm's fairy tales themselves ("Cat and Mouse in Partnership" anyone?). As a matter of fact: During most of the human civilisation tales and songs and pictures about mutilation, torture or violence were the norm, not the exception.

Re:Maplethorpe

[Sique]

Some comments about Grimm's fairy tales:

None of them starts with "Once upon a time", and only a single one, "The Peasant's Wise Daughter" ends at least in German with the german equivalent to "and they lived happily ever after" ("Und wenn sie nicht gestorben sind, dann leben sie noch heute").

Re:Maplethorpe

[jackbird]

Mapplethorpe is also long dead, and did his work in the 1970s and 1980s. Of course he's not "avant garde" anymore.

His photographs are also gorgeous in terms of composition and light regardless of their content, so one could view his work purely in terms of craft in a way that, say, Nan Goldin's photography (which touches on similar themes from the same time period) does not.

His work was also a lightning rod for moral panic about the limits of art and free speech in America, and for that reason alone is historically significant.

You may also find as you get older that more or less everybody has strong and not entirely consistent feelings about their parents and the way they were raised, and people can develop an emotional connection to an image in a piece of art that does not directly reflect their lived experience. Dismissing this as "daddy issues" is trite, and you completely miss the irony in the GP's story about Mapplethorpe's "daddy issues" driving him to enroll in the ROTC.

Feel free not to like the pictures, but recognize that you sound to people who care about art the way like someone who points to their monitor and calls it a hard drive sounds to you. "It's not to my taste - unposed photojournalism is more my thing," will get you much more mileage at a party.

Re:Maplethorpe

[OzPeter]

It may be "art" to the artist and the subjects, but that doesn't make it so.

Eye of the beholder, and all.

Those two statements are contardictory

Re:Maplethorpe

[poopdeville]

In the majority of human civilization, such pictures (the ones of mutilation) would not be regarded as artistic, but rather as obscene. In modern times, we've turned freedom of speech into a license to do wholesale degradation to beauty, truth, human sexuality, etc. to such a degree that even the most perverse things as tolerable.

What you call perverse are real human expressions of sexuality. Human sexuality has been going on for far longer than whatever caused your hang ups, and it is always messy, slimy, sticky, "graphic" and "obscene", and if it's any good, it's sweaty too. The whole point of showing affection is enjoying touching your partner, and letting them enjoy your touch. That includes inside the anus and vagina, if the partners agree.

If Robert Mapplethorpe's partner consented, they can do whatever the hell they want, and it is none of your business. If you don't like their photography, you don't have to look at it.

But you're a philistine if you're not at least familiar with Robert Mapplethorpe's art. His photography is a very frank depiction of his sexuality, and caused a tremendous uproar in the 1970s, specifically because of that.

Re:Maplethorpe

[mcgrew]

In the majority of human civilization, such pictures (the ones of mutilation) would not be regarded as artistic,

Incorrect; you have obviously never studied art history, not even taken a single class. The ancient Greeks and Romans had art that would turn your stomach (if you had a weak one), and even religious art from the dark ages and later in churches showed brutally obscene images (in the giuse of what hell was like, of course).

Re:Maplethorpe

[jbezorg]

Or, 400 years from now in their equivalent of Christie's auction house, Robert Mapplethorpe's work may be considered priceless.

What Galileo will our society condemned for heresy? Some will argue that Robert Mapplethorpe will never be that Galileo. That they will never want to live in that world.

I'm pretty sure they won't.

Re:Maplethorpe

[Anonymous Coward]

Has it occurred to you that a lot of the violence portrayed in American movies is pretty obscene too, and that the idea that a "good guy" can afford to do things to the "bad guys" that in my book would define what makes a bad guy, expresses the worst of humanity as well? That type of obscenity is totally accepted, somehow.

While Mapplethorpe has made photos of some things that I'd rather not see, it was all consentual. We may find it intolerable, the people Mapplethorpe portrayed obviously thought otherwise. To them it won't have been obscene.

The artistic value isn't decided by moral values. Those are different qualities. Don't think something can't be art because you can't stand it. Look at the flowers OzPeter above linked to, and you can judge Mapplethorpe's artistic quality using a more neutral subject.

Re:Maplethorpe

[sexconker]

No they aren't. They're perfectly complementary.

What qualifies as art is subjective.
There is no single measure for what is or what is not art.
As such, just because you view something as art doesn't mean it is art.

Continuing on, my opinion that the subject matter in question is not art is just as valid as that of the artist and subjects.

I merely pointed out that I think his "art" is attention-seeking, gross-out trash. And that most people agree.

You can can compare any individual works you want, and have any opinion you want. Just know that your opinion isn't some sort of standard. In this particular case, know that your opinion is nowhere near that of most people's.

Many "artists" attempt to protect their art from popular criticism (i.e., most people thinking it sucks) by designating it as avante garde, post modern, high expressionist, etc.
You can't put shit in a special box and expect people not to call it shit. You can make something that's in the category of "shit" that is actually good. (The categories often used for this tactic are valid, and are not made invalid or sullied by the sue of the tactic.)

Using a particular label as a "Pfffft, then you just don't get <label> art" shield is all too common of a dismissive "defense" used by artists who refuse to accept criticism or consider popular opinion as being as valid as their own.

Re:Maplethorpe

[R2.0]

"Art is not all about cute kittens and puppies and flowers"

Nor is all "free expression" art. If your description of Mapplethorpe's motives are correct, he was acting more as a journalist or historian. But it's considers art because...why? Because his title is "artist?" Because it's hung in a gallery instead of a history book? Or because art collectors pay $$$$ for something that an editor would pay $?

I have no problem with people exercising their First Amendment rights to express themselves, even things that are uncomfortable, distasteful, or downright nasty. But it seems that certain folks have latched onto the idea that "art" is somehow above other forms of expression, and not subject to criticism or excoriation but for that given by a select few, aka "critics". They deny the validity of expressions that disagree with their own. Which is just as narrow minded as those they purport to need defense from.

Mapplethorpe was an excellent photographer in a technical sense. He may have been an artist in the aesthetic sense. But that doesn't mean that everything he produced is a piece of art.

Re:Maplethorpe

[Anonymous Coward]

Those flowers should be censored! Their sex organs are blatantly on show there! I'm DISGUSTED.

Re:Maplethorpe

[sexconker]

Oh, I'm not judging his work on the technical merits. I'm judging it on content.

He has daddy issues and joins the ROTC because of it. How is that ironic?

I'll even let you use the popular definition of ironic (comically/tragically unexpected) instead of the actual definition.

Re:Maplethorpe

[geekgirlandrea]

In the majority of human civilization, such pictures (the ones of mutilation) would not be regarded as artistic, but rather as obscene. In modern times, we've turned freedom of speech into a license to do wholesale degradation to beauty, truth, human sexuality, etc. to such a degree that even the most perverse things as tolerable.

While I fear empowered censors more than the effects of such "art," we should at least have the honesty to admit that such "art" expresses the worst of humanity. I'm not even 30 yet, and quite frankly I've grown sick of the self-assured, hipster posers who think this trash is edgy and avant-garde.

You know what's obscene? Pompous little would-be tyrants such as yourself proclaiming that anything a bit different from what gets you off is 'a wholesale degradation of human sexuality' or 'expresses the worst of humanity.' What's the matter? Afraid you might like it if you let yourself look too long?

If you want to know why art like that is popular, it's because inside that crowd of hipsters chasing the trend of the moment, there's a core of people who have been told all their lives, by self-righteous assholes just like you channeling the voice of conventional morality, that *they* and those they love and their entire lives are 'obscene' for being who and what they are, and for whom being portrayed honestly and even positively for once comes as a ray of light in the darkness.

Re:Maplethorpe

[syousef]

But in a twist of reality he has also taken some of the most beautiful photos of flowers [mapplethorpe.org] that I have ever seen

You're way too easily impressed. I'm sorry but either you have very little experience with this kind of photography or you're pulling my leg. There is literally much better on flickr.

Re:Maplethorpe

[Anonymous Coward]

In the majority of human civilization, such pictures (the ones of mutilation) would not be regarded as artistic, but rather as obscene.

wrong. Ever heard of priapus?. you seem to confuse "human civilization" with Victorianism and Christianity.

The amount of anti-intellectualism in your post is ridiculous, what the fuck gives you the right to decide what art other people should be allowed to digest.

In summary, what makes you such a prudish philistine?

Re:Maplethorpe

[Anonymous Coward]

But in a twist of reality he has also taken some of the most beautiful photos of flowers that I have ever seen.

Well, they are plant genitalia, after all.

Re:Maplethorpe

[Homburg]

Really? Fiction, drama, painting, and sculpture all involve constructing a "world" rather than simply representing one. Are none of these art? I don't think you've thought this through.

Re:Maplethorpe

[jackbird]

He joined up to be a tough guy like his dad wanted and deny/repress his gayness, but the hazing rituals he experienced when he did were the homoerotic S&M stuff he was trying to distance himself from. Seems clear to me.

Re:Maplethorpe

[invalid_user]

While I fear empowered censors more than the effects of such "art," we should at least have the honesty to admit that such "art" expresses the worst of humanity. I'm not even 30 yet, and quite frankly I've grown sick of the self-assured, hipster posers who think this trash is edgy and avant-garde.

Exactly what I have been saying, and it's actually even worse.

When classified as art, these works will bring down the status of those art that actually require good senses and rigor (mathematics, physics, paintings, programs, inventions).

Furthermore, these "arts" may make people so annoyed that they start to regard less of freedom of expression. In the end the rights to say what is important (as in "Galileo") become compromised, together with these other rights (the rights to say "I got a needle in my penis").

Re:Maplethorpe

[Anonymous Coward]

What do you know about Galileo? The man has virtues you cannot comprehend so leave him out of this discussion about your self-obsessive art.

Re:Maplethorpe

[invalid_user]

Look at the flowers OzPeter above linked to, and you can judge Mapplethorpe's artistic quality using a more neutral subject.

As another person commented: "You're way too easily impressed. I'm sorry but either you have very little experience with this kind of photography or you're pulling my leg. There is literally much better on flickr."

I would say I have taken better pictures myself, but that is too subjective for me to say.

Re:Maplethorpe

[MikeRT]

Images like this are not meant to make you feel good. They are meant to challenge you and make you confront your own feelings and beliefs. Would you say the same thing about documentary photos showing the atrocities of war? Or poverty or starvation? These are all subjects that other canonical photographers have sought out and created famous images from - Have you seen the classical figure of the napalmed girl running down the road in Vietnam? Or even the Farm Bureau pics of depression era USA?

I have no problem with people documenting the ugliness of the world. However, society should be mindful of the difference between one photographer documenting what he sees, and another who acts as a pornographer creating the scene in all of its ugliness. That is why I could see grounds to protect Mapplethorpe's works, but would be skeptical of grounds to protect the works of a pornography studio that, for example, specializes in scat porn.

Re:Maplethorpe

[TheRaven64]

Obviously you have never seen much ancient Greek or Roman art. A lot of the murals from dining rooms in Pompeii would be regarded as obscene today. The Pre-Raphaelite were regarded as obscene (and, in addition, as not very good) by a lot of critics for their paintings of prostitutes.

Re:Maplethorpe

[Anonymous Coward]

You have some salient points in your post. However, when you say

And that most people agree.

you have gone too far. You have zero basis for that claim and you make no effort whatsoever to back it up. Your credibility took a hit from that one. Try again, and avoid speaking for "most people" when you are, in fact, only speaking for yourself. That way, your opinion can at least be respected instead of ignored.

Your call, obviously.

Re:Maplethorpe

[sexconker]

How is that unexpected? Military hazing is well known for it's sexual nature. So is the hazing you get if you work as a chef in a Mexican restaurant. So is the hazing for every fraternity. So is MOST hazing, actually.

It just means he didn't know what he was getting into.

Re:Maplethorpe

[jbezorg]

You've jumped to the conclusion that I care for Robert Mapplethorpe's work. I don't.

And no, I won't leave Galileo out. In his time, he was condemned for heresy. Now Robert Mapplethorpe's is also condemned.

I won't because I find it interesting that those who condemned Galileo probably did it with the same fervor the Anonymous Coward is displaying about Robert Mapplethorpe. I also find it interesting when I compare two grotesque acts and their responses:

- Given grotesque images that give us a direct connection such as Robert Mapplethorpe's images, we are repulsed.

- Given extremely grotesque images such as the ones seen in FEAR 2, we remain indifferent.

Yes, I know, "because it's not real". Okay, so what you are telling me is if Robert Mapplethorpe generated the exact same images with 3D Studio Max or Maya, then they would be okay?

And that brings us back to censorship of games.

Re:Maplethorpe

[Anonymous Coward]

As another person commented: "You're way too easily impressed. I'm sorry but either you have very little experience with this kind of photography or you're pulling my leg. There is literally much better on flickr."

I would say I have taken better pictures myself, but that is too subjective for me to say.

Perhaps we look for different qualities.

It's quite true that I am easily impressed with Maplethorpes flowers, they have a tendency to bring tears to my eyes. The point is that most photographers (or painters or other visual artists) don't have such a strong effect on me, and none that I'm aware of in quite the same way. That doesn't mean they don't exist. It does mean that in my opinion Robert Maplethorpe was a great artist, regardless of what others make.

Re:Maplethorpe

[Anonymous Coward]

Hair isn't a living part of the body.

nuke australia

[Anonymous Coward]

kill the disease before it spreads

Re:nuke australia

[OzPeter]

kill the disease before it spreads

In which case you should probably nuke the USA ahead of Australia - after all just 2 seconds of seeing Janet's naked breast was enough to traumatize the whole country

Re:nuke australia

[Powys]

This reminds me of: http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/end

Re:nuke australia

[HeronBlademaster]

It didn't traumatize the whole country. It traumatized a vocal minority - and most of them probably didn't even see it themselves.

I'm opposed to intentionally displaying that sort of thing where children can see it, but I'm not going to get into an uproar about an accident.

Re:nuke australia

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm opposed to intentionally displaying that sort of thing where children can see it, but I'm not going to get into an uproar about an accident.

but why? you know what breasts are for, right?

Re:nuke australia

[LearnToSpell]

Which children? The ones who were breast-fed until they grew up enough to be taught that breasts are "obscene?"

Re:nuke australia

[HeronBlademaster]

I'm not going to teach my kids that breasts are obscene; I'm going to teach my kids that we don't (shouldn't) go around in public waving our genitals (and breasts) in people's faces, and by extension we don't (shouldn't) let other people do the same thing.

Re:nuke australia

[HeronBlademaster]

Yeah... they're for feeding babies. That doesn't mean women should go waving their breasts around in people's faces in public.

Re:nuke australia

[Blakey Rat]

Oh please. Yes, a shameless publicity grab (that worked, very, very well) dictated the attitude of our entire country!

Nobody was "traumatized" by it, except for a few fundamentalist Christians, who probably weren't even watching the Superbowl in the first place.

But more to the point, the press reports non-news as HIGHLY IMPORTANT NEWS all the fucking time. If you take the news media as any indication of the general inclination of Americans, then you're highly mis-informed.

Re:nuke australia

[badfish99]

Since most mammals manage to feed their babies without obvious breasts, it's generally accepted by biologists that human breasts *are* for waving around in public.

Re:nuke australia

[kimvette]

And yet, practically every grammar school library has a huge archive of National Pornographic, er, National Geographic subscriptions dating back to the '50s or earlier.

Re:nuke australia

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not going to teach my kids that breasts are obscene;

Yes, you are. You said outright that's what you're going to do. You might not use the word "obscene", but that is effectively what you are going to do.

OB car analogy:

"I'm not going to teach my kids that driving is wrong; I'm going to teach them that nobody should be driving, and we shouldn't let anyone drive."

Re:nuke australia

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you one of those people that thinks that a child is irreparably harmed by just glancing at a women breastfeeding their baby? (i.e. scarred for life)

Re:nuke australia

[HeronBlademaster]

I don't think teaching our kids not to wave their naked genitals around public is the same as teaching them that genitals are "obscene".

Why don't people understand that there's a difference between "private" and "gross"?

Your car analogy is fatally flawed. I'm not teaching my kids that nobody should be driving. (I'm not teaching my kids that nobody should be having sex.) I'm teaching my kids that only licensed drivers should be driving. (I'm teaching my kids that sex is for married couples.)

See the difference? You can disagree if you want, but don't misrepresent my position.

Re:nuke australia

[HeronBlademaster]

Er... you're saying that everything not done by mammals in nature is something that we should be waving around in public? That's silly at best, but mostly disturbing.

(Besides, you're wrong; a cow's udder is the equivalent of a human breast, despite being quite a bit uglier, and it's as obvious as can be...)

Re:nuke australia

[HeronBlademaster]

No, but that doesn't mean women should be waving their naked boobs around in public.

Re:nuke australia

[oji-sama]

So you are going to teach them that breasts are obscene. How else would they rationalize the need to prevent/stop other people from 'waving them in people's faces'.

Re:nuke australia

[Chirs]

There's a difference between "obscene" and "inappropriate" or "impolite".

Around here it's legal for a woman to be topless in public, but it's rare enough to be newsworthy when it happens.

Re:nuke australia

[AliasMarlowe]

I'm opposed to intentionally displaying that sort of thing where children can see it

So you think babies should be blindfolded when breastfeeding? Or should the breastfeeding be unintentional? Very confusing.

Go to a beach in the South of Europe, or in a touristy area of the Caribbean. A good number of the ladies bare their breasts where children can see them. Whole families go skinny-dipping together in the Nordic countries. Nobody cares, not the police, not even the kids...
As Oscar Wilde said: "If God wanted us to be naked, we'd be born that way."

Re:nuke australia

[Anonymous Coward]

Breast feeding? Ugh! Don't you know all sustenance comes from The Corporation; we must not let pirate milk manufacturers get away with the excuse that they are related to the young Consumer Unit.

Re:nuke australia

[pwfffff]

"I'm going to teach my kids that we don't (shouldn't) go around in public waving our genitals (and breasts) in people's faces, and by extension we don't (shouldn't) let other people do the same thing."

What, exactly, do you think 'obscene' means?

Re:nuke australia

[HeronBlademaster]

"babies" != "children"

Re:nuke australia

[HeronBlademaster]

I believe it's normally used as a synonym of "gross"; hence my comparison between "private" and "gross (and therefore shouldn't be displayed publicly)".

$DISTURBING_INTERNET_LINK_MEME = gross and shouldn't be displayed in public.

$GENITALIA = private.

Disagree if you wish... that's just the way I see it.

Re:nuke australia

[pwfffff]

Why is it private, then? What other reason besides obscenity do we cover things up? What reason do you give your kids besides 'I told you so'?

Re:nuke australia

[pwfffff]

Why not?

Re:nuke australia

[HeronBlademaster]

Religion. (And now you're going to complain about how I shouldn't brainwash my children or somesuch. I'm not interested.)

Re:nuke australia

[pwfffff]

Just making sure your decisions were based in reality (they weren't).

Re:nuke australia

[selven]

despite being quite a bit uglier

That's what a bull thinks of a human breast.

Re:nuke australia

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure they won't have sex till they're married either... good luck with that.

Re:nuke australia

[Anonymous Coward]

despite being quite a bit uglier

Maybe to you!

Re:Don't click the last link then scroll to the en

[mea37]

???

Don't know what PG means in .au, but around here it's generally accepted to mean "yeah, maybe a baby shouldn't see it, but basically kid-friendly; parents with particular sensitivities WRT what their child sees might want to keep an eye on it".

I applaud ACMA's decision -- it's great news:

[jeffb (2.718)]

First, it shines a brighter-than-usual light upon the stupidity of "censorship watchdogs".

Second, it antagonizes a company with a lot of money and a lot of public-relations skill. If you're in the censorship business, I'm happy to see you make large, powerful and articulate enemies.

Re:Don't click the last link then scroll to the en

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Perhaps it means that the kids should perform such activities only under parental guidance. *ducks*

Re:Don't click the last link then scroll to the en

[ComaVN]

My bad for assuming that parental guidance implied that minors shouldn't be able to access it without parental permission. Anyway, the article is written *against* censorship, so I'd expect them to be happy for Robert Mapplethorpe instead of calling it a bizarre decision.

I blame the summary :P

Their system is easy, quit complaining

[Anonymous Coward]

It's either:

Child Porn or Not Child Porn

Re:Their system is easy, quit complaining

[oahazmatt]

It's either: Child Porn or Not Child Porn

Lord help us if Larry Clark gets to make that decision.

Re:Don't click the last link then scroll to the en

[Stenchwarrior]

Man, that guy looks like he's doing an anal dental exam on that chick.

Re:Don't click the last link then scroll to the en

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for the warning though, this story needs an NSFW tag.

Or maybe people should stop getting worked up about nothing and grow a pair. Stop feeling guilty just for looking at pictures.

I thought the news item was about animals

[redNuht]

The headline starts with "Australia's Bizarre... ", so I just assumed it would be about cattle-eating bats or something.

Re:I thought the news item was about animals

[mcgrew]

I thought they were just relying on their spill chuckers and it was about Bazaars in Australia.

Re:I thought the news item was about animals

[DavidRawling]

I thought they were just relying on their spill chuckers and it was about Bazaars in Australia.

Atually, New Zealand is the country with "spill chuckers" ...

Re:Don't click the last link then scroll to the en

[Bigjeff5]

You're thinking of the PG-13 rating or the R rating. PG is the second lowest rating, and movies rated such are considered harmless by most. Also not that the rating system only actually applies to movies, they are set by a secret group of "parents" in the MPAA, but the structure is so well known it often gets applied to other things, like photographs and web sites and such.

In the US the ratings are as follows: G - General audiences, PG - Parental Guidance, PG-13 - parents strongly cautioned, no admittance under age 13 without parental consent, R - Restricted, no admittance under 17 without parental consent and in the company of an adult, and NC-17 - No Children under 17, kids under 17 can't get in, parents or no.

It's rare for a movie to be rated NC-17 that isn't a porno, in which case they tend to go all out for the X-XXX ratings, as an NC-17 rating for a non-porn is generally a death sentance unless you have a following before the movie even airs.

inevitable

[ouder]

Any attempt to impose censorship will inevitably lead to bizarre and ironic situations. People who want censorship usually think that the world is a simple place with black and white decisions about right and wrong. Reality smacks you in the face when you try to apply what seems like a simple concept to actual situations.

Re:Don't click the last link then scroll to the en

[Anonymous Coward]

What's with everybody acting as though a warning is too much to ask for? maybe I'm at work and others can see my screen? maybe i'm at home, the computer is in the lounge, and my whole family is in the same room watching tv? maybe it's just inappropriate for some people to have giant gaping anus on their screens right now?

Grow up.

Point?

[sexconker]

The ACMA is using adapting a set of rules taken from net nanny software and is tweaking and applying them to Australia's national internet censorship system.

The current internet censorship rules don't match up with other restrictions you see in the real world.

The Classification Board which has nothing to do with the ACMA thinks we should all see nasty shit by some "artist".

There is literally no news here.

- Censorship sucks, and it's done in shitty ways. When it's done by the government, expect it to be done as cheaply (for those doing the work) and lazily as possible.
- Censorship often doesn't make sense.
- Censorship will never cover everything.
- There's always some asshole who wants you to shove his dick or anus in your face.

Trade Agreement Violation

[Anonymous Coward]

The films are also banned on the internet but not at local video/DVD stores as detailed in this Whirlpool Forum post.

Seems like grounds to bring a case against Australia with the World Trade Organization. A country using differential laws with respect to global and local economy is a violation of the trade agreement.

"not for the fainthearted" vs NSFW

[Icegryphon]

As for how about letting someone else click the link first and wait for the results?
As anyone who has spent any amount of time on the *chan sites or Forums in general.
Don't fail for the obvious

No arguing

[cbraescu1]

If one starts arguing about where the "good" limits of censorship should be then it basically agrees with censorship as a whole.

Re:Don't click the last link then scroll to the en

[LearnToSpell]

I can hear them saying it. No wonder we're way behind on this project.

Re:Don't click the last link then scroll to the en

[Coren22]

Um, I don't think that is a chick...

Re:Don't click the last link then scroll to the en

[mcgrew]

Ducks? You're doing ducks? Dude, eww....

Re:Don't click the last link then scroll to the en

[Stenchwarrior]

awww sonofabitch

elitism is not populism

[circletimessquare]

it is a form of narcissism: my qualifications for cultural consumption are superior to your qualifications for cultural consumption. there is also an element of deficiency in the ego associated with the idea attaching a sense of superiority to arbitrary obscure qualifications

having said that, taking what elitists think is superior seriously is a form of trolling, where you are the trolled. because the only thing worse than an elitist is someone who wishes cultural conformity on everyone. not everyone likes what you do, and some of what they like is indeed quite laughable, but cultural conformity is far worse

in the end, don't hate elitists, ignore them. they are harmless, while your disgust with them is not harmless. your disgust for them has been the opening act in many horrible atrocities in this world

Re:Don't click the last link then scroll to the en

[Anonymous Coward]

What's with everybody acting as though "not for the faint hearted" means puppies and flowers or something? What the fuck did you expect to see?

Re:Don't click the last link then scroll to the en

[Hurricane78]

Damn, now I HAVE to click that link. Can't... stand... the... curiosity...

Re:Don't click the last link then scroll to the en

[Hurricane78]

Story of your life? *ducks*

Re:Don't click the last link then scroll to the en

[cibyr]

But this story is about Australia, and we don't have a PG-13 rating.

Our ratings are (for those too lazy to click the link): G, PG, M, MA15+, R18+, and X18+. G, PG and M have no restrictions. People under 15 are not permitted to purchase or rent films or video games classified MA15+ unless they are accompanied by a parent or adult guardian. People under 18 may not buy, rent or exhibit films rated R18+. X18+ is the same as R18+ but is used for porn and illegal is some states. Anything that is "Refused Classification" is banned.

Boycott Australia

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm boycotting australian products from now until they are uncensored. Don't let them lead the way for other countries to do this.

Re:Don't click the last link then scroll to the en

[Anonymous Coward]

After the fourth repetition, I burst into song and started singing the Tigger song. Halp!

Re:Don't click the last link then scroll to the en

[clone53421]

Gee, let's see if I can explain this to an idiot like you.

"Neither": Puppies! Flowers!
"Not for the faint-hearted": Kittens with spike high heels rammed through their skulls
"NSFW": Beautiful ladies with exposed breasts
"Both": Goatse (or TFA)

There's plenty of news that turns your stomach but won't get you fired (needless to say, not for the faint of heart). It'd be nice if the NSFW links were marked as such independent of how revolting or benign they were.