3. Children should be protected from material likely to harm or disturb them

Published on 12 August 2011. Last modified on 2 September 2011.

The ALRC welcomes discussion on this principle, and particularly around its relationship to Principles 1 and 2.

The National Classification Scheme makes  a distinction between the ‘reasonable adult’ on the one hand, and children on the other. This is expressed in the principle of the National Classification Code that “Minors should be protected from material likely to harm or disturb them.” The ALRC has been asked, as part of its Terms of Reference, to consider “the impact of media on children and the increased exposure of children to a wider variety of media including television, music and advertising as well as films and computer games”.

Many respondents to the ALRC Issues Paper indicated that they felt that the protection of children was a primary objective of the scheme. It was noted that Australia is a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which requires “the development of appropriate guidelines for the protection of the child from information and material injurious to his or her well-being “, and that “Parties undertake to protect the child from all forms of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse ... [including the] exploitative use of children in pornographic performances and materials”.

A number of respondents have argued that the principles that adults should be able to freely access material and the protection of children need not be in conflict, although they present a balancing act in developing a new national classification scheme.

Comments (19)

Free TV agrees that certain

Submitted by Free TV Australia on 1 September 2011.

Free TV agrees that certain content and material is not appropriate for children. The appropriateness of material will differ depending on content, context, and the background and age of the child.

Parents and carers are best able to determine what sort of media is appropriate for their children, taking into account all the relevant circumstances. Making these determinations requires access to clear, consistent and informative classification information. As media consumption patterns and technology have changed, the old methods of content control (such as time zones) are no longer effective for parents and carers. New tools such as parental locks provide greater control and flexibility in limiting children’s access to inappropriate material.

The introduction of mandatory parental lock systems on all TVs sold in Australia after February 2011 means that households will have access to a mechanism where content can be blocked according to classification. This, together with the consumer advice provided by broadcasters, empowers parents to limit their child’s viewing according to classification. Free TV members support this initiative by ensuring that the broadcast stream is embedded with a classification that interacts with the parental lock system, and raising awareness of the parental lock function on-air and online.

'Children' needs to be

Submitted by Arved von Brasch on 22 August 2011.
'Children' needs to be defined here. Are we talking 5 year olds, 12 year olds or 17 year olds? 'Protection' also needs to be defined. It's unclear how experiencing age-inappropriate material in a private home with no children could in any way harm a child, and therefore unclear why the Classification Scheme should be involved at all. If an adult is deliberately exposing a child to age-inappropriate material, that isn't the fault of the material, but the fault of that adult. Again, it is unclear how this should be within the domain of the Classification Scheme, and not child services. The point of the Classification Scheme in relation to children, should be to provide the adults in their lives the ability to easily decide how much of an active role they will be required to have. How much of a guide they will have to be through the more mature themes of the content they are going to expose their children to. Finally, I'd also urge the ALRC to consider what rights do children have to seek out, produce and experience content for themselves? Do the consequences for children producing what would be considered age-inappropriate material make sense?

Stop! Think about what media

Submitted by Richard Bourke on 15 August 2011.
Stop! Think about what media confronts children and what media does not. Commercial advertising (on TV, radio, and in print) is what is 'pushed' onto consumers and therefore children (advertising doesn't discriminate by age). The internet on the other hand is much more of 'pull' medium - you have to physically request content before it arrives, giving users much more control over what content is obtained. So the point here is, the government should stamp out all sexualisation of children in commercial advertising BEFORE any money is wasted on internet filtering. You can come back for further discussion after that main first problem is solved.

The invocation of the United

Submitted by Mark Newton on 15 August 2011.
The invocation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child is interesting here, because its scope is rather wider than a limited reading would suggest. While it's true that the it requires "development of appropriate guidelines for the protection fo the child from information and material injurious to his or her well-being," the Convention also requires recognition of the fact that children aren't vassals, and ought to be encouraged and supported in making their own choices about what is and isn't "injurious." In particular, Article 12 insists that "States Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child." Yet our classification system arbitrarily restricts people who are 17 years and 364 days from R18+, X18+ and RC content, and 14 years and 364 days from MA15+ content regardless of maturity. Article 13 also imbues children with "the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of the child's choice" -- Yet with have a Government contemptuous of that right, carrying on with a silly internet censorship scheme using children as a half-baked justification! Note that the sentence fragment quoted by the ALRC above quotes selectively from the Convention. Article 17(a) actually says that State Parties shall, "Encourage the development of appropriate guidelines for the protection of the child from information and material injurious to his or her well-being, bearing in mind the provisions of articles 13 and 18." Article 13 is the free speech clause I cited above, so any suggestion that Article 17(a) requires a State-imposed censorship scheme should be dismissed as bad-faith mischief-making. You cannot use the Convention to justify "protection" of children from material injurious to his or her well-being without also using it to justify broadening the free speech rights of minors. The Convention is not absolutist about this "protection," it instead views children as empowered self-directed individuals, and warns against using age as justification for arbitrary imposition of State abusiveness. Moreover, you can't pick and choose which articles of the Convention apply; we either support all of it or none of it. Our Government has chosen to support all of it. That needs to mean something.

I agree entirely with what

Submitted by Brownbear on 15 August 2011.
I agree entirely with what you have said here Mark and would add that a lot of the supposed harm caused to children by the various forms of media is used to excuse harm that was actually inflicted by the home environment of the child. I consider it disgusting that people are allowed to use the welfare of children as an excuse for imposing there own religious and cultural prejudices on the whole population.

I've been a 'gamer' for many

Submitted by Warheadv on 13 August 2011.
I've been a 'gamer' for many years now, well since i was 4 actually. The first game i ever played was Doom... and in it's time it was given a very high rating, but put aside the fact of it's rating i knew it was only a game. I understand that some classifications need to be made to stop minors from seeing certain content, and i agree with that... but most of the games that have been refused classification or have been censored weren't even that bad. For instance... Left 4 Dead 2 (2009), i remember the events leading to the release very clearly, it was refused classification for being too violent. Lucky for my modding skills i was able to modify the demo they released to be able to see the true violence and gore from the non-censored version of the game, and i have to be honest, it wasn't even that bad... some games have come into this country with more realistic violence and gore without any problems at all. I have played many games over these many years, and i played a lot of MA 15+ games even before i turned 15... and i was never affected by any content i have seen in any game. Why? Because i was raised knowing that it's fictional... it is just a game, like how movies are just movies, it is just entertainment. Although there are the VERY RARE cases of kids trying to copy what they see in video games... and the problem usually comes down to the fact that the parents didn't raise the child properly, so they would think imitating games is 'cool' and "won't cause any harm". I know of many many MANY people just like me who have played a lot of games over these many years, and none of them were affected mentally by any content. Through our perspective movies are worse. I am glad that R18+ games are finally being introduced after many, pointless, stupid years of trying to avoid it. Although i hope for the sake of younger Australian 'gamers' (Under 18's) that only one or two games a year will be given this classification... because if the board goes overboard with the classifications and makes a mass majority of new games R18+ then trust me, the government will have a very angry "new generation" coming. Though the government may care very little... what they don't know is the fact that about 60% of the next generation play video games, and are in fact 'gamers' Also back on topic really... My overall summary... It's not up to the government to choose the safety of the minors and what they can or cannot see... it's really up to the parents. If the parents allow their children to play MA15+ games then so be it, i do not think anyone really cares, and if they do, they don't have a right to tell that parent what they can or cannot allow their children to do.

Protecting children from

Submitted by Melicha on 12 August 2011.
Protecting children from harmful content in the media is paramount, given that such action results in protecting children rather than protecting the interests of certain minorities. First of all, there must be a clear definition of when harm occurs and how severe it is to the child. I believe that, currently, there is too much emphasis put on potential* harm that results in loss of freedoms for the adult population in our society. This over-regulation shows that there is little trust in the way parents of Australia raise their children and even less trust in our citizens to do the right thing. I believe that there is very little that our governments and lawmakers can do to prevent harm coming to children. This responsibility lies with parents.

I'm curious as to who these

Submitted by Amy Hightower on 12 August 2011.
I'm curious as to who these 'certain minorities' whose interests are being protected are.

This is a definite

Submitted by JT on 12 August 2011.
This is a definite "maybe". It depends on "by whom" and "at what cost" (in lost rights e.g. privacy - for adults and children and e.g. freedom of expression - for adults and even children). The use of the terms "harm" and "disturb" are likely to be controversial. Perhaps better would be: A parent should protect a child from material that the parent judges to be inappropriate for the child, taking into account the maturity and personality of the child, and the values of the parent. Beyond that, should the law (the government) have a role in it? I remain to be convinced based on proposals so far from the Rudd/Gillard governments.

the problem today is the fact

Submitted by Rodger Phillips on 12 August 2011.
the problem today is the fact that we got so used to being ast in front of the TV to allow Sesame Street and Play School and Skippy to help raise us, or stuck us in front of the Atari/Playstation etc so too many people are not aware that Internet is not the same as TV or Video Games... while it is certainly within the role of government to educate people in the good and bad of Communications such as the Internet and what it can mean to the community at large, it is NOT the governments job to parent the children, and act as Internet Net Nanny for parents who wont act as parents should.. The Government has too much to do to be acting as Pseudo-Parents for people who cannot be bothered being parents to their children.. perhaps the only way to make people stand up to thier responsibilities would be to regulate the access via a licencing system, similar to that of driving a car, I am not in favour of this plan, but it might make people monitor their childrens behaviour more responsibly

i think they should BUT we

Submitted by henry houghton on 12 August 2011.
i think they should BUT we cant just say dont do this dont do that we have to be able to cater for each child

its not a bad thing its up to

Submitted by Daniel C on 12 August 2011.
its not a bad thing its up to the perants not to buy the game for there kids i play games online alot and the amount of 10 yrs old playing call of duty ect is stupied couse the perants dont lock down the ps3 i dont even let my kids play games pass PG and the other games i lock up (eg M/MA)

This question needs to be

Submitted by Geordie Guy on 12 August 2011.
This question needs to be considered after the we define what we mean by children being harmed. What negative thing happens? How long does the negativity last? How is the harm repaired? This is glossed over far too quickly, and we arrive far too quickly at the question of how to mitigate harm and protect children, without having defined what we are protecting them from, and what we are willing to sacrifice for it.

I agree with Geordie. You

Submitted by Amy Hightower on 12 August 2011.
I agree with Geordie. You can only legislate on the basis of harm if you can objectively demonstrate what harm is, and, consistently and objectively, how it is caused. Too often there seems to be a default presumption that media, particularly newer forms of media, are inherently harmful, and that it's only a question of extent. The unfounded moral panic surrounding video games is a timely reminder of this. We must also remember the spectrum of ages the word 'child' legally covers. When we are discussing protecting children from harm, we are covering, not just young children, but teens and young adults.

Protection of children is an

Submitted by Cameron1 on 12 August 2011.
Protection of children is an honourable endeavour, but the role of the government should be in setting up rules and laws to ensure the child's protection is always considered, not setting up frameworks that restrict who can consume what media. It is not the governments place to determine what material is suitable for a child, it is that of the parent, and entirely dependant on the family situation and upbringing.

Children should be protected

Submitted by Daniel Myles on 12 August 2011.

Children should be protected from material likely to harm them however not at the risk of preventing access to information by adults as set out in question 1. This is important as it seems there is a shift at the moment whereby Government - assisted by vocal minority interest groups USE children as a means to an ends, knowing that the general public, unclear on the actual motives or agenda of these censors - will lend a sympathetic ear at best or shrug off a proposal on restrictions of freedom purely because protecting children "sounds good and couldn't be bad at all."

The catch cry commonly used of course is "Won't somebody think of the children". /Sigh not again. Australia has very clear laws on what is considered illegal.

Anything published as a book, released as a movie, DVD, TV Station or computer game generally has been classified in some way shape or form. Straight away the PARENT has been informed and can make a decision on whether their child should be exposed to it. The Internet on the other hand is trillions of webpages, growing at millions per day, and this is localised purely to the Internet in the form that most Australians understand it. Suggesting that we can classify everything is like suggesting we catalogue every single grain of sand on this earth. It's a ludicrous pursuit and is it any wonder that the government and interest groups such as the ACL get shot down when they bring it up along with "ISP Mandatory Filtering". Given that classifying this content is useless and an exercise in futility the BEST way for parents to protect their children on the Internet is through a combination of education, the use of family friendly ISP's such as Webshield (ironically they are very small for something the government touts as a huge problem) and PC based home filter solutions. Ironically the government took away the free government based filter called Net Alert years ago. Why is it that all our children have not all of a sudden developed psychological disorders and such? The reason is there is no evidence that children are being harmed by content on the Internet anymore so than on any other platform. As soon as we start censoring content to control what children see at the expense of adults, we lose our democracy. Censoring RC material just because it is not fit for children will precent access to content that is NOT illegal at all. Parents should also be aware that the censorship in place now with some ISP's as well as the government mandatory one will NOT block R18+ or X rated material. Parenting is a responsibility, not a right and most parents can do the right thing without a Government holding their hand.

Without the active

Submitted by JDNSW on 12 August 2011.
Without the active participation of the parent or guardian, this is impossible to achieve, and it is not at all clear what any government can do anyway. Classification can provide some help, but quite clearly it is impossible to classify more than a minuscule proportion of available material. Any attempt to censor material to a level that is child friendly is not only going to seriously impact on material available to adults, but also begs the question as to what is child friendly, and in any case is impossible, with material available from millions of sources all over the world.

Yes, but for effective

Submitted by Luke on 12 August 2011.
Yes, but for effective participation of the parent or guardian, it is important to encourage media and content providers who produce content for children to classify their material to assist parents in informed choices.

Why? Is there some ambiguity

Submitted by Mark Newton on 15 August 2011.
Why? Is there some ambiguity about the child-suitability of creative output from "providers who produce content for children" that classification resolves? Parents aren't so dumb that they need a classifier to tell them that content produced for children is intended for consumption by children. What exactly do you mean when you say, "children?" I feel that some people who participate in this debate use very young kids as a foil to advance arguments for control of content consumed by mid/late teens. Please, define your terms.