This is just pie in the sky speculation. In the US, the prospect of being given a restricted rating such that the key early teen market can’t get into a movie has investors shaking at the knees. Movies still get made by the truckload. The risk that a film might be banned in Australia is monstrously low by comparison. The number of mainstream films banned here is so low as to be almost non-existent, and the categories of scene which might raise any chance at all of banning are so narrow and extreme that avoiding them is child’s play. Indeed if you look at a list of banned titles they are essentially all art house/extreme horror/shock films. So your speculation could only explain a lack of investment in such films, yet it is the lack of a mainstream film industry here that is notable.
[quote=“not_alice, post:16, topic:525298”]
[quote=“Martini_Enfield, post:13, topic:525298”]
Tell you what, suggest something you think might be subject to censorship here and I (or someone else) will tell you if it is. I think you’ll find it’s a very short list.
What, exactly, do you consider “Censorship”, firstly? Do you consider Anti-Terrorism legislation provisions against reporting the particulars of trials and ongoing investigations to be “Censorship”? Because what you call “censorship” others might call “common decency” or “things people shouldn’t be saying anyway”.
That’s pretty much the career plan, actually. 
The few librarians I’ve interacted with treat their profession as a job like anything else; no politicking or wrapping themselves in flags or Acting As The Keyholders Of Informational Freedom. Another difference between the US and Australia, in other words.
Let’s just say that the media in Australia and the media in the US are very different and younger journos here don’t take the “Fourth Estate” thing as solemnly as they do in the US, from the sounds of it.
Look, as I keep saying, it’s not “illegal” to publish it. Porn needs to go past of the OFLC first. And unless it’s really extreme or abhorrent, they’ll go “yeah, that’s fine, put an R18+ rating on it” and you’re good to go. If the knock it back, then it’s illegal to publish. But nothing anyone is likely to want to publish in print is going to run afoul of the OFLC for the most part.
Actually, and maybe this is heading towards a new thread, it is the lack of international success on those indie films that is more interesting to me.
On the whole, I agree it is a small matter though, I don’t want to make it seem bigger than it is to me.
But it is a factor. Could I make a remake of John Water’s early works in Australia for instance? If the internet firewall were to come in place, could I promote it there at all?
These are factors a local investor would have to consider for example.
The thing about censorship is that, even if nothing finished is ever censored, you always have to wonder if there was a chilling effect, and something didn’t get made as a result.
It is the chilling effect that is the worst aspect of it. I am sure even in the worst places, very little is ever actually censored.
Except by internet firewalls, that is, but for films, books, etc., even one is too many, but overall the raw numbers are always small because who is going to invest in something that likely won’t be able to be sold?
In other words, some people here are in favour of censorship. Martini either is or just sounds like one of them. This is probably the same in the US.
Others here aren’t in favour of censorship.
Look, you’re arguing from a point of ignorance. You don’t understand Australian law, you don’t know how censorship works here, yet you’re happy to make silly assumptions based on your ignorance.
Here’s a clue: go do some research, learn about AU and UK law, and then come back. (Also you might want to get some understanding of US law. You’re wrong about freedom of speech (and its limits), and once again embarrassingly so.)
You’re not making any sense. One minute you are talking about a lack of industry then you are talking about a lack of international success of the industry that is here. There is a lot of indie film industry here, on a proportionate basis. Further, again on a proportionate basis, it is internationally unusually successful. Further, to the extent it is not successful, that success has never even been hinted at being due to censorship. I have never heard as much of a hint of a peep of a possibility that Australian indie films are not popular internationally because they suffer from a lack of gruesome sexualised violence. You make no sense whatever.
Finally, the usual complaint is that indie/alternative/art house films are virtually all there is here.
You seriously need to drop this point as it is detracting from your overall credibility.
You offered to clear it up for me in your country if only I asked about specific things.
I have nothing specific in mind. I wonder what if any government controls the categories I listed are subject to.
I don’t want to get into a debate if a control is “censorship” or not. I think the work might become a sticking point, and subject to Orwellian interpretations anyway.
I wonder if the categories I mentioned are subject to either pre- or post- publication restrictions, or both, for at least one type of content, and if so, which ones.
Regardless of what those two categories might cover, by virtue of being socially agreed up and enforced values, there is no need for them to be enshrined in law. Either they change too fast, or everyone knows them.
So whatever is enshrined in law is what I am talking about, not that which is enforced by social or peer pressure or the like. That which is enforced or enforceable by the power of the State, ok?
In my country, I sure would, if it was backed by the force of law. If an editor decided to not publish a piece someone wrote, well, that’s life in the biz.
But I don’t think I had that one on my list anyway.
Imagine that.
Have you ever seen the film “Thank you for smoking”? I think you might enjoy it.
Hmm. You asked them about the nature of their profession, or they just helped you navigate a particular library? Maybe you are right, I don’t know, but I am skeptical about that.
And 10 seconds with google give me this page, which confirms my skepticism.
I am skeptical again, but it is very late now, so this one will have to wait. My skepticism is tempered though by my sense that if the media were more active, these laws you have in place would not keep being added to all the time.
If they never get anything that runs afoul, and no one would want to print anything like that, then what is the purpose of OFLC?
So, can you go back to the list and let me know which ones are subject to prior or post publication regulation on content (or both)?
Yeah, I am quite sure of that.
OTOH, we don’t have the list of laws that are listed on wikipedia for you. No doubt given half a chance, there are people here who would implement all of them or more.
But something about our system has stymied them and not your would-be-censors.
That is the most surprising thing that I will go to bed tonight having learned today. I knew about the firewall thing, but all the prior stuff, no.
It’s late and I have other things to do, but I’ll look into it tomorrow. I suspect we’re using different criteria for “Censorship”, though, so just bear that in mind.
Mainly to classify stuff from overseas. You know, like from America and Japan and Europe and other places with different community standards and active Publishing/Entertainment industries.
I plead - 2:00 AM 
But also, I am not talking about success of films at home in Aus, I am thinking about broader success around the world. I am not going deep into this because I don’t have hard data, but what keeps tweaking my radar every now and then is the lack of financial success of Aus produced films on the world stage. And that that didn’t used to be the case.
Could I be wrong?
Sure, I am not going to the mat on this one.
Happy to have contrary data, like I said, those are summary trends that pique me occasionally, it is not my area of expertise.
OK, for example?
What does that mean really? Proportionately by population, number of films, what?
Hollywood and Bollywood turn out what, OTTOMH 1200 films a year? How do Aussie films compete with that? And that is before indie films and the rest of the world. I can’t imagine approaching investors and being up front with those odds, and I can’t imagine in a country your size that there is a bottomless pit of money for indie films that are at best going to break even or be minor tax breaks or whatever.
I am sure there is some, but at some point someone has to put money in to make some money. Where is it coming from? That is what I am not grokking right now.
Probably true. But no one ever lost money trying to sell a movie or book they never wrote. It is the chilling effect that concerns me most about any censorship.
When did I say that?
We can argue if it is an Australian production or not I suppose, I believe but don’t know, that the money for Passion of The Christ came from US investors and Mel Gibson personally, but that was surely successful and gruesome and violent.
Anyway, I am speculating and this is off the main point of the thread. I will do more research o the financial state of the Australian cinema in the near future. I am truly open to finding out my speculation is wrong. I know I have very incomplete data here.
I didn’t say that, I think someone else did. Again, not sure what that means - all that is funded, made, exhibited, or what?
Thanks for restoring at least a little bit of it. After Leander blowing in and declaring I had none without referring to anything I wrote at all, or offering any credibility of his own, I was surely convinced I was looking up at a snake’s belly
So you say, with no evidence you understand it either. If you want to participate, then participate.
But no one in any thread on this board is going to take the types of comments you are writing as worth taking seriously at all. You are just lashing out. I am a big boy. If you have particular concerns, then go ahead and list them and let’s discuss them.
I already did some research - and so far no one has given me a straight answer about if my sources were wrong (they might be), or if my conclusins were wrong. Like you, people are arguing (except for Princhester by assertion, which is a total waste of time),
Even though I humored your country mates on the thread they brought Australian law into a discussion about US issues, I tried and tried and tried to explain the difference, ultimately both of them pleaded inability to discern the nuance.
To their credit, at least we discussed it.
Don’t I deserve the same in this thread?
Help me understand. It is not helpful to tell me I don’t
Yes you are right, I don’t understand how censorship works here, that is why I asked for 28 different examples of how it would work.
So don’t tell me I am not trying to learn
What does it mean to you other than government regulation on ability to publish or distribute content?
I am not talking about licensing of spectrum or anything like that. I might be talking about (e.g.) licensing of printing presses, but I don’t think that happens there does it?
I am also not talking about industry specific tax schemes.
I mean explicit regulations that require approval of material either before, during or after creation in order for it to be marketed, and I also include requirement for labeling of content in the market.
That’s all I mean.
What are they protecting people from? What has been rejected among those categories, if anything?
Are your community standards so uniform that there is no one among 30 million who might enjoy those materials? Who is not harmed in some sense by not being able to see it, or perhaps by not having the economic opportunity to market it or sell it or show it?
If not enough people want to see it, won’t it die a quick death after the few people who want to see it see it? What is the harm in preventing those few people from seeing something?
By the way, now I have to ask - are there some books that have been banned from publication in Australia? That are simply not available, or are available in modified form only, but are widely available elsewhere?
I hope not, but tonight has been full of surprises…
In other words you have retreated to a position of unfalsifiability. You assume based on nothing, that films that you don’t know of, are not being made by people you’ve never heard of, due to content that you don’t know anyone wants to make, because of fear of banning that you have no evidence of, creating an alleged financial risk due to adverse classification that no one is complaining of, that is smaller than the financial risk due to adverse classification that already exists in both Hollywood and Bollywould but which doesn’t stop massive investment in those countries. Give it up.
That’s not true. There is evidence of the banning, both in the listings I gave above, as the responses of others who said the laws exist and there is some public opposition to them as well.
I am thinking of all media here, not just film. It seems a broad subset of media in Australia is subject to government regulations on content.
Are you, on the other hand, suggesting that existence of government regulations has no deterrent effect on individuals, and does not affect markets in any measure whatsoever?
No, not at all.
Your post comes as I am partway into reading this.
Perhaps we can all read it together?
I will say the intro part of it does cover neatly, in a way we haven’t, some of the cultural differences noted in this thread and the other. That makes me want to read the rest to see what the more detailed argument is, to see what supports the summary.
Let me know if that article on the philosophy of freedom of speech is blocked anywhere and I will work with you go get it via another channel
You and I were discussing film, and the point of yours that I was refuting was your implication that censorship of film was a relevant factor in the size of the Australian film industry. As you well know. You probably need to have some integrity in your debating technique for people to regard you as worth debating.
Bye.
Sure, inteh broader context of Free Speech in Australia, and I already noted I would not go to the mat about it. Sorry if that was not clear.
If you inferred that, then I am sorry. I most certainly did not imply it, and IIRC I explicitly disclaimed it.
Or maybe I need to find debating partners with reading comprehension skills and debating skills that rise past putting words in people’s mouths and then arguing against them. :rolleyes:
I actually had a full reply to your “Are these 28 things subject to censorship?” question ready, but having read the tone of your replies to Princhester (another Aussie), I’m not going to bother posting it since I can see you’re just either going to go “AHA! GOTCHA! YOU DO HAVE CENSORSHIP!” (which I don’t think anyone has ever denied) or try and pick holes in it using ever more unlikely or implausible situations until it’s distilled to the point where you’re intimating that, unless you can say absolutely anything you like at all without restrictions of any kind, you’ve got Censorship and are on the road to being an Orwellian nightmare.
Yes, we have censorship in Australia. And as the Aussies in this thread have all said, it has virtually no effect on people’s everyday lives- with the possible exception of the proposed internet filter. Which isn’t in place yet.
The Wikipedia page on Censorship in Australia covers the subject pretty well. It’s worth mentioning that basically, unless you’re publishing porn, advice on how to break the law, or potentially compromising an aspect of National Security/Anti-Terrorism operations you can generally say whatever you like here (subject to libel and defamation laws, which you’ve agreed don’t count).
Our “censorship” in regard to TV is actually more relaxed than the US IMHO- Free To Air TV frequently shows movies in which there are bare breasts, characters freely using all the swear words you can think of, along with blood, and violence and drug use. In fact, SBS is nicknamed “Sex Before Soccer” for their habit of showing European Arthouse films with gratuitous sex in them. On Free to Air TV. Harold & Kumar Go To White Castle was on one of the commercial TV channels- uncut- a few nights ago. Die Hard as well. I have also seen Pulp Fiction on TV here complete with… everything that was in Pulp Fiction.
You might not have Government-mandated censorship in the US, but you’ve certainly got economic-based censorship. For example, a movie not submitted “voluntarily” to the MPAA for a rating is going to have a hard time getting onto movie screens, and if it’s NC-17 then I believe Wal-Mart or someone like that either have a policy against (or actively discourage) stocking so rated DVDs.
Similarly, the ESRB rates video games. The FCC decides what is and isn’t allowed in TV and radio. You get the idea.
You’ve obviously decided you know better about the “Censorship” situation than the people who live here, so there’s no point trying to educate you any further on the subject, especially since your standard of “proof” is unrealistically high.
Yes, we have Censorship in Australia. Generally no-one cares because nothing they’re ever likely to see (or want to see) gets Refused Classification. The government’s official view is that adults should be able to see and read whatever they like. The exceptions are things which society here (generally) agrees are abhorrent- extreme porn, detailed advice on how to break the law, and hate speech which is designed to (or does) incite people to commit crimes against or harm members of another group. Happy?
Our censorship rules are fair and reasonable the average Australian and guess what that’s all that matters.
Is it fair and reasonable to incite violence or hatred towards another group? No, so therefore we act upon it. You can say that those stupid croat supporters kicked out of the tennis yesterday should be locked up but you can’t say that all croats should be shot.
Is it fair and reasonable to show “obsene” pron? No.
Freedom of expression is a core part of Australia, we all love it and try to protect it but as someone said before we are homogenous with people from every country in the world living here so it seems to work.
Australia is a nation that is built on acceptance, we must stop hate mongerers in thier tracks.
[quote=“Martini_Enfield, post:38, topic:525298”]
I actually had a full reply to your “Are these 28 things subject to censorship?” question ready, but having read the tone of your replies to Princhester (another Aussie), I’m not going to bother posting it since I can see you’re just either going to go “AHA! GOTCHA! YOU DO HAVE CENSORSHIP!”
[QUOTE]
Waaah.
You do have censorship. Are you denying it?
Anyway, I suppose you also are not going to answer about the specifics that you said you would either. What you didn’t think I could come up with a list of examples for you?
Or, since every time in both threads you guys have posted a link in support, I have read it and discussed it, you might do me the same courtesy to the one I posted above which clarifies (for me at least) precisely the point of view that you haven’t been able to string together for yourself. Read it and let’s discuss. You act like I am making up the philosophy of free speech out of whole cloth. I assure you I am not.
OK. good, we are clear on that now.
Now let’s talk about why that is? Why is it perceived as acceptable?
People in the US generally understand the philosophy or our Free Speech position. Is that not true of your countrymates? Can you express (hint, look at the link I gave you) the reasons as to why your country has made the choices it has from a spectrum of possibilities?
If it has NO effect on people’s lives, then what is the purpose of it? Why have it if not to trade some freedom for some perceived benefit?
Come on, really, there is no perceived benefit to individuals and/or society at large, it is just there for no reason at all?
Even I could argue the generic position for your censorship better than that!
Great. Didn’t someone say upthread that was not really a fair descripition as it was picking and choosing to make a point?
So naked bodies are out? Really? That is the standard and it doesn’t bother you?
Hadn’t seen the claims about “how to break the law” before, sure that is not just a SDMB rule? So if I told you how many drinks it takes to go over the legal limit for driving, or said "Rolling through a stop sign is illegal"m that is subject to censorship?
Hmm, now that I think about it, maybe this rule explains why all of you are having a hard time enumerating specifics
What on earth does “potentially compromising Security/Anti-Terrorism Secrets” mean? If I published a map with all the little nooks and crannies where a small boat might dock unnoticed around your country, would that qualify? Do I have to run it past someone in advance, or would I find out about it only after I published?
My understanding is if I make a movie, or import one, and refuse to have it classified, it can not be shown. True? So it could be censored even if it is not any of the above, but simply butterflies in a field for 90 minutes?
So what constitutes “porn” then? Is SBS hard core stuff or lots of softlit simulated softcore?
Right, as I said no regime is ideal, including ours. If you want to talk about American Free Speech, please, another thread?
But note that the principles are different. Ours that you described are voluntary and do not prevent anyone from seeing material based on content. Maybe you can’t buy it in someplace becasue they don’t want to sell it, but that is different because the government is not party to the transaction in any way.
And it is the level of involvement of the government in the transaction in your country that is so surprising to me.
Other than the FCC issue, which is minimal and justified do to the licensing of spectrum and spectrum being defined as a public good, there is nothing else the government is in. Nothing is censored in advance even by the FCC - someone must complain, and they review, in the meantime, the content long since went out.
That is not how it works in your country is it?
Your backpedaling in every thread is not really impressive much. I am not asking for any proof, only for you to follow through on your offer to tell me if specific items were subject to censorship or not. Those are yes/no matters.
You do, as a journalist, appreciate the Catch-22 of that sentence, don’t you?
Ever read books like 1984 or see movies like Brazil? How did the censorship in those societies compare to the censorship in yours?
I dunno, maybe the general Australian audience response to those is “Meh. Looks more like everyday life, what’s the big deal” which would be very different from here.
“Extreme” porn now. How does that get defined?
Who took this poll about what people don’t want to see? What is the cut off for in or out? 5% think it OK? 20% 1%, 50%, 75%? How does it work? How often is this poll updated?
Helpful to the extent you fill in the blanks. Not helpful to the point you paint strawmen and then shoot them down.
And still would really like an item by item list, yes or no, for the media and content I asked earlier if it is subject to censorship or not.
My gut feeling is that ALL of it is subject to government regulation of content. Prior or post publication or both, don’t have any clue.
So can you just copy the list and let us know please?