Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Censorship Your Rights Online

New Australian Laws To Censor Terror DVDs 235

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New Australian Laws To Censor Terror DVDs

Comments Filter:
  • Oh really? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 16, 2007 @05:47PM (#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!

  • by Lockejaw ( 955650 ) on Monday April 16, 2007 @05:48PM (#18757421)
    First, "terrorist" means radical Islam.
    Next, "terrorist" means minority party.
    • I guess V for Vendetta would just be a blank screen and bleeped from the opening title?
      • by cgenman ( 325138 )
        So...what movies would this include?

        Anything with the Olsen Twins. Terrifying. *shudders*.
    • Even without being a terrorist, or doing things which might get you labelled being a terrorist, you could very easily do things which have similar goals to some terrorist group and could thus be "supportive of terrorism".

      Example: "I think Bush should go!" well some terrorist group might have that goal too so by saying that I could be considered to be supporting the goals of some terrorist group and could open myself up to prosecution.

      Oppressive societies have used and abused laws like this quite effectively

    • by ross.w ( 87751 ) <rwonderley AT gmail DOT com> on Monday April 16, 2007 @06:38PM (#18758449) Journal
      Could you include: The act of vandalising ships cargos by throwing them into the harbour [wikipedia.org]? The idea that it is the right & duty [wikipedia.org] of every citizen to throw off an oppressive government? Or perhaps the idea that kharma can take a long time to resolve...
      • Could you include: The act of vandalising ships cargos by throwing them into the harbour?

        Nope. Civil disobedience.

        The idea that it is the right & duty of every citizen to throw off an oppressive government?

        Nope. Depending on your circumstances, that is either voting or revolution. (Revolution is still considered illegal by government, but it is not the same thing as terrorism.)

        Or perhaps the idea that kharma can take a long time to resolve...

        Nope. Hinduism.

        You don't really seem to have a firm grasp ab
    • Terrorist means literally to cause terror.

      DVDs causing terror will be censored. Pretty simple.
    • First, "terrorist" means radical Islam.
      Next, "terrorist" means minority party.


      So what you are telling us is that you are unable to distinguish in a meaningful way between:

      Voting to ban littering versus kidnapping someone and cutting off their head
      Voting to raise sales tax 0.3% versus exploding a chlorine bomb in a shopping mall
      Voting to change automobile safety standards versus using a sniper rifle to kill an MP
      Voting to regulate off-shore oil wells versus using an electric drill on someone's head before sh
  • Canadian Bacon [wikipedia.org]

    'nuf said

  • by cyberianpan ( 975767 ) on Monday April 16, 2007 @05:55PM (#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.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      "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?
      • by shmlco ( 594907 )
        "I want to watch Die Hard as an example of how to take over a building with a small special ops team?"

        Tip: Never keep all of your detonators in one place.
    • by ArcherB ( 796902 ) * on Monday April 16, 2007 @06:24PM (#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 @06:32PM (#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.
  • by pla ( 258480 )
    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!!

  • 1. Make home movie
    2. ???
    3. Every teenager wants it! Profit!

    Thank you Australia for missing in the lost step in our business model!
  • by Animats ( 122034 ) on Monday April 16, 2007 @06:04PM (#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.

    • In this case the "where they belong" (ie where the CDs are currently sold) is outside Mosques. Frankly you would be hard pressed to convince me that limiting DVDs preaching violent jihad and and hate to that "circuit" is a good thing.

      I don't think there's much chance of Joe Public hearing about it in the news and the DVD hitting the charts.
      • Not outside MY mosque, let me tell you that much.

        Honestly, the mosque isn't the channel where this stuff propagates, despite the stereotype. It often comes from the internet, friends passing it on, biased bookstores or video shops. Muslims don't go selling that crap in front of mosques, everyone knows they're being spied upon by the government or will be kicked off the premises by the moderate Muslim leaders, whichever comes first.
  • by Eric Damron ( 553630 ) on Monday April 16, 2007 @06:06PM (#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.
    • by ross.w ( 87751 )
      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 @06:14PM (#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.
    • ...the placenta (held by the reporter...
      Let me be the first to say:

      Ew.
    • by askegg ( 599634 )
      I would NOT recommend reading the Bible/Quran if you want to avoid death, destruction, violence, genocide, hatred, torture, massacres and war. Both books are filled to the brim with such atrocities. If we are going to ban books that incite terrorism - let's start with these two.
      • That's such a stereotype, and I doubt you ever actually read one of them cover to cover. For every violent verse in the Quran, there's at least another peaceful one that modifies the first.

        Religion is like medication. It can help you and make your life so much better, but if misused it can kill you. Are you going to say that the stuff in a pharmacy is inherently evil?

    • Have you, personally, held a placenta? How about a not-particularly fresh one?

      I'd vote for pixllation for the same reason that they don't show cattle being disembowled on network television. It's gross.
      • I haven't held it, personally, but of course I saw it up close, although those were very fresh ones. Not more disgusting than a large chunk of liver, or a brain or any internal organ, which, as a matter of fact, you can buy in any supermarket (animal ones, not human, of course). Why would it be gross? A program about the human body showing parts of the human body is quite acceptable, that's the whole point, isn't it? You expect to see bodyparts and tsunamies of blood and preferably dismemberment, gruesome d
  • 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.
      • Reason vs. insanity fails 100% of the time because it is insanity. Do you understand? You cannot fight insanity by appealing to someone's reasoning - their reasoning isn't at play here. This is the one message that people seem to fail to understand.

        And until we understand that people who think it is a valid form of political expression to behead schoolgirls cannot be reasoned with in any manner we will have people beheading schoolgirls. And stoning women to death. And killing people that wake up one da
    • Dude.

      ...introduce new laws to censor ________ deemed by the government to be ________

      You don't wanna go down that road. Seriously.
    • by Guuge ( 719028 )

      Why should we as a community fan the flames of their insanity by providing them with inflammatory video material?

      You're providing them with the videos? I'm sure there's a "Soviet Russia" line around here somewhere.

  • by BillGatesLoveChild ( 1046184 ) on Monday April 16, 2007 @06:16PM (#18758037) Journal
    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
      • by mi ( 197448 )

        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.

        I've read (including on Slashdot) about local laws banning films, where adult actors are simulating children. I haven't heard about those getting repealed. If they were — having a (Free Speech-protecting) Constitution has helped us...

      • by drsmithy ( 35869 )

        The laws against child porn in the US are defended on the ground that the act of making the child porn itself is illegal.

        This logic doesn't even stand up to superficial examination, however. It's trivial to think of examples of "making child pornography" without breaking any laws or harming anyone - two "children" videotaping themselves having sex, or a videotape of consexual sex made in a country with a lower age of consent, or that weird conflcit between age of consent and age of majority, where's its

    • 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.

      Just because it was used to defend pornography, even successfully, doesn't make it a valid argument.

      By that same argument, snuff movies should be legal to own too. How is any of this different from shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater or inciting people to violence? Free Speec
      • If you have a snuff movie that didn't hurt anyone to produce (anime, CG, or acted etc) then why shouldn't it be legal to own?
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by mabinogi ( 74033 )
      Two things

      1. You apparently have no idea what a constitution actually is.
      2. Australia has a constitution.

      A constitution is a document the describes rules under which a governing entity operates. It is not a synonym for a document granting free speech rights. The constitution of the USA happens to have such a clause, but it is certainly not a defining feature of constitutions in general.

      The article contains nothing but the attorney general ranting a bit on a talk radio show, and the fact that a crackpot MP
  • by KeensMustard ( 655606 ) on Monday April 16, 2007 @06:39PM (#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

    • You write as though the two sides were equivalent. But it's important to remember that in the global crusade against Islam, they are the evil terrorists, and we're the ones who kill three-quarters of a million people to take their oil. The two sides just aren't interchangable, so arguments based on the inherent human moral abhorrence of hypocrisy don't apply.
  • by heretic108 ( 454817 ) on Monday April 16, 2007 @06:42PM (#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.
    • by cdrguru ( 88047 )
      If you have to wonder why Muslim youths are pissed off and ready at the drop of a hat to blow themselves and others up, you need to get a clue about life in many Islamic countries.

      Their religion teaches that life is worthless and nothing counts until the afterlife. Pushing things up a bit to reach the afterlife earlier seems harmless or a benefit.

      The UN and Palestinian leaders have been keeping Palestinians bottled up in "refugee camps" with somehow the hope that these people will be able to eventually dis
  • by mrshowtime ( 562809 ) on Monday April 16, 2007 @07:01PM (#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.
    • >BUT, some jagoff can produce a dvd/post on the internet calling for the DEATHS of the Jews [...]

      You're still talking about Jesse "Hymietown" Jackson, aren't you?
    • by asninn ( 1071320 )

      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.

      Be careful what you wish for. If "attacking a religion" was really made illegal, monikers like "islamic extremists" might already be considered over the top. Sure, you might say it's not going to happen, since you're not referring to *all* muslims, but I'm sure that people who talk about "jewish pigs" will also try to bail out by saying "

  • comparing Jews with pigs

    Doesn't Borat compare Jews to the devil, claim they have horns and can turn into all sorts of nasty creatures? I guess that does it for Borat in Australia then.
    • by cdrguru ( 88047 )
      #1: How many people in the world are taught Jews are the devil, have horns and can turn into all sorts of nasty creatures?

      #2: How many people are taught that Jews are (or will soon turn into) pigs and apes and deserve nothing more than to be killed?

      Answer to #1: Damn few.

      Answer to #2: Every single Muslim. They might not believe it, but they have been exposed to it, probably from childhood.
      • For #2, Nope, sorry, thanks for playing. As a Muslim, I never heard that. I don't know where you got that particular stereotype, but it's distorted from anything I've heard.

        There is a story in the Quran about a group of people from the children of Israel who disobeyed God's command for not fishing on the sabbath, and God cursed them by turning them into apes and pigs. Clearly, that was a parable to teach us something, not that all Jewish people are or were apes and pigs. That conclusion makes no sense, and
  • yippee kyaaa (Score:2, Insightful)

    by stratjakt ( 596332 )
    the summary says the australian government MAY propose new laws..

    I'm not up to par on the finer points of aussie government, but it sounds like this nerd rage wankoff is based simply on speculation of something that might happen. Like the "Canadian DMCA" article.

  • NATO Terrorism (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MrSteveSD ( 801820 ) on Monday April 16, 2007 @08:27PM (#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".
  • If the glorious nation of Australia wants to see what good being a Closed Minded Politician is, then one only has to watch Machiavelli's personal nightmare, President Bush. theOnion [theonion.com] goofs on this weekly, but when one listens to the tape, one cannot truly tell if it is a comedian, or the president; It is that close to the real thing.

    "The difference between a terrorist, and a baby is?" - Larry the Cable Guy
  • I give this 1 whole year before it gets twisted and abused to cover ANY anti government movies (eg "the money masters", "peace propaganda and the promised land", "loose change", australian equivalents (dont worry, we've had our share of false flaggers too)

    Great, So next time I try to hand out DVDs proving the involvement of certain people within the US administration and elsewhere (not alqueda) in 9/11, or questioning how a mentally disabled guy with an IQ of 60, who had only ever shot a gun a couple of do

  • First post..... (Score:2, Informative)

    by dave_boo ( 1089337 )
    so go easy on me.

    I've been a loyal Slashdot reader for years, but have just signed up for an account. It has been apparent that over time the readership has gone from IT professionals with cute little quips to overangsted teenagers who know how to turn on a computer and sign up for an account.

    While there have been many articles that have been brought to my attention that would have otherwise been overlooked in my busy schedule, there has recently been a rash of, well put nicely, stupidity being spout
    • Glad to have you here, but your corrections fell short.

      1) The government is being racist by banning material?... Since when is Islam a race?

      A fallacious argument that is often bandied about. Fine, it's not a race, it's a massively popular religion. Going after Muslims is not racist per se, but it can be described as bigoted. I have no problem getting rid of material that describes how to do terrorism, but you also have people on the Far Right both in the US and Australia who burn Qurans in public and lobby the government to ban the book. Of course, I'm opposed to that.

      It continues to blow my mind that Christians are crucified on Slashdot, but Muslims are not even though the propaganda they're postulating is so very much more damaging than what comes from the Chistian camp.

      Dude, we Muslims get

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Working...