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

[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]

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

[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: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

[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: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.

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

[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

[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

[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: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: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: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: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?

[story645]

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

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: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! ;)

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.