Slashdot Mirror
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."
Great, so now we have goatse links in the fucking articles themselves.
'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.
Unless you want to see artsy goatse.
Seriously, what's bizarre about rating goatse-like pictures as PG?
Be wary of any facts that confirm your opinion.
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.
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?
Liberal? Conservative? Compare perspectives at Left-Right
Artsy goatse...Try saying that 5 times fast...right now...and don't worry, your cubicle neighbors won't question it.
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 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.
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.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
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?
Forgive my spelling from time to time. I'm often posting during short breaks.
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
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
???
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".
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.
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
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
Perhaps it means that the kids should perform such activities only under parental guidance. *ducks*
Ezekiel 23:20
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
Be wary of any facts that confirm your opinion.
Man, that guy looks like he's doing an anal dental exam on that chick.
Loading...
The headline starts with "Australia's Bizarre... ", so I just assumed it would be about cattle-eating bats or something.
It's either: Child Porn or Not Child Porn
Lord help us if Larry Clark gets to make that decision.
Those who believe the Internet is private,
find their privates are on the Internet.
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.
Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
This reminds me of: http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/end
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
If one starts arguing about where the "good" limits of censorship should be then it basically agrees with censorship as a whole.
Catalin Braescu
Ofaly.com
I can hear them saying it. No wonder we're way behind on this project.
Haida Manga
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?
Which children? The ones who were breast-fed until they grew up enough to be taught that breasts are "obscene?"
Haida Manga
Um, I don't think that is a chick...
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
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.
Yeah... they're for feeding babies. That doesn't mean women should go waving their breasts around in people's faces in public.
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.
Comment of the year
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.
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.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Ducks? You're doing ducks? Dude, eww....
Free Martian Whores!
awww sonofabitch
Loading...
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.
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...)
No, but that doesn't mean women should be waving their naked boobs around in public.
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'.
It is what it is.
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.
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."
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
"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?
"babies" != "children"
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.
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'?
Why not?
Religion. (And now you're going to complain about how I shouldn't brainwash my children or somesuch. I'm not interested.)
Just making sure your decisions were based in reality (they weren't).
Damn, now I HAVE to click that link. Can't... stand... the... curiosity...
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Story of your life? *ducks*
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
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.
It's not exactly rocket surgery.
despite being quite a bit uglier
That's what a bull thinks of a human breast.
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.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
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.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.