Censorship: have your say

Here’s a chance to have you say on censorship in Australia. You can either make your own, separate submission, or contribute to CLA’s submission, to the Senate inquiry now under way into Australia’s Classification (that is, censorship) scheme.

Censorship: have your say

Here’s a chance to have you say on censorship in Australia.

You can either make your own, separate submission, or contribute to CLA’s submission, to the Senate inquiry now under way into Australia’s Classification (that is, censorship) scheme.

CLA will be making a major contribution to the upcoming debate, during 2011, on Australia’s censorship regime. We plan to lay down a seminal paper, which addresses the concept of censorship through research and analysis, and identifies major issues to resolve to produce an improved system that works in everyone’s best interest.

We’re actively soliciting additional ideas if anyone has anything you would like to contribute (see full terms of reference below).

If you feel strongly about (and you have a decent argument why) any of the points on the terms of reference, please send us your thoughts. It need not be an article – just a series of well-ordered dot points would do ¬– we’ll take them on board, especially if it is an idea, concept or angle we hadn’t thought of.

As you can see from the outline below, there will be scope to include the ideas of individuals within the CLA paper.

The CLA submission will be along these lines:

• Introduce the idea of classification, it’s purpose, the Australian system and comparative systems overseas.

• What requirements does a government need to be able to have such a system, etc.

• Philosophy: why do we even feel the need to classify at all?

• What is a child? Why do we feel they aren’t competent?

• What does it mean to take offence?

• Evolution of these ideas over written history. Why much of our ‘intuition’ is wrong, as research shows. What useful actions can be taken against material that is clearly ethically wrong.

• How even well intentioned censorship has been used to suppress minorities.

• The media effects model (monkey see, monkey do) on which much of the panic around media is built. Why it’s a poor theory. Lack of evidence, problems with appealing to emotion.

• Large sections dealing with the competence of children, alternative sexualities and consensual pornography. Importance of good sex education as the solid conclusion from research.

• …then the individual points of the terms of reference in light of all of the above.

• Finally, recommendations, conclusion, etc.

The CLA paper will be about 50-70 pages, with analysis and conclusions backed with evidence to counter the standard emotion-based claims of moral crusaders.

If you’d like to contribute, please send your material to:
mailto:secretary@cla.asn.au

FROM THE OFFICIAL INQUIRY WEBSITE:

Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee
Inquiry into the Australian film and literature classification scheme

On 16 November 2010 the Senate referred the following matter to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee for inquiry and report.
Submissions should be received by 04 March 2011. Reporting date is 30 June 2011.

Terms of Reference
The Australian film and literature classification scheme, with particular reference to: 

a) the use of serial classifications for publications;

b) the desirability of national standards for the display of restricted publications and films;

c) the enforcement system, including call-in notices, referrals to state and territory law enforcement agencies and follow-up of such referrals;

d) the interaction between the National Classification Scheme and customs regulations;

e) the application of the National Classification Scheme to works of art and the role of artistic merit in classification decisions;

f) the impact of X18+ films, including their role in the sexual abuse of children;

g) the classification of films, including explicit sex or scenes of torture and degradation, sexual violence and nudity as R18+;

h) the possibility of including outdoor advertising, such as billboards, in the National Classification Scheme;

i) the application of the National Classification Scheme to music videos;

j) the effectiveness of the ‘ARIA/AMRA Labelling Code of Practice for Recorded Music Product Containing Potentially Offensive Lyrics and/or Themes’;

k) the effectiveness of the National Classification Scheme in preventing the sexualisation of children and the objectification of women in all media, including advertising;

l) the interaction between the National Classification Scheme and the role of the Australian Communications and Media Authority in supervising broadcast standards for television and Internet content;

m) the effectiveness of the National Classification Scheme in dealing with new technologies and new media, including mobile phone applications, which have the capacity to deliver content to children, young people and adults;

n) the Government’s reviews of the Refused Classification (RC) category; and

o) any other matter, with the exception of the introduction of a R18+ classification for computer games which has been the subject of a current consultation by the Attorney-General’s Department.

http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/legcon_ctte/classification_board/info.htm

See also:
http://www.cla.asn.au/index.php/2010/bumbling-ministers-want-2nd-inquiry
Apparently, the bumbling ‘legal’ ministers, AG McClelland and Home Affairs O’Connor, were unaware of the Senate inquiry when, one month later on 10 Dec 2010, they agreed to refer the same issue – the need to cope in the classification scheme with technological change – to the Australian Law Reform Commission.

NOTE: Software engineer Arved von Brasch is leading the CLA submission process to ensure that CLA’s analysis and recommendations are compatible with new technology, and are not only legally-based.