Reforming the scope of Prohibited content

11.45 The SCAG meeting, in December 2010, agreed that the review of the National Classification Scheme to be conducted by the ALRC should include review of the scope of the RC category for publications, films and computer games.[58]

11.46 A diverse range of views about the desirable scope of the RC category have been provided in submissions and consultations. While some stakeholders and individuals considered that the current scope of what is prohibited is appropriate,[59] others considered that it should be broadened,[60] narrowed,[61] or that RC should not exist as a classification category at all.[62] Text analysis of the many submissions received to the Issues Paper suggested that the majority of respondents who commented on the scope of the RC category considered it to be too broad—at least for the purpose of prohibiting online content.[63]

11.47 Some stakeholders argued for the continuing relevance of an RC category.[64] For example, the Uniting Church in Australia’s Justice and International Mission Unit stated that it ‘supports the existing definition of RC as adequately setting boundaries around what content should be entirely prohibited online’.[65] Another submission stated:

It is essential that the government support the efforts of parents in setting boundaries and to protect children by restricting certain inappropriate material to mature audiences, or to adults over the age of eighteen, and in more extreme cases, to refuse classification.[66]

11.48 Other stakeholders called for the scope of the RC category to be extended so that it includes X 18+ content,[67] or in order to reverse the SCAG ministers’ decision to make the R 18+ classification category available for computer games.[68]

11.49 Many submissions criticised the breadth of the current scope of the RC classification category.[69] These criticisms, which are discussed below, included concern about the use of community standards and ‘offensiveness’ in defining RC content; and that the RC category covers content that:

  • is legal to possess but illegal to distribute, as well as different content which is illegal to possess and illegal to distribute;
  • depicts or describes particular sexual fetishes which are legal between consenting adults;
  • ‘promotes, incites or instructs in matters of crime or violence’; and
  • provides detailed instruction in the use of proscribed drugs.

Community standards

11.50 In the course of the Inquiry, a range of views were expressed about using ‘community standards’ in deciding whether media content should be prohibited.

11.51 The Communications Law Centre submitted that the criteria for RC should ‘continue to reference both community standards and offensiveness’.[70] The Centre stated:

The terms of the RC classification are, rightly, broad because particular terms cannot hope to cover all the various types of content which exist and will exist in the future. It is up to the Classification Board and the Classification Review Board as independent boards which represent the community to apply the terms and concepts used in the RC classification in accordance with the then community standards, which change over time.[71]

11.52 While some stakeholders advocated the continued relevance of standards based on ‘public decency’,[72] others were concerned about the subjective nature of determining a ‘community standard’.[73] It was noted that standards will vary across communities,[74] including online communities,[75] and are likely to change over time.[76] For example, the Arts Law Centre of Australia commented that:

The difficulty for many people in the arts and broader community is not with the prohibition on material which is illegal under the criminal laws, but the much broader category of ‘offensive’ materials. An agreed upon ‘community standard of morality, decency and propriety’ is inherently subjective and will differ enormously across communities.[77]

11.53 Some respondents submitted that the current standards that are determined to be reflective of the community may be unduly narrow.[78] For example, Pirate Party Australia submitted that ‘[t]he current scope of RC does not reflect the attitudes and morals of today’s society’.[79] It argued that

the ban on bondage (BDSM) pornography, between willing participants, does not match community standards, where there are shops, groups and even night-clubs that cater to people who enjoy BDSM as part of their sex life.[80]

11.54 Rebecca Randall, who had conducted research with five young BDSM practitioners in Brisbane, called for this aspect of the RC category to be revised, because:

[t]his morality system is excluding a culture within the Australian population, with inadequate justification. BDSM practitioners do not subject non consenting individuals to their practices. If it is between consenting adults, what does it matter whether or not the majority find it abhorrent?[81]

11.55 Some submissions questioned the propriety of media content being ‘banned’ because a majority determines it to be offensive.[82] One respondent submitted that ‘community standards’ is a ‘pretty way of saying the tyranny of the majority’.[83] Another noted:

Few people who would be offended by RC … material are ever actually offended by it—because they wouldn’t seek it out in the first place and they don’t accidentally encounter it. It is really just a case of one person who is offended by something attempting to impose his or her values on another person. This cannot be justified in a free society.[84]

11.56 A number of respondents argued that to warrant prohibition online, or an RC classification, content should be capable of causing harm.[85] For example, the NSW Council for Civil Liberties Inc submitted that only where ‘serious harm is to be prevented is curbing liberty acceptable’.[86]

11.57 In this context, Electronic Frontiers Australia suggested that prohibitions on the production or possession of child sexual abuse content ‘reflects the harm inflicted on an innocent person in its production’.[87] Similarly, another respondent observed that depictions of sexual abuse and assault ‘aren’t illegal because they are offensive or fail to meet community standards; they are illegal because they cause harm to the victims’.[88]

11.58 The notion of ‘community standards’ has underpinned the Australian classification scheme for many years, and is also a relevant object of the Broadcasting Services Act framework.[89] With respect to the current classification cooperative scheme, it is important to note that the community standards criterion does not exist in a vacuum but, rather, must be read in light of the principles in cl 1 of the Code. The ALRC sees no reason to abandon the notion of community standards at this time and has identified ‘community standards’ as a guiding principle for reform of the classification scheme. Specifically, the ALRC proposes that communications and media services available to Australians should broadly reflect community standards, while recognising a diversity of views, cultures and ideas in the community.[90]

11.59 The argument that ‘community standards’ should be abandoned as a relevant concept in classification would require, at the very least, strong evidence of significant changes in community attitudes over time. This Inquiry has not identified any empirical evidence of such a shift.

Prohibited and ‘illegal’ content

11.60 Another significant criticism of the scope of the RC category focuses on the fact that RC encompasses both content which is illegal to possess (such as ‘child pornography material’ and ‘child abuse material’) and content which is not illegal, but is seen to offend community standards.[91]

11.61 Some who commented on the distinction between ‘illegal’ and offensive content called for the RC category to cover illegal content only, or alternatively, be abolished altogether.[92] It was suggested, for example, that:

this review is a good opportunity to separate classification from censorship, and so abandon the RC classification and have such [illegal] content dealt with by the criminal justice system.[93]

11.62 Dr Nicolas Suzor submitted that only material that is ‘illegal to possess should be entirely prohibited online’.[94] Other respondents considered that the content which should be entirely prohibited is that which is ‘illegal to create or possess’—with child sexual abuse content being given as a common example.[95]

The only content that should be entirely prohibited online is that which required the commission of certain illegal acts to produce, such as child abuse material, and does not have any artistic, literary, academic, historic or newsworthiness value.[96]

11.63 The most obvious example of ‘illegal’ content is child sexual abuse content. All Australian jurisdictions provide for offences in relation to the making, distribution or possession of child sexual abuse content, with some differences in terminology and approach.[97]

11.64 The Criminal Code definitions of both ‘child pornography material’ and ‘child abuse material’:

  • include ‘material in any form, or combination of forms, capable of constituting a communication’;
  • encompass depictions or descriptions of persons who are, or appear to be, under 18 years of age; and
  • contain a requirement that the relevant material convey the particular content the subject of each definition ‘in a way that reasonable persons would regard as being, in all the circumstances, offensive’.[98]

11.65 ‘Child pornography material’ is defined broadly and relates to the portrayal of:

  • sexual poses or sexual activity where the child is the one engaged (actual or implied) in that pose or activity—regardless of whether they are in the presence of other persons;
  • the child in the presence of a person who is engaged (actual or implied) in a sexual pose or sexual activity; or
  • other content—namely specific parts or areas of the child’s body—in a context which the dominant characteristic of the portrayal is for a sexual purpose.[99]

11.66 The focus of ‘child abuse material’ is the portrayal of the child as a victim (whether actual or implied) of torture, cruelty or physical abuse.[100]

11.67 Briefly, the Criminal Code criminalises the distribution of ‘child pornography material’ or ‘child abuse material’ by transmitting that content by post;[101] and creates broader offences of accessing, transmitting, distributing, promoting, or soliciting ‘child pornography material’ or ‘child abuse material’ using a carriage service;[102] and of producing or possessing ‘child pornography material’ or ‘child abuse material’ with intent to transmit it using a carriage service.[103] Offences also apply to internet service providers or content hosts who are aware that their service is being used to access ‘child pornography material’ or ‘child abuse material’ and who do not report this to the Australian Federal Police within a reasonable time.[104]

11.68 The Criminal Code also creates offences for Australians or residents of Australia, who produce, obtain, possess, distribute, or facilitate the production or distribution of ‘child pornography material’ or ‘child abuse material’ outside of Australia;[105] and the Customs Act 1901 (Cth) and relevant regulations provide offences for the import or export of ‘child pornography material’ or ‘child abuse material’.[106]

11.69 Some stakeholders commented that, because this kind of ‘illegal’ content is already subject to criminal law enforcement, there may be no need to target it through the classification scheme.[107] MLCS Management, for example, submitted that the interface between entertainment and criminal law ‘is a major flaw’ of the present classification cooperative scheme as:

one of the reasons for banning content (refusing classification) is because it not only offends reasonable adults, but because it may in some way break the law. However, the prime reason for the [national classification scheme] is to advise consumers about product suitability. There must be very clear and consistent linkages between any classification framework and other legislative schemes, such as criminal codes and customs regulations.[108]

11.70 Amy Hightower and others argued that ‘media classification is not the appropriate tool for prohibition; such material is better handled through law enforcement agencies than media classifiers’.[109] Civil Liberties Australia submitted that ‘what material is deemed illegal should be well defined, well understood, and sensible. There must be real, provable harm’.[110]

11.71 Dr Lyria Bennett Moses, from the Faculty of Law of the University of New South Wales, noted that the RC category contains two types of content: (a) ‘content that has been internationally condemned, most obviously child pornography’; and (b) content that cannot be sold in Australia, but can be possessed legally. Dr Bennett Moses submitted that, by giving separate labels to these two categories of content, ‘censorship regulations can be better targeted’.[111]

11.72 That is, in the case of child pornography, prohibition is based on different goals and purposes than in the case of some other RC material, as the content is ‘rightly treated as falling outside even a broad notion of freedom of speech’ and may warrant a different regulatory response.[112] Bennett Moses argues that the community ‘expects an active police response … including the prosecution of those responsible’ for the production of such material.[113] Further, there are avenues for regulating access to this material that do not exist with other RC material, for example, by way of international co-operation.[114]

11.73 For some purposes, the distinction between content that is illegal to possess and content for which it is prohibited to sell and distribute may be significant—including in relation to enforcement. In the context of this Inquiry, however, there is no reason to recommend either that the new Classification of Media Content Act should restrict the Prohibited category to ‘illegal’ content; or that prohibitions on the sale and distribution of such content should be left to the operation of general criminal law.

11.74 Such changes would mark a radical departure from existing classification arrangements for which detailed justification would be required. In the ALRC’s view, the community expects that some media content will be classified as Prohibited even where that same content is not illegal to possess or create—for example, content depicting extreme sexual violence. This view receives some support from the results of the ALRC’s pilot study on community attitudes to higher level media content (discussed below).

Content depicting sexual fetishes

11.75 A distinction may also be drawn between content depicting legal conduct and content depicting actual acts which are illegal. The Eros Foundation, for example, stated that ‘depictions of legal sex acts between consenting adults should never be subject to censorship or bans’.[115] Such acts were contrasted with ‘depictions of real murder, rape and serious assault; child sex abuse; bestiality’, which should be prohibited.[116] This raises specific issues surrounding the depiction of sexual fetishes. Such acts, where consensual, are often legal.

11.76 As discussed above, the Guidelines for the Classification of Films and Computer Games provide that some specific fetishes, for example, ‘bondage’ and ‘spanking’ are not permitted in the X 18+ classification. The Guidelines for the Classification of Publications differ, in providing that ‘descriptions and depictions of stronger fetishes may be permitted’—arguably including fetishes effectively prohibited under the Films and Computer Games Guidelines.

11.77 The ALRC considers that this is an area where the Government could consider narrowing the scope of the RC classification category. Prior to 2000, the X 18+ classification category for films accommodated ‘mild fetishes’. It may be that Australians are open to the X 18+ classification category accommodating ‘mild fetishes’. The results of the ALRC’s pilot study on community attitudes to higher level media content are not incompatible with such a suggestion.

11.78 In any case, it is not clear why the Guidelines for the Classification of Films and Computer Games refers to the particular fetishes that it does, and not others that are arguably more ‘revolting or abhorrent’, in terms of the Code criterion. There is no apparent application of any harm principle that might, for example, allow a distinction to be made between ‘spanking’ and more extreme forms of sadomasochism. Questions may also be raised about consistency with international classification practices.

11.79 The ALRC recommends that the Australian Government should review current prohibitions in relation to the depiction of sexual fetishes in films.

Content promoting, inciting or instructing in crime

11.80 A number of submissions were critical of the current provisions of item 1(c) of the Code, requiring content that ‘promotes, incites or instructs in matters of crime or violence’ to be classified RC.[117] Clearly, there is an ‘extraordinary range of activities’[118] that is proscribed by the criminal law and the content that may come within this item of the Code is ‘potentially extremely broad’.[119]

11.81 Stakeholders noted that this criterion of the RC category has been used to make ‘highly publicly controversial RC decisions’, including the decisions with respect to Rabelais, The Peaceful Pill Handbook,[120] and on a computer game entitled Marc Ecko’s Getting Up: Contents Under Pressure—which had elements promoting graffiti.[121]

11.82 Google stated that prohibition of a ‘broader class of controversial material, such as material dealing with safer drug use or material dealing with euthanasia, which is not universally recognised as illegal’ is inappropriate.[122]

11.83 While some stakeholders were critical of the prohibition of media content concerning euthanasia,[123] others considered that media content which promotes or provides instruction in suicide should be prohibited.[124] The Hunter Institute of Mental Health submitted:

Given the potential risks to those who are vulnerable, we believe that any material (online or otherwise) that is explicitly pro-suicide and provides information or access to means of suicide should be prohibited. While some may conceive this as a restriction of freedom of speech, it does pose a real risk to those who are vulnerable and desperate.[125]

11.84 The Uniting Church also submitted that material instructing in criminal acts of graffiti, the safe use of illicit drugs, suicide, or euthanasia ‘is more likely to result in harm within the community than good’.[126]

11.85 In the ALRC’s view, the breadth of the current criterion prohibiting content that ‘promotes, incites or instructs in matters of crime’ is unjustifiable. Again, the results of the ALRC’s pilot study on community attitudes to higher level media content are not incompatible with such a suggestion. Participants registered a low level of offence to content depicting graffiti activity and did not consider that such content should be banned.[127]

11.86 The ALRC recommends that the Australian Government should consider confining the prohibition on content that ‘promotes, incites or instructs in matters of crime’ to ‘serious crime’. The category of ‘serious crime’ might be defined, for example, by reference to maximum penalty levels provided by the Criminal Code (and state and territory criminal law).[128]

Detailed instruction in drug use

11.87 The depiction of drug use may lead to content being classified RC under criteria set out in the Code and Guidelines.

11.88 Item 1(a) of the Code provides that publications, films or computer games that

depict, express or otherwise deal with matters of … drug misuse or addiction … in such a way that they offend against the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults to the extent that they should not be classified.

As mentioned, item 1(c) of the Code also provides that publications, films or computer games will be RC if they ‘promote … or instruct in matters of crime’.

11.89 The Guidelines provide that publications, films or computer games will be RC if they include or contain ‘detailed instruction in the use of proscribed drugs’. The Guidelines for the Classification of Films and Computer Games also refer to ‘[m]aterial promoting or encouraging proscribed drug use’.

11.90 A number of stakeholders commented on the classification criteria relating to drug use.[129] The National Drug Research Institute called for consideration of the scope of RC from a public health perspective: ‘specifically, to reconsider the rationale behind including “detailed instruction in drug use” in the definition of refused classification’.[130]

11.91 The Institute explained that almost all of the respondents in one of its studies had participated in online drug discussion for the purpose of reducing the risks of drug use and preventing harmful outcomes.[131]

11.92 Depiction of drug misuse or addiction is generally not considered as so offensive as to justify banning the content. Content involving drug use constituted, together with graffiti, the content which registered the lowest levels of offence in the ALRC’s pilot study on community attitudes to higher level media content.[132]

11.93 Rather, debate focuses on whether content that instructs in drug use should be prohibited under the ‘promotes, incites or instructs in matters of crime’ criterion of the Code. As discussed above, the ALRC recommends that the Australian Government considering narrowing this criterion to matters of serious crime, which would exclude most drug use offences.[133]

11.94 In addition, it may not be justified to include specific reference to ‘detailed instruction in the use of proscribed drugs’ in classification criteria. The ALRC recommends that the Australian Government should review current prohibitions in relation to the ‘detailed instruction in the use of proscribed drugs’.

A narrower Prohibited category

11.95 The ALRC recommends that, under the Classification of Media Content Act, the Prohibited category should be framed more narrowly than the current RC category. As discussed, the ALRC has suggested three aspects of current classification criteria that the Australian Government should consider changing in the new Act.

11.96 In making this recommendation, the ALRC took into account concerns expressed in submissions and consultations about the broad scope of the RC category and the practical difficulties in applying RC criteria. The ALRC’s recommendations are also consistent with the results of the ALRC’s pilot study on community attitudes to higher level media content, which is discussed in more detail below.

11.97 The aim of the ALRC’s pilot study was to test a methodology for determining community attitudes to the current higher level classification categories. It was not a comprehensive review of relevant community standards. The Australian Government’s conclusions on the scope of the Prohibited category in the new Act should be informed by further research into community standards.

Recommendation 11–2 The Classification of Media Content Act should frame the ‘Prohibited’ category more narrowly than the current ‘Refused Classification’ category. In particular, the Australian Government should review current prohibitions in relation to:

(a) the depiction of sexual fetishes in films; and

(b) ‘detailed instruction in the use of proscribed drugs’.

The Government should also consider confining the prohibition on content that ‘promotes, incites or instructs in matters of crime’ to ‘serious crime’.

[58] Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, Communiqué 10 December 2010, 2.

[59] Eg, Communications Law Centre, Submission CI 2484; National Civic Council, Submission CI 2226; NSW Council of Churches, Submission CI 2162; Australian Christian Lobby, Submission CI 2024; Uniting Church in Australia, Submission CI 1245; Australian Council on Children and the Media, Submission CI 1236; Bravehearts Inc, Submission CI 1175; Australian Family Association of WA, Submission CI 918.

[60] Collective Shout, Submission CI 2477; Family Council of Victoria Inc, Submission CI 1139.

[61] Eg, T McGannon, Submission CI 2359; J McHugh, Submission CI 2038; N Leverett, Submission CI 203.

[62] Eg, R Williams, Submission CI 2515; J Trevaskis, Submission CI 2493; L Mancell, Submission CI 2492.

[63] Australian Law Reform Commission, Responses to ALRC National Classification Scheme Review Issues Paper (IP40) – Graphical Representation of Submissions (2011) <https://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/
responses-IP40> at 26 January 2012.

[64] Eg, T Brown, Submission CI 2498; Communications Law Centre, Submission CI 2484; C Roper, Submission CI 2475.

[65] Uniting Church in Australia, Submission CI 1245.

[66] T Brown, Submission CI 2498.

[67] Collective Shout, Submission CI 2477; Hon Nick Goiran MLC, Submission CI 1004; Family Council of Victoria Inc, Submission CI 1139.

[68] L D, Submission CI 2454.

[69] A Hightower and Others, Submission CI 2159; K Weatherall, Submission CI 2155; Pirate Party Australia, Submission CI 1588; The Arts Law Centre of Australia, Submission CI 1299; I Graham, Submission CI 1244; N Suzor, Submission CI 1233; Civil Liberties Australia, Submission CI 1143; Interactive Games and Entertainment Association, Submission CI 1101.

[70] Communications Law Centre, Submission CI 2484.

[71] Communications Law Centre, Submission CI 1230.

[72] Eg, Australian Council on Children and the Media, Submission CI 1236; Communications Law Centre, Submission CI 1230.

[73] Eg, The Arts Law Centre of Australia, Submission CI 1299; G Urbas and T Kelly, Submission CI 1151.

[74] Eg, The Arts Law Centre of Australia, Submission CI 1299; G Urbas and T Kelly, Submission CI 1151.

[75] Google, Submission CI 2336.

[76] Eg, N Suzor, Submission CI 1233; G Urbas and T Kelly, Submission CI 1151.

[77] The Arts Law Centre of Australia, Submission CI 1299.

[78] Eg, Pirate Party Australia, Submission CI 1588; MLCS Management, Submission CI 1241; N Suzor, Submission CI 1233.

[79] Pirate Party Australia, Submission CI 1588.

[80] Ibid.

[81] R Randall, Submission CI 2462.

[82] Eg, Ibid; New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties, Submission CI 2120; N Suzor, Submission CI 1233.

[83] L Mancell, Submission CI 2492.

[84] J Trevaskis, Submission CI 2493.

[85] Eg, New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties, Submission CI 2120; G Urbas and T Kelly, Submission CI 1151; Civil Liberties Australia, Submission CI 1143.

[86] New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties, Submission CI 2120.

[87] Electronic Frontiers Australia, Submission CI 2194.

[88] L Mancell, Submission CI 2492.

[89] See Ch 4.

[90] See Ch 4, Principle 2.

[91] Eg, L Green and Others, Submission CI 2522; Eros Association, Submission CI 1856; Pirate Party Australia, Submission CI 1588; N Suzor, Submission CI 1233; Civil Liberties Australia, Submission CI 1143.

[92] J Trevaskis, Submission CI 2493; Civil Liberties Australia, Submission CI 1143.

[93] R Williams, Submission CI 2515. See also J Trevaskis, Submission CI 2493.

[94] N Suzor, Submission CI 1233.

[95] Eg, Google, Submission CI 2336; A Hightower and Others, Submission CI 2159; I Graham, Submission CI 1244.

[96] A Hightower and Others, Submission CI 2159.

[97] See G Griffith and K Simon, Child Pornography Law (2008), prepared for NSW Parliamentary Library Research Service 27, 35–36.

[98]Criminal Code (Cth) s 473.1.

[99] Ibid s 473.1.

[100] Ibid s 473.1.

[101] See Ibid ss 471.16; 471.17; 471.19; 471.20.

[102] Ibid, ss 474.19 (child pornography material); 474.22 (child abuse material).

[103] Ibid, ss 472.20 (child pornography material); 474.23 (child abuse material).

[104] Ibid, s 474.25.

[105] Ibid, ss 273.5 (child pornography material); 273.6 (child abuse material).

[106] See Customs Act 1901 (Cth) s 233BAB; Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations 1956 (Cth) reg 4A(1A)(b); Customs (Prohibited Exports) Regulations 1958 (Cth) reg 3(2)(b). The latter two provisions use identical wording to item 1(b) of the Classification Code tables rather than the terms ‘child pornography material’ or ‘child abuse material’.

[107] Watch On Censorship, Submission CI 2472; Electronic Frontiers Australia, Submission CI 2194; Civil Liberties Australia, Submission CI 1143.

[108] MLCS Management, Submission CI 1241.

[109] A Hightower and Others, Submission CI 2159. Some stakeholders called for appropriate resourcing of the enforcement of such criminal laws: eg, Electronic Frontiers Australia, Submission CI 2194; Artsource, Submission CI 1880.

[110] Civil Liberties Australia, Submission CI 1143.

[111] L Bennett Moses, Submission CI 2126.

[112] Ibid.

[113] Ibid.

[114] Ibid.

[115] Eros Association, Submission CI 1856.

[116] At least, where not part of an educational or news report: Ibid.

[117] Eg, K Weatherall, Submission CI 2155; I Graham, Submission CI 1244; National Drug Research Institute, Submission CI 1186.

[118] K Weatherall, Submission CI 2155.

[119] Ibid.

[120] Google observed that, in July 2008, the print edition of The Peaceful Pill Handbook by Dr Philip Nitschke was listed No 66 on the Amazon.com global Bestseller List, but was banned in Australia: Google, Submission CI 2336.

[121] I Graham, Submission CI 1244. See Classification Review Board, Decision on Marc Ecko’s Getting Up: Contents Under Pressure (2006).

[122] Google, Submission CI 2336.

[123] Eg, T Namow, Submission CI 2459; Eros Association, Submission CI 1856.

[124] Eg, Collective Shout, Submission CI 2477; Hunter Institute of Mental Health, Submission CI 2136; Australian Christian Lobby, Submission CI 2024.

[125] Hunter Institute of Mental Health, Submission CI 2136.

[126] Uniting Church in Australia, Submission CI 2504.

[127] Urbis Pty Ltd, Community Attitudes to Higher Level Media Content: Community and Reference Group Forums Conducted for the Australian Law Reform Commission—Final Report (2011), prepared for the Australian Law Reform Commission, iii.

[128] Eg, the Criminal Code defines a ‘serious offence’, for the purposes of provisions dealing with telecommunications offences and serious computer offences, as an ‘offence against a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory that is punishable by imprisonment for life; or for a period of 5 or more years: Criminal Code (Cth) ss 473.1, 477.1(9).

[129] Eg, Google, Submission CI 2336; National Drug Research Institute, Submission CI 1186; M Lindfield, Submission CI 2164.

[130] National Drug Research Institute, Submission CI 1186.

[131] Ibid.

[132] Urbis Pty Ltd, Community Attitudes to Higher Level Media Content: Community and Reference Group Forums Conducted for the Australian Law Reform Commission—Final Report (2011), prepared for the Australian Law Reform Commission, iii.

[133] Eg, in NSW, the offence of self-administering a prohibited drug is punishable by imprisonment for a maximum term of two years: Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) ss 12, 21.