Oz gov kicks off censorship review For the first time in 20 years, the Australian Federal Government looks intent on updating the National Classification Scheme. Attorney-General Robert McClelland announced that the review would be conducted by the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC), which will conduct a widespread public consultation across the community …
Just being in a minority won't be enough to kill the Firewall. The opposition leader, Tony Abott, and his shadow cabinet have a heavy religious bias, and would probably support it.
The only reason they might oppose it is that they tend to oppose anything the government proposes. But here I think their complaint might be that it doesn't go far enough.
They could, of course, realise that the paternalistic viewpoint inherent in censorship is destructive and outdated. Based on religion and dogma of their 'morals', their views are rejected by most people now. So maybe the best starting point for debate is to remove all censorship from the table and only add back what can be justified objectively.
It's easier to make a case for providing information - but the threat there is less to do with showing a nipple, and more to do with explicitly making it known that information you might be provided with contains lies. Rather than age related limits, what we really need is recognition that the biggest threat to society comes from lies told as fact.
Therefore politicians and murdoch would need to carry classifications of "MB" - Much Bullshit - Warning, this programme contains lies, deceit and should not be taken seriously.
And maybe we should couple that not with an age related censorship paradigm, but and IQ based one. If you are too dumb to sift bullshit from fact, you don't get exposed to the lies because you are not intellectually mature enough.
That would truly help society.
Classification is more than censorship. I am all for classification, where people can check on a product and see that it contains gore / nipples / bullshit, before deciding if they want to watch it, or if their children* should see it.
And +1 for the MB category.
---
* 'children' not because of "won't somebody think of the children", but because adults should be making their own decisions.
"widespread public and community consultation" means standing outside the Baptist and Pentecostal churches on Sunday asking people as they come out if they like child porn. When they say no, their answer is recorded as saying yes to censorship. That's just how this shithole of country rolls.
"McClelland said that review helped to develop the cooperative scheme between the Commonwealth and the States and Territories that exist today."
Does he mean the co-operative scheme that allows a single person in an entire country of 22 million people to block the introduction of the R18+ games rating, that's not co-operation, but then again that's about normal for Australian government.
You mean other than all the other countries where a single person can also block introduction of legislation?
Secondly, the framework under which these changes are required to be made were put in place over 110 years ago during the negotiations for Federation, and not 20 years ago as you imply. In this instance McClellend was refering to the last classification review that introduced the current classification system, one that didn't include much of the media and games we see today. You can't blame a 20 yo system for not including material that hadn't been developed or even mooted.
The political system you deride is a result of the Federation of separate and independent Australian colonies. There was a requirement to appease hesitant smaller colonies (for example the corrupt and incestuous polititians of WA) who feared that their rights and concerns would be trodden on by more powerful states. One of the concessions was that any proposals that encroached on these rights required the agreement of all the states. You may think such a thing is backward, but it ensures that state interests are still respected.
The SA AG has in the past refused to allow the topic of media classification changes to be placed on the agenda at the Standing Committee of Attorneys-Generals meeting, so the proposal has never been debated in order to reach a consensus. It was this sideways blocking that the SA AG had been doing. However he has now resigned and the topic is now on the agenda and being discussed, so what is your fussing about?
The censorship was started by Lib party, they will only bring it further.
"widespread public and community consultation" means ask the f***ing pedo priest in their local child abuse safe heaven - aka church, "do you want to control the population with us together?". Then they pass the law says community all over the country support censorship.
The following program is rated 'I', for an immature audience. It may contain celebrity chefs, apparently ordinary people placed in unusual situations, or C grade talent degrading themselves for your titillation. This content is not recommended for viewing by persons over the age of 15, unless accompanied by a child.
The following program is rated 'EA', for excessive advertising. It may contain long commercial breaks, short program segments, or mindless advertorials masquerading as real content. This program is not recommended for viewers who have retained the capacity for rational thought.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
