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

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?

[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

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

[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

[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: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.

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.