Jump to content

Talk:Censorship in Australia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Removed

[edit]

The opening paragraph says this:

-- In contrast, Censorship of Television and Films in Australia are amongst the most relaxed in the world.

Which is patently untrue, so I've removed it. Ramore (talk) 23:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Park

[edit]

During the great Sydney Film Festival debate on Ken Park of 2003, I heard on Radio National (I think) that Denmark has no censorship guidelines. I haven't been able to verify this (apart from noting the broad sale of pornographic material in unlikely places) but that would make the opening sentence incorrect! Anyone know this to be true??? I suspect they still must have some form of classification, and I find it odd they wouldn't restrict the sale of material that shows acts that would be illegal, such as paedophilea...

Censorship decreasing?

[edit]

The article is mistaken in assuming that censorship has uniformly lessened in Australia. Censorship has actually increased significantly since the 1970's and many programs that would have been shown on broadcast television now could not be shown. It might be worth pointing out that of the five movies mentioned as being banned, at least two (Baise Moi and I Spit on Your Grave) were previously not banned - censorship is increasing.

Please provide _evidence_ for censorship "increasing significantly". Your say-so isn't enough, I'm afraid. The publicity surrounding the tiny number of "refused classification" calls that OFLC has made recently has certainly been high, and the number of works on which they have been asked to rule has certainly increased, but to say that censorship has "increased" since the 70s is just, IMO, completely insupportable. I'll be the first to congratulate you if the figures say otherwise. --Shannonr 14:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AO

[edit]

It's a bit before my time, but I know Australia used to have another classification level — I think it was called AO? And I think it was instead of R? — which meant "restricted to over 21". It'd be good to see some info about that in the article. — Danc 11:59, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

IIRC, AO was simply the old version of M, although it actually encompassed both M and MA. MA was introduced as a separate classification sometime in the Keating era. At any rate, it's really more of a change of name than a radically different scheme. Lacrimosus 23:48, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Lacrimosus is right. I don't know what rating movies received that would now be rated R (I was only a kiddy when the system changed), but AO was roughly equivalent to M now. Ambivalenthysteria 13:47, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
If I recall correctly, AO (Adults Only) was a rating specific to television broadcasts. At that time there was also a 'C' rating for children's programming, and PG was PGR (Parental Guidance Recommended). Sometime in the late 80s/early 90s (?) the classification system for TV was adjusted to closer match the film guidelines. La hapalo 04:28, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
(on reflection, it's possible that AO was a historical film classification level; if so it was well before my time) La hapalo 04:28, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There was also an AO-Mod (Modified for TV). And a Spy V Spy song too, A.O. Mod. TV. Ver. or something like that. --Paul 30 June 2005 09:47 (UTC)

OFLC redirect

[edit]

Just a note on the edit I made (bolding Office of Film and Literature Classification): Strictly speaking, Office of Film and Literature Classification doesn't redirect here. It is a disambig, between Office of Film and Literature Classification (Australia) (which DOES redirect here) and its NZ counterpart. I have seen Australian Office of Film and Literature Classification linked from other sites so I will create that as a redirect to here as well. -- Chuq 02:26, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Cutting

[edit]

Under little Johnny Howard censorship is skyrocketing. Australia is getting highly censored versions of films which is in many ways more evil than completely banning a film as people are generally ignorant to the fact that what they are seeing has been censored. I saw Kill Bill at a cinema in Japan, a country notorious for their censorship, and there were atleast three parts taken out of the Australian version. Also, I recently bought the Australian version of Commando on DVD and found that massive chunks had been taken out from the version released on VHS some 20 odd years ago. It's only getting worse.

The differences between the Japanese version of Kill Bill and the US/International cut are actually more to do with the American rating system, and the fact that Japanese audiences (in the director's opinion) would be more receptive to violence. Although I don't have any proof (or knowledge of the film), I think it's likely that similar issues affected the Commando DVD release (I don't think many companies would bother to re-author a DVD for the Australian market, either to cut things out for us, or put them back in) La hapalo 04:40, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Many companies do edit their films for australian audiences, as do computer game manufacturers.
Kill Bill's "black-and-white edited bit for everywhere except Japan" has been _extensively_ documented elsewhere and has _nothing whatsoever_ to do with John Howard or Australian censorship. Please take your poorly researched political slander elsewhere, thanks. If you can provide any evidence _whatsoever_ to support the assertion that the OFLC has been politically influenced to ban either "more" or "more types" of works under John Howard, then that would be truly newsworthy and of interest to far more people than the Wikipedia audience. If you have _any_ such evidence I encourage you to come forward with it immediately. I rather suspect, however, that all your info on this subject is as well researched as your Kill Bill assertion. I would love to be proved wrong.--Shannonr 14:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jeeze, a little angry there, ne? He made a mistake and you acted like a wolf. I'm sure he has proof besides that, because it seems like it's out there, but he didn't reply because it was two years before your post. Yours is 3 before mine, but you acted so ridiculously that I felt obligated to reply. 75.67.47.56 (talk) 05:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Needs work

[edit]

I tried to fix up the page but it still needs work, it incorrectly stated that the OFLC was responsible for Television, and had a horrible mishmash of OFLC ratings up against TV timezones and television shows against OFLC guidelines.

Bleeped words?

[edit]

Does anyone know if there is an official reference to which words are "bleeped" on television? Or otherwise know which words are currently bleeped? -- Barrylb 15:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe after 9 anything goes, and before that you can't say fuck or cunt, though midday movies have those in them so I don't know. There's a TAC ad that says shit and is shown at times when, according to this article, PG rated shows are not allowed to be shown. Planetstasiak 12:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

> There are certain times that certain ratings can be shown - read the code of practice for more detail.

Choice of examples

[edit]

The examples of the M rating are most American PG-13 movies, but the M rating extends into the lower end of R and even 2 NC-17 movies (Henry and June, and Wide Sargasso Sea). Some American PG rated movies have received the M rating in Australia as well although almost all American PG rated movies that received the M rating in Australia were rated PG in America before the addition of the PG-13 rating. Examples of movies that were PG in America that were rated M in Australia after the creation of the American PG-13 include Eragon, Stormbreaker, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, and Tremors 3: Back to Perfection. In the 80's and sometimes even in the 90's, movies that were rated M in Australia were sometimes rated R on the stronger end. Examples include The Piano (which was rated R in America for moments of extremely graphic sexuality) and some horror films such as The Mangler and The Phantom of the Opera. Most countries gave the latter two examples harsher ratings. One movie was rated PG-13 in the U.S. was rated MA15 in Australia. That film was The Ring. Almost all movies that are rated MA15 in Australia are rated R in the U.S. This means that the examples are potentially misleading as to the breadth of the M rating.

Radio?

[edit]

Should we have a section for radio censorship? Like when the skyhooks were banned etc etc or should it be part of the music sectionJeffklib 09:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria to create "R" rating for games?

[edit]

I seem to recall that Steve Bracks made a comment a while back saying 'if the federal government doesn't introduce R rating for games, we will'. Has anyone got any details on this, or what happened? I'm checking Google now, but not finding much - but I remember it did happen... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DWZ (talk • contribs) 11:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Unfortunately such a thing would have to be a country wide thing, not just an individual state. On the plus side, horribly behind the times TV show Good Game announced that the all mighty Attorneys-General would consult us, lowly peons, on whether we should have a R rating or not. Check out their Gamer News section on episode 17 (http://www.abc.net.au/tv/goodgame/video/). When this will happen I do not know, although knowing GG, this might have already been done by the time they aired this information. (Honestly, announcing that Fallout 3 was banned 4 days after its resubmission was allowed! How slow are they?) I've given up on the local industry when it comes to re-releasing foreign things and have moved onto USA imports. Cheaper and no censors! Of course there's the risk that it might get caught at customs but I haven't been caught yet, then again I haven't imported anything that was banned in this country, not including the questionable legality of parallel importing. Why wait for Brawl when you can have it for almost half the price and 3 months before the rest of Australia gets it? Of course you need a USA Wii too but I got one of those too ;). Back to the topic, if anybody is reading this and is of legal voting age and resides in Michael Atkinson's electorate of Croydon, South Australia. Don't vote for that old fuddy duddy. He is the sole reason we don't have R games! That or he's a scapegoat. Either way, burn the witch! Metaphorically. Serrin (talk) 12:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fuddy duddy? Your saying it wrong, it pronounced ***** **** ***** in a ***** **** ***** up his ***** **** *** ***** and a **** **** ***** **** baboon. -That's censorship for you NobodyPro (talk) 09:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Music Artwork

[edit]

I've added two links to this section refering to satire now being legally protected. I'll also move that paragraph out of the Music section and into the Politics section. That seems a more appropriate place for it.Draffa 23:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citing Galore!

[edit]

Right, I've sited the crap out of this article over the last week. Someone else can take the ball and run with it. Draffa 18:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm now removing the 'citations missing' infobox. Draffa 18:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Television classifications

[edit]

Television stations seem to have adopted the OFLC colour classifications. Should the OFLC logos replace the current ones in the article? MrTwig 08:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine then lol. I'll try and do it myself. MrTwig 02:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History

[edit]

Is the history section ever going to be completed? I remember coming on this page about 4 or 5 years ago and those same points were there with a note to the effect of "to be completed". If no one is going to turn those points into a couple of paragraphs - and I'm certainly not - then it should either be deleted or replaced with some actual encyclopedic content that can be cited. That would make an otherwise good article great. --58.105.156.48 (talk) 04:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What does AV15+ stand for?

[edit]

What does AV15+ stand for?

AV15+ stands for "Adult Violence" - Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice - 2 July 2004 (see page 26) - Zzblog (talk) 06:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The image Image:OFLC small E.svg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --08:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

R18+ rating for Computer games

[edit]

From the contact page of the OFLC website (http://www.classification.gov.au/special.html?p=8)

Responses to R 18+ classification for computer games

A large number of enquiries have been received about an R 18+ (Restricted) classification for computer games. In March 2008, the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General (Censorship) agreed in principle to conduct broad consultation seeking community views on whether an R 18+ classification should be introduced for computer games. Censorship Ministers are currently considering the content of a discussion paper with a view to releasing it early 2009. You may like to participate in the consultation when it is announced and make a submission.

I wonder if they noticed that they called themselves "Censorship Ministers" WookMuff (talk) 12:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


R18+ Ratings have been accepted, and will start on 1/1/2013. (Link) 210.50.30.133 (talk) 07:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Censorship" of personal injury cases

[edit]

The rather large section that has been added to this article on personal injury lawyers being forbidden to publicise their cases appears irrelevant, rather self-serving, and smacks of NPOV. It is rather mischievous and intellectually dishonest for that editor to claim that their for-profit business being restrained by good public policy to discourage a litigation free-for-all, constitutes "censorship". I suggest that this section be removed completely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrUpsetter (talk • contribs) 17:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It could possibly be edited down to note that some laws and industry codes of practice restrict promotion of some products for public policy purposes: alcohol, cigarettes, legal services, pharmaceuticals, speeding vehicles, firearms, prostitution; and restrict some forms of promotion: business signage, touting, door-to-door promotion. However, these restrictions are not usually considered censorship. 150.101.30.44 (talk) 23:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

any good reason?

[edit]

any good reason to why an island created by criminals (england are history's criminal 'lol') have such strict censorship? historically it makes no sense, and this page doesn't give any good reasoning as to why? if you look at the starting history of Australia, you would expect a country of greater liberty and be strongly against censorship yet they have no freedom when it comes to video games "where even adults aren't allowed to get game content, that classifies as having no freedom". Markthemac (talk) 12:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um... what? Dude, the settlers used the convicts to do the slave jobs and stuff, plus why would criminals have anything against censorship? And the island wasn't ruled by criminals or anything, that would probably be the dumbest thing I've heard. Do you think all Australians are like "Let's go and steal some jumbucks t'day!" or "Let's go and steal from Farmer Jack!" Dude... the convicts didn't wipe out the settlers and prevent people from migrating here or anything, it's not some criminal paradise or anything. That's really dumb. Sorry, you've caught me in a bad mood, but that insulted me... plus it doesn't make any logical sense. Kausill (Talk) (Contribs) 13:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
created with criminals and it's only less than 200 years ago (history), the censorship deal doesn't make sense. Markthemac (talk) 13:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
there is no good foundation as to why Australia is as crazy with censorship as they are, if you have failed to notice i wasn't talking about present day people, i was wondering where this crazy amount of censorship comes from based on the past? it's beyond comprehension Markthemac (talk) 13:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Theres no reason to insult us. The penal colony aspect describes only a part of our very early history (If you want to call australia criminals, I'd go for the mistreatment of aboriginal australians, frankly). The reasons are long and complex, but its not really wikipedias role to speculate on why its so, as even the academics are not entirely sure how we got to where we are (I'd suggest its got a lot to do with the disproportionate influence of the religious right on a country whos population is largely quite secular). Lets stick to the fact and leave it to other sites to work out why its so. 59.167.111.154 (talk) 03:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Daryl Cohen jailed for selling pornography

[edit]

I propose to write a new section on the recent jailing of Daryl Cohen, an adult shop proprietor, for selling pornography, within the 'Recent Controversies' section.(http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2927840.htm) MFdeS (talk) 10:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:OFLC small MA15+.svg Nominated for speedy Deletion

[edit]

An image used in this article, File:OFLC small MA15+.svg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 18 November 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actual Censorship and Free Speech

[edit]

This article talks only about bans on extreme violence and pornography in entertainment, but doesn't mention laws (or other pressures) about what you can and can't say, except a brief and buried mention that Australia has no free speech. And that mention has with no explanation about what Australians can't say.

The article should include a summary of these Wikipedia articles: Hate speech laws in Australia, Blasphemy law in Australia, Australian sedition law, Defamation#Australia, Journalism in Australia, Australian Communications and Media Authority, and any others I may have missed.

Compare this article to the equivalent article for China: "Censorship in the People's Republic of China (PRC) is implemented or mandated by the PRC's ruling party, the Communist Party of China (CPC). Notable censored subjects include but are not limited to, democracy, the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, Maoism, Falun Gong, ethnic independence movements, corruption, police brutality, anarchism, gossip, disparity of wealth, food safety, pornography, news sources that report on these issues, religious content, and many other websites.[1] Censored media include essentially all capable of reaching a wide audience including television, print media, radio, film, theater, text messaging, instant messaging, video games, literature and the Internet. Chinese officials have access to uncensored information via an internal document system. Reporters Without Borders ranks China's press situation as "very serious", the worst ranking on their five-point scale.[2] China's Internet censorship policy is labeled as "pervasive" by the OpenNet Initiative's global Internet filtering map, also the worst ranking used.[3] Freedom House ranks the press there as "not free", the worst ranking, saying that "state control over the news media in China is achieved through a complex combination of party monitoring of news content, legal restrictions on journalists, and financial incentives for self-censorship."[4]"

So the Australian equivalent should start like this: "Censorship in Australia is implemented or mandated by Australia's ruling party, the Australian Labor Party (ALP), and previously by the Liberal Party. Notable censored subjects include but are not limited to: race, culture, Islam, Scientology, sedition, white independence movements, systemic corruption, defamation, disability, homosexuality, gender, news sources that report on these issues, religious criticism, and some websites hosted in Australia.

Censored media include essentially all capable of reaching a wide audience including television, print media, radio, film, text messaging, instant messaging, video games, literature and the Internet. Australian officials do not have access to uncensored information via an internal document system, and believe and act on the censored version... etc." Carl Kenner (talk) 19:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, this is wikipedia, not an opinion blog. Like I get it, I really do, as a former Indymedia editor I was directly involved in fighting off numerous attempts by the government and lawyers to censor our work (We even had a motto "Learn to embrace the cease and desist") but we have to stick to the facts. First, political parties do not implement censorship schemes in australia, the government does and they are not the same thing, Civics 101! Race , culture and Islam are freely discussed as are homosexuality and gender. I don't know what a "white independence movement" is, but I'll assume its Neo-Nazi nonsense and yes in some states light penalties apply for stiring up race hatred, however what you refer to seems to be a laundry list of the usual moaning coming from far right comentators like Andrew Bolt who appears to think being criticized is censorship (And in an ironic twist calls for his critics to be silenced). There are plenty of venues on the internet to moan about this sort of thing, however wikipedia is mandated to stick to ,as the detective says, "Just the facts m'am.". Australia has plenty of problems with censorship, quite serious ones in fact, and you appear to have missed all of them on your laundry list. 59.167.111.154 (talk) 02:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added an image

[edit]

I've added an image here to this article:


Usage of the Children's interest style of rhetoric as form of protest in Australia by supporter of Electronic Frontiers Australia.

with this caption: Usage of the Children's interest style of rhetoric as form of protest in Australia by supporter of Electronic Frontiers Australia. — Cirt (talk) 16:38, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to change it as you wish. — Cirt (talk) 17:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Book bans through super-injunction

[edit]

I am aware of two books about the same topic which are 'not available'. Although information on super-injunctions is obviously verboten, piecing some puzzle snippets together, it has been mentioned more than once that it is the ruler of an oil exporting country who zapped one book. These are not books by anyone, one is by an accomplished author, together with a partcipant in the murky world of Sydney Inc., the other by two accomplished, still working, journalists.

These books are not banned by the Censors or by refusal of classification; they are banned through the private action(s) by one or several individuals who have the money to seek a super-injunction because they'd like to keep their activities hidden. They really must have something to hide. One could argue that there's still a court case or two coming out of the topic and thus the two books could be prejudicial, but the judiciary hasn't dealt with the case in 5 years which also serves to keep things under wraps. We need to be aware that we are being duped. I do not want to provide the ISBNs of the books because one page has already disappeared. 121.209.56.25 (talk) 05:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ASIO raids on media producers

[edit]

What about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.172.58.7 (talk) 10:35, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Censorship in Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:34, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Censorship in Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:07, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Censorship in Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

1203788147712.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:34, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Censorship in Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:53, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Consequences of breaching censorship laws

[edit]

There seems to be no discussion on consequences of breaching censorship laws - does posession of banned books / internet media etc result in jail terms / fines / deportation, etc.? 124.171.216.220 (talk) 08:22, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Censorship in Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:00, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Censorship in Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:10, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Censorship in Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:46, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship in Victoria?

[edit]

So after searching I found this thing. But can anyone else find more recent evidence? The page I found was last updated in 2008. Lags331 (talk) 11:23, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Small-breasted porn ban

[edit]

I have removed the reference to small breasted porn being banned as it was nothing more than a rumour that was explicitly denied by the director of the classification board himself (https://refused-classification.com/censorship/books-magazines/j.html#just-18):

"Interestingly and perhaps the most ‘scandalous’ accusation recently directed at the Board - likely to have been prompted by the Boards attention to the breaches I have just discussed above - is that we display a bias against small breasted women…and on this basis… are banning material!

Criticisms have been levelled at the Board regarding the factors it considers when determining the age of persons depicted in publications, particularly the accusation that small breasted women are determined by the Board to appear to be children. This is categorically untrue.

The Board members take their responsibilities seriously and consider the overall appearance of persons and the context in which they are depicted, including text, props and poses when making classification decisions.

Depicting small-breasted women is not grounds for a publication to be Refused Classification, nor do the classification guidelines refer to the size of a woman's breasts!" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.75.209.229 (talk) 13:16, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
To not merge Internet censorship in Australia into Censorship in Australia as the former is an important subset and the pages are too large to reasonably merge. Klbrain (talk) 08:00, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The current article is predominantly about the Australian media classification system. As media evolves in response to internet, traditional classification schemes are undoubtedly an increasingly irrelevant portion of Australian media consumption patterns. The current article does not allocate due and proper weight to other issues of censorship such as academic censorship, internet censorship, and so forth. I believe merging the Internet censorship in Australia article here would be the first obvious step create a higher quality article with a more holistic and appropriate approach to the subject. prat (talk) 21:27, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. But there is a lot in this article that is specific to internet censorship, include "Voluntary censorship by ISPs", "Proposed mandatory filtering legislation" and "Anti-censorship campaigns". Merging those into Censorship in Australia might create a page that's just too big.
peterl (talk) 00:15, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is a bad idea. "Censorship in Australia" is a much larger subject with a long history. "Internet censorship" should be a Wikipedia:Summary style breakout of this article because, as Peterl notes, there's vast amounts of material specific to that that would just bloat and be undue weight by a merger into the general subject. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:49, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merger, there seems to be more than enough information for both pages to stand on their own. As you said Australia’s transitional media censorship and its internet censorship have rather different contexts and effects. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:40, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The topics are strongly connected, however as previously noted I believe the issue is the misleading title of this article. The article related primarily to Australia's media classification laws and the title of this article should reflect that.
The two articles are closely related, and should probably be more closely linked --Willthewanderer (talk) 11:25, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Media classification is regular old censorship, its just the Aussie term for it. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:53, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion would be to create an “internet censorship” section here which summarizes and links the main Internet censorship in Australia page. In general pages over 50k bytes shouldn't be merged together and we have one at 70k and the other at 110k with very little overlap. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:55, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

* Oppose merger. There would have to be very convincing arguments to merge these articles, and if such arguments exist, I don't see them here. As for agreement between article title and article content, they appear perfectly aligned. For example, the word "internet", is mentioned 156 times in the article, "censorchip" is encountered 90 times; and "internet censorship" 29 times, with 13 of those 29 times being used exclusively in the text (as opposed to cites, etc.) of the body of the article alone. In addition, except in very rare cases, we do not merge articles of these sizes (CIA: 71KB; ICIA: 115KB). On the contrary, it is recommended (WP:SPINOUT) that large articles be slipt into smaller ones. Additionally, both of these articles are currently matured articles as measured by their age since creation (CIA: created 17 years ago, on 10 July 2003‎; ICIA: created 16 years ago, on 14 September 2004‎), a substantial number of editors having contributed in both cases, under their given article titles. Further, both also already enjoy status at the higher levels of the article quality scale (CIA: B-class; ICIA: C-class). Additionally, there is a well-established trend for the perpetuation of articles in the specific subject area of "Internet censorship in <<country-name>>": see, for example, Internet censorship in the United Kingdom, Internet censorship in France, Internet censorship in the United States, and Internet censorship in China. Clearly, merging "Internet censorship in Australia" into "Censorship in Australia", is a move in the wrong direction. Mercy11 (talk) 01:51, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Freedom House"

[edit]

Freedom House has no credibility whatsoever to assert or deny the existence of free speech in Australia. Opinion and criticism might go below the fold, it DOES NOT belong above it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.59.79.27 (talk) 20:07, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After looking into it, I agree. One source's perspective making up the lead appears undue. Freedom House also doesn't use the terms "freedom of speech" or "free and independent media" on the link referenced so I don't think it's supported, the article also later on reflects criticism on freedoms in Australia from Freedom House. I'll remove it the claim. Star Rot (talk) 17:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Censorship_in_Australia&oldid=1234501500"