Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Censorship: No! Labelling: Yes!

By Bob Ryan - posted Tuesday, 11 January 2011


Donald McDonald, who took over as chief censor in 2007, seemed to echo Williams when referring to the correspondence the Board receives:

Everyone has a view, everyone believes they would make better decisions and everyone would more accurately reflect the views of the community!

McDonald cannot act against the law that leans so heavily on unspecified and unstated community standards that are the cause of so much controversy. The four people who sat as a Board of Review that banned Baise Moi did not act for everyone, but on an interpretation of the guidelines. The 50,000 or so Australians who saw the movie before it was banned had no problem with it (the few complainants excepted). If “everyone” would make a better censor, let everyone censor for themselves and their dependent youngsters. There is no community view on consumables but, rather, an aggregation of individual views that happen to coincide. Some approve of an item, some disapprove, some don’t have an opinion; communities are like that - opinions differ.

Advertisement

My opinion favours labelling over censorship. The Board would become unnecessary if arts-media items were required to include descriptions of contents, as do all other packaged consumables.

A final note

The Attorneys-General from all States and Territories were to meet with the Federal Attorney-General a week before Christmas to discuss the controversial R-rated video games issue. I wrote to the Federal Attorney-General, in time for that meeting, on the matter of labelling arts-media and transferring oversight of it the consumer affairs department. I had already written to NSW Premier, Keneally some weeks earlier on this subject; she, in turn passed my letter to Mr Hatzistergos, New South Wales Attorney-General. In my letter to the Federal A-G, I told him of my letter to Keneally-Hatzistergos and hoped those gentlemen would find a moment or two to discuss it. At the time of this writing, and although the video games issue was settled at that meeting, neither of the gentlemen has yet found the time to reply.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

2 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Bob Ryan is a PhD candidate at Macquarie University; his thesis is on Censorship.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Bob Ryan

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 2 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy