Censorship and the law...

Published on July 27, 2006 By dynamaso In Current Events

Okay, so I don’t often comment on current affairs or political issues but there has been a story come up here in Australia in the last few days and I have to put in my 2 cents worth. Basically, this started when a couple of young guys, in a moment of sheer youthful exuberance and with a skin full of alcohol, decided to do some ‘turkey slapping’. This delightful expression, for those of you not familiar with it, is another name for a fairly gross act of indecency.

‘Turkey slapping’ refers to the practice of taking one’s flaccid penis and slapping a usually unwilling person in the face with it. Of course, this involves either holding the intending victim down or having someone else hold the intended victims hands behind them or otherwise incapacitate them.

That the two young men in question were members of this year’s Big Brother household makes this act even more stupid. That they picked one of the girls sharing the house with them to be the victim makes it even more stupid. The incident was never aired on television but was live-streamed to the internet site. While the girl never felt threatened or in danger, the two young men were summarily booted out of the house.

The repercussions from this incident were that a number of prominent conservative politicians called for the banning of the television show. But when the Australian Communications and Media Authority viewed the footage, they rated it MA plus: suitable for viewers aged 15 years or over.

While I don’t in any way support the actions of the two men in question, there is no doubt they never set out to hurt the girl, they had done this because they thought it would be funny and there was never any malice, either sexual or otherwise, intended, although I will say humiliation of this sort could very well be construed as malice, but that is another article.

So, there you have the background.

This week, according to a front-page article in the Sydney Morning Herald, Philip Ruddock, Australia’s federal Attorney-General, was considering a proposal to place new restrictions on reality television shows and to consider banning what he calls ‘hate’ books. This proposal was being put forward as an agenda item at a meeting of attorneys-general this week. By 'hate' books, Mr Ruddock means books inciting or praising terrorism or being otherwise inflammatory and seditious. The books in question had previously been cleared by the police, then by the Classification Board of the Office of Film and Literature Classification, which found the books did not “promote, incite or instruct in matters of crime or violence.” I won't bore you all by regurgitating the main points of the article. If you're interested, have a read. Here is the link to the article: Link

My concern is that if this goes ahead, it does irrevocable damage to the regulatory authorities who would normally control such matters. It also doesn't do the police force's reputation much good either. These regulatory authorities exist for a reason. They are there as watchdogs for the wider community, to make sure the guidelines for taste and morals are not breached and to classify all works of film, music and literature accordingly. Like any system, it does have its weak points and occasionally, inappropriate material might get through. But for the most part, the authorities do their job and do it well.

If Mr Ruddock's proposal goes through, it could very well lead to the style of censorship very few of us would like or support. Banning such books is only going to drive them underground and maybe even give more credibility to what might have been viewed as works with a very narrow demographic. Mr Ruddock is demonising works that at best were viewed as only of interest to a very limited demographic.

I have to ask the question: where does this stop? Would it stop only when some of my favouite books, such as Stranger In A Strange Land, Animal Farm, Farenheit 451 and other works be deemed 'seditious' or 'inciting violence or terrorism' were banned? The Attorneys-general positions have enough on their collective plates without adding this to their list. I would like to see the Australian government and attorneys-general leave the current regulatory authorities to do their job and maintain their current independent stance. Otherwise, as suggested by the Victorian State Attorney-General, we'll end up with endless reruns of 'I Love Lucy'. And I most certainly don't want that.

Comments

Texas Wahine

on Jul 27, 2006

I just don't understand the benefit of the government making all our piddly little life choices for us.

Are we too stupid to choose appropriate television programming, books, magazines, and movies for ourselves? Are we so devoid of morals and self control that were someone not to step in and stop us, we would see and read things that would disturb us and drive us to commit illegal acts?

It's fine if the government wants things labeled so that we citizens/consumers can easily discover the type of content we are about to view or purchase before we commit to it, but once it's out there, is there absolutely no faith that the average person can filter his own world, letting in that which he feels is appropriate for him, and rejecting that which doesn't match his values or world view?

Or must we all embrace the same standards for our media consumption and have matchy-matchy interests and values?

Ugh. Anyways, I'm very very sleepy, so forgive me if this doesn't make sense.

Interesting article, Maso.

Dr Guy

on Jul 27, 2006

That is always the danger. WHo decides what is dangerous and what is not. And while we may all agree at one point in time that something is dangerous, that point is but the starting point, and then opinions diverge. Once you start out, usually with the best of intentions, to ban books, you have just stepped on the slippery slope. And there is no bottom until sanity steps back in and the ban is lifted.

I did not realize that the book banners were so powerful over there. We have them here, but they are for the most part either localized or not powerful enough to enact any bans.

KellyW0498

on Jul 27, 2006

Censorship is never a good thing. Even if is is with good intentions.

P.S. sorry so long I am catching up on you. I hope you are doing well.

SanChonino

on Jul 27, 2006

I'm with Kelly on this one. If we find something offensive, we can always censor it ourselves. It shouldn't be the government's choice what I deem appropriate, but mine. I wouldn't want to see any of that stuff, but it's called TURNING OFF THE TV or CHANGING THE CHANNEL. Not too tough . . .

foreverserenity

on Jul 27, 2006

I agree with what the others say here. Why can't the people decide for themselves what they want to see. Censorship is not a good thing, even with good intentions (as Kelly stated). That's why there are parents and guardians who are supposed to supervise and monitor their children's viewing of things that they deem inappropriate. Although there are some who don't, but that's besides the point. What those guys did wasn't in good taste, it was a bad joke.

Are there policies in place wherein television programs and movies are rated? They do that here in the US. Even my children knows when they can't or cannot watch a program. I monitor as often as possible to make sure. But then, you did mention that they came up with a 15 and over viewership for the Big Brother program now so that means yes, they do have that in place. Then I think that should be enough. And they should allow people to make their own choices.

Shovelheat

on Jul 27, 2006

Sorry, but I can't get past the concept of "turkey slapping!" Damn, Maso that's a new one on me!

dynamaso

on Jul 27, 2006

Tex,

the government making all our piddly little life choices for us

Yeah, I get so annoyed with the idea of someone telling me what I should be watching, reading or listening to. I'm an adult living in a supposedly free society where I supposedly have the freedom to do what I like provided I don't break any laws or hurt anyone. Like you, I don't have any problems with items being labelled by censorship authorities but these authorities MUST remain independent of whatever government is in power to be effective.

the government making all our piddly little life choices for us

Our society is interesting because we do allow for so many people, through art and literature, to have a voice. It keeps us from becoming stale and bland.

I'm very very sleepy, so forgive me if this doesn't make sense

Why would that be?

Look after yourself, mate and thanks for your response.

Doc,

And while we may all agree at one point in time that something is dangerous, that point is but the starting point, and then opinions diverge.

Or if we don't agree it is dangerous, at least we have regulatory authorities to view such material and make learned, informed decisions. I don't necessarily agree with the idea of censoring art of any sort as art is an individual's expression as opposed to a statement of intent or an opinion. But I do understand in our society, we have to provide censorhip categorisation to maintain our level of civil decorum. I don't want to see billboards advertising the latest XXX feature in full glory. But then I don't want to see billboards only advertising government sanctioned works either.

Kelly,

Censorship is never a good thing. Even if is is with good intentions.

As I said above, I don't necessarily agree with any censorship but I do understand it is a necessary evil.

P.S. sorry so long I am catching up on you. I hope you are doing well.

We're in the middle of having to find a new place to live, which is always a pain but other than that, I'm doing very well, thanks. It is always good to 'see' you, Kelly and I hope you're doing well too.

San Chonino,

it's called TURNING OFF THE TV or CHANGING THE CHANNEL. Not too tough . . .

Funny but so right. This was the main point that came up time and time again in the letters pages to newspapers around the nation when a few of the moralist journalists wrote editorials about how television content needed to have stricter controls.

Serenity,

Why can't the people decide for themselves what they want to see

Exactly. The silly thing about Ruddock wanting to ban the television show is that the incident never made it to television. Let me reiterate: IT NEVER MADE IT TO TELEVISION. So his calling for tighter controls over television content only says to me "I don't like Big Brother and think it should be taken off air," which is a purely subjective opinion. As San Chonino said, if he doesn't like what he is watching, he has two choices; change channels or turn the damn television off. I think it is particularly inappropriate for him to be using his Attorney-general position as such.

I can't get past the concept of "turkey slapping!" Damn, Maso that's a new one on me!

I knew you'd get a kick out of the term. It was new to me when I first heard it too, mate. I had seen some online news reports about the 'turkey slapping' incident and was wondering if the Big Brother house had farm animals to look after and one of them was being cruel to big, dumb birds.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!