Australia Bans R-Rated Movies
- Thread starter AkJay
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Maybe to you, but many people are strongly opposed to censorship and in a nation that claims to be against censorship having laws such as this is a very bad thing.Nicolai said:
Worse, when you consider that it went under the radar. That indicates to me a concerted effort to keep it from the eyes of Australian citizens who could have protested it. Whenever government bypasses to voice of the citizens it is a grave sign...Knight Templar said:
Wow, I got all solemn for a second. Hippopotamus. Okay, that's better.
I am tempted to buy one of these dvds just as a way to remember Michael Atkinson's reign of terror
The only question is, which dvd would be the most ironic to buy? (if only 1984 was rated R)
The only question is, which dvd would be the most ironic to buy? (if only 1984 was rated R)
I'm violently opposed to Conroy's proposed internet filter and was one of the organisers for the last protest in Melbourne. However, since nothing is being made unavailable in this case, as it is with the filter, I don't see it being as noteworthy. Granted, I would be mildly annoyed if I wanted to watch say, A Clockwork Orange and didn't get to see the iconic poster on the front, but my viewing and my rights would not be significantly impaired upon actually watching it. I agree Atkinson shouldn't have been allowed to pursue is moral crusade as far as he has and the Labor Unity (Central Right faction with most of the power including Rudd, Conroy and Atkinson) are further to the Conservative right than Turnbull was.
I should also point out that if Atkinson has removed any form of information by implementing this law, he may be in breach of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/], which is one of the key points I bring up in my objections to Conroy's proposed filter. Specifically, Article 19 which states:
* Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
The only difference you and I have in our view of this situation is a semantic one. I'm not sure censoring the covers for DVDs is a particularly effective or useful form of censorship and therefore I'm not particularly worried about it. I'm not amused, either, I don't like it, but it's less serious than trying to legalise access restrictions, since the material is still freely available, just not necessarily on as informed a basis.
Is there anything in our constitution or any other laws which directly state we're against censorship? I'm asking seriously because I'm still trying to compose letters to Conroy and several other ministers about how much of a waste of resources the proposed internet filter is since people have found adding extra non-standard characters to a URL causes the filter to not work, so if http://www.url.com/page.htm is blocked, http://www.url.com//page.htm will work, as will other variants like including search terms in the ling like http://www.url.com/page.htm?search term.aspx or even comments like http://www.url.com/page.htm#comment it's utterly ridiculous. I apologise if I came across as trivialising a censorship irritation of Atkinson's, it was morre of a response to the OP's topic title, where no R-Rated Movies have been banned, just their advertising, which is a censorship issue itself.
I should also point out that if Atkinson has removed any form of information by implementing this law, he may be in breach of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/], which is one of the key points I bring up in my objections to Conroy's proposed filter. Specifically, Article 19 which states:
* Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
The only difference you and I have in our view of this situation is a semantic one. I'm not sure censoring the covers for DVDs is a particularly effective or useful form of censorship and therefore I'm not particularly worried about it. I'm not amused, either, I don't like it, but it's less serious than trying to legalise access restrictions, since the material is still freely available, just not necessarily on as informed a basis.
Is there anything in our constitution or any other laws which directly state we're against censorship? I'm asking seriously because I'm still trying to compose letters to Conroy and several other ministers about how much of a waste of resources the proposed internet filter is since people have found adding extra non-standard characters to a URL causes the filter to not work, so if http://www.url.com/page.htm is blocked, http://www.url.com//page.htm will work, as will other variants like including search terms in the ling like http://www.url.com/page.htm?search term.aspx or even comments like http://www.url.com/page.htm#comment it's utterly ridiculous. I apologise if I came across as trivialising a censorship irritation of Atkinson's, it was morre of a response to the OP's topic title, where no R-Rated Movies have been banned, just their advertising, which is a censorship issue itself.
Also, to all the people saying George Orwell wrote about the wrong country, please go read historical accounts of Czechoslovakia in the 1960s where it was possible to get arrested for laughing about political jokes. That's how tightly the country was controlled, it's utterly horrifying how much censorship and thought control went on in that region and now Hungary is one of the Porn capitals of the world, after it got removed, go figure.
Very true!Flishiz said:
OT:
Australian Labor is affiliated with the wrong group. They're affiliated with Socialist International- they should be affiliated with the National Socialist Workers Party of Germany circa 1935. Anytime I hear about Australian Labor, they're always censoring some media form to promote their BS puritan agenda.
This makes me want to move to Australia just so I can put up posters of R rated movies about the streets of Sydney. It also, simultaneously, makes me glad I'm not Australian.
Won't be too long before Yahtzee declares that he's moving with all this censorship bullshit.
How many kids occupy Australia anyway?
Definitely less than America's yet you don't see us getting all butthurt over it that we go that far.
How many kids occupy Australia anyway?
Definitely less than America's yet you don't see us getting all butthurt over it that we go that far.
Why is Michael Atkinson still in power? Are people actually voting for him? And if they aren't, why hasn't he been impeached or ostracized ancient Athens-style? For fuck's sake, he's been caught TWICE making dirty deals behind closed doors to further his own political agendas. Is there no movement in operation working against this clown?
I am so sick of hearing about ugly, old, boring, bible-thumping conservatives using their power to shape the world as they see fit. These are the people who got pissed off when they passed that law against making it illegal to force kids to say the "under god" part of the pledge of allegiance (which in itself is a laughably quaint nationalist brainwashing practice that badly needs to go). These same people later murdered the woman who pushed to have the law passed. That's right; they broke one of their precious Ten Commandments to show their contempt for a woman who spoke out against the government because she felt like her country was forcing her and her children to think in a way that she disagreed with. Oppression doesn't only lie in the words and actions of politicians, guys.
My god I'm glad that generation is starting to die out. When he dies, I'm flying to Australia to take a shit on his grave.
Oh, and here's a picture of him.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_sbr07vVCXe0/SwD-MurqvcI/AAAAAAAAGzg/Tmml4qjsesY/s400/michael-atkinson-mugshot.jpg
Looks like he's eaten a baby or two in his time, doesn't he?
I am so sick of hearing about ugly, old, boring, bible-thumping conservatives using their power to shape the world as they see fit. These are the people who got pissed off when they passed that law against making it illegal to force kids to say the "under god" part of the pledge of allegiance (which in itself is a laughably quaint nationalist brainwashing practice that badly needs to go). These same people later murdered the woman who pushed to have the law passed. That's right; they broke one of their precious Ten Commandments to show their contempt for a woman who spoke out against the government because she felt like her country was forcing her and her children to think in a way that she disagreed with. Oppression doesn't only lie in the words and actions of politicians, guys.
My god I'm glad that generation is starting to die out. When he dies, I'm flying to Australia to take a shit on his grave.
Oh, and here's a picture of him.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_sbr07vVCXe0/SwD-MurqvcI/AAAAAAAAGzg/Tmml4qjsesY/s400/michael-atkinson-mugshot.jpg
Looks like he's eaten a baby or two in his time, doesn't he?
The problem with Michael Atkinson is that he's just as crazy as Thompson, but less than half as charming or charismatic, and actually has power.sportsboy85 said:
