Chris from Orzeszek Blog has revealed that ACMA has blacklisted three videos documenting violence in Iran which show the death of Neda Agha-Soltan, killed during the 2009 Iranian election protests.
Today Chris received notice from ACMA that the content has been classified R18+. Because it was not behind a restricted access system, it is prohibited content:
As part of the ACMA’s investigation of the complaint, it applied to the Classification Board for classification of the content concerned. As a result of the Classification Board’s decision, and as the content is not subject to a restricted access system, it is prohibited content under clause 20(1)(b) of Schedule 7 to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (the Act)
The video has been shown on CNN, as well as Sky News Australia I’m told.
27 comments
alphamone says:
Aug 29, 2009
wow, theres gonna be some hell to pay for this.
Ben says:
Aug 29, 2009
Without having seen or having the desire to see the video, the described violence and its severity is fairly irrelevant in this debate. What is relevant is that the government claims they would never censor political content, yet not only is it political content, but it also is something which the Iranian government censored as well.
The government can claim as much as they want that there is a very thick line between political content and non-political content, but that is rubbish. What one person finds political content, another will not. What another person deems not political content, others will be highly involved and persuading politicians to do something/not do something.
The government would rather us not compare the policy to Iran and China’s, but prohibited content is a massive category and includes huge amounts of ‘political’ content, and both countries state that the reason for the censorship is to ‘protect society’. Look how that worked out in China and Iran.
Dan says:
Aug 29, 2009
“Because it was not behind a restricted access system, it is prohibited content”
Bullshit, by law you cannot sign a contract until the age of 18. So that’s your age verification right there.
Bob Bain says:
Aug 29, 2009
@Bullshit, by law you cannot sign a contract until the age of 18. So that’s your age verification right there.
It’s legal to sign a contract before the age of 18 but it isn’t enforceable against the minor unless the contract involves the “necessities of life”.
Bob Bain says:
Aug 29, 2009
An addendum to the issue of contracts before the age of 18 an example of a contract entered into by a minor would be the purchase of a bar of chocolate. This is a contract between the seller and the buyer who can be a minor.
Minors legally enter into contracts every day.
Ben says:
Aug 29, 2009
It’s not really a contract, merely a declaration based on prior evidence or ‘evidence’. The whole system is flawed because there are a ton of ways to fake your age on the internet.
Chris says:
Aug 29, 2009
@Ben: ‘… there are a ton of ways to fake your age on the internet.’ That’s true.
But a valid restricted access system for R 18+ content requires an applicant for access to the content to provide ‘evidence’ of age (not merely a ‘declaration’). The system must also undertake a ‘risk analysis’, which requires an assessment of the risk that a kind of evidence can be faked. Presumably, this would limit the types of evidence to evidence that has at least a degree of verifiability (eg, credit cards). Records of people applying to access the content must be kept for at least two years.
It seems to me that a bigger problem is that the privacy and security implications of a system like this make it impractical (except for commercial content, where you would provide details like what would be required when subscribing).
alphamone says:
Aug 29, 2009
uhhh, doesnt one need to actualy press play on the video, and if you are pressing play, you know what it is, which should realy be enough of a warning.
Ben says:
Aug 29, 2009
@ Chris “Presumably, this would limit the types of evidence to evidence that has at least a degree of verifiability (eg, credit cards). Records of people applying to access the content must be kept for at least two years.”
I know i wouldn’t trust small websites with my credit/bank card details, and most websites on the internet aren’t ones like Amazon and ebay which most people would trust.
The ridiculous age verification laws are fairly strict and completely unrealistic. What person is going to give their bank details to a political website hosting protest videos? Small porn website? It’s absurd, and these businesses/websites wouldn’t even want those details. But the legislation that goes by the communications department always seems like a good idea to them until they hear from the experts. Even when they hear from the experts, they dismiss their professional opinion as rubbish and instead consult their religion for answers and pray that nothing goes to crap.
Chris says:
Aug 29, 2009
@Ben: ‘What person is going to give their bank details to a political website hosting protest videos [etc]?’ Exactly.
Mark Newton says:
Aug 30, 2009
@chris: Credit cards aren’t age verification. Pre-pay and Debit variants of VISA and Mastercard are widely available to anyone, regardless of age, and have been for at least 8 years.
News Corp is actively marketing a MySpace VISA card at minors as we speak.
Such cards are, to a merchant, indistinguishable from any other credit card.
Mark Newton says:
Aug 30, 2009
As for the banned content:
I’ve not only watched it, I challenged ACMA to ban the same stuff, which they did in early July.
Is it confronting? Sure.
But so was the news footage of Buddhist monks setting themselves on fire in Saigon in 1963:
http://www.vietnampix.com/fire1.htm
or the photo of Phan Thị Kim Phúc in 1972:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TrangBang.jpg
These images of extreme violence were instrumental in changing public attitudes about the vietnam war, and nobody with a functioning cerebellum can stand up and argue that they should not have been shown.
Here we have something exactly the same: Political violence, leading to the death of a protester, banned by the Iranian Government, and subsequently banned by the moralizing wowsers in the Australian Government too.
Does anyone think this garbage won’t get worse if ACMA’s censorship becomes mandatory?
– mark
Glenn says:
Aug 30, 2009
Chris: “But a valid restricted access system for R 18+ content requires an applicant for access to the content to provide ‘evidence’ of age (not merely a ‘declaration’). The system must also undertake a ‘risk analysis’, which requires an assessment of the risk that a kind of evidence can be faked.”
I do not see sites like YouTube conforming to Australian standards requiring evidence that the person is actually 18.
Bob Bain says:
Aug 30, 2009
YouTube most certainly has an age verification system in place.
But there again there are convenient add-ons such as the “Old Enough” Firefox plugin.
http://www.techzilo.com/skip-bypass-youtube-age-verification/
You Old Enough is an experimental Firefox addon to bypass YouTube age verification. Often, YouTube videos flagged as inappropriate require age verification, by logging in to your Google/YouTube account. Instead of wasting time with the login, You Old Enough lets you skip the age verification page and start watching YouTube videos.
It checks if page you have opened has YouTube’s age verification. If it does, the extension gets the video ID (every YouTube video has a unique video ID) of the video and opens it in a popup. You do not have to login to view it – simply install the extension and browse away.
———–
YouTube does have an age verification system even if the videos that get flagged aren’t one’s flagged by ACMA.
I don’t know I Old Enough works. I’m old enough anyway and have already been age tested.
Chris says:
Aug 30, 2009
@Mark Newton: ‘Pre-pay and Debit variants of VISA and Mastercard are widely available to anyone, regardless of age, and have been for at least 8 years.’ That’s why I qualified it with ‘a degree of verifiability’, in the sense that it’s not just that you’re asserting that you’re over 18, but that you provide something linking to your identity.
But your point is well taken. And if credit cards aren’t enough, then what is? Are you meant to show up somewhere and present your driver’s license or birth certificate, and let them keep a copy on file for two years?
@Bob Bain: ‘YouTube most certainly has an age verification system in place.’ YouTube does have a system in place. However, it is not a valid restricted access system within the meaning of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (Cth) sch 7 cl 14 and the Restricted Access System Declaration 2007.
For a system to be a valid restricted access system in relation to R 18+ content, it must require applicants to provide evidence of age. When you sign up for a YouTube account, YouTube asks for your date of birth and you provide it. That is, it’s merely a declaration of age. This is sufficient for systems controlling access to MA 15+, but not for systems controlling access to R 18+ content.
Bob Bain says:
Aug 30, 2009
Well according to Chris Illingworth Aug 13 2009
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtHvoybwtTk
“How many people actually google Australia?”
Until YouTube/Google content is restricted to specific geographic regions there appears little point in defining rules relating to content such a restricted access systems in legislation. Yes thanks for reminding me about the Restricted Access System Declaration 2007.
I must admit I had forgotten about it.
Bob Bain says:
Aug 30, 2009
A slight detour regarding Chris Illingworth’s words…
I made reference in a Twitter feed to this page in the Sydney Daily Telegraph on Jul 11th 2009
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/story/0,22049,22321185-5001028,00.html
It says “Page not found” but prior to July 12th. 2009 it began..
By Mark Schliebs
August 28, 2007 10:53am
AUSTRALIANS on the front line in Iraq and Afghanistan feature in internet videos showing troops in battle and freely discussing near-death experiences.
While the identities of the troops involved cannot be confirmed, many posters of violent videos list themselves as Australians or claim that the footage is of Diggers in action.
On LiveLeak.com, an increasingly popular video-sharing site, the number one contributor in the past month appears to be a soldier fighting in the Iraq War.
“biggles9″, who listed his home country as Australia, has uploaded hundreds of videos of troops engaged in battle, playing practical
jokes on each other and even one titled “Marines Boxing at thier (sic) Quarters”.
An Australian Defence Forces spokesman told NEWS.com.au that the userwas not an Australian soldier, but said the footage was of coalition
troops in Iraq.
But other videos on the site and on YouTube show men with Australian accents discussing their experiences.
===================
The article contained links to those videos.
Bob Bain says:
Aug 30, 2009
The text of the deleted article mentioned above can also be found here..
http://www.leatherneck.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-52759.html
Mark Newton says:
Aug 31, 2009
@chris: YouTube’s age requesting system isn’t even satisfactory for MA15+ content.
The requirements for a RAS for MA15+ are in Sections 5 to 9 of Part 2 of the Restricted Access System Declaration 2007.
Sec 5 says all of sections 6 – 9 must be complied with, not just some of them.
Sec 6 says the system must require an access-seeker to apply, in writing or in electronic form, for access with a declaration that they’re at least 15 years old. Perhaps YouTube complies with that.
Sec 7 says that a warning must be provided about the nature of MA15+ content (which YouTube doesn’t do, at least not in the form understood by Australia’s classification system). Furthermore, safety information about how a parent or guardian may control access to MA15+ content by persons under 15 years of age must be provided, which YouTube manifestly does not do.
Sec 8 says that MA15+ content can’t be provided unless the system has verified, for each access, that compliance with secs 6 and 7 has been met. Maybe YouTube does that.
Sec 9 says that the RAS must include measures that will be taken to remove, without delay, an applicant’s access to MA15+ content if the applicant has been given access in contravention of Sec 8. YouTube absolutely does not do that, and I’m not aware of any other RAS that does that either. As far as I know, Youtube has no mechanism whatsoever to prevent an individual from viewing MA15+ content if they’re discovered to be under the age of 15.
So with secs 7 and 9 (minimally) not being met, my conclusion is that YouTube is not using a Restricted Access System that complies with section 14(1) of Schedule 7 to the BSA.
So the question then is, “Is YouTube’s content being sold for profit or as part of a profit-making enterprise?” Because if it is, all content on YouTube which is MA15+ should be prohibited by ACMA (because all of the other subclauses of sec 20(3)(c) are met in YouTube’s case)
– mark
Bob Bain says:
Aug 31, 2009
YouTube ? I just had my age verified with Garage TV.com
Here’s a sample MA15+ possibly
Nu ook sextape Lindsay Lohan. Hier voorproefje! (06:03)
http://www.garagetv.com/video-gallery/chucky1967/Nu_ook_sextape_Lindsay_Lohan_Hier_voorproefje_.aspx
I note there is a related video of a Japanese man peeling a banana. I haven’t rated that as yet.
Bob Bain says:
Aug 31, 2009
With respect to my last response which points to the video site “garagetv.com” a lookup on the registry indicates that this is located in Mechelen Belgium which according to Wikipedia is a Dutch speaking city in the Province of Antwerp which led me to believe at first that it was located in the Netherlands.
In addition to being an Australian Citizen I am a citizen of the European Union and have registered my age in accordance with my citizenship of birth.
Not only is the Internet global in nature so are it’s citizens. People travel into this country and out of this country on a regular basis.
I can register my age with any content provider while outside Australia and as far as I can tell the age verification procedures used (if legal outside Australia) would be legal if accessing content within Australia if the legalities of registering my age had already been performed outside this country.
I notice that a prominent EFA member appears to be in China and has seemingly experienced blocks to the right to access content.
Searchi result from google.cn: “Your search results may not comply with relevant laws and policy and can’t be displayed.” #dontbeevil (18th. August 2009)
Steve says:
Aug 31, 2009
I just had a brilliant idea. Political porn
I’ll find some BDSM stuff and put a voice over about capitalism and the free market. If it get censored, send a link to Rudd himself and tell him he’s trying to censor my political opinions
Bob Bain says:
Aug 31, 2009
@Steve yes – a similar idea was floated several years ago with regards to pornography and “artisic merit”. The actor and actress would during sexual intercourse discuss the philosphical ideas of Greek philosphers.
In the United States “artisic merit” is a defence. Clearly if the actors are discussing philosophy it has to contain the necessary elements of “artistic merit”.
Bob Bain says:
Aug 31, 2009
It could be argued that point of view put forward with regards to age verification is at odds with Australian legislation. I have argued that it is my right to access material even though an agency of an Australian government (there are several agencies and several governments in Australia) has issued a “legislative instrument” namely the Restricted Access Declaration 2007 which can be viewed in .pdf format at:
http://www.acma.gov.au/webwr/_assets/main/lib310563/ras_declaration_2007.pdf
I would argue that this instrument denies me my rights as an international citizen under Article 19 of the Declaration of Human Rights
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
Article 19.
•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.
——————
Bob Bain says:
Sep 1, 2009
I have also registered my age with..
http://www.myvideo.de/
Lustige videos ? Interviews with porn stars appear to feature at the moment.
This is an excellent way for me to brush up on my German. I even managed to read the sign up document.
Although the world appears to the ill informed to be dominated by YouTube there are numerous video sharing sites around the globe – very few of them controlled by Google or large agencies.
I could even establish one on the my local black box web server (QNAP TS-209 Pro)
http://www.qnap.com/pro_detail_feature.asp?p_id=82
The technology isn’t complicated and I have software that can do this for me but I don’t do it as I have no need to serve up this form of content in a business oriented environment.
Ben says:
Sep 1, 2009
The technology may not be complicated, but there is no way every website providing material which ACMA deems MA15+ upwards will consent to such a draconian system.
Chris says:
Sep 2, 2009
@Mark Newton: ‘YouTube’s age requesting system isn’t even satisfactory for MA15+ content.’
You’re right. But YouTube doesn’t even try in relation to MA 15+ style content, as far as I can tell. That it, it seems that they only attempt to block material inappropriate for people under 18. I haven’t really checked, though.
In any event, MA 15+ content on YouTube wouldn’t be prohibited content even if their access system didn’t qualify as a valid restricted access system in relation to MA 15+ content.
The definition of ‘prohibited content’ in cl 20(1) of sch 7 to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (Cth) is such that it applies to MA 15+ content only if that content is provided for a fee. (That YouTube receives advertising revenue is not relevant.)