1. Australians should be able to read, hear, see and participate in media of their choice

Published on 12 August 2011. Last modified on 24 October 2011.

Should  the principle that adults be able to read, see and hear what they want be extended to a more general statement on the right to communicate, and be able to participate in the media of their choice?

Since the 1970s, the regulatory framework in Australia has largely operated around the principle that direct censorship or the refusal of classification of material is the exception rather than the rule.  The National Classification Code as applied by the Classification Board has a clear statement that “Adults should be able to read, hear and see what they want”.

The Internet enables not only access to a much wider range of media content than traditional mass communications media, but also empowers its people to undertake a wider range of communication practices, including engaging as participants in the creation and distribution of media content.

Comments (20)

Free TV supports this

Submitted by Free TV Australia on 1 September 2011.
Free TV supports this principle. Access to consistent, accurate and clear classification advice is an important factor in making media choices, and the first part of proposed Principle 4 further reflects this. Free TV members provide classification information and consumer guidance to help Australians make these choices.

As an indication of the sort

Submitted by John Denham on 1 September 2011.
As an indication of the sort of problems that exist with the present system, I have been informed that the manifesto of the Norwegian mass murder suspect has been refused classification. This is a 1500 page document, and I have not looked at it - I have better things to do! BUT! Refused classification means that this document, which is either hosted or linked to by thousands of web sites, cannot legally be hosted or linked to by any Australian based news service. And with the introduction of internet filtering as planned this would have to be circumvented to see it. Regardless of whether you support or condemn this man, access to this document would seem to me to be critical to the understanding of one of the most important news items this century. Is there any credible reason why Australians should be denied access to this sort of information?

Thanks to all who have

Submitted by Terry Flew, Com... on 24 August 2011.
Thanks to all who have contributed to this discussion so far. There have been many interesting comments made. However, I do think the point needs to be made that there is definitely a plurality of views on the matters raised. Whether or not that is ultimately played out in the comments on this forum, this plurality is evident from the range of submissions made to the ALRC. We ask contributors to ensure they do not denigrate particular individuals or organisations because of a difference of opinion. We are aiming to foster an environment where a diversity of views is encouraged. - Terry Flew, Commissioner leading the Classification Review

While there is irony (in both

Submitted by Arved von Brasch on 24 August 2011.
While there is irony (in both directions) in attempts to silence those calling for greater censorship, it is also folly to pretend that all ideas and opinions are equally valid. There are plenty of ideas, and therefore content, that I think are terrible and likely lead to suffering that others choose to build their life around. Without an objective means of determining that certain ideas are likely to be 'harmful' to some quantifiable measure, making that decision for others is, I think, directly against the pluralist individualism that Australian society is largely based on. Objectively measuring 'harm' from media is a political argument more than a scientific one. A recent example of this is the Attorney-General's literature review for the R18+ rating for video games [Link removed]. The report concludes that there might be a small effect, but that the nature of the studies is so bogged down in politicisation that definitive conclusions cannot be drawn. The reality is that this is an argument that has been going on, in one form or another, for millennia. At some point I think we have to be able to take the lack of conclusion to indicate that the framing is probably wrong, and therefore even asking if a particular piece of content is 'harmful' is already making false assumptions. It should thus be difficult to take views that do call for greater censorship with the same seriousness as those that take a wider perspective. To put that in concrete terms, a child raised in a loving, generally well-off household is extremely unlikely to be long-term harmed by being exposed to a very mature film well before they enter adulthood, in comparison to a child raised in a broken home, around real violence and often going to bed hungry.

The failure of the existing

Submitted by Mark Newton on 19 August 2011.
The failure of the existing classification system is highlighted yet again today, with news that the South Australian Classification Authority has refused classification to "A Serbian Film," even though the Commonwealth Classification Board has deemed it to be R18+. So we're confronted with the ridiculous prospect of a film being legal to exhibit and sell in Tas, Vic, ACT, NSW, Qld, NT and WA, but not in South Australia. The video rental store in Nelson, Victoria can hire the film to its locals; but if it set up a hypothetical satellite branch across the border 3km West, the same article of commerce would be a crime. As usual, South Australians who want to watch the film can, of course, find several dozen torrents by means of a quick Google search. The clear intention of the Classification Code, that "Adults should be able to read, hear and see what they want," is preserved, but only for South Australians who breach copyright laws! How is this not a farce? Is "A Serbian Film" worth watching? I have absolutely no idea. But in a liberal democracy, I expect and demand the right to find out for myself, without mollycoddling from out-of-touch censors.

While Mark's got the big one

Submitted by Amy Hightower on 21 August 2011.
While Mark's got the big one wrapped up, there's another point to be made with regards to the South Australian decision and how it highlights inconsistencies between the States, Territories and the Commonwealth: The people who made it? Not representative. Hell, they're not even hired, let alone elected by the people they're making decision on behalf of. There is no applications process. Membership of the council is exclusively at the invitation of the Governor, with appointments made for an unlimited number of three-year terms. Current members include three lawyers (one of whom appears to be employed or was formerly employed by by the Attorney General's department), a child psychologist, the Adelaide Vicar General and the head of the Australian Council on Children and the Media lobby group. There is no appeals process. There is no review panel. There is no oversight. The only way the public has with interacting with this group is by making complaints about the way the Commonwealth censors have rated material. The Federal body, on the other hand, the ACB, is intended (though not necessarily in practice) to be representative. Applications are open to everyone adult the community. There is a formal review process and review board for its decisions. Terms are limited. Are South Australians a) somehow more fragile than the rest of us and b) less entitled to due process?

For those who don't know who

Submitted by Mark Newton on 23 August 2011.

For those who don't know who the "Australian Council on the Children and the Media" are:

They used to be called "Young Media Australia," and in 2002 they rattled enough chains to convince the South Australian Government of the day to pass the Classification (Publications, films and computer games) (Online Services) Amendment Act 2002, which makes the act of making available online to adults material which is "unsuitable for minors" punishable by a $10,000 fine.

Their submission to this inquiry is here [on the ALRC website - Link removed] It contains all the usual shibboleths you'd expect, including calls for ISP censorship, classification of news broadcasts, and orientation of the entire classification system around the specific needs of (some) children rather than the citizenry at large.

The organization distinguished itself in March 2010 by jumping into the faux-controversy over the movie "Kick-Ass," where co-chair Elizabeth Handsley was quoted in the SMH as saying that "If a film was not suitable for a 13-year-old it should be classified R18+" [Link removed]

Of course, since "Kick-Ass" wasn't banned for under-18s, children have been horribly damaged and society is falling apart. Oh, hang on, wrong universe, that never happened.

In any ordinary setting among well-balanced, sane, rational Australians, ACCM would be dismissed as a bunch of extremists who've helped to turn South Australia into the most heavily-censored territory in the Commonwealth.

But in South Australia, they're given an officially-sanctioned role in deciding which content we are and aren't allowed to see, as if their well-documented history of poor judgement has no negative consequences whatsoever.

Unless you avail yourself of the many unlawful means of ignoring the hell out of them, of course.

Tiresome, isn't it?

- mark

And another example of a

Submitted by Daniel Myles on 24 August 2011.
And another example of a flawed, inconsistent and backwards classification system. House of the Dead: Overkill due out in October has been banned from sale in Australia due to a lack of R18+ rating. The kicker here is that the game has been out on the Wii for ages and has a MA15+ rating for that console. The only difference between the existing Wii and PS3 version just banned is HD instead of 480p. Clearly killing hordes of zombies in high definition is considered higher impact than on a lower resolution. Would love someone to show me the research done to confirm this hypothesis.

The problem is that

Submitted by Yari Wildheart on 16 August 2011.
The problem is that classification often is just censorship under the guise of "protecting children" - restricting adults from accessing material that it is not the government's business to restrict us from. Protecting children is a worthy cause but the role of the state should not be overplayed here, particularly when the state so often bans material outright (for everybody) - especially when it comes to computer games and occasionally film. The classification system should not be a vehicle for censorship but rather a vehicle for informing the people.

With the internet there are

Submitted by Richard Bourke on 15 August 2011.
With the internet there are new published pages and new versions of existing pages every split second... so trying to classify the internet is impossible and certainly not worth wasting money in any such vain attempt. So yes, of course you should legislate that adults can communicate as they please - if only for the main reason that they will be doing so regardless!

I would totally agree with

Submitted by Brownbear on 13 August 2011.
I would totally agree with this principle as suggested. I wonder however if we need to also look at the personal responsibility of people in using media. There is the possibility for a person to abuse this right to communicate. eg maliciously posting MA15+ material to a G rated web site. aiming to have the site taken down. Should this responsibility also be enshrined as a principle?

Australians should be able to

Submitted by Amy Hightower on 12 August 2011.
Australians should be able to express themselves freely, provided that their expression does not infringe upon the rights of others. Any framework that includes the right to consume media as desired, but does not also extend the right to create media as desired, is inherently contradictory.

Yes. Communication is a

Submitted by JT on 12 August 2011.
Yes. Communication is a two-way street. The right to "publish" something is useless if noone has the right to "access" that thing. The principle should really be extended into a constitutionally-guaranteed right to freedom of expression, which should include all of the above.

Australian Adults should be

Submitted by Rodger Phillips on 12 August 2011.
Australian Adults should be able to decide for themselves what they read and watch, we are raised from child hood through the education systems to prepare for being an Adult only to find some people have come along and passed legislation which treats us as though we are all still 14 and cannot decide for our selves what to read and watch, I realise much of this comes in the form of an attempt to protect children from accessing material online that they should not be accessing, however this is not the role of the legislation to prohibit, this is the role of the parent, to allow or prohibit access to, should the Government decide to offer a Voluntary Filter system which parents/adult can opt into and out of as they see fit, this would be much more in keeping with the National Classification Code. as well as aiding in the welfare of minors.. the “Adults should be able to read, hear and see what they want”. still means the same today as it did in the 1970's and should apply equally to the content found on the Internet, since the only difference between the written word online and that written in a book, is the distribution method... not the words.....

“Adults should be able to

Submitted by Cameron1 on 12 August 2011.
“Adults should be able to read, hear and see what they want” Yes they should. Why is it we have a contradictory scheme such as this in the first place then? What justification is there for this censorship? We need to do away with ALL forms of censorship in this country.

So that would mean you

Submitted by Paul H on 26 August 2011.
So that would mean you advocate child pornography and violent sex of woman etc?

No what is being advocated is

Submitted by Brownbear on 26 August 2011.
No what is being advocated is that the cover up of these crimes should not occur and that the police and other authorities should be funded properly to do their job. Censorship is occasionally used to hide the inactivity of governments in really addressing social problems and as a pretense that something is being done. It seems to me that the advocates of censorship of this type of material are actually aiding the criminals not hindering them.

In the last 5 years or so we

Submitted by Daniel Myles on 12 August 2011.
In the last 5 years or so we have seen a very dangerous shift away from this philosophy that "adults be able to read, see and hear what they want." more and more as the role of classification has become analogous with that of censorship. The drivers behind these 2 very different concepts seem to be the Federal Government, backed by very minor yet vocal lobby groups. As Australia does not have a bill of rights (no government will touch it as they are frightened by the consequence of it) it is important that the statement be reinforced and clearly defined so that censorship does NOT cloud the debate. Indeed, with the devleopment of technologies and electronic media, the statement should encompass platforms such as the Internet and embrace them as viable sources of information sharing and topical discussion. Classification is about informing, not deeming what is appropriate for a nation.

Perhaps more explicitly -

Submitted by JDNSW on 12 August 2011.
Perhaps more explicitly - Australians should be able to say, show, and write, as well as read, see and hear. With "publication" now in the domain of every Australian, this becomes more important than it has been in the past.

Well put.

Submitted by Timmeh on 12 August 2011.
Well put.