Submitted by Free TV Australia on 1 September 2011.
Free TV would like to make some observations regarding the current processes for training and accreditation of classifiers.
We note that the Classification Board conducts an intensive three-month program which includes mentorship and practical experience. In comparison, the training programs for certified industry assessors are very brief (half-day or one-day). Anecdotal evidence suggests that this contributes to inconsistencies in classification decision-making, undermining the effectiveness and integrity of the National Classification Scheme.
The ALRC should consider recommending changes to the accreditation process to include consistent and rigorous training requirements, with classifiers required to undergo minimum periods of supervision following training.
Commercial free-to-air television broadcasters employ a number of full-time dedicated classifiers, many of whom have years of experience working in the industry and organisations such as the Classification Board.
Suggested new Principle 9: The classification framework should require a consistent standard in relation to training and accreditation of classifiers.
One principle that perhaps ought to be added to those listed, is that whatever scheme is adopted needs to be one that recognises the reality of what is possible. I refer to the fact that mandatory classification or censorship of online material is simply impossible, and probably always will be. This simply means that any scheme to address online material will have limited success and is almost certain to be discriminatory, covering only a vanishingly small proportion of what is available. With media convergence, this in turn means that any scheme that treats online material as a special case, but attempts mandatory classification or censorship offline will become increasingly irrelevant but will have the unintended consequence of discriminating against Australian businesses.
WOW, i am really impressed. I like that there is a point about protecting our children and other point about protecting freedom and adapting to what the community wants to see rather than the content.
Please remove classifications for downloadable games as such in the Nintendo 3ds eShop and DSiWare store. The Apple App Store does not require games to be classified so I don't see why the Nintendo eShops require classification. Additionally, the fees are extremely expensive for independent developers, inhibits competition and deters developers from releasing games in Australia.
Submitted by Terry Flew - Co... on 15 August 2011.
Hi all. Thanks for all of the suggestions so far. I am not wanting to direct thinking on the Inquiry, but Cameron1's comments did prompt me to make two observations. The first relates to the censorship/classification issue. Since the early 1970s, the amount of material that is actually banned in Australia, or Refused Classification, is not that high. There is some material that is RC, and the question of the scope of that category is an issue for the ALRC. What is mandatory for a large amount of media is classification, which may restrict access (e.g. classify an item as R18+, MA 15+ etc.), but I would suggest this is not the same as direct censorship.
The other point would be that we have submissions that do indeed question the whole premise behind classification in the 21st century context of convergent media. For instance, Submission 1737 from the Institute of Public Affairs calls for the privatisation of classification, with money saved from closing down the Classification Board being used to assist parents in managing what media their children can access from home. So points similar to the ones raised here can be found in at least some of the submissions.
Hi Terry thanks for taking a personal interest in these comments. A lot of the comments have pointed out the problems that have arisen in the current system which I would suggest is because our current legislation is designed to be a catchall and act as both a classification system and as a censorship system. If we accept the premise that classification is designed to group like material together and advise the consumer what material is likely to be contain therein, so they can make an informed choice, then we should not be regulating from within the classification process. If we look at the Dewy system mentioned by Amy it is universally accepted, accurate and non-judgmental. It is a highly trusted, universally accepted method of classification. I would suggest that these are the qualities that the classification system should be attempting to emulate. Regulation of material should be recognised as a separate issue and subject to separate legislation. I will go so far as to say that until this separation occurs there will be some lack of trust in the Australian classification system.
While the amount of material that is outright banned in Australia may no longer be "that high", I think that underplays the reality somewhat. It doesn't consider the 3 minutes of footage that may be cut from a motion picture for an Australian audience because those 3 minutes could mean the difference between an MA and an R rating. The producers may not even know for certain that those 3 minutes would be a problem, but pre-cut them based on past experience with the Classification Board. That is an effect worth considering, and it is censorship, albeit self-censorship. It could potentially completely change the audience's emotional reaction to a particular scene in a film. Something similar has certainly happened to video games and publications.
Ok, first thing we need to do here is have a look at the differences between classification and censorship. Most people conflate them, as you have done and, unfortunately, that conflation is currently enshrined in our regulatory system.
Classification is taxonomy, metadata. That's it. It is information about information. In the act of classification, you determine what the properties of something are and how it is related to other things, thereby identifying it and grouping it with other, similar things. When you classify a book using the Dewey Decimal System, for example, you determine what subject the book is and then assign a call number to it that reflects that subject matter as much as possible, a call number which may well be shared with thousands of other books.
If classification is the creation and application of metadata, then censorship is use of that metadata by a third party to impose restrictions on the access or other use of the item(s) defined by that metadata.
In Australia, the film, print, video game and internet classification schemes are actually hybrid classification schemes. To take the example of the film scheme (used for everything listed above but print, the G through to M15+ categories are classification categories. They exist purely to inform about the nature of the content. The MA15+ and beyond categories, however, are censorship categories. That is because their purpose is not to inform, but to restrict access. This is direct censorship.
Indirect censorship is, in part, why we see, for example, so few 'banned' video games. Indirect censorship is the chilling effect, when creators are reluctant to produce or distribute works for fear of censorship, legal penalty, social stigma or all three. The material is simply never produced, or is produced elsewhere but not imported (legally, anyway), or produced and then subjected to self-imposed censored prior to entry into the Australian market. We see a lot of indirect censorship in the art community these days due to the Bill Henson affair, which artists are so affraid of being subject to another witch-hunt that they are extremely reluctrant to create works that have children in them.
A second thing that must be discussed is that Refused Classification does not, in fact, equal banned. Unless the material is illegal in and of itself - and the vast majority of material that is or is potentially RC is not - it is not illegal for most adult Australians to own it. It is, however, no legal to sell it, or screen it publically, or make it avaiable for loan or hire. Distribution is prohibited. Ownership is not.
A good example of indirect censorship is the videogame Deadly Premonition. The publishers were worried that it would never meet the criteria of an MA15+ rating and didn't bother submitting the game for classification.
[link removed]
“As part of our normal procedures in submitting any game for classification, it was determined internally at Rising Star Games that the game would not satisfy the criteria for an MA15+ rating in Australia and further that any changes to the game would not be possible. It was therefore decided, with regret, the game will not be released in Australia.”
Other examples would probably include alot of mainstream American porn dvds.
Regarding "direct censorship", I would point out though that content that is *not* RC but which *is* prohibited content (typically because it does not have an approved Restricted Access System, or because it is or would be classified X) *and* which is hosted in Australia, results in a take-down notice.
In my mind a take-down notice is not distinguishable from outright banning.
That is, in my mind, direct censorship extends all the way down to R-rated content (and theoretically down to MA).
I think there would be scope to reconsider whether it is sensible to have laws where the only practical effect is to force business overseas.
Im all for the R 18+ it be nice to play computer games) eg mw3 or mortal kombat) with other 18+ people with out a bunch of smart ass 10 yrs olds giving lip when u kill them ect this is the right step for gaming as long as pernats make sure that there kids dont get in to them
Just a small suggestion for those who will be responsible for bringing in the legislation on classification reform.
It is time the Politicians of this country stopped looking at how many votes they will get depending on which way they go with the classification review. It is time for them to stop looking at classification as a tool to censor the electorate. It is also time for the government to stop playing nanny with Australian citizens and allow us to make our own decisions. I'm well aware of the law and what is illegal and within that framework I will inform myself on what I consume. And can the government stop pandering to the minority groups who use children as a puppet to get their way on a range of ludicrous and outrageous agendas.
As far as I can tell, most pushes towards censorship in modern democracies revolve around a desire to protect citizens from threats, real or imagined, posed by the materials being censored. Censorship is often thus an attempt to act in the interest of the public good, whether the public wants it or not.
This mirrors your suggestion that politicians should, if necessary, act against the wishes of their electorates (as proxied by votes and polls) in order to enact your views on censorship (or the abolition thereof). The differences between the views of "hard-line" proponents of censorship and your own lie only in what action is considered to be in the public's best interest.
I certainly believe that less censorship is in the public's best interest, but the way to affect such a change is not to demand that politicians base their views on yours. If less censorship is indeed the best direction, it is in our interest to ensure that the public receives the best information on the subject. Thus it is more helpful to, for example, ensure that good jurisprudential rigour goes into statements that will later be used in appeals to authority, such as the 8 principles being discussed on this board.
I would therefore recommend that in the future you and any others reading this argue against censorship with sound reasoning based on established principles of jurisprudence, rather than through exaggerations and dubious claims of political intent.
With all due respect I understand what your saying bjm however I am quite confident my comments are NOT based on exaggerations and dubious claims of political intent. I've watched and researched this debate for many years and my views have been formed from well documented sources and actions by those in power. I would also encourage you to read my comments on the 6 of the 8 principles I contributed to.
Why does this review centre on the thought that such a system is even necessary? Surely a major question should be if such a system is even appropriate in a so called free democracy. The first question should be "Does Australia still need mandatory censorship of all films, books and games?". Straight off the bat, this needs to be looked at, because if the answer to that is no (as it should be), than there is no need for any further investigation.
I completely agree with you that there is no place for mandatory censorship in a democratic society.
But I disagree with your final point. I think there is still room for Government to provide classification advice about voluntarily-submitted media content, and I think that that is what this review should focus upon.
Sorry I disagree with you on your first point that there is no place for mandatory censorship in a democratic society. Addiction is slavery, addiction to pornography is slavery, there is no freedom in slavery so how can there be freedom in democracy when there is slavery?
Could you please provide a reference to peer reviewed scientifically credible evidence that pornography is addictive. Could you also provide scientifically credible evidence to show that the conclusions of Milton Diamond at the University of Hawaii and others, that the more freely available pornography is in a country the lower the criminal sexual assault rate is, is wrong. Do you also believe that prescription medication, the internet and exercise should also be banned because they are addictive according to some? How can there be freedom or democracy when the truth is obscured or denied to citizens?
I second this comment; I disagree with the government deciding what I can or can't access, but I do like to be informed of the nature of the content of what I access.
The only censorship that should apply is the kind that protects children from accessing content (such as violent or sexual content) that is not yet within their ability to contextualise - and this is a job primarily for parents. Informed adults should be free to decide for themselves if they wish to view certain types of materials.
A clearer, more concise system of clasification would aide this. For example the PG classification is an extremely broad classification for TV and cinema, and does not provide enough information for parent guidance without the parent first viewing the content. The PG8+ used for video games provides more informationinformed higclarificat
Can you expand on "The only censorship that should apply is the kind that protects children from accessing content (such as violent or sexual content) that is not yet within their ability to contextualise".
Do you mean that your happy with a government censorship program that censors everything from say MA15+ upwards as often material rated as such as sexual references (even some PG and M content has sexual references) - because children don't understand it?
If that is indeed what you are suggesting how would you implement it if you were in charge? How do you determine at what age a child is able to contextualise various shades of sexual references, things like drug use or violence. How do you then apply a nation wide censorship scheme (in the aim of protecting children from adult content) to ALL children in Australia, given that children mature mentally very differently.
At the same time how do you not prevent adults from viewing material that has sexual references or violence in it at the same time?
Also the term children is very vague. Are you talking about 4 year olds or 16 year olds?
If what you mean when you say "and this is a job primarily for parents" then this is not censorship. This is simply called being a responsible parent. And having a robust and solid classification system in place can be a useful tool for parents to determine what their child can or cannot consume.
In a nutshell the government has no business censoring perfectly legal material from adults to protect so called vulnerable children. This is a job for parents and classification is a single tool among many parents can draw upon.
Comments (20)
Free TV would like to make
Free TV would like to make some observations regarding the current processes for training and accreditation of classifiers. We note that the Classification Board conducts an intensive three-month program which includes mentorship and practical experience. In comparison, the training programs for certified industry assessors are very brief (half-day or one-day). Anecdotal evidence suggests that this contributes to inconsistencies in classification decision-making, undermining the effectiveness and integrity of the National Classification Scheme.
The ALRC should consider recommending changes to the accreditation process to include consistent and rigorous training requirements, with classifiers required to undergo minimum periods of supervision following training.
Commercial free-to-air television broadcasters employ a number of full-time dedicated classifiers, many of whom have years of experience working in the industry and organisations such as the Classification Board.
Suggested new Principle 9: The classification framework should require a consistent standard in relation to training and accreditation of classifiers.
One principle that perhaps
WOW, i am really impressed. I
Please remove classifications
Hi all. Thanks for all of the
Hi Terry thanks for taking a
While the amount of material
Ok, first thing we need to do
A good example of indirect
Regarding "direct
Im all for the R 18+ it be
Just a small suggestion for
As far as I can tell, most
With all due respect I
Why does this review centre
I completely agree with you
Sorry I disagree with you on
Could you please provide a
I second this comment; I
Can you expand on "The only