[guelo]

According to wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Australi...:

Having a mandatory Government Internet filter that would automatically block all access in Australia, to overseas websites containing material that is Refused Classification? Refused Classification was defined as Images and information about one or more of the following: child sexual abuse, bestiality, sexual violence, gratuitous, exploitative or offensive sexual fetishes, detailed instructions on or promotion of crime, violence or use of illegal drugs. 80% were in favour, 19% against.

[MediaBehavior]

So, Aussies... is it working for you that child sexual abuse is being lumped together with "gratuitous (by whose standards?) ... or offensive (to whom?) sexual fetishes?

Not that I, personally, am not repulsed by them, but what about banning "promotion" of "...violence or use of illegal drugs?" Is this standard applied in your movie theaters, too. That would keep you "safe" from a lot of Hollywood's productions.

I don't mean to be hard on Aussies - since wide swaths of U.S. population might vote for such censorship. I'm just wondering whether such tight, subjective control is the norm down under?

[jackvalentine]

> So, Aussies... is it working for you that child sexual abuse is being lumped together with "gratuitous (by whose standards?) ... or offensive (to whom?) sexual fetishes?

For the most part I have few problems with our classification scheme. If you're genuinely interested in what goes in to a rating, the guidelines are quite easily available. (1)

It's interesting the attitude I find many foreigners, in particular North Americans have of a repulsion to any kind of censorship whilst simultaniously being ignorant of what our classification scheme actually does. The previous sentence was directed at your idea that the prohibition against the promotion of violence or illegal drugs would cause a hollywood film to be banned from Australian cinemas. It doesn't because context is a mitigating factor. Ignoring the issue of no 18+ rating for video games, the only thing that comes to mind that I wish hadn't been refused classification is 2002's Ken Park.

Forgive me if my attitude comes off as hostile, but I am increasingly annoyed at foreigners decrying our classification scheme as uniformly bad. I guess it's just different people having different values.

(1) http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2008C00126

[nodata]

Your attitude does come across as hostile, mainly because of this sentence: "I am increasingly annoyed at foreigners decrying our classification scheme as uniformly bad".

It's irrelevant if someone is foreign. What matters if people are informed.

Australian censorship system is expensive with unclear benefits. So I'd take two counter positions:

1. The money could be better spent elsewhere. 2. Let's see how well the system is working in five years time after feature creep sets in.

[jackvalentine]

> It's irrelevant if someone is foreign. What matters if people are informed.

I disagree. Since our classification scheme arguably has next to zero effect on someone who isn't inside Australia, their opinions on what we decide to enact are irrelevant and nosey. A variation on "Why should you be able to tell me what I can/cannot do in bed with my wife?" really. It'd be different if we had any effect on the ability for foreigners to see or enjoy what they want in their own markets.

I should be clear and make a distinction between my support for the classification scheme as it currently stands with it's clear benefits in informed choices for parents and transparency that it is run with, and my opinion on the proposed internet clean feed filter, which is one of disapproval.

[nodata]

> Since our classification scheme arguably has next to zero effect on someone who isn't inside Australia, their opinions on what we decide to enact are irrelevant and nosey.

I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic here, but in case you're not: the idea that people are not allowed to have opinions on things that don't directly affect them is startling.

The "variation" you provide is false. Someone holding a reasoned opinion on something is not equivalent to someone issuing rules on what you may or may not do with your wife.

[jackvalentine]

I didn't say someone can't have opinions, but I did say I find their opinions irrelevant. I realise that example was poorly worded, but I think you get the idea. It'd probably be better phrased as "Why do you think we're interested in you telling us what we should/should not do with our wives in our own homes?"

[anamax]

> Since our classification scheme arguably has next to zero effect on someone who isn't inside Australia, their opinions on what we decide to enact are irrelevant and nosey.

(1) Our bureaucrats often look to other countries for ideas.

(2) In every discussion of US healthcare, someone from Oz pops up with "why don't you do it like we do". (Of course, they're not the only ones who do so.)