Festival director Richard Moore told The Age that ‘Bruce LaBruce’s blend of sex  and violence can be confronting’, but he argues that within the  context of the festival, it is ‘nonsensical and patronising to not allow  people to decide what they want to see’.

By taking a look at the photo gallery on the film’s official website, it’s easy to see why L.A Zombie would have had the ACB squirming in their seats; There’s leather, guns and dongs. Multiple types of flesh eating too.

Another case of the Walking Braindead in the annals of Australian   censorship history.

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.

The Australian Sex Party (ASP) said Wednesday that the Australian Classification Board (ACB) is now banning depictions of small-breasted women in adult publications and films. It comes just a week after it was found that material with depictions of females ejaculating during orgasm are now Refused Classification and Australian Customs directed to confiscate it.

ASP’s Fiona Patten writes on her party’s website that they are starting to see depictions of women in their late 20s being banned because they have an A cup breast size:

“This is in response to a campaign led by Kids Free 2 B Kids and promoted by Barnaby Joyce and Guy Barnett in Senate Estimates late last year. Mainstream companies such as Larry Flint’s Hustler produce some of the publications that have been banned. These companies are regulated by the FBI to ensure that only adult performers are featured in their publications.”

Patten writes that such bans may be an unintended consequence of the Senator’s actions “but they are largely responsible for the sharp increase in breast size in Australian adult magazines of late”.

How can this be happening

The National Classification Code dictates that anything that describes or depicts a person who is, or appears to be, a child under 18 (whether the person is engaged in sexual activity or not) in a way that is likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult is Refused Classification.

State Crime Acts are also similar. Victoria’s Criminal Code includes the ‘or appears to be’ clause in its definition of child pornography and it doesn’t need to cause offence to a reasonable adult for it to be illegal.

Even if you are 18 years old but you look younger, taking a photograph of your breasts and uploading it to the Internet could land you or someone you know in serious trouble.

Keep in mind it’s highly unlikely that a naked photograph of a 30, 40 or 50 year old woman with small breasts would ‘appear’ to be child pornography on the basis of her breast size alone. Small breasts do not automatically mean something will be banned or is illegal.

A bad message

Australian adult blogger Ms Naughty says we need to look at what this ruling says to Australian women:

“Why ban small boobs? I can only assume it stems from paranoia that flat chests somehow stir up the pedophiles. And you only need to mention that “p” word to start a full-scale moral panic in Parliament.”

“Shall we put such hysteria aside and look at what this ruling is saying to Australian women? Basically, it’s classing a certain normal female body type as obscene. It’s declaring all flat chests to be automatically juvenile, something that should not be viewed by anyone because of a fear that it will stir up “base instincts” in certain people.”

“Can the Classification Board be any more insulting or sexist?”

Ejaculations

According to Patten, female ejaculations films are being Refused Classification on one of two grounds:

1. That the depictions are a form of urination which is banned under the label of ‘golden showers’ in the Classification Guidelines or
2. Female ejaculation is an ‘abhorrent’ depiction

“Films that show both male and female ejaculation have routinely been given an X rating since 1983″ said Patten. “The new ruling follows a boom in the numbers of adult films featuring female ejaculation since the pioneering research of Professor Emeritus Beverly Whipple was published in her book The G Spot.”

Content Refused Classification will be blocked to Australian adults under the Government’s planned Internet censorship scheme.

“There are over one million sites featuring female ejaculation and for Australia to be banning depictions and discussion of this important issue, takes us back into the Victorian era where they didn’t even believe that women could have orgasms.”

The ACB has been contacted for comment.

According to the ACB’s report for the Australian comedy, Stone Bros. opens with a montage in which marijuana is shown being cut from the plant, mixed with tobacco and formed into joints. However, the film’s director, Richard J. Frankland, and its distributor, AFS, deny such a scene ever existed.

Odd.

Thankfully the Federal Minister for Home Affairs, Brendan O’Connor, has requested a review and the Classification Review Board will meet on Saturday September 12 to consider applications.

• HUSTLER’S TABOO MAGAZINE BONUS MAGAZINE DVD – DVD RC 07/08/2009 (Applicant: ACT Office of Regulatory Services)
• PEEING IN PUBLIC #2 – DVD RC 29/07/2009 (Applicant: Australian Customs Service)
• ALL PISSED OFF VOLUME 4 – DVD RC 28/07/2009 (Applicant: Australian Customs Service)
• DISGUSTING UNDERGROUND TOILET TALES – DVD RC 28/07/2009 (Applicant: Australian Customs Service)
• ALL PISSED OFF VOLUME 5 – DVD RC 27/07/2009 (Applicant: Australian Customs Service)
• EVIL VAULT 4 — DVD RC 27/07/2009 (Applicant: CALVISTA AUSTRALIA PTY LTD)
• NOT WITH MY WIFE YOU DON’T! – DVD RC 05/06/2009 (Applicant: CALVISTA AUSTRALIA PTY LTD)
• FREE & WILD 10: HIGH ENERGY – DVD RC 03/06/2009 (Applicant: SYNETECH VIDEO CO.)
• POSTCARDS FROM THE BED – DVD RC 02/06/2009 (Applicant: CALVISTA AUSTRALIA PTY LTD)
• THE WRONG KIND OF WOMAN – DVD RC 21/05/2009 (Applicant: CALVISTA AUSTRALIA PTY LTD)

As always, I recommend you visit Refused-Classification for a definitive list of Australian adult movie bans.

Although this information has been available to the public in the past (unlike the contents of the ACMA blacklist of banned websites), to the best of my knowledge the grouping of this data has not been so easily accessible.

Screenshot of the Classification Board Database, Sunday May 17 2009

Using the the classification database search engine, visitor’s are able to display a list of banned films, books, magazines, publications and games dating back to 1972 with a few clicks. Click here to see a list of titles dating back to 1972 and here for a list containing more recent titles (some listings are duplicated in both lists).

The list also reveals the titles of content sent to the board for review by ACMA and Australian law enforcement agencies. In most cases specific details like URLs are not attached to these listings, but details of police operation names, exhibit and job numbers, and some file names are included. However, some URLs attached to CD-ROM submissions are included.

Because the list maxes out at 1000 listings, at this stage I cannot verify whether the list is complete.

Breakdown of lists:

- Banned Games
- Banned Films (includes ABA, ACMA & law enforcement submissions)
- Banned Publications

The film as described is being a powerful and deeply affecting story of a contemporary Lebanese family in urban Australia and is said to shed light on the racial tension that has often boiled over into incidents like the Cronulla riots.

News.com.au reports:

NSW Police said they received a report of four people involved in an altercation at Parramatta cinemas with about 50 onlookers, on Saturday at 5.38pm (AEDT).

“Police attended the next minute and there were no signs of anyone fighting. The cinema had asked people to move on,” police said.

An earlier incident in Parramatta on Thursday – the first day of the film’s release – involved a security guard being set upon by a group of young people, after a youth was asked to leave the cinema because he was smoking.

The guard was hurt but his injuries weren’t serious, police said.

No one was arrested in either incident but police investigations are continuing.

Greater Union said that maintaining the safety and security of their staff and patrons is their main concern and priority as such all sessions of this film within NSW, but the ban feels like an overreaction to me. The later incident could be unrelated to the film’s content and the earlier incident involving the smoker could have happened during any movie.

Here’s a trailer:

Classification Review Board Acting Convenor, Trevor Griffin, says:

In the Classification Review Board’s opinion Charlie Wilson’s War warrants this change in consumer advice because an initial hot tub scene, which sets the tone of the movie and contributes to the M rating of the film, depicts some partial nudity. In addition, the Review Board considered that the consumer advice should raise the description of violence to ‘moderate’ level.

I’m surprised the ACB didn’t hand it a partial nudity label to begin with. I expect the nudity was not only partial, but also brief (there was lots of bubbles, right?). I’ll happily rewatch — great film.

The film was classified M for ‘Moderate coarse language and drug references, Violence’ by the Classification Board in early 2008 and from memory that seems to be an accurate classification.