Subscribe: Comments for Somebody Think Of The Children
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade B rated
Language: English
acma  blacklist  board  censorship  classification  comment  film  films  internet censorship  internet  interpol  list  mardi gras  sex  websites 
Rate this Feed
Rate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feed
Rate this feed 1 starRate this feed 2 starRate this feed 3 starRate this feed 4 starRate this feed 5 star

Comments (0)

Feed Details and Statistics Feed Statistics
Preview: Comments for Somebody Think Of The Children

Comments for Somebody Think Of The Children

Australian Censorship Discussion Blog

Last Build Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2012 02:10:09 +0000


Comment on Australia’s Mandatory Internet Filtering plan scrapped in favour of INTERPOL block list by Matthew

Sat, 10 Nov 2012 02:10:09 +0000

There was an article published in the Sydney Morning Herald back on 20/7/11 by Asher Moses; Of note; “The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) confirmed it was building a list of URLs that “potentially contains child abuse material” and having them formally reviewed by the Classification Board. Sites on the blacklist have been categorised by the Board as “ACMA – ISP FILTERING”. [….] While ACMA's blacklist is separate to the Interpol list the government says it sees filtering the Interpol blacklist as just an “interim step” while ACMA's list is being prepared.” More at Irene Graham’s site; I still don’t trust the government at all on this. It seems to me that this a backdoor way of getting internet censorship through. Also the question not being asked is why is there a Interpol Blacklist in the first place? First child pornography is illegal to distribute practically everywhere in the world. Second, servers exist in physical places and are subject to laws of where they physically are. Police in countries where this material is stored can’t ask owners of servers to delete the material? Oh come on! Irene Graham on the Whirlpool Forums in regard of the Interpol list; “FWIW, imo Conroy's 1400 sites number is not credible, unless there's a lot of dead sites on the list he's talking about. The UK IWF's (Internet Watch Foundation) calendar year 2011 Annual Report states that during that year: •they had known of CSA URLs hosted "on 1,595 domains worldwide" •"the list contained an average of 602 URLs per day over the 12 month period" (and for years they've been saying it averages around 500 URLs per day) •50% of URLs were taken down within 10 days, and 95% within 45 days. IWF's CSA criteria is vastly, vastly broader than the criteria used by Interpol. In November 2010, a Danish police officer said there were then 246 domains on the Interpol list.” Is it seriously worth risking IWF cock ups ( or worse for a measly 246 websites? The whole justification for this censorship makes no sense to me.

Comment on Australia’s Mandatory Internet Filtering plan scrapped in favour of INTERPOL block list by Mike

Thu, 08 Nov 2012 21:34:16 +0000

The original scope of the plan was considerably worse. Providing the ACMA list is not included, the list of websites from INTERPOL is by my understanding much less devastating in terms of impacts on free speech. Under no circumstances is any form of Internet blacklist welcome news, but the fact legislation that would have seen the ACMA blacklist used as the source of what we can and can't see has been dropped, I consider that a welcome development.

Comment on Australia’s Mandatory Internet Filtering plan scrapped in favour of INTERPOL block list by Womp

Thu, 08 Nov 2012 21:22:45 +0000

It is anything but welcome news. The australian people said they didn´t want censorship, and Parliament would not have approved censorship. Conroy has basically spat in the face of all Australians and Parliament. He has turned the AFP into his own personal thought Police and bastardised the law. The section of the Act Conroy is using is intended for use in Police enforcement of active Police investigations, it is NOT intended to have any political, or even safety, uses. We now have censorship we didn´t want, of sites we don´t know, controlled by unkown people in many other countries, and as with all Internet censorship it just plain doesn´t work.

Comment on Australia bans small breasts by cameron

Thu, 08 Nov 2012 10:25:31 +0000

I find this whole thing appalling to tell us what is natural is not normal, and larger girls and to be normal. I have a few best friends who are very small cupped and suffering from insecurity from the media, in my opinion they are the greatest friends i've ever have, why should they have this perfect body type idea feed to them. And I love how they look cute and the fact there using the scapegoat of pedo's to marginalize the media its sick to he'll with this band

Comment on Movies you won’t see at the 2012 Mardi Gras Film Festival by dirtyredfox

Mon, 27 Feb 2012 01:46:26 +0000

As a classification board member for seven years, I understand the disappointment of Lindsay, however it is a little naive to still be bleating the same sentiments over and over again. The Board is unable to allow films with real sex into the R18+ classification. It has nothing to do with a 'stringent interpretation' of the Act....the guidelines are very clear on the issue and state that sexual activity should be simulated (as opposed to actual). While some films containing actual sex have been allowed into the R18+ category over the years, the decision has always come down to frequency, detail and generally, what is considered reasonable. The Board is constantly criticised for squeezing R18+ computer games into the MA15+ classification whilst also being ridiculed for failing to allow X18+ films into the R18+ category. Basically, "X is for sex" - you can argue until blue in the face, but get out the dictionary and see for yourself the meanings of the words 'actual', 'explicit' and 'simulated'. There really is no wriggle room unless the real sex is infrequent and fleeting. Lengthy depictions of any sort of explicit sex is always going to fail the test at R18+ and while I sympathise with those who want to see these films, it really is unsurprising when these sorts of decisions emerge -and film makers are very much aware of what the Board can and cannot accept. Stretching the meanings of 'actual sex' in the ways in which directors would like, would only cause more problems for our classification system. Creators of X18+ rated product would then have very good grounds for arguing their material into the R18+ classification - and we all know where this would lead. The public must advocate for law reform the proper way - the Board cannot change the law, they merely apply it. And trust me, when it comes to real sex at R18+, there really is very little room to move. Unfortunate, but true.

Comment on Movies you won’t see at the 2012 Mardi Gras Film Festival by Bob Bain

Sun, 26 Feb 2012 01:08:48 +0000

Man at Bath - although sexually explicit is being screened. ADVISORY NOTE: This film contains some explicit sexual content. Tuesday Feb 28, Dendy Newtown, 9pm

Comment on Movies you won’t see at the 2012 Mardi Gras Film Festival by Bob Bain

Sat, 25 Feb 2012 23:52:08 +0000

The email address of Brian Kent has seemingly been lost in posting my response:- ref:!/bob_bain/status/173552307366146048 Bob

Comment on Movies you won’t see at the 2012 Mardi Gras Film Festival by Bob Bain

Sat, 25 Feb 2012 23:32:49 +0000

There are three film in the catalogue "containing sexually explicit content" two of which are mentioned above. A film that was reported in the Sydney Morning Herald as being a film that wouldn't be granted an exemption was "Man At Bath" which as far as I know screens at the Dendy Cinema Newtown (Sydney) on the 28th February 2012 at 9pm. For information regarding this I suggest contacting Brian Kent of the Classification Board who has provided his email address in emailing me in relation to explicit sexual content in films currently on sale in Penrith. Sale of unclassified material - Our ref: 32167, C10/7, C10/160 3rd. February 2011. "Kent, Brian" Background from the Sydney Morning Herald Two of the films, Homme au bain (Man at Bath) and Sagat, feature penetrative sex between men, and In Their Room: Berlin depicts a casual sex encounter during which the actors perform oral sex. Community Action Centre contains frequent sex scenes between transgender individuals, which Mr Lindsay suggested in a submission to the classification board could lead to a possible X-rating. A spokesman for the board, Brian Kent, said organisers of film festivals wishing to screen unclassified films in the festival must apply for an exemption. ''If it is likely that an unclassified film will be X18+ or Refused Classification, the exemption will not be granted,'' he said. Read more: Bob

Comment on ACMA Blacklist leaked, contains legal websites by The Past, Present and Future of Internet Censorship by James Corbett

Mon, 06 Feb 2012 17:39:10 +0000

[...] in early 2009, it included the websites of numerous innocuous Australian businesses, as well as overtly political websites that had no illegal or offending material. The current government has said they would not vote for [...]

Comment on ACMA Blacklist leaked, contains legal websites by Más allá de SOPA: Pasado, presente y futuro de la censura en Internet - Nuevo Orden

Wed, 01 Feb 2012 00:30:47 +0000

[...] bajo el plan, ésta incluía las webs de numerosos negocios australianos inofensivos, así como websites abiertamente políticas que no tenían material ilegal u ofensivo. El actual gobierno ha dicho que no votaría a favor de [...]