Tim Blair

I always suspected "diversity" had meaning other than "diverse". Now we know the real meaning: "not at all diverse".

Funny how non-conservatives are assumed never to have "axes to grind".

I can't believe that even Blair is so dim as to believe this "diversity through exclusion" shit would fly. The KP6 are obviously arguing that the hang-ups of a few jackass conservative prigs shouldn't be allowed to determine the viewing habits of competent adults, who don't share said prigs' disgust with the very idea of sex. What is so hard to understand about this?

Tch tch tch, Steve - you've just not appreciated that the lovers of the yarts feel closer to the paedophile community than normal people.

And only they have the right to free speech. All others must remain silent lest we remind the yartists of the 'niggers in their woodpile' (tm Margot and therefore PC)

Simple solution. Let the people elect who they want on the classification board at the same time as the federal election. Same with the ABC. No more arguments.

The KP6! That's excellent.

Remember, you should respect everyone's opinions and values... unless they are conservative or Christian.

I've written two items at the "Australian Libertarian" site about this- why do we need anyone on a review board? I don't need a nanny to tell me what I can and can't watch or read; they entire concept of censorship is an insult to my intellegence.

It's like the opposite of the Monty Python "what have the Romas ever done for us" bit.

We shall be lead by a diverse group of citizens.

"Not Catholics. They're against abortion."

Well, obviously not Catholics

"What about Tories"

The Tories, yes, well, they don't really have a perspective about the poor and the homeless.

"Bankers"

"Republicans"

"And smokers"

None of them can represent the community, since they've got agendas of their own -- big business and all

"I'm not sure I'm very keen about the Jews"

Not the Jews, obviously. Can't have any Zionists.

"What about reformed Jews?"

etc etc

The Jews are too focused on Israel and ignore the Palestnians, so yes, we should exclude the Jews too

So, Paul, no problem with child porn and snuff movies then?

Snuff movies don't exist, and child porn is illegal on account of sex with children is illegal. Neither is a censorship issue at all, you chump.

As per previous reply- if they are real, they involve indictable offences, and are evidence- not an item to turn up on the general market.
They are also prhibited imports under Reg 4(h) of the customs prohibited Imports act, so again not a censorship issue.
"Ken Park" sounds imbecilic; two hours of teenagers bleating about how awful their empty lives are, all in skateboardese, but if someone wants to torture themselves with tripe like this, it's no skin off my nose.

If child porn is made in another copuntry, you chump, we can't prevent it here, and guess what we need to stop it being shown here? I'll give you a moment to think.
Can't get it? CENSORSHIP - you glib idiot.

If child porn is made in another country, you chump, we can't prevent it here, and guess what we need to stop it being shown here? I'll give you a moment to think.
Can't get it? CENSORSHIP - you glib idiot.

It is not a matter of censorship- the material is a PROHIBITED IMPORT, and subject to criminal sanctions- it doesn't get near the review board. It is also not a commercial product for general distribution, for the very reason that it is illegal; it is no different to a sociopath who records his crimes for his own later pleasure, or idiot teenagers who videotape their own criminal activities- it is not a film for entertainment or education, it is EVIDENCE.
(And personal abuse is evidence of a lack of abilty to reason).
PS Offences against children performed overseas are prosecutable in Australia under Australian law- before you make statements, I suggest you do a little research.

Have never seen and do not want to see Ken Park but,...

Exactly the point Paul & thesaintly(etc) we simply do need any kind of review (censorship) board, they should simply be a "classification" service and if the film, book, magazine, song does not fit a particular classification then it could simply be labelled unclassified. That would be sufficient warning that those (the squeamish, like me) that don't want to see such product can avoid it.

There is no argument for a government authority with the power to refuse permission to publish anything that doesn't rely on the arrogant premise that "others" will be harmed by being allowed to choose to see same. Snuff (urban legend) and pornography that depicts children or other criminal behaviour is illegal to produce. Prosecute the producers with vigor. If you are blind to the

Although I agree with the original point of Tim's post. The KP6 definition of diversity would certainly exclude me, but then I have long suspected that the ABC & SBS do not include me in their definition of a diverse Australian community.

Snuff is an urban myth, is it? What does Richard Kelvin have to say about this?

Yes, Andrew. Everyone who opposes censorship is obviously antisemitic.

Fucktard.

Here in the USA, we seem to have managed to outlaw child porn (producing, selling, looking at, possessing, you name it) without this "Review Board" thingy.

Technically, its probably censorship (simply saying it is a prohibited import doesn't mean its not censorship - Castro prohibits the import of all kinds of reading material and that seems pretty clearly censorship).

I'd like to know where tim actually stands on the issue, rather than the people who are making the complaints.

Conservative enough to believe in the censorship of films containing too much dirty ungodly sex? I wouldnt have thought so.....

p.s "Yes, Andrew. Everyone who opposes censorship is obviously antisemitic.

Fucktard."

OWNED!

"I can't believe that even Blair is so dim as to believe this "diversity through exclusion" shit would fly. The KP6 are obviously arguing that the hang-ups of a few jackass conservative"

Then why did they use the word "POLITICALLY"?

In the US the MPAA is known to come down hard on interracial sex, suggestions of cunnilingus, etc. In that sense it seems very socially conservative-- but no one would say it was "politically conservative" as if it were routinely suppressing films about school vouchers and the flat tax. Their choice of words was unintentionally revealing of their actual agenda.

Technically, the MPAA doesn't "come down" on any film -- it assigns ratings. I'm not convinced two exactly similar sex scenes would draw a different rating because of interracial partners, I'd have to see evidence of that. Nor do I think they're more likely to give a harder rating to a scene implying oral sex on a female than on oral sex on a male.

Admittedly, the MPAA findings are subjective, and thus at times confusing and even occasionally infuriating. (Just as the calls of referees and umpires are.) But it works as well as any other system, and if mass audiences wanted harder material, studios wouldn't try to go for PG-13 or R ratings.

Well, obviously to be politically conservative is tantamount to incompetence.

Why are you laughing?...

Yes, Robert, not only am I a fucktard, I'm incapable of sarcasm.

"Aren't these people meant to be in favour of free speech?"

isn't tim blair supposed to be against the nanny state?

Adam (sorry, 'adam'), non sequitur much?

Once again Tim Blair demonstrates that conservatives are the fairweather friends of freedom

What does that mean in the context of this post, Jason? It's pretty clear that Pomeranz et al. are hewing to an extremely narrow idea of what a "political conservative" is, and that's what's being criticized here.

I mean, I think people should be allowed to watch whatever damn movies they want to (subject to the legal restrictions Paul Bickford mentions, of course), but as a liberal/conservative/libertarian/whatever it drives me nuts to see us all lumped like that.

But it works as well as any other system, and if mass audiences wanted harder material, studios wouldn't try to go for PG-13 or R ratings.

There are some flaws in your logic here, Ken. The primary reason studios don't shoot for material harder than PG-13 and R ratings is that the large theater chains on whom big box office depends won't show NC-17 or unrated films, and newspapers won't advertise them. If they did, I have no doubt that Darren Aronofsky, for example, would not have made additional cuts to Requiem For A Dream to get an R.

On the other hand, given the downward creep of the ratings -- a PG-13 today is a lot different from a PG-13 in 1986, and some of what passes for an R today would have been an instant X twenty years ago -- audiences clearly do want harder material. The studios are happy to give it to them; it just means adjusting the ratings down.

Example: Dawn of the Dead, as you well know, is unrated for George Romero's final cut. When made, it would probably have received an X; today, it's a solid R. The stuff that would be NC-17 isn't being submitted to the MPAA; it's going DTV, where you, me and all the other B-movie fans eat it up.

Phil:

I've often heard the argument about it being the theaters, newspapers, etc., that want the content kept mild. However, I've never seen any proof that that's so. On the face of it it's counterintuitive. Theaters want to make money, as do the studios. If there were cash to be made from big budget NC-17 fare, they'd be glad to grab it. As for newspaper advertising for selling movies, surely that of less importance than ever.

As for Requiem for a Dream, if the studio worked to keep that an R, they were just being silly. That's such an extraordinarily niche product that its rating hardly matters. Such a film will pretty much only play at art houses, and they're rather less sensitive to rating issues.

Terminator 3 and Matrix 2 are the first R rated movies in some time (here in the States anyway) to achieve blockbuster status, and they may well have done better were they rated PG-13 or even PG. (Both are also riding the coattails of other, more satisfying predecessors.)

In any case, take a look at the top ten movies for the last three or four years and see how many of them are R rated. Not too many. That's not to say there isn't not a market for R rated movies, but it's pretty evident that there's not nearly as much of a mass market. I see no evidence that 'audiences,' in a broad sense, want harder films. Some people do, but they generally compose too small of a number to matter much, when even your remotely big budget movie routinely costs $100 million or more.

Depending on your timescale, I also have to disagree that PG-13s and Rs are getting harder. Having hit my later teens and twenties in the gore-gore days of the '80s, I was vastly amused to hear the younger kids I saw T3 with express shock over gory and violent it was. Compared to movies like Friday the 13th or The Thing or Robocop or Total Recall, it was pretty tame. That's the "twenty years ago" you reference, more or less, and films are generally far less graphic now than they were then.

And that's the way mainstream audiences seem to like 'em. The B-movie fans like us, as you say, are a niche audience.

"snuff films don't exist" - Depends on your definition. Try searching Islamist websites for the video clip "rushthroat" which shows a Russian soldier in Chechneya getting his throat slit and his head ripped off.

I didn't actually watch the whole thing myself - no stomach for that, but from the reactions of people on Charles Johnson's website it shure sounded like the real deal.