Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
typodupeerror delete not in
  • Preferences

Comments: 235 +-   New Australian Laws To Censor Terror DVDs on Monday April 16 2007, @04:43PM

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Monday April 16 2007, @04:43PM
from the jihad-on-free-speech dept.
censorship
An anonymous reader writes "Within a few weeks, Australia may introduce new laws to censor films and literature deemed by the government to be supportive of terrorism. This is not the first time material has been censored in Australia, which has previously censored films and banned publications, including one titled Defence of the Muslim Lands (censored in mid 2006 by Attorney-General Phillip Ruddock). The proposed laws are aimed to target material such as a DVD by Feiz Mohammad containing some of his past controversial sermons calling for jihad and comparing Jews with pigs. The Office of Film and Literature Classification previously classified this DVD as 'PG', suitable for viewing by anyone under 15 years of age with parental guidance."
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

New Australian Laws To Censor Terror DVDs 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Oh really? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 16 2007, @04:47PM (#18757407)

    deemed by the government to be supportive of terrorism.

    Will that include archival news and documentary footage about the US funding of the taliban and Iran contra?

    Censor only those who would censor!

  • What counts as "terrorist" ideas? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Lockejaw (955650) on Monday April 16 2007, @04:48PM (#18757421)
    First, "terrorist" means radical Islam.
    Next, "terrorist" means minority party.

  • Let the terrorists identify themselves (Score:3, Interesting)

    by cyberianpan (975767) on Monday April 16 2007, @04:55PM (#18757589)
    Smarter just to let the terrorists have their DVDs legally. You can easily track the distribution for intelligence gathering purposes. Furthermore even if you fail tracking the distribution say you do a covert house search & find such DVDs: at least, at operational level, this points you out to be on right track. Also post doing a house raid if at least you find some "terrorist paraphenalia" you can allay community fears that the bust was random/purely motivated by racial profiling.
    • "on the right track" for a legally purchased DVD?

      Curiousity leads many people to many things, including terrorist videos. How does it make me a terrorist if I want to watch Die Hard as an example of how to take over a building with a small special ops team?

    • Re:Let the terrorists identify themselves (Score:4, Interesting)

      by ArcherB (796902) * on Monday April 16 2007, @05:24PM (#18758179) Journal
      Smarter just to let the terrorists have their DVDs legally. You can easily track the distribution for intelligence gathering purposes. Furthermore even if you fail tracking the distribution say you do a covert house search & find such DVDs: at least, at operational level, this points you out to be on right track. Also post doing a house raid if at least you find some "terrorist paraphenalia" you can allay community fears that the bust was random/purely motivated by racial profiling.

      I would agree, but could you imagine what would happen if the FBI (or Australian equivalent) started demanding the sales records from the local video stores? Hell, people don't want the FBI looking at library records and libraries are tax payer funded!!!

    • Censor != ban (Score:5, Informative)

      by mr_matticus (928346) on Monday April 16 2007, @05:32PM (#18758359)
      According to TFA, all they're talking about is changing the designation of films from PG to higher ratings by the *film censors* and not about banning the film from sale or distribution or anything of the sort. The proposed bill would simply require certain topics to have higher censor ratings.

      Any free-thinking adult can still buy them.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Repton (60818)

        As I understand it, if the government censor refuses to classify a DVD, then you cannot legally buy it in Australia.

  • The proposed laws are aimed to target material such as a DVD by Feiz Mohammad

    Wow - Who does this guy know in government to do him such a favor?

    If the US government did this, I'd own his complete works a week later. Hell, I've never even heard of him, and even the threat of another supposedly-1st-world government banning him makes me at least curious.



    Good job, guys - Someday, you'll learn that for some problems, ignoring them will do a whole lot more to make them go away than active intervention ev

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Reziac (43301) *
      Dear Government:

      Sales are slumping... Please ban my works!!

      • So it's fine if you're reactionary, but if a government is that's bad?

        Reactionary? As opposed to what, exactly - Bending over and tacking it complacently, like a "good" citizen?

        But anyway... Yes, actually, although I'd prefer to call it "civilly disobedient". The individual people can do a lot that we absolutely must not ever let the government get away with. I do not have the power to oppress the populace.
  • 1. Make home movie
    2. ???
    3. Every teenager wants it! Profit!

    Thank you Australia for missing in the lost step in our business model!

  • That's so dumb. It just gets them attention (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Animats (122034) on Monday April 16 2007, @05:04PM (#18757769) Homepage

    Incredibly dumb move. It just draws attention to some material that probably sucks.

    Back in 1989, during the 2 Live Crew [wikipedia.org] censorship controversy, I remarked, after listening to their stuff, that without the censorship, they would have never made it off the South Florida club circuit. With the censorship controversy, they hit #29 on the Billboard 200. But by 1991, they'd peaked, and broke up around 1992. There was a "New 2 Live Crew", which went nowhere and broke up in 1995, a reunion in 1998, and another reunion in 2005. Nobody cared much. Wikipedia says "The two core members are still popular within the Miami Bass community and Dancehall goers".

    Or, in other words, they're back on the South Florida club circuit where they belong. Censorship gave them their 15 minutes of fame.

  • How long will it be... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Eric Damron (553630) on Monday April 16 2007, @05:06PM (#18757799)
    And how long will it be until some religious zealots includes such films as "The Wizard of Oz" because you know the wicked Witch of the West was doing all sorts of things that might be considered "terrorism." Oh, and that Harry potter series THAT has got to go and...
  • I wonder if they'll include "The Passion of the Christ" in this?

    I mean it is a film of a man being tortured for two hours...

    • Nah, it'll just get shelved in the "adult only" section of the video store with the other fetish stuff.
    • To be fair, it does have an MA15+ rating in Australia and probably had to be edited to escape an R18+ rating.

  • It's a non-event (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kocsonya (141716) on Monday April 16 2007, @05:14PM (#18757991)
    If it was up to the current junta one should not read anything but the Bible and should not watch anything but romantic comedies and action films where the all-around good American hero beats/shoots/blows the shit out of all enemies of freedom and democracy or possibly where friendship and courage paves the way to a better future and/or eliminates all vampires, evil aliens and those who do not vote the right (pun intended) way.

    Don't forget that this is a country which took Fatcat, a children's programme featuring a big cat off screen on the basis that the cat had no clothes and thus indecently exposed him/herself (hard to know with a cat costume, really) to innocent children. On the other hand, the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and the Power Rangers were perfectly OK. This is a country where on a BBC science show about the human reproduction pixelised the placenta (held by the reporter, no woman or baby in sight) for its explicite sexual nature...

    There is already a terror censorship on books, now there will be one on DVDs. Business as usual.
  • OK, here goes any karma I may have. First off, I am an Australian. Secondly, I hate our current government, John Howard is George Bushs' lapdog. Thirdly, I totally agree with these measures, if indeed they become law. Why, I hear you ask? Simple, really. People, there are serious NUTJOBS running around, not only in Oz, but all over the world. Why should we as a community fan the flames of their insanity by providing them with inflammatory video material? I see absolutely no redeeming qualities in any pro-te

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by markbt73 (1032962)
      I disagree 100%. The way to counter insanity is to refute it, not ban it. Banning it only promotes it. Dangerous ideas need to have the harsh light of reason shone on them to explain why they're so dangerous. Censorship is what really fans the flames of these ideas. No subject should be taboo, especially the dangerous ones.
  • Ripped Off! That war cost Aussies $3 Billion and now they won't let us watch the movie?

    Here's an Idea: Why don't don't they get SONY to distribute the Terror videos?

    Most 'customers' would find it doesn't work on their video player. When they try to watch it on their PC, they get a SONY RootKit.
    Now imagine the look on Osamas face when he sees a 'Spyware Detected' Popup. I can't think of a faster way to flush a band of Mujahadeen out of their cave.

  • But the British Empire never gave its subjects one...

    Then, again, even the Free Speech-protecting Constitution is no guarantee of Free Speech, as the presence of rather draconian laws against possessing child pornography in America demonstrates...

    We may all be revolted by the child pornography, but we have to remember, that the defense of pornography in general (Larry Flint et al.) was based on the Free Speech argument — not on the usefulness of the art or anything like it.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Shihar (153932)
      The laws against child porn in the US are defended on the ground that the act of making the child porn itself is illegal. You CAN own fake child porn (i.e. hand drawn or CGI with no real people). The Supreme Court even recently struck down a law trying to make CGI child porn illegal. It is the fact that it is illegal to strip a kid naked and have sex with him/her that makes owning child porn illegal, not because it is an unacceptable form of free speech. You can write the sickest and most twisted child

  • One rule for you, one for Him (Score:4, Informative)

    by KeensMustard (655606) on Monday April 16 2007, @05:39PM (#18758463)
    Him in this case, being radio broadcaster Alan Jones [abc.net.au], darling of the ruling Liberal Party, who has recently been convicted of encouraging violence against Muslims in remarks he made before the Cronulla Riots last year.This conviction has resulted in a review of the broadcasting guidelines [dcita.gov.au] by Helen Coonan, federal Communications Minister, who indicated she thought the judgement wrong.

    • I guess it's ok to incite hatred and violence, provided it's directed at Muslims
    • I guess it's ok to call other Australians scum, as long as they are Muslim

  • Very Welcome Promotion (Score:3, Insightful)

    by heretic108 (454817) on Monday April 16 2007, @05:42PM (#18758537)
    Any banning of the Sheik Feiz DVDs will only boost their popularity amongst disgruntled western suburbs muslim youth. Illegality increases desirability. And the 'cheap dvd burner' genie has already escaped from the bottle.

    What's needed to counter this is not repression - "repress a religion, and it will flourish" (Frank Herbert), but a social outreach campaign to seek to discover why these pissed-off young westies are so easy to reach, and how to entice them into other less destructive outlets for their energies.

  • No such thing as a free ride (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mrshowtime (562809) on Monday April 16 2007, @06:01PM (#18758865)
    Censorship is a beauty only held in the eye of the beholder. Take for example the "Nappy headed Ho's" off the cuff remark by Imus. Press conferences were held, meetings with the governor and Imus were held, the "Ho's" in question went on Oprah, and also Jesse Jackson wants the word "Nigger" actually banned. BUT, some jagoff can produce a dvd/post on the internet calling for the DEATHS of the Jews, and actually incite violence against another race and religion, but nobody cares. There is no such thing as a totally "free" society. Saying you hate Jews and calling them pigs is one thing. Inciting others to kill, or attack a religion or race is not something that should be allowed but is, especially if the "free speech" advocates are Islamic Extremists.

  • NATO Terrorism (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MrSteveSD (801820) on Monday April 16 2007, @07:27PM (#18760203)
    Imagine I make two DVDs. In the first DVD I argue that it was quite right and proper for NATO to bomb the Serbian TV station during the Kosovo crisis. I argue that although some 15 civilians were killed, it was a legitimate target since it was a Serbian propaganda tool (which is what NATO argued). On the second DVD I argue that it was quite right and proper for the IRAQ to bomb the BBC because the BBC is a tool of British propaganda.

    Both should be condemned as terrorist acts and their justifications dismissed. Governments are just as capable of committing terrorist acts as small non-government groups are. The problem is we allow governments to get away with it time and time again, whereas we actually make some effort to pursue the "small guys".
    • This just allows them to switch from spending their time burning DVDs to spending their time cutting the heads off of US Servicemen in Iraq.
    • They'll probably just switch to distribution channels that have no government oversight (e.g. leave them on doorknobs like fliers).

    • Re:Optimistically... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by h4rm0ny (722443) <h4rm0ny AT tarddell DOT net> on Monday April 16 2007, @04:59PM (#18757683) Journal

      So instead of being able to counter racist propaganda with reasoned debate and counter evidence, it all goes underground and spreads unchallenged and unopposed.

      Saying that people you disagree with are not allowed to talk makes it look as though you are unable to counter what they say.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Leibel (768832)
        What you say is true about rational people. Ever tried to debate irrational people? Logic and common sense do not prevail.

        Not that I support censorship in general, but I see this as far more appropriate to censor than almost anything else that's already being censored. All the other stuff is just fiction.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward
          Rational people do not exist, except in your fevered imagination.

          Humans are rationalizing beings, not rational beings.

        • No censorship. (Score:5, Insightful)

          by shmlco (594907) on Monday April 16 2007, @06:06PM (#18758937) Homepage
          You're not debating with the fanatics who're producing the material. You're presenting your counter-claims and viewpoints to the OTHER people who might be listening to them.

          Besides, where is the line drawn? When you allow the government to "censor films and literature deemed by the government to be supportive of terrorism", does that mean the DVDs used as an example? Or does that also include any news story that mentions any weaknesses in any industry, port, airline, or in safety procedues? Any news story critical of the military or armed forces? Any book or website that in any way, discusses anything that conceivably (or inconceivably) could be used as a weapon?

          Is disagreeing with your government's stance on terrorism "supportive of terrorism"?

          Is all of our news subject to redaction by official goverment goons?

          Sorry, but censorship is not "appropriate".

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by Merusdraconis (730732)
            You're not debating with the fanatics who're producing the material. You're presenting your counter-claims and viewpoints to the OTHER people who might be listening to them.

            Who, if they're going to be taking that stuff seriously, are probably also irrational and impossible to engage in a debate.

            While censorship can easily be a slippery-slope, you have to remember that in Australia there are still checks and balances in place. While free speech is enshrined in America, it sometimes seems like that's the only
          • Sorry, but censorship is not "appropriate".

            Agreed. C'mon Aussie, don't let your politicians set a precedent for other nations (like NZ!) to follow. Make some noise and get it repealed, 'cause you guys are better than that.

            --
            Don't call it "terrorism", because I'm not afraid.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by RexRhino (769423)

          What you say is true about rational people. Ever tried to debate irrational people? Logic and common sense do not prevail.
          Anyone who disagrees with me is obviously irrational, and hateful. Lock those bastards up!

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Tyreth (523822)
        If these things go underground quietly, then it will be as good as winning a debate. People won't see it or hear about it, won't think about it.

        If it enters public discussion, it gives the impression that there are two sides to the debate. And if there are two sides to the debate, then it seems rational for a person to sit on either side, so long as they have some reasons to give (whether or not they are good).

        Censoring this DVD will go a long way towards stopping the ideas from spreading...much more so t

    • Re:Optimistically... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 16 2007, @05:01PM (#18757711)
      Do religious videos that convince young people to terrorize people who are different them (say, gay people) considered terror videos? Or do they only mean terror videos that involve someone else's god and belief system?

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by TheDugong (701481)
          WTF?

          He is the attorney general, not governor general, elected like any other member of parliament.

          He is an arsehole, not for the incorrect reasons you have given, but because he is a borderline fascist.

          "And why people voted to keep us under a monach I will never know."

          Perhaps because they were confused like you? More probably they realised that having as many checks and balances as possible is a good thing for normal people.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Reducing how much exposure such DVDs get may reduce how many are produced, which is hard to argue as a bad thing.

      Most of the people producing these things aren't doing it for money. They're doing it because they're true believers. If we give the appearance that any idea, no matter how controversial or stupid, is being suppressed it will only generate more interest in it.

      Look at holocaust denial. Everyone who knows anything about the subject knows that the holocaust happened, but giving the appearance of sup
      • In any given human conflict, the attacked side will end up mirroring the enemy to win.
        The Bolsheviks are the most obvious case of this- attacking the Czar for classism and his secret police, then setting up the NKVD/KGB and creating a two-class society of party members and dead people.
        But also look at the American Revolution- setting up the Constitution in reaction to what they saw as broken about the Magna Carta.
        The Islamic extremists are mimicing thier mythology about what the Zionists want to do to them.
        Evil always begets evil, no matter what.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by QuantumG (50515)
      Err.. you mean GTA3.. there were a bunch of GTA games before it ya know.

      I really don't think this is the same kind of censorship. GTA3 was removed from store shelves because it failed to meet the required classification of "Mature" and there is no "Restricted" rating for video games.

      This, on the other hand, is the deliberate surpression of political speech under the guise of "terrorism".

      If you wanna compare the lack of R ratings for video games to something, compare it to our stupid "net bet" laws. Fuckin
    • The Australian Government banned Duke Nukem 3D!

      This isn't a new thing.

              • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

                by ShieldW0lf (601553)
                Religion has a utility.

                If you're dealing with a bunch of peasants who are too primitive and uneducated to be able to behave in a fashion that is in their own long term self interest, religion will allow a wise man to say to his fellows "Forget why we should live this way, GOD said to live this way, so do it." and they do.

                This will allow them to behave in a co-ordinated fashion, and that is going to provide them benefits.

                But it makes them sheep.

                If you follow a religion, you're following a cult of a dead wise
Search
'Tis the dream of each programmer, Before his life is done, To write three lines of APL, And make the damn things run.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.