When shown images of female genitalia, it’s no surprise that Mr Scott is unable a lot of the time to give a definite and clear response as to whether the image would be banned. It’s another case of the ACB’s lack of clear guidelines resulting in some pretty inconsistent decision making. Mr Scott even acknowledges the fact:

Hungry Beast: I guess just a clear explanation of what genital detail means? Cos while I mean, there’s clear guidelines for you guys some of the words used are quite vague-

Greg Scott: Yeah yeah, well they’re vague for us too sometimes.

And don’t we know it.

Check out the blog of Hungry Beast reporter Kirsten Drysdale for some further insight.

A spokesperson for the Board said the overall appearance of persons in publications in conjunction with the context in which they are depicted, including text, props and poses were considered when making their decisions.

Donald McDonald, Director, Australian Classification Board

However, the Director of the Australian Classification Board, Donald McDonald, refused to answer repeated questions from this blog about the specifics of breast size in deciding on a person’s apparent age. Asked whether breast size was considered by the Board when determining age, McDonald said he had no further comment to make.

Adult with an I.D? No Dice:

In Australia the National Classification Code dictates that anything that describes or depicts a person who appears to be a child under 18, even if they are an adult, in a way that is likely to cause offence, must be banned. State Criminal Acts are stricter, with for example Victoria’s, South Australia’s and Queensland’s child pornography laws making depictions of adults that appear to be underage illegal.

Last week news broke that the Board was banning publications which contained models who appeared to be underage because of their small breasts. Although these rules are not new, it was not necessarily known what criteria the ACB was using to determine a model’s age.

Because the Board’s guidelines do not specify breast size or what appearance constitutes a person under the age of 18, the process for determining a subject’s age is likely to be subjective and inconsistent.

The ACB said that Barely Legal, Purely 18 and Finally Legal magazine titles were banned because they contained a person that appeared to be under 18, the Board said some of these issues were Refused Classification (RC refers to items banned for sale in Australia) because they contained offensive depictions of someone who was or appeared to be under 18 years. Other issues were classified RC for offensive fantasies involving rape and incest.

Huge public response:

In a press release issued last week by the the Australian Sex Party, and in further detail here, Fiona Patten described how during a Classification Board training session, which she and three adult magazine distributors and one publisher attended, the underdeveloped nature of a model’s breasts was cited as a reason for an image to be Refused Classification numerous times. A massive worldwide response to the story followed, with traffic placing so much stress on this blog that it suffered downtime on multiple occasions.

Colin Jacobs, Vice Chair of Electronic Frontiers Australia, said the Classification Board has a duty to be transparent with the public about what is being censored and why.

“A process as subjective as determining the apparent age of a model is really a very problematic basis for a classification guideline, and this demonstrates it perfectly,” he said. “We don’t blame the Board for enforcing the law, but we do blame them if they aren’t forthcoming on how or why they’re enforcing it in this case. The only reason censorship is compatible with democracy is that it’s transparent.”

The Australian Classification Board (ACB) has responded to accusations by The Australian Sex Party that material with depictions of women with small breasts has been banned. A spokesperson for the ACB told me today that publications which contain offensive depictions or descriptions of persons who are or appear to be persons under the age of 18 (whether they are engaged in sexual activity or not) must be classified RC.

They said the Board classifies publications on a case by case basis, in accordance with the Guidelines for the Classification of Publications, the Code and the Classification Act and that the Publications Guidelines do not specify breast size.

Female Ejaculation Bans

In response to accusations that films containing female ejaculation would now be banned, the spokesperson said the Film and Games guidelines do not specify female ejaculation, but it does specify that the fetish of ‘golden showers’ will be Refused Classification and have been in the past.

The ACB is yet to answer followup questions about whether it considers female ejaculation to be a golden shower.

The ACB said they do not and could not direct Customs and Border Protection officers to confiscate any material and that Customs and Border Protection have advised that they will only seize material that is Refused Classification or would be Refused Classification if it were to be classified.

What’s Been Banned

Fiona Patten from the Australian Sex Party (ASP) said she attended a ACB training session late last year where they showed examples of publications that had been Refused Classification due to the size of the woman’s breasts.

‘That information is not provided to the applicant when their publication is Refused Classification. When a publication classification is revoked sometimes a little more information is provided’ she said.

According to Patten some of the titles banned included Barely Legal (Hustler), Finally Legal and Purely 18.

‘The general comments on the publications mentioned were that the model appeared under 18′ she said.

However, the titles mentioned are all regulated and records of each model’s age are required to be kept by 18 U.S.C. 2257 and 28 C.F.R. part 75. These regulations are enforced by the FBI.

The ACB’s database of banned publications contains four references of banned copies of Barely Legal, one of Finally Legal, and two of Purely 18.

However, party convenor Fiona Patten promptly responded to my queries over the weekend and informed me that ASP does support the introduction of an R18+ classification for games, as well as an X18+ rating for games. It’s part of their ‘national and consistent approach to classification policy.’

We know ASP opposes filtering, but when it comes to Internet safety Patten says they’re currently developing a cyber-safety policy and believes education is the key, particularly education of parents. I agree.

When it comes to the availability of BDSM material and other content that could be perceived as violent, ASP would like to see the X18+ classification replaced with a NVE (Non Violent Erotica) classification and clearly consenting role playing and fantasies allowed. If that’s the case, the NVE guidelines would need to be a lot more lenient than those proposed nearly 10 years ago.

The party is also opposed to the removal of the AMI’s ‘Want Longer Lasting Sex’ billboard. Patten explains that the removal was because of an organised campaign and there was even a website that Catholic Bishop Pell promoted. ‘The word sex in it self should not be seen as inappropriate and that is what happened.’

If you have questions of your own, you can contact ASP here.

Take into account just how much material can be considered MA15+ and that the new restrictions continued to only deal with Aussie hosted content, it’s no wonder that a damn good percentage of Australian’s remain hosted overseas. A real economic impact for bugger all benefit.

The IIA code catches those new MA15+ requirements and states that all content likely to be MA15+ or above must be assessed and classified by trained content assessors. Complaints handling and take down notices are also included in the code.

Anything of value? The section relating to online safety has a number of good recommendations for content service providers to follow.

Here’s the ACMA PR:

‘The code is the result of collaboration across a wide cross-section of industry and ACMA is encouraged by the code’s recognition that content regulation must be approached from the perspective of convergence between the two major platforms for delivery of online content, the internet and mobile phones,’ said Chris Chapman, ACMA Chairman.

The code says that all content likely to be MA15+ or above must be assessed and classified by trained content assessors, hired by providers of online and mobile content. By requiring content classification assessment, this code assists both children and their parents to make informed choices about what is, or is not, suitable for viewing online or on mobile phones.

[..]

The new regulatory framework introduces measures to protect the safety of children when using online and mobile content services.

Read the IIA Content Services Code here (PDF).

• The Bill allows unclassified films and computer games to be advertised before they are classified, providing they meet set conditions and are assessed as part of a new industry self-assessment scheme. A safeguard exists to prevent advertisements being shown in a film/game where the advertised content would likely be classified at a higher level to the film/game it’s being shown.

• The definition of ?advertisement? explicitly includes advertising on the internet.

• ‘Advertisement’ now excludes product merchandising such as toys, drink bottles and lunchboxes.

• The definition of ?decision? has been amended so a Classification Board decision on the likely classification of an unclassified film or computer game can be reviewed by the Classification Review Board.

• Recognition that classifying a Television Series (for say a DVD) is different to classifying a film. This introduces an industry self-assessment scheme where a series has been broadcast in Australia.

• The new advertising scheme does not apply to material that is likely to be classified X 18+ or RC.

Read the bill online here or download the PDF.

These changes will hopefully make it easier for producers to advertise and classify their content. Unfortunately, there doesn’t appear to be any relief for the adult industry.

Labor will spend $126 million over four years on their Cyber-Safety plan which Senator Conroy says will create a safer online environment for Australian children. That’d be nice if Mr Conroy’s idea of cyber safety didn’t include mandatory ISP filtering for all Australians.

The Cyber-Safety Plan will provide a range of initiatives to combat online threats and protect children from inappropriate material on the internet, through activities such as an education program for teachers and the community, Internet Service Provider level filtering of an expanded Australian Communications and Media Authority blacklist, examination of options to allow families to exclude other unwanted content, a Youth Advisory Group to assist the Government to formulate age-appropriate measures to protect children, an expanded Consultative Working Group focussed on cyber safety issues, a dedicated website for children and research projects on cyber-safety issues.

From 2009-10, Internet Service Providers will receive a one-off subsidy towards the costs of installing Internet Service Providers filters. This funding will largely occur in 2009-10 with funding in following years only for new providers.

Cyber-Safety Plan Expense Breakdown:

Read the Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy Budget.

• Access to RC material for research

Ministers agreed that access to refused classification (RC) material for legitimate academic research and educational purposes would be best effected by each State and Territory prescribing the persons, bodies or classes of persons to whom RC material and submittable publications may be published and on what conditions…

• Research into community standards

Ministers noted that nothing in the research gives rise to a need to review the guidelines…

• Hate based websites

Ministers requested that officers prepare a paper canvassing the benefits and disadvantages of extending the definition of RC material to include hate-based material, and a proposal as to how such material could be defined and included in the National Classification Code or Guidelines…

Download the full SCAG report for more details:

• SCAG Censorship March 2008 ? Ministers’ Decisions ? Word 34KB
• SCAG Censorship March 2008 ? Ministers’ Decisions ? PDF 14KB

That may mean good news if a 2005 Bond University study remains accurate. Out of 1601 Australian households surveyed, they found 88 per cent supported an R18+ classification for games. A Fairfax survey this week shows 53% of respondents support it.

Victorian Attorney-General Rob Hulls stated that his department’s analysis of research on the issue suggested there were persuasive arguments to support an R18+ classification and that Australia was out of step with the rest of the developed world on this issue.

“I believe that censorship laws should strike an appropriate balance between freedom of expression and community concerns about depictions that condone or incite violence, as well as the principle that minors should be protected from material likely to harm or disturb them.”

No details yet as to how we will be consulted, but read on to find out who your minister is and how you can contact them.

Commonwealth
The Hon Bob Debus MP
Minister for Home Affairs
Parliament House
CANBERRA ACT 2600
Tel: (02) 6277 7290
Fax: (02) 6277 9098
mha@ag.gov.au

New South Wales
The Hon John Hatzistergos MLC
Attorney General
GPO Box A290
SYDNEY SOUTH NSW 1232
Tel: (02) 9228 4977
Fax: (02) 9228 3600
minjust@hatzistergos.minister.nsw.gov.au

Victoria
The Hon Rob Hulls MP
Attorney-General
GPO Box 4356QQ
MELBOURNE VIC 3002
Tel: (03) 8684 1100
Fax: (03) 8684 1122
rob.hulls@parliament.vic.gov.au

Queensland
The Hon Kerry Shine MP
Attorney General,
Minister for Justice and Minister Assisting the Premier in Western
Queensland
GPO Box 5221
BRISBANE QLD 4001
Tel: (07) 3239 3478
Fax: (07) 3220 2475
attorney@ministerial.qld.gov.au.

Western Australia
The Hon Jim McGinty MLA
Attorney General
Level 4, London House
216 St George Terrace
PERTH WA 6000
Tel: (08) 9422 3000
Fax: (08) 9422 3001
jim-mcginty@dpc.wa.gov.au

South Australia
The Hon Michael Atkinson MP
Attorney-General
GPO Box 464
ADELAIDE SA 5001
Tel: (08) 8207 1723
Fax: (08) 8207 1736
attorney-general@agd.sa.gov.au

Tasmania
The Hon David Llewellyn MP
Attorney General
1st Floor, Franklin Square Offices
HOBART TAS 7000
Tel: (03) 6233 6454
Fax: (03) 6233 2272
david.llewellyn@parliament.tas.gov.au

Australian Capital Territory
Mr Simon Corbell MLA
Attorney-General
GPO Box 1020
CANBERRA ACT 2601
Tel: (02) 6205 0000
Fax: (02) 6205 0535
simon.corbell@act.gov.au

Northern Territory
Dr Chris Burns MLA
Attorney-General
GPO Box 3146
DARWIN NT 0801
Tel: (08) 8901 4052
Fax: (08) 8901 4060
minister.burns@nt.gov.au