Censorship and the law...
from 
JoeUser Forums
JoeUser Forums
Okay, so I don’t often comment on current affairs or political issues but there has been a story come up here in Australia in the last few days and I have to put in my 2 cents worth. Basically, this started when a couple of young guys, in a moment of sheer youthful exuberance and with a skin full of alcohol, decided to do some ‘turkey slapping’. This delightful expression, for those of you not familiar with it, is another name for a fairly gross act of indecency.
‘Turkey slapping’ refers to the practice of taking one’s flaccid penis and slapping a usually unwilling person in the face with it. Of course, this involves either holding the intending victim down or having someone else hold the intended victims hands behind them or otherwise incapacitate them.
That the two young men in question were members of this year’s Big Brother household makes this act even more stupid. That they picked one of the girls sharing the house with them to be the victim makes it even more stupid. The incident was never aired on television but was live-streamed to the internet site. While the girl never felt threatened or in danger, the two young men were summarily booted out of the house.
The repercussions from this incident were that a number of prominent conservative politicians called for the banning of the television show. But when the Australian Communications and Media Authority viewed the footage, they rated it MA plus: suitable for viewers aged 15 years or over.
While I don’t in any way support the actions of the two men in question, there is no doubt they never set out to hurt the girl, they had done this because they thought it would be funny and there was never any malice, either sexual or otherwise, intended, although I will say humiliation of this sort could very well be construed as malice, but that is another article.
So, there you have the background.
This week, according to a front-page article in the Sydney Morning Herald, Philip Ruddock, Australia’s federal Attorney-General, was considering a proposal to place new restrictions on reality television shows and to consider banning what he calls ‘hate’ books. This proposal was being put forward as an agenda item at a meeting of attorneys-general this week. By 'hate' books, Mr Ruddock means books inciting or praising terrorism or being otherwise inflammatory and seditious. The books in question had previously been cleared by the police, then by the Classification Board of the Office of Film and Literature Classification, which found the books did not “promote, incite or instruct in matters of crime or violence.” I won't bore you all by regurgitating the main points of the article. If you're interested, have a read. Here is the link to the article: Link
My concern is that if this goes ahead, it does irrevocable damage to the regulatory authorities who would normally control such matters. It also doesn't do the police force's reputation much good either. These regulatory authorities exist for a reason. They are there as watchdogs for the wider community, to make sure the guidelines for taste and morals are not breached and to classify all works of film, music and literature accordingly. Like any system, it does have its weak points and occasionally, inappropriate material might get through. But for the most part, the authorities do their job and do it well.
If Mr Ruddock's proposal goes through, it could very well lead to the style of censorship very few of us would like or support. Banning such books is only going to drive them underground and maybe even give more credibility to what might have been viewed as works with a very narrow demographic. Mr Ruddock is demonising works that at best were viewed as only of interest to a very limited demographic.
I have to ask the question: where does this stop? Would it stop only when some of my favouite books, such as Stranger In A Strange Land, Animal Farm, Farenheit 451 and other works be deemed 'seditious' or 'inciting violence or terrorism' were banned? The Attorneys-general positions have enough on their collective plates without adding this to their list. I would like to see the Australian government and attorneys-general leave the current regulatory authorities to do their job and maintain their current independent stance. Otherwise, as suggested by the Victorian State Attorney-General, we'll end up with endless reruns of 'I Love Lucy'. And I most certainly don't want that.
‘Turkey slapping’ refers to the practice of taking one’s flaccid penis and slapping a usually unwilling person in the face with it. Of course, this involves either holding the intending victim down or having someone else hold the intended victims hands behind them or otherwise incapacitate them.
That the two young men in question were members of this year’s Big Brother household makes this act even more stupid. That they picked one of the girls sharing the house with them to be the victim makes it even more stupid. The incident was never aired on television but was live-streamed to the internet site. While the girl never felt threatened or in danger, the two young men were summarily booted out of the house.
The repercussions from this incident were that a number of prominent conservative politicians called for the banning of the television show. But when the Australian Communications and Media Authority viewed the footage, they rated it MA plus: suitable for viewers aged 15 years or over.
While I don’t in any way support the actions of the two men in question, there is no doubt they never set out to hurt the girl, they had done this because they thought it would be funny and there was never any malice, either sexual or otherwise, intended, although I will say humiliation of this sort could very well be construed as malice, but that is another article.
So, there you have the background.
This week, according to a front-page article in the Sydney Morning Herald, Philip Ruddock, Australia’s federal Attorney-General, was considering a proposal to place new restrictions on reality television shows and to consider banning what he calls ‘hate’ books. This proposal was being put forward as an agenda item at a meeting of attorneys-general this week. By 'hate' books, Mr Ruddock means books inciting or praising terrorism or being otherwise inflammatory and seditious. The books in question had previously been cleared by the police, then by the Classification Board of the Office of Film and Literature Classification, which found the books did not “promote, incite or instruct in matters of crime or violence.” I won't bore you all by regurgitating the main points of the article. If you're interested, have a read. Here is the link to the article: Link
My concern is that if this goes ahead, it does irrevocable damage to the regulatory authorities who would normally control such matters. It also doesn't do the police force's reputation much good either. These regulatory authorities exist for a reason. They are there as watchdogs for the wider community, to make sure the guidelines for taste and morals are not breached and to classify all works of film, music and literature accordingly. Like any system, it does have its weak points and occasionally, inappropriate material might get through. But for the most part, the authorities do their job and do it well.
If Mr Ruddock's proposal goes through, it could very well lead to the style of censorship very few of us would like or support. Banning such books is only going to drive them underground and maybe even give more credibility to what might have been viewed as works with a very narrow demographic. Mr Ruddock is demonising works that at best were viewed as only of interest to a very limited demographic.
I have to ask the question: where does this stop? Would it stop only when some of my favouite books, such as Stranger In A Strange Land, Animal Farm, Farenheit 451 and other works be deemed 'seditious' or 'inciting violence or terrorism' were banned? The Attorneys-general positions have enough on their collective plates without adding this to their list. I would like to see the Australian government and attorneys-general leave the current regulatory authorities to do their job and maintain their current independent stance. Otherwise, as suggested by the Victorian State Attorney-General, we'll end up with endless reruns of 'I Love Lucy'. And I most certainly don't want that.
Look after yourself, mate and thanks for your response.
Funny but so right. This was the main point that came up time and time again in the letters pages to newspapers around the nation when a few of the moralist journalists wrote editorials about how television content needed to have stricter controls.