Australia's Bizarre Classification System For Internet Censorship 208
stavros-59 writes "Australia's internet censorship watchdog, ACMA, uses an internet classification system originally intended for children's PC filters. ACMA has now made what must be the most amazing recent decisions of the whole bizarre censorship debate. The Register today has a story about ACMA's decision to force Apple to withdraw their ITMS gift feature from Australia on the basis that MA+ (over 15 and maybe sex) rated movies could not be given to children using the gift cards. The films are also banned on the internet but not at local video/DVD stores as detailed in this Whirlpool Forum post. At the same time, the photographic work of Robert Mapplethorpe (not for the fainthearted) has been classified as PG (Parental Guidance) by the Classification Board — which is not part of ACMA, but an agency under the Attorney General's Department."
great (Score:5, Funny)
Great, so now we have goatse links in the fucking articles themselves.
Re:great (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:great (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't be a dumbass. First, this is the Internet and there are unpleasant things here. Second, if your temperament or employer can't handle you looking at grownup stuff, then don't fucking click links labeled "not for the fainthearted". Take a little responsibility for yourself and quit blaming others when your common sense fails you.
Re:great (Score:5, Insightful)
First, this is the Internet and there are unpleasant things here.
Granted, but you don't expect to see goatse-like images linked directly from an article on Slashdot. You wouldn't expect to turn on 60 Minutes and see hard-core pornography, would you?
Second, if your temperament or employer can't handle you looking at grownup stuff, then don't fucking click links labeled "not for the fainthearted".
Generally speaking the employer doesn't care what you look at; they are more concerned about another prude employee seeing you look at it and filing some kind of harassment suit against them. Given all the bullshit lawsuits that go on in this country, I can't say I blame them. Also, "not for the fainthearted" is not a strong enough disclaimer; it doesn't do a good enough job describing what the imagery is. "NSFW" is tried and true.
Re:great (Score:5, Insightful)
Granted, but you don't expect to see goatse-like images linked directly from an article on Slashdot.
That's exactly what I expect to find linked directly from an article on Slashdot. Why do you think no one reads the articles?
Seriously, though, the subject at hand is the censorship of Robert Mapplethorpe. Were you expecting pink unicorns and daffodils? Well, the pink unicorns perhaps, but only in the context of gay S&M.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:great (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:great (Score:5, Informative)
Most workplaces would have no problem with a news article about a gruesome murder or mass killings in some foreign country. Most workplaces would have a problem with a tasteful photo of naked breasts.
Regardless of whether you think that sort of standard is silly, it's the way things are. Violence is okay. Sex is not.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
. Violence is okay. Sex is not.
You must be american.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Violent images do not get employers sued.
Re: (Score:2)
Violent images do not get employers sued yet.
Fixed that for you
Re: (Score:2)
And it won't change, because of people like you. Don't you get that?
I, for one, say: It's the way things are? Says who? And why should I care? I have my own set of values. Sex is the reason we exist. Violence is a reason some don't. Both is natural. But it's perverse, to prefer the latter. Are you perverse, Mr. Boss?
Sure, this way is not for those with a weak reality and no spine. Luckily, not everyone is like that.
(But I stopped to work for others two years ago, started to just do what I love, and attract
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I defined/interpreted faint hearted as NSFW and didn't click the link. Common sense failed you otherwise. Thanks for letting me know it was goatse. Now I'll definitively, send the article to my Australian friends in the office. However, it will likely be filtered.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It wasn't actually goatse.
There are three images. One, a pinky inserted partway into a penis. Second, Saint Thomas inserting his finger into spear-wound in Jesus's chest. Three, a halfway-to-the-elbow anal fisting. That final photo was pretty much as "tame tasteful and artistic" as an explicit fisting photo can reasonably be.
By the way, there is a warning at the top of the page:
*FOR CLASSROOM USE ONLY*
-
Re: (Score:2)
A NSFW tag would have been appreciated
Not safe for work? On the top of the page it says: "FOR CLASSROOM USE ONLY". Are you a teacher?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
A NSFW tag would have been appreciated
NSFW. [slashdot.org] Happy now?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Internet Censorship: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Then criminals will use John Malcovich's Plastic Gun! [liveauctioneers.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry... um... I wasn't trying to be funny... I was serious...
Re: (Score:2)
-- John F. Kennedy
"Censorship reflects a society's lack of confidence in itself."
-- Potter Stewart
Don't click the last link then scroll to the end (Score:3, Informative)
Unless you want to see artsy goatse.
Re:Don't click the last link then scroll to the en (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Don't click the last link then scroll to the en (Score:5, Funny)
Thanks for the warning though, this story needs an NSFW tag.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
???
Don't know what PG means in .au, but around here it's generally accepted to mean "yeah, maybe a baby shouldn't see it, but basically kid-friendly; parents with particular sensitivities WRT what their child sees might want to keep an eye on it".
Re:Don't click the last link then scroll to the en (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Ducks? You're doing ducks? Dude, eww....
Re: (Score:2)
You're thinking of the PG-13 rating or the R rating. PG is the second lowest rating, and movies rated such are considered harmless by most. Also not that the rating system only actually applies to movies, they are set by a secret group of "parents" in the MPAA, but the structure is so well known it often gets applied to other things, like photographs and web sites and such.
In the US the ratings are as follows: G - General audiences, PG - Parental Guidance, PG-13 - parents strongly cautioned, no admittance
Why is that the solution? (Score:2)
Couldn't Apple just implement a method of checking the age of the purchaser for a given movie? Why would they have to disable the gifting feature?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why is that the solution? (Score:4, Insightful)
So is it Apple's job to work out the rating system and age correlation for every country?
No, only the countries in which they want to do business.
Just like anything else, if you want a business presence in a country, you have to abide by that country's laws.
Re:Why is that the solution? (Score:5, Interesting)
"Not for fainthearted" is an understatement (Score:5, Insightful)
"Not for the fainthearted" doesn't quite cover that link as a warning. "(Warning: NSFW and Similar to Goatse)" would have prevented me from clicking and my retinas from being tainted with another tasteless image.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's "high art" because it's in black and white.
Everybody knows that if you take a photo in black and white, it's artistic, be it a man shoving a finger into his penis, going elbow deep into a woman's ass, or what have you.
Totally art.
Excuse me, I think I just threw up a little bit in my mouth.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
He's only one of the most famous photographers in history.
He shouldn't be, I've seen a lot of amature stuff that is frankly, quite a bit better than his work.
It's a sad state of society when what amounts to a fetish porno photographer is considered a top photographer.
Why is his crap artistic? Because he shot in black and white? Seriously, there is a lot of stuff like his out there, and in color. Most people wouldn't consider it "high art". Is it the B&W that makes it art? If so, artsy people are idiots.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Meh, just because it is well known doesn't mean it is any good. You're arguing against personal feelings in an industry that is 100% subjective. Shit is shit, that some people are tittilated by shit isn't really any surprise, but it doesn't mean it's worth much. People buy what they want though, so more power to him.
What is backwards is the fact that a rather benign picture of a pair of breasts will be banned, while a man shoving his fist up a woman's anus is a-ok.
Do you see the disconnect there?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He shouldn't be, I've seen a lot of amature stuff that is frankly, quite a bit better than his work.
"My kid could paint better than that!"
You're showing a complete and utter lack of what art is. Like most who haven't studied it, you likely say "I don't know what art is, but I know what I like." I had an instructor once who was fond of saying "I don't know what I like, but I know what art is".
I wrote a parody of art, art school, and the art world [kuro5hin.org] back in 1997 and posted it on my now defunct web site. I poste
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm glad we degraded into offensive talk. I would very much doubt much correlation between living in mom's basement to not having seen this image before. I would expect a much higher correlation between heterosexual, of an age range when public funding for displaying his works was not in the media, and/or outside the art community and having not seen this image before. No art museum I've been to has displayed work such as this. Having said that my interests are in tech/science/engineering (thus being on
ignorant politicians (Score:2)
I just want to point out that human history is full of ignorant politicians trying to ban or limit new technology for whatever reason (fear of what they don't understand, protecting business interests, maintain the status quo). But technology has always won in the end.
One of my favorite examples is when the Church banned crossbows. How'd that work out for them?
My point is that we should get upset with them, but we shouldn't overreact. Their stupidity will eventually be overturned.
Re:ignorant politicians (Score:5, Funny)
"One of my favorite examples is when the Church banned crossbows. How'd that work out for them?"
Oh, I dunno. Just how many crossbows do you possess? See! It works! ;)
Physical Media? (Score:3, Interesting)
I always assumed it was just a "gentleman's agreement" to avoid regulation on the film/game industry, but that there was no legal mandate to follow the ratings recommendations. Does anyone know in the US if there is a legal requirement (anywhere?) and likewise in Australia are there restrictions on buying physical DVDs based on their ratings?
Re: (Score:2)
Generally, it is a "gentleman's agreement" in the US. Retailers and theaters will require ID, but that's not a legal requirement, it's just company policy. And, like you suggested, big box stores are usually pretty casual about it, and until recent video game stores were *really* casual about it-- but they've gotten some bad press since the last GTA and, strangely, Halo 2 (which isn't very violent, IMO), so that's changing quickly.
The MPAA and ESRB ratings systems are both run by industry groups, with minim
Re: (Score:2)
ntil recent video game stores were *really* casual about it
Well sure - tell mom that little timmy might not be old enough for the latest Silent Hill game and she'll get mad because you're slowing her down, then she'll come back the next day and get pissed that you sold it to her. You can't really win, so don't even try :)
Re:Physical Media? (Score:4, Informative)
You can't sell porn to minors under obscenity laws [usdoj.gov].
Re:Physical Media? (Score:4, Insightful)
He defined a kid as being 12 and under. Kid = 12. He wouldn't sell to kids. Thus he wouldn't sell to 12 year olds.
Shortly after 12 though their biology will start telling them they should be interested in porno.
And remember, the (English speaking) world's most famous love story / tragedy involves a 14 year old.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
a 14 year old
Juliet was "a fortnight and odd days" shy of fourteen. Faith, I can tell her age unto an hour.
Re: (Score:2)
And remember, the (English speaking) world's most famous love story / tragedy involves a 14 year old.
And also remember that the average person at the time never lived to the age of 40, and any girl who wasn't married by age 18 was an old maid.
Re: (Score:2)
Average life span is such a wonderfully misleading figure. The average life span of those who entered adulthood was much higher than a measly 40 years. Throwing a lot of zeroes in for high infant mortality brings down the total average rather quickly.
And for Juliet, she was already close to being an old maid at 14, most other girls her age were already married. Extended adolescence is a modern ideal.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
*shrug*
At 13 (agreed, it's not 12), my dad and I went on a fishing trip and on the beach one night I found an old Hustler magazine laying amongst some rocks. My dad allowed me to peruse through it so long as I didn't bring it home since he knew my mom wouldn't agree. He also allowed me to use "soft swears" such as "hell", "damn", and even "shit". However, the basic deal was if I was allowed to do this, I had to behave responsibly, as one old enough see and do such things as well. I found that out the mi
Maplethorpe (Score:5, Interesting)
Maplethorpe had an "interesting" career documenting the gay S&M culture of NYC, but as such he is a canonical 20th century photographer. Some of his pics can be very disturbing (ie genitalia mutilations) but he has also taken some fantastic classical nude images. But in a twist of reality he has also taken some of the most beautiful photos of flowers [mapplethorpe.org] that I have ever seen. Hopefully the flowers are not being censored.
One ironic thing about Maplethorpe is that as a teen he struggled to win his fathers approval because of Maplethorpes artistic leanings and his struggle with his obvious gay sexuality. In order to "prove" himself to his father, Maplethrpe joined the most hardcore ROTC unit at his college and the irony was in the hazing routine - pure homoerotic S&M. So he seemed to be doomed! It all makes for his biography to be an interesting read
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
One ironic thing about Maplethorpe
One ironic thing about your post is that you know so much about Mapplethorpe, but cannot spell his name.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Maplethorpe (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not even 30 yet, and quite frankly I've grown sick of the self-assured, hipster posers who think this trash is edgy and avant-garde.
I am not going to claim that all of Mapplethorpes work is art worthy as I don't know the full extent of his catalogue and you can like or dislike his work as you see fit. However in defense of Mapplethorpe he was documenting the world around him as it happened in a subculture that few people knew about at the time. So it is of historical significance in the very least.
Images like this are not meant to make you feel good. They are meant to challenge you and make you confront your own feelings and beliefs. Would you say the same thing about documentary photos showing the atrocities of war? Or poverty or starvation? These are all subjects that other canonical photographers have sought out and created famous images from - Have you seen the classical figure of the napalmed girl running down the road in Vietnam? Or even the Farm Bureau pics of depression era USA?
Art is not all about cute kittens and puppies and flowers
Re: (Score:2)
Nor is all "free expression" art. If your description of Mapplethorpe's motives are correct, he was acting more as a journalist or historian. But it's considers art because...why? Because his title is "artist?" Because it's hung in a gallery instead of a history book? Or because art collectors pay $$$$ for something that an editor would pay $?
I have no problem with people exercising their First Amendment rights to express themselves, even thing
Re: (Score:2)
His photographs are also gorgeous in terms of composition and light regardless of their content, so one could view his work purely in terms of craft in a way that, say, Nan Goldin's photography (which touches on similar themes from the same time period) does not.
His work was also a lightning rod for moral panic about the limits of art and free speech in America, and for that reason alone is
Re: (Score:2)
It may be "art" to the artist and the subjects, but that doesn't make it so.
Eye of the beholder, and all.
Those two statements are contardictory
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No they aren't. They're perfectly complementary.
What qualifies as art is subjective.
There is no single measure for what is or what is not art.
As such, just because you view something as art doesn't mean it is art.
Continuing on, my opinion that the subject matter in question is not art is just as valid as that of the artist and subjects.
I merely pointed out that I think his "art" is attention-seeking, gross-out trash. And that most people agree.
You can can compare any individual works you want, and have an
Re: (Score:2)
In modern times, we've turned freedom of speech into a license to do wholesale degradation to beauty, truth, human sexuality, etc. to such a degree that even the most perverse things as tolerable.
So the torture, murder, suicide, fratricide & incest in Shakespeare's plays are not okay then?
Re: (Score:2)
Or, 400 years from now in their equivalent of Christie's auction house, Robert Mapplethorpe's work may be considered priceless.
What Galileo will our society condemned for heresy? Some will argue that Robert Mapplethorpe will never be that Galileo. That they will never want to live in that world.
I'm pretty sure they won't.
Re: (Score:2)
In the majority of human civilization, such pictures (the ones of mutilation) would not be regarded as artistic, but rather as obscene. In modern times, we've turned freedom of speech into a license to do wholesale degradation to beauty, truth, human sexuality, etc. to such a degree that even the most perverse things as tolerable.
While I fear empowered censors more than the effects of such "art," we should at least have the honesty to admit that such "art" expresses the worst of humanity. I'm not even 30 yet, and quite frankly I've grown sick of the self-assured, hipster posers who think this trash is edgy and avant-garde.
Some of the art out there certainly does express the worst of humanity. This does not make it one bit less valid as art, though. There are many out there (myself included) who feel that to experience all that it is to be human you need to be aware of the good, the bad, and the ugly sectors of human society. Furthermore, you could not have missed the mark any further in stating that "obscene" work degrades the truth -- these things you consider to be obscene are part of the human experience and thus are in
Re: (Score:2)
In the majority of human civilization, such pictures (the ones of mutilation) would not be regarded as artistic, but rather as obscene. In modern times, we've turned freedom of speech into a license to do wholesale degradation to beauty, truth, human sexuality, etc. to such a degree that even the most perverse things as tolerable.
So in your world, you would be OK with your government banning the practice of your wife and daughters getting their ears pierced?
How bout the shaving public hair for sanitary reasons?
It is the same body mutilation, degrading the natural body and truth.
Sad, that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In the majority of human civilization, such pictures (the ones of mutilation) would not be regarded as artistic, but rather as obscene. In modern times, we've turned freedom of speech into a license to do wholesale degradation to beauty, truth, human sexuality, etc. to such a degree that even the most perverse things as tolerable.
I take it you only know the Disney side of world heritage. You have never read the Bible (recommended: Judges 19 and Lamentations), you know nothing about the Aztec or the Greek creation myths (and by the way about most creation myths anyway, the norse or the slavic ones are no less violent), you've never seen a painting from Hieronymus Bosch, and you might never ever have read Grimm's fairy tales themselves ("Cat and Mouse in Partnership" anyone?). As a matter of fact: During most of the human civilisation
Re: (Score:2)
Some comments about Grimm's fairy tales:
None of them starts with "Once upon a time", and only a single one, "The Peasant's Wise Daughter" ends at least in German with the german equivalent to "and they lived happily ever after" ("Und wenn sie nicht gestorben sind, dann leben sie noch heute").
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In the majority of human civilization, such pictures (the ones of mutilation) would not be regarded as artistic,
Incorrect; you have obviously never studied art history, not even taken a single class. The ancient Greeks and Romans had art that would turn your stomach (if you had a weak one), and even religious art from the dark ages and later in churches showed brutally obscene images (in the giuse of what hell was like, of course).
Re: (Score:2)
In the majority of human civilization, such pictures (the ones of mutilation) would not be regarded as artistic, but rather as obscene. In modern times, we've turned freedom of speech into a license to do wholesale degradation to beauty, truth, human sexuality, etc. to such a degree that even the most perverse things as tolerable.
While I fear empowered censors more than the effects of such "art," we should at least have the honesty to admit that such "art" expresses the worst of humanity. I'm not even 30
I applaud ACMA's decision -- it's great news: (Score:2)
First, it shines a brighter-than-usual light upon the stupidity of "censorship watchdogs".
Second, it antagonizes a company with a lot of money and a lot of public-relations skill. If you're in the censorship business, I'm happy to see you make large, powerful and articulate enemies.
No arguing (Score:3, Insightful)
If one starts arguing about where the "good" limits of censorship should be then it basically agrees with censorship as a whole.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
kill the disease before it spreads
In which case you should probably nuke the USA ahead of Australia - after all just 2 seconds of seeing Janet's naked breast was enough to traumatize the whole country
Re:nuke australia (Score:4, Insightful)
It didn't traumatize the whole country. It traumatized a vocal minority - and most of them probably didn't even see it themselves.
I'm opposed to intentionally displaying that sort of thing where children can see it, but I'm not going to get into an uproar about an accident.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not going to teach my kids that breasts are obscene; I'm going to teach my kids that we don't (shouldn't) go around in public waving our genitals (and breasts) in people's faces, and by extension we don't (shouldn't) let other people do the same thing.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think teaching our kids not to wave their naked genitals around public is the same as teaching them that genitals are "obscene".
Why don't people understand that there's a difference between "private" and "gross"?
Your car analogy is fatally flawed. I'm not teaching my kids that nobody should be driving. (I'm not teaching my kids that nobody should be having sex.) I'm teaching my kids that only licensed drivers should be driving. (I'm teaching my kids that sex is for married couples.)
See the diffe
Re: (Score:2)
I believe it's normally used as a synonym of "gross"; hence my comparison between "private" and "gross (and therefore shouldn't be displayed publicly)".
$DISTURBING_INTERNET_LINK_MEME = gross and shouldn't be displayed in public.
$GENITALIA = private.
Disagree if you wish... that's just the way I see it.
Re: (Score:2)
Religion. (And now you're going to complain about how I shouldn't brainwash my children or somesuch. I'm not interested.)
Re: (Score:2)
There's a difference between "obscene" and "inappropriate" or "impolite".
Around here it's legal for a woman to be topless in public, but it's rare enough to be newsworthy when it happens.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm opposed to intentionally displaying that sort of thing where children can see it
So you think babies should be blindfolded when breastfeeding? Or should the breastfeeding be unintentional? Very confusing.
Go to a beach in the South of Europe, or in a touristy area of the Caribbean. A good number of the ladies bare their breasts where children can see them. Whole families go skinny-dipping together in the Nordic countries. Nobody cares, not the police, not even the kids...
As Oscar Wilde said: "If God wanted us to be naked, we'd be born that way."
Re: (Score:2)
"babies" != "children"
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah... they're for feeding babies. That doesn't mean women should go waving their breasts around in people's faces in public.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Er... you're saying that everything not done by mammals in nature is something that we should be waving around in public? That's silly at best, but mostly disturbing.
(Besides, you're wrong; a cow's udder is the equivalent of a human breast, despite being quite a bit uglier, and it's as obvious as can be...)
Re: (Score:2)
No, but that doesn't mean women should be waving their naked boobs around in public.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh please. Yes, a shameless publicity grab (that worked, very, very well) dictated the attitude of our entire country!
Nobody was "traumatized" by it, except for a few fundamentalist Christians, who probably weren't even watching the Superbowl in the first place.
But more to the point, the press reports non-news as HIGHLY IMPORTANT NEWS all the fucking time. If you take the news media as any indication of the general inclination of Americans, then you're highly mis-informed.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet, practically every grammar school library has a huge archive of National Pornographic, er, National Geographic subscriptions dating back to the '50s or earlier.
Re: (Score:2)
It's either: Child Porn or Not Child Porn
Lord help us if Larry Clark gets to make that decision.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought they were just relying on their spill chuckers and it was about Bazaars in Australia.