FA+
Shop
A rant on censorship/morality/TV/gaming in Australia
18 years ago
General
Some background: This came about in a conversation with 
Dereck_Dingo on his journal entry entitled "Cuntastic rant", regarding an apparent controversy on his side of the planet when Jane Fonda said "cunt" on breakfast TV.
It started when I posted this link: http://youtube.com/watch?v=yyPHkJMlD0Q. Dereck suggested that people must be much more relaxed about this stuff where I am compared to the US.
Then the following was said. By me. And it was too long to leave it just buried in a comment.
You might need to see this one aswell: http://youtube.com/watch?v=olbNwSVutT8
If it happened, I'd wager lots of people here would bat eyelids, and also write complaints. The station would probably get away with calling it a "freak accident" or whatever spin they usually put on those things, and then go about their business. Depending on who and where it was, there could be controversy and news items and shit. It mostly depends on how much traction rival stations think they could get. I doubt it'd get anything near the attention of what 'cunt' would, though.
I'm reminded of an incident a couple of years ago when a lame Aussie version of the trashy "reality" TV show Big Brother got itself into strife. Some bogan dangled his balls on the face of one of the female housemates. http://youtube.com/watch?v=O8I5luYyKrw (I can't believe I'm using a story by A Current Affair as a reference. Ugh. I feel dirty.) That sure made some classy TV.
So for the next few weeks we're hearing all over the news about how this show is appalling trash (which is true, but that should be obvious) and should be canned or banned. News items and "controversy" and all sorts of crazy shit going on about how it was sexual assault (maybe true, but not the point I'm making) and how we can't allow this kind of filth on television. Even our damned prime minister (now ex, thank christ) was calling for the show to be canned because of it.
So much media attention about it. But then, I'm sure it had nothing to do with the fact that rival networks had a vested interest in bringing the show down. Or that the channel that was running the show was getting some major publicity. Nope. Nothing. Nothing at all.
Oh, and how's this for censorship: Here in Aus we have a thing called the OFLC, Office of Film and Literature Classification. Now, this is the mob that decides what ratings to give to movies and games and stuff. Fair enough, I'm all for classification: It allows people to be aware and make informed choices. But the OFLC does censorship, too. Of course, they don't call it censorship, their name is "Refused Classification" (RC), which translates to "We don't take kindly to your types around here."
RC classified material can't be sold, and it's illegal to possess. I'm uncomfortable with the premise of that, but I'm not going to be the first to protest about it because it's typically the worst of the worst. The next rating up the kid-friendliness ladder is X, typical porn. Can't be sold to minors and, in most states, is illegal to sell at all. Yep, in most states of Aus, prick-in-vag porn is illegal to sell. (Actually, technically it's all states of Aus, since the only two places you can buy that stuff legally are the ACT and NT territories.) Above that is R: Also illegal for under 18's, yada yada, but legally sellable in all states. Soft-core porn, high-violence (but certainly not at the same time), that sort of thing. Above that is MA15+, restricted to those 15+ or those accompanied by someone 15+. Above that it's all pretty lenient.
Right, now that I've set up the scene, consider this: There is no rating below MA for computer games. Any game that doesn't get an MA15+ or above gets RC. Banned. No R-rated game for j00!
Australia almost banned Duke Nuken 3D for this. No shit. The developers had to self-censor to get it through, but it was a soft censor that eventually got cracked. Big kerfuffle for the OFLC, but eventually they just re-rated the uncensored version up to MA.
The Grand Theft Auto series has consistently been an annoyance for the classification militants. Self-censorship to avoid RC in most of the sequels. Oh, and then there was "Hot Coffee". San Andreas got pulled from shelves so that the HIDDEN CONTENT THAT PEOPLE HAD TO ACTUALLY HACK THE GAME SO THEY COULD SEE THE POORLY CHOREOGRAPHED SIMU-SEX could be removed.
Then one of our dumb-fuck government ministers goes and makes a complaint about Manhunt, after it had been out for a year, and the OFLC reclassifies it from MA to RC. Banned!
And the inherent irony of banning a game about fighting a world where self-expression is denied was apparently lost on the OFLC regulators. (Contents Under Pressure.)
The kicker is, that in order to get ourselves a consistent set of ratings for games as for films, we have to get the Attorney Generals from each state to come together and agree. All of them. Maybe a half-dozen guys, right? They had a meeting a few weeks back, and we almost had it. We almost had consensus that the classifications should be consistent. Weren't for this one puritan fuck-knuckle South Australian luddite, apparently of the belief that only children play computer games, who just refused to go along outright. Thanks for that, arsewipe.
*sigh* I could probably go on.
Don't you worry. We have our fair share of indignant ignorant shitbags.
Dereck_Dingo on his journal entry entitled "Cuntastic rant", regarding an apparent controversy on his side of the planet when Jane Fonda said "cunt" on breakfast TV.It started when I posted this link: http://youtube.com/watch?v=yyPHkJMlD0Q. Dereck suggested that people must be much more relaxed about this stuff where I am compared to the US.
Then the following was said. By me. And it was too long to leave it just buried in a comment.
You might need to see this one aswell: http://youtube.com/watch?v=olbNwSVutT8
If it happened, I'd wager lots of people here would bat eyelids, and also write complaints. The station would probably get away with calling it a "freak accident" or whatever spin they usually put on those things, and then go about their business. Depending on who and where it was, there could be controversy and news items and shit. It mostly depends on how much traction rival stations think they could get. I doubt it'd get anything near the attention of what 'cunt' would, though.
I'm reminded of an incident a couple of years ago when a lame Aussie version of the trashy "reality" TV show Big Brother got itself into strife. Some bogan dangled his balls on the face of one of the female housemates. http://youtube.com/watch?v=O8I5luYyKrw (I can't believe I'm using a story by A Current Affair as a reference. Ugh. I feel dirty.) That sure made some classy TV.
So for the next few weeks we're hearing all over the news about how this show is appalling trash (which is true, but that should be obvious) and should be canned or banned. News items and "controversy" and all sorts of crazy shit going on about how it was sexual assault (maybe true, but not the point I'm making) and how we can't allow this kind of filth on television. Even our damned prime minister (now ex, thank christ) was calling for the show to be canned because of it.
So much media attention about it. But then, I'm sure it had nothing to do with the fact that rival networks had a vested interest in bringing the show down. Or that the channel that was running the show was getting some major publicity. Nope. Nothing. Nothing at all.
Oh, and how's this for censorship: Here in Aus we have a thing called the OFLC, Office of Film and Literature Classification. Now, this is the mob that decides what ratings to give to movies and games and stuff. Fair enough, I'm all for classification: It allows people to be aware and make informed choices. But the OFLC does censorship, too. Of course, they don't call it censorship, their name is "Refused Classification" (RC), which translates to "We don't take kindly to your types around here."
RC classified material can't be sold, and it's illegal to possess. I'm uncomfortable with the premise of that, but I'm not going to be the first to protest about it because it's typically the worst of the worst. The next rating up the kid-friendliness ladder is X, typical porn. Can't be sold to minors and, in most states, is illegal to sell at all. Yep, in most states of Aus, prick-in-vag porn is illegal to sell. (Actually, technically it's all states of Aus, since the only two places you can buy that stuff legally are the ACT and NT territories.) Above that is R: Also illegal for under 18's, yada yada, but legally sellable in all states. Soft-core porn, high-violence (but certainly not at the same time), that sort of thing. Above that is MA15+, restricted to those 15+ or those accompanied by someone 15+. Above that it's all pretty lenient.
Right, now that I've set up the scene, consider this: There is no rating below MA for computer games. Any game that doesn't get an MA15+ or above gets RC. Banned. No R-rated game for j00!
Australia almost banned Duke Nuken 3D for this. No shit. The developers had to self-censor to get it through, but it was a soft censor that eventually got cracked. Big kerfuffle for the OFLC, but eventually they just re-rated the uncensored version up to MA.
The Grand Theft Auto series has consistently been an annoyance for the classification militants. Self-censorship to avoid RC in most of the sequels. Oh, and then there was "Hot Coffee". San Andreas got pulled from shelves so that the HIDDEN CONTENT THAT PEOPLE HAD TO ACTUALLY HACK THE GAME SO THEY COULD SEE THE POORLY CHOREOGRAPHED SIMU-SEX could be removed.
Then one of our dumb-fuck government ministers goes and makes a complaint about Manhunt, after it had been out for a year, and the OFLC reclassifies it from MA to RC. Banned!
And the inherent irony of banning a game about fighting a world where self-expression is denied was apparently lost on the OFLC regulators. (Contents Under Pressure.)
The kicker is, that in order to get ourselves a consistent set of ratings for games as for films, we have to get the Attorney Generals from each state to come together and agree. All of them. Maybe a half-dozen guys, right? They had a meeting a few weeks back, and we almost had it. We almost had consensus that the classifications should be consistent. Weren't for this one puritan fuck-knuckle South Australian luddite, apparently of the belief that only children play computer games, who just refused to go along outright. Thanks for that, arsewipe.
*sigh* I could probably go on.
Don't you worry. We have our fair share of indignant ignorant shitbags.
Honestly, people need to get a grip and stop trying to tell people from a government level what they can and can't see.
Also, no more 'media watchdog' groups. That shit is not nescessary.
As for watchdog groups, I like a particular kind of media watchdog group. The kind I like is actually a TV show run on the Australian publicly-funded broadcast TV station called, funnily enough, "Media Watch". They aren't a morality police. What they do is bring to light media bias, underhandedness, anything that could be viewed as the antithesis of journalistic integrity, as well as miscellaneous fuckups. It can be quite amusing sometimes (also aggravating, depressing). Outing plagiarism is always good for a chuckle (worst offenders go in the running to be awarded the Campbell Reid Perpetual Trophy for the Brazen Recycling of Other People's Work, a trophy fish with the inscription "Carpe verbatim").
The other kind of watchdog groups can, of course, suck my balls.
Here in the US, the Federal Communications Commission can fine broadcast stations for showing "too much" tit (whatever that means), but neither they no any other bureaucrats have any control over the content of games, CDs, DVDs, or cable or satellite TV. Anything goes except for kiddy porn with real (not simulated or rendered) kids and zoo with real animals and real humans getting it on with each other. There are some states, such as Nevada, where the latter is perfectly legal so long as it is done in private with a consenting animal. Brothels with sheep are not allowed, however - prostitution is legal only with adult human women.
On your other point, I imagine it'd be somewhat difficult to prove an animal did or did not give consent. (Could make for an interesting episode of Law and Order, though.)
When you said "prostitution is legal only with adult human women", did you mean that literally? As in, not men? That would be a weird form of discrimination.
Consent by an animal is determined by context; if the animal is unrestrained, not injured, and there is no evidence of punishment for non-participation, the act would be presumed mutually consensual.