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.

My only complaint is that Brooks refers to the content as pornographic at the end of the interview. The images and footage aren’t on there to arouse, they are there to educate and inform. Explicit they may well be, but they are not pornographic.

Watch it below thanks to the NoCensorshipAus YouTube Channel:

Bernadette Mcmenamin

Wikipedia has come under fire from some users and child protection advocates because its pages about masturbation and ejaculation also contain ‘graphic’ images and footage (see here and here).

Child Wise CEO Bernadette Mcmenamin told News Ltd that while she supports sex education, displaying sexualised images in a freely available online encyclopaedia ‘crosses the line’.

‘Do we really need to see a woman masturbating on Wikipedia? Do we really need to see so many seconds of ejaculation?’

When an encyclopaedia topic is about masturbation, they certainly aren’t unnecessary.

A patented device designed to prevent masturbation by inflicting electric shocks upon the perpetrator, by ringing an alarm bell, and through spikes at the inner edge of the tube into which the penis is inserted.

As touchy or shameful as the subject of sex might be for some people, no act of censorship is more despicable than the censorship of information directly related to our bodies and health.

Wikipedia doesn’t exist to cater to individual morals or ‘lines’, it’s for sharing knowledge. If the images and videos relate to the topic than they should remain, otherwise they can be removed just as unnecessary text is. They shouldn’t be removed just because a child might see them.

Australian Womens Forum ran into trouble just for trying to publish unedited images of the vagina in an article about cosmetic surgery. Despite it being a serious piece on women’s health, the OFLC said the photographs contained genital emphasis (well duuurh) and as such should be classified Category 1 Restricted (QLD stores unable to sell). The last thing we need is for the net to follow the same route (which it is under Senator Conroy’s plan).

Mcmenamin also said:

‘Does that mean that when you type in ‘murder’, you should actually see someone murdering someone else?’

I hate to be the one to break it to her, but images of real murder do exist on Wikipedia, just as they do in your local public library.

Nguyen Ngoc Loan executes Viet Cong Captain Nguyen Van Lem: February 1, 1968. Photographer Eddie Adams.

Would Bernadette prefer this banned?

Parents and newspapers are going bonkers over an educational drug pamphlet (pictured here) put out by the Sydney West Area Health Service (SWAHS). A pamphlet they say encourages drug use because it advises readers of some precautions to take should they choose to experiment with drugs.

‘It’s wrong. It shouldn’t be encouraging the kids to do drugs. I’m shocked that it doesn’t tell them not to be doing drugs. Instead it sends kids a message saying, ‘Here’s how to do it’.‘ – Parent

Ummmmm. We could pretend for a second that teaching teenagers to say No to drugs is working wonders, but anyone who doesn’t mind a cold dose of reality will know that just isn’t the case. Take a look at this survey of Victorian school students from 2005 (PDF) for example.

Meanwhile, SWAHS had this to say:

‘The resources emphasise that ideally no young person will turn to drug use and one key message is the best way to keep your head together is not to use drugs at all.

But studies consistently demonstrate the majority of young people will experiment with and use alcohol or other drugs at some time.

Many of them do so without adequate awareness of the impact on their mental and physical health.‘

Luckily, NSW Health Minister Reba Meagher doesn’t listen to reason. She’s now pulled the leaflet from distribution and says all other drug education material for young people will be reviewed.

‘…the reference to what young people should choose to do if they ignore anti-drug advice or information is simply not acceptable.‘

Smart, Reba.

Read it for yourself here.

The original edition of the book was banned in NZ (as it is in Australia – PDF Descision Report), but changes made to the International Edition were enough to bring the censors on side.

RTLNZ says the fact Australia Refused Classification on the book and did not see fit to invite the authors of it to make amendments for reclassification is one of many reasons to keep the book banned in New Zealand.

They also claim:

‘It is contended that the only effective means available to prevent the book falling into the hands of a young person under the age of 18 years or a person who is depressed or suffering from a psychiatric condition, is to classify the book as objectionable. This would ensure that the book would be prevented from entering New Zealand. It would make it an offence under the FVPC Act to import the book by any means, including the internet. Furthermore, it could not be legally downloaded from the internet.‘

Thankfully, the NZ OFLC isn’t quite as influenced as ours. They state in their report:

By redacting the book rather than publishing an abridged edition, and by allowing the headings to remain, Dr Nitschke has allowed the reader to obtain a sense of the subject matter of original text, as well as the redacted material, without actually having access to that material and without compromising the book’s message.

The publication is a well-intentioned book that advocates law reform and gives advice to enable the seriously ill and elderly “to make carefully considered and fully informed decisions about their own life, and death.” This advice includes comparison of various means of suicide, which is not illegal. The book argues that the law should be changed to permit seriously ill and elderly people access to pentobarbital, a drug the authors consider to be the most dignified and peaceful means of suicide. When advocating law reform or a change in social perception, it is often necessary to describe the benefits of the thing or practice that is outlawed or stigmatised to get the law reformed or the perception changed.

But they also acknowledged concern over young people reading it:

The risk of imitation by young persons of the self-harm outlined in the book, particularly those less complicated methods of suicide such as the use of an exit-bag is, significant. Unless restricted to persons 18 years of age and over, this material is likely to be injurious to the public good because the general levels of emotional and intellectual development and maturity of persons under that age mean that the availability of the publication to those persons would be likely to cause them to be greatly disturbed or shocked and increase significantly the risk of them killing, or causing serious harm to, themselves, others, or both.

Looks a like a responsible and well considered move by the NZ OFLC. You can read their entire decision here (PDF).

A digital version of The Peaceful Pill Handbook is due for publication by Exit US soon.

Refused-Classification has a detailed run down of the Australian banning if you’d like to read more about that case.

Meanwhile, the Society for the Promotion of Community Standards are just plain, f’ing wackjobs. No, seriously click that link and read it. Don’t you want to hand your life over to these people?

Simon Chapman, a Professor in Public Health at the University of Sydney who specialises in tobacco control, warns that many of his colleagues in the health profession are seeking to have smoking in films either banned or classified R18+.

He writes in Crikey:

‘The Australian Medical Association now suggests that state and federal government funding be withdrawn from films that “glamorise, feature or promote smoking.’

‘Professor Stan Glantz from the University of California, who has done much of this research and maintains an advocacy website on it, says simply “I just want smoking to be treated like the word f-ck in movies”. Others point to the longstanding classification of illicit drug use, hard-end violence and sustained humpy-rumpy as tickets to R-certification. Tobacco kills five million worldwide a year, so why not treat smoking scenes like injecting drug scenes?’

‘But should movies, books, drama and entertainment generally be seen as simply part of some ideological state apparatus for promoting health, to be appropriated at will? If such precedents are set, awkward questions immediately arise about every single-issue “please don’t” area. No more shoot-outs, car chases, misogyny, cruelty to animals, racism, gluttony, sloth, unsafe s-x and anything promoting extreme, dangerous sport or leisure like mountaineering. Impressionable kids might get the wrong idea; movies would become nothing but anodyne vehicles for wholesome values.’

Read Simon’s article Never mind the zealots: smoking has a role in film here.