The Chaser Vs The Royals : We Are Definitely Not Amused



The office of Prince Charles and Prince William forced the ABC to pull a planned live commentary TV broadcast of the 2011 Royal Wedding last night

This is one of the clips that saw an unprecedented act of censorship by representatives of the future king of Australia. Note, all Prince Phillip quotes used are based on things he has actually said :



From the Sydney Morning Herald :

Clarence House, the almost 200-year-old London royal residence which doubles as an office for the Prince of Wales and his son, Prince William, demanded the ABC cancel plans to use the controversial comedy group, the Chaser, as royal wedding commentators.

They then contacted broadcast suppliers, including the host BBC, Associated Press Television News (APTN), Sky and ITN, to ensure the ABC would have no access to footage if it ignored the request.

Faced with the prospect of airing static for almost four hours tomorrow night, the ABC had no choice but to capitulate.

This is a letter The Chaser sent to The Queen :

Dear Australian Head of State,

We would like to place ourselves at your mercy and request a stay of execution for our television program, The Chaser's Royal Wedding Commentary.

We, like Kate, are commoners, and were looking forward to celebrating her wedding to your exalted grandson with a few affectionate observations.

To ensure that our coverage was respectful, we were only planning to use jokes that Prince Phillip has previously made in public, or at least the ones that don't violate racial vilification laws. We've also filmed a joke about hunting grouse which we think you might enjoy.

We Australians are a simple people who don't often get to watch that kind of pomp. The last big wedding we had here was Scott and Charlene on Neighbours. We've asked around, and there are at least six people in this outpost of your empire who would quite like to watch our commentary.

Please consider our plea.

We have the honour to be, Madam, Your Majesty's humble and obedient servants,

Cheers,

The Chaser

PS: How serious are you about treason laws?

Yes, The Royal Family wields absolutely no power at all over what happens in Australia.

Well, except for using blackmail to censor live TV mockery.

A few more pre-filmed clips from the canceled royal wedding special The Chaser are now only allowed to air on YouTube :






More Banned By Royal Decree Chaser Clips Here


Darryl Mason is the author of the free, online novel ED Day : Dead Sydney. You can read it here

Censorship By Matt Drudge

It's hard to believe that Matt Drudge was once regarded as some sort of take-no-prisoners mainstream media troublemaker.

An example follows of Matt Drudge's reaction, and censorship, when confronted with one of the most explosive media scandal stories in years.

A headline on both the Drudge Report website, and the @Drudge_Report Twitter feed :




The actual headline of the Reuters story :



Hmm, a certain name seems to have gone missing...

reposted from Your New Reality

Matt Drudge And Frank Gaffney Share The Bong Of Rampant Paranoia
.

Conroy Weeps With Laughter

Anti-digital censorship activist thingy Anonymous announced a protest against Communications Minister Stephen Conroy's plans to filter internet content, and claimed :

We Are Legion

A Roman Legion :



The Australian Anonymous Legion protesting in Sydney, as photographed by Ry Crozier from ITNews :



Check out Crozier's slide show. It includes the absolute psychological death blow of any protest - when the handful of police that bothered to show up decide to pack it in early and leave you to it.


.

Real world protests for virtual world freedoms :

(click to enlarge)

"Is This A Game.....Or Is This Real?"

The 'story trailer' for the Predator Vs Alien game Australian censors assessed, banned, endured a storm of controversy over, then reassessed before creating a new category, "strong science fiction violence", which then allowed them to pass the game for release with an MA15 rating :





Here's how the Australian Classification Review Board explained its decision :

In the Review Board's opinion the violence depicted in the game can be accommodated within the MA 15+ category as the violent scenes are not prolonged and are interspersed with longer non violent sequences. The violence is fantastical in nature and justified by the context of the game, set in a futuristic science-fiction world, inhabited by aliens and predators. This context serves to lessen its impact. The more contentious violence is randomly generated and is not dependent on player selection of specific moves.

Aliens Vs Predator is released on February 18.

"I Don't See Why It Should Be Blasphemy....Just Saying Jehovah"

How sad. Ireland steps back into the dark ages :

From today, 1 January 2010, the new Irish blasphemy law becomes operational, and we begin our campaign to have it repealed. Blasphemy is now a crime punishable by a €25,000 fine. The new law defines blasphemy as publishing or uttering matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby intentionally causing outrage among a substantial number of adherents of that religion....

There's a list of 25 Blasphemous Quotes Here published by Atheist Ireland to commemorate the utter stupidity of the reviving of this old law, but it's always hard to go past this piece of brilliance :



As the number of true believers of all religious faiths continues to plummet, those who profit the most from organised religions will do everything they can to try and stop the criticism, and mockery, that is ultimately freeing people the world over from dangerous historical lies and fear-ruled absurd mythologies. The introduction, or reviving, of blasphemy laws are just one of the weapons they are utilising in their war against the loss of faith in Faith.

Note: I've used the Google Cache link for the 25 Blasphemous Quotes because the www.blasphemy.ie page has been inaccessible for hours.

Feel free to include your favourite blasphemous quote in comments.

Anti-Censorship Censored

By Darryl Mason

Here's the front page text from the anti-RuddNet censorship protest site, www.stephenconroy.com.au, which was pulled offline on Friday afternoon :

stephenconroy.com.au - Minister For Fascism

"The interesting part of this is that it shows that the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy has not even been forward thinking enough to register his own name domain." -- f_bassman@Whirlpool

AUSTRALIAS INTERNET IS ABOUT TO BE CENSORED BY A FASCIST ASS! READ ALL ABOUT SENATOR STEPHEN CONROY HERE!

DON'T THINK THE LABOR PARTY HAS THE RIGHT TO ARBITRATE WHAT YOU SEE ON THE INTERNET? TELL THEM!

EMAIL THE MINISTER HERE AND TELL HIM THAT AS A VOTING AUSTRALIAN CITIZEN YOU FIND THIS COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE!

Make sure you check out our LINKS page and support our comrades! We'll keep adding relevant stuff as we come across it.

DO WE HAVE YOUR ATTENTION NOW, MR CONROY? WE DON'T WANT THIS. WE'RE GOING TO FIGHT IT. THIS IS THE AUSTRALIAN PUBLIC TELLING YOU NO!!

Like commenters at Whirlpool, I find it downright incredible that nobody in the office of Stephen Conroy, Minister For RuddNet, was on top of the intertubeywebs enough to have thought, "You know, let's register the local domain name for Conroy, so no-one else gets in first and starts...I don't know...a high profile mock site under his name or something."

I don't think Conroy, well anyone in the Rudd government, really, is aware of just how much embarrassing chaos they will unleash upon themselves when RuddNet Censorship becomes a reality. I mean, more of a reality than having an anti-censorship site shut down.

There are thousands of freenet hackers and activists, tens of thousands more likely, all over the world who will see it as a personal mission and a satisfying challenge to do everything they can to destroy any attempt by the RuddNet to censor or vasty restrict the free sharing of information in a democracy like Australia.

They will first be called "extremists". Then "terrorists."

Asher Moses On StephenConroy.Com.Au

.

Online Protests Begin To Rage Against RuddNet Censorship

By Darryl Mason

The Rudd government has released its report into internet filtering and (you may be shocked to read this) has reached the conclusion that it's a fine and practical idea.

Welcome to the RuddNet :

The Federal Government will introduce compulsory internet filtering to block overseas sites which contain criminal content, including child sex abuse and sexual violence.

And political content that will, or already is, categorised as "extremist".

Communications Minister Stephen Conroy announced the changes today following a controversial trial to filter the internet which was conducted earlier this year.

Senator Conroy says some internet content is simply not suitable in a civilised society.

"It is important that all Australians, particularly young children, are protected from this material," he said.

Legislation will be introduced into Parliament next year which will require all ISPs to block material which has been refused classification in other countries.

This would include sites containing child sex abuse, bestiality, sexual violence or detailed information about how to use drugs or commit crimes.

My head is churning with hundreds of titles of classic, brilliant, acclaimed movies that include scenes showing viewers how to use drugs and commit crimes.

And the obligatory declaration of non-censorship :

The Government maintains the filter is not designed to curtail freedom of speech.

It doesn't matter whether it was "designed" to curtain freedom of speech. The simple fact is it will do exactly that.

The ABC News website was one of the first news sites to run the story with comments open, with hundreds pouring in within the first hour the story going up. The reaction is 99% negative, and the outrage at such a draconian move towards mandatory internet censorship is spreading fast.

The Liberals and The Greens could seriously rock the popularity of the Rudd government by opposing internet filtering and fighting hard against this kind of censorship. We know The Greens will, but what about The Libs?

Or do the Coalition Catholics and religious donors demand Liberals back RuddNet?

This comment from Grover at ABC News is a good summary of the vast majority of furious opinions piling up in comments :

Limiting freedoms of citizens is outrageous.

In what world does Conroy think it is appropriate to decide what data we may and may not access?

He is bringing us level with China and it's censorship.

I am genuinely disgusted that they would actually degrade this county's broadband services, instead of improving them, which is what we (including myself) voted the Labor government into power to do. Under no circumstances will I vote for a party responsible for attacks on our freedoms, in the next election.

Any true criminal will go around any black list, it is extremely easy (I have a degree in Computer Science, but no education is required).

Any privacy concious individual will use encryption services, which can _not_ be decrypted by anyone inspecting their data packets.

In short, this will make little or no difference to criminals, but will limit the choices and freedoms of all average citizens of this country, and it open us all up to possible abuse by governments in the future.

Do not for one second attempt to imply that people opposed to this plan are paedophiles or terrorists.

Stephen Conroy has already deployed the 'Responsible Australians Vs Pedos & Terrorists' argument to sugar coat this digital censorship program. They better come up with something stronger than that to argue their case for internet filtering. They've already got hundreds of thousands of teenage to middle aged gamers offside with their censorship and banning of animated vidgames.

If you follow @KevinRuddPM on Twitter, an easy fast way to register your opposition to RuddNet censorship is to block his messages and remove yourself from his Following list.

@KevinRuddPM has almost 900,000 followers on Twitter, amongst the highest of any politician in the world. Let's cut that following in half by Friday. For starters.

More soon...

Pollytics : Kevin Rudd Wants To Filter Your Internets

Asher Moses : Internet Censorship Plan Approved In Australia

Media Hunter : Can The Blogstream Topple A Government? Let's Find Out

LP : Net Censorship Zombies Rise Again


.

The Australian confirms John Howard tried and succeeded in crushing dissent at the ABC :

When the Australian Broadcasting Corporation launched its political analysis program Insiders in 2001 the public broadcaster's own staff were forbidden from being panelists.

John Howard's coalition government was closely monitoring the ABC, which it viewed as enemy territory, and network programmers mindful of not agitating outspoken communications minister Richard Alston approved the show on condition only external commentators representing a spectrum of different views were used.

And yet, despite very strong opinions and criticisms from ABC journalists and commentators against prime minister Kevin Rudd all over ABC radio, TV and online, not one journalist has so far revealed any pressure coming from the PM's office to tone it down or shut up.

Andrew Bolt Hates Democracy

By Darryl Mason

Not just democracy, but free speech as well :

"Those who still like (Malcolm Turnbull) should urge him to keep his silence...."

"(Malcolm Turnbull) should be manouvered out of Parliament, if not the party."

The Professional Idiot wanted democracy in Iraq, even if it cost a trillion dollars, the lives and limbs of hundreds of thousands of people, and made orphans of millions of Iraqi kids. But when a Liberal Party politician holds a differing opinion to his own and that of the new Liberal Party leader, Tony Abbott, well, The Idiot wants democracy and free speech in Australia to be subverted.

And with his usual cowardice, The Idiot refuses to link directly to Malcolm Turnbull's blog, so his readers can see exactly what Turnbull wrote, and make up their own minds.

Bolt droogie and fellow gatekeeper, Tim Blair, also refuses to link to Malcolm Turnbull's blog. Maybe he's just jealous because Turnbull gets so many more comments than he does these days....

Anyway, this is what Malcolm Turnbull wrote on his blog that has so infuriated Andrew Bolt and made rant like an anti-freedom of speech fascist :

While a shadow minister, Tony Abbott was never afraid of speaking bluntly in a manner that was at odds with Coalition policy.

So as I am a humble backbencher I am sure he won't complain if I tell a few home truths about the farce that the Coalition's policy, or lack of policy, on climate change has descended into.

First, let's get this straight. You cannot cut emissions without a cost. To replace dirty coal fired power stations with cleaner gas fired ones, or renewables like wind let alone nuclear power or even coal fired power with carbon capture and storage is all going to cost money.

To get farmers to change the way they manage their land, or plant trees and vegetation all costs money.

Somebody has to pay.

So any suggestion that you can dramatically cut emissions without any cost is, to use a favourite term of Mr Abbott, "bullshit." Moreover he knows it.

---------------

....the fact is that Tony and the people who put him in his job do not want to do anything about climate change. They do not believe in human caused global warming. As Tony observed on one occasion "climate change is crap" or if you consider his mentor, Senator Minchin, the world is not warming, it's cooling and the climate change issue is part of a vast left wing conspiracy to deindustrialise the world.

Which, in a remarkable coincidence, also happens to be a theory long promoted by Andrew Bolt and his commenters, some of whom were Liberal Party politicians, staffers and advisors writing under fake names.

Turnbull :

The Liberal Party is currently led by people whose conviction on climate change is that it is "crap" and you don't need to do anything about it.

Tony himself has, in just four or five months, publicly advocated the blocking of the ETS, the passing of the ETS, the amending of the ETS and, if the amendments were satisfactory, passing it, and now the blocking of it.

His only redeeming virtue in this remarkable lack of conviction is that every time he announced a new position to me he would preface it with "Mate, mate, I know I am a bit of a weather vane on this, but....."

Many Liberals are rightly dismayed that on this vital issue of climate change we are not simply without a policy, without any prospect of having a credible policy but we are now open to the charge that we are also without integrity. We have given our opponents the irrefutable, undeniable evidence that we cannot be trusted to keep our word or maintain a consistent position on the issue of climate change.

Unlike the cowardly Andrew Bolt, Malcolm Turnbull's blog is open for comments from readers on his stories and opinion, and unlike Andrew Bolt, Turnbull is not afraid to let through some very harsh criticisms indeed :

"are you throwing nothing more than an articulate tantrum?"

"As usual, you're hell bent on getting your own way like a typical spoilt brat, and couldn't care less about anyone else."

"Your a farce now Malcolm"

"(You are) nothing but a egocentric backstabbing bastard"

"Sour grapes from one of Rudd's elves. It doesn't matter what party you say you're on Malcolm, you are Rudd's boy. "

"unclench yours fists, stop stamping your feet and stop behaving like a spoiled brat."

"sour grapes comes to mind. Give me a break. You banter has as much BS in it as anyone who wants to take bat and ball and not play the game. Grow up"

Expect Andrew Bolt to grow only more hysterical and shrill when the Tony Abbott experiment doesn't produce the results the Abbott Army, firmly embedded in the Murdoch and Fairfax media, have been praying for.

It's going to be one of those elections.

Entertaining.

Australian politicians attacking and criticising each other through blogs and on social networking sites like Twitter is a new phenomenon. But it will cause much chaos, debate and delight as we move into the federal election campaign proper.

It's going to be ugly, and funny, but that's free speech. That's democracy.

UPDATE : After visiting The Orstrahyun to read the above story, Andrew Bolt finally provides a link to Malcolm Turnbull's blog, noting the harsh criticism of Turnbull in the comments section that I noted above. Bolt thanks reader 'Steve' for pointing this out to him, even though he based a lengthy post on what Turnbull wrote in that now controversial post.

So it appears Bolt didn't even read the Turnbull blog post himself, before writing about it here.

So much for research.

What Would Jesus Do...If He Took Control Of Your TV Remote?


image from the Orlando Weekly

The Australian Christian Lobby is sending out 'Stop The TV Smut' press releases again :

With standards governing on-screen content being reviewed for the first time in six years, the Australian Christian Lobby launched the "Tame the Tube" campaign to combat what it says are industry attempts to weaken TV standards.

"Sex, violence and foul language are normal fare these days as TV networks push the boundaries," ACL managing director Jim Wallace said.

ACL said it had about 10,000 registered supporters, mainly from orthodox and evangelical churches.

They don't like Underbelly much.

There should be a suburban crime show based around the jaw-dropping Biblical tale of Lot and his two daughters. Then we could have a God-fearers friendly TV drama where a stranger wanders into a new town, say St Kilda, pursued by a gang of locals intent on raping him, the stranger takes shelter in the home of Mr Lot, who then volunteers his underage daughters to the rape gang when they drop by to attack his house guest. The town explodes, killing just about everybody. Mr Lot flees with his two daughters, who then get their father drunk and seduce him. But no swearing, butts or tits, of course. The ACL thinks that would be going too far.

@ClubWah provides a provocative retort to the lobby group the Daily Telegraph has, curiously, branded the 'Wrath Of God' :

"fuck off you fucking shit-eating fundi cunts!"

In answer to the question posed in the headline, I'm sure Jesus would be regularly tuning into Top Gear, if only to marvel at how far transport has come since the days of the donkey express.

Stop Whingeing, Go Make Some Money, Murdoch Readers Tell Jews

Tabloid media content provider, and DJ, Kyle Sandilands said :

"That's what all fat people say. You put her in a concentration camp and you watch the weight fall, like she could be skinny."

Jeremy Jones, Jewish Affairs spokesman, said :

"To joke about the experience of people who are being starved to death or murdered ... is quite horrendous."

The Murdoch media said :

Shock jock Kyle Sandilands has been suspended again after insulting Holocaust survivors and their families...

Which means 'Kyle Sandilands Insults Holocaust Survivors' is locked into Google search results of his name, presumably forever :



Murdoch media online readers said :

"Why do these Jews complain about every thing? Every little chance to be in the news and they gas bag away...yes little Fritz and Josef was evil and Kyle's a rancid motormouth bla bla bla..BUT...This was not about Jews! Go make some money! Yeeesh!...LOL"

"Concentration camps existed in Bosnia as well. Haven't heard a complaint from a Bosnian like you do from a Jew."

"How sad that Jewish leaders are so precious .... stop whinging!"

"maybe Kyle's comments would have been ok with the jewish/israeli lobby if he'd said "put magda in gaza"?"

"Do these jews ever stop whinging about anything and everything?"

And Murdoch media online readers also said :

"The Jewish community should back off...it certainly seems that the Jewish community still insists that any mention of concentration camps is a direct attack upon them. Jews weren't the only ones who suffered and/or died in concentration camps throughout history, but certainly seek to make the most mileage out of it."

"...what gives Jewish people the right to supress ANYONE'S freedom of speech including topics (jokes, fact or fiction) regarding concentration camps??"

"...why are we all so affraid of upsetting the Jews? They are not the only people to be persecuted. Anyway, they run the world economy and their imaginary invisible God is apparently the best one!"

"In many European countries you can deny that God exists. But you deny holocaust and you go to prison. Examples are Austria, Switzerland, Germany etc. Jews run this world. I can assure you that just because some jews raised concerns, Kyle will be banned."

"...the nazis killed alot more orthodox russians then jews, you don't hear the russians complain, why is that, oh yeah because they dont have any lobby/ interest groups with their hands in everything"

"do we have to go through never ending rounds of jewish outrage ?? The Jewish people do not own terms like genocide and holocaust and concentration camps, so why are they acting like it is always about them ? Ive lived for 30 years and every single year of that life, sometimes every week, I have outraged jewish people thrust down my throat via endless chain rattling of some sort.Yes, we know you were victims and so were many of us, now lets get on with life in 2009!! It is NOT 1940 anymore."

"Notice how its turned into a Jewish debate again, I think they just love making everyone feel sorry for them all the time! Its like they have little radars that pop up when they hear concentration camp or anything that will link to them."

"As the so called "holocaust" was itself an event hyped and used for political gain, I don't see why Kyle is subject to such abuse. There are serious doubts about the numbers and events of the "holocaust" as we know"

All of the above Murdoch media reader opinions, from Murdoch's news.com.au and Herald Sun sites, were only published after moderation.

Once again, the words of Kyle Sandilands that sparked all this :

"You put her in a concentration camp and you watch the weight fall"

Would Kyle Sandilands be sacked and fined if he read the opinions of Murdoch media online readers live on air?

.

It Really Does Get In

By Darryl Mason

As I've said here before, the Rudd government has to be very careful when it comes to censoring what Australians can read, see and buy online. No Australian election has yet seen Internet Censorship become a Major Election Issue, and if Rudd & Friends keep pushing this Censor The Net stupidity, they are going to find most Australians online are against them. And when it comes to a federal election, that could be extremely bad news.

GetUp! is planning to run the below ad as part of its fight against online censorship.



The message is clear enough, but a parody ad won't really hit home about what Online Censorship really means, and how a constantly expanding blacklist open to undue influence and corporate vendettas will change our online lives. Yes, many "hate sites" will make the list, but soon enough torrent and peer-to-peer file sharing sites will also get blocked. Well, the blacklist will attempt to block such sites, but there are many ways around even mandatory web filters, which you'll learn a bit more about here when the time is right. Obviously, you can already such info online.

The GetUp! anti-censorship ad is a good start, and the line about Iran and Online Censorship should be the ignition point for whatever ad they make next.

Stephen Conroy's Net Filter Will Block Access To eBay And Amazon

Comment Mining, Another Rich Seam Found

The Professional Idiot readies his brethren to fight back against the coming Evil Pagan Green Nazi Lefty Commo Chairman RuddObama Socialist censorship regime. Or something :



Yes. You may get banned or censored for trying to point out some ugly truths about what he is attempting, but mostly failing, to do to Australian society.

UPDATE : The Professional Idiot wants his readers to believe that lefty politically correct censorship will censor him, or them. But here's someone who has actually been effectively censored and told by a court that the notion of freedom of speech does not cover his beliefs, as bizarre and repulsive as they may be to most, and he now faces jail for refusing to be silenced :

"The courts have held, but his conduct shows he does not accept that the freedom of speech citizens of this country enjoy does not include the freedom to publish material calculated to offend, insult or humiliate or intimidate people because of their race, colour or national or ethnic origin. It is conduct that amounts to criminal contempt."

Federal Judge Rules Against The Freedom To Insult And Offend

Songs About "Fire" And "Burning" Banned From Australian Radio

Something very similar happened in the United States after September 11, 2001 - Australian radio stations are purging their playlists of any songs that might remind listeners of last weekend's holocaust in Victoria.

Gone from radio playlists, already, are the following songs :

Talking Heads - Burning Down The House

Bruce Springsteen - (I'm On) Fire

Midnight Oil - Beds Are Burning

INXS - Burn For You

Jessica Mauboy - Burn

U2 - Fire


While radio stations are engaged in such rampant fucking stupidity, here's a few they might have missed :

The Doors - Light My Fire

Various - Great Balls Of Fire

Madonna - Burning Up

INXS - Girl On Fire

AC/DC - This House Is On Fire

Olivia Newton-John - Walk Through The Fire

Ben Harper - Burn One Down

Various - Burn Baby Burn (Disco Inferno)

Bob Marley - Burnin' & Lootin'

Cold Chisel - Baby's On Fire

Silverchair - Ana's Song (Open Fire)

Icehouse - Touch The Fire

John Farnham - Burn For You

Bryan Adams - Hearts On Fire

Hunters & Collectors - Everything's On Fire

Peter Gabriel - Walk Through The Fire

Elvis Presley - Burning Love

John Mellencamp - Paper In Fire

John Farnham - Hearts On Fire

Usher - Burn

Jesus & Mary Chain - Catch Fire

Metallica - Jump In The Fire

Nickleback - Burn It To The Ground

Bloodhound Gang - Burn Baby Burn

Johnny Cash - Ring Of Fire

It's fascinating to note just how many great, timeless songs could make the 'You Can't Play That Now!' ban list.

If ridiculously over-sensitive radio stations decide to include all songs that include the words "fire" or "burn" in their lyrics, instead of just the choruses or song titles, they won't have much left to play at all.

Do you know how many U2 and Midnight Oil songs, for example, use words like "fire" and "burn" in their lyrics? I can't be arsed to check, but from the most vague of memory recalls, I know it's a hell of a lot.

If Australia was hit by a tsunami, would we ban all Beach Boys songs?

Definitely one of the most ridiculous fall-outs of the Victoria Fires 2009 (Part One) I've found so far. No doubt, it won't be the last.

Home Free, As Long As He Stays Home

'Freedom'? :

"This is the beauty of Australia or the common law countries. They do not as yet criminalise thoughts," he said.

"In European law your thoughts can be criminalised. We haven't got that in common law countries yet."

Not as yet. But maybe soon. Our government already holds a black list of blocked (or to be blocked) websites, supposedly around 10,000 sites in total, and not all of them are related to child porn or ultra-violence.

You Are Being Offended. Yes, I'm Being Offended

For its inflight internet access, Qantas knows what its customers find offensive, without even asking them :

"Restrictions may include sites that contain violence, profanity, nudity and other content we consider may be offensive to our customers."

No profanity? Well you fucking well won't be reading this blog on a fucking Qantas flight then, will you? I'm working on the violence and nudity.

Illegal Nipples

UPDATE : I've been advised to remove the uncensored Bill Henson image, sourced from The Age newspaper website. So it's gone. Also I referred to federal police raiding the gallery, it was actually the NSW police.


According to professional idiot Andrew Bolt, the controversial Bill Henson photograph at the centre of a cultural and moral storm is pornography.

(Uncensored image now removed)

Bolt : "Fact is, Henson’s photographs are soft porn."

Really? How disturbing. What kind of pornography does Bolt normally view if he thinks that's soft porn?

But this duplicate, and purposely darkened (you know, to make it more sinister) image is part of a gallery of images featured on various Rupert Murdoch News Limited websites, including Andrew Bolt's own The Herald Sun.



If the first photograph is a "soft porn" image of, according to Bolt, a "stripped 13 year old", and the second photograph is acceptable enough to be featured (without any warnings of nudity) on Bolt's own newspaper website, in a censored form, the entire question of whether or not this is an illegal image seems to come down to the revealing of two nipples. Or the fact that it is a photograph and not a painting or sketch or sculpture.

Now it's 'art', not 'soft porn' :



If Bolt is confused over what is or isn't "soft porn", he can always ask his boss, a renowned pornographer.


The girl in the above images has been identified by police, but has refused to speak to police investigators :

It is understood police have been contacted by a lawyer acting for the girl - believed to be from Victoria - and she wants no part in the inquiry.

It not known how old she is now.

Police had hoped to speak to her and her parents to determine what level of parental permission was granted when she posed for the shoot.

Smart girl, or woman now. Regardless of whether or not a crime has been committed - and so far charges have not even been laid - if her name is revealed, the media will hound her remorselessly, and her parents will cop no end of grief, from the likes of Bolt, for allowing her to be photographed by Henson. Her parents might also face charges, depending on how long ago the photographs were taken, and what kind of consent they gave Henson to photograph their daughter.

The next leader of the Liberal Party, Malcolm Turnbull, refused to label the Henson photographs as "revolting", as PM Rudd did:

"We have a culture of great artistic freedom in this country and I don't believe the vice squad's role is to go into art galleries..."

Here's the relevant laws under which federal police will supposedly lay charges against Henson :

Children not to be used for pornographic purposes

(1) Any person who:

(a) uses a child who is under the age of 14 years for pornographic purposes, or

(b) causes or procures a child of that age to be so used, or

(c) having the care of a child of that age, consents to the child being so used or allows the child to be so used,

is guilty of an offence.

Maximum penalty: imprisonment for 14 years.

(2) Any person who:

(a) uses a child who is of or above the age of 14 years for pornographic purposes, or

(b) causes or procures a child of that age to be so used, or

(c) having the care of a child of that age, consents to the child being so used or allows the child to be so used,

is guilty of an offence.

Maximum penalty: imprisonment for 10 years.

(3) For the purposes of this section, a child is used by a person for pornographic purposes if:

(a) the child is engaged in sexual activity, or

(b) the child is placed in a sexual context, or

(c) the child is subjected to torture, cruelty or physical abuse (whether or not in a sexual context),

for the purposes of the production of pornographic material by that person.

(4) For the purposes of this section, a person may have the care of a child without necessarily being entitled by law to have the custody of the child.

(5) Where on the trial of a person for an offence under subsection (1) the jury is not satisfied that the accused is guilty of the offence charged, but is satisfied on the evidence that the accused is guilty of an offence under subsection (2), it may find the accused not guilty of the offence charged but guilty of the latter offence, and the accused is liable to punishment accordingly.

It sounds like, according to the law, it will all come down to whether or not the 13 year old girl was photographed in "a sexual context".

In all likelihood, Bill Henson will not be charged with anything, and neither will the owners of the Sydney gallery the police raided or the parents of his teenage models. Of course, his art will now sell for even more than it currently does, now he has become the most famous artist in Australia.

But if Henson is not charged, will such controversial images be allowed to be displayed in Australian art galleries again?

Presumably, if this scandal results in no charges being laid, it will require a change in law for such a prohibition to take place.

Would Kevin Rudd have the guts to push for a law change like that?

Doubtful.


UPDATE : Tony Abbott has some questions about whether he can now have this kind of "pornography" on his computer :

"If I had on my computer the kind of images that were in that gallery I'd be interviewed by the police, quite possibly face charges."

"If it's pornography on my computer, why isn't it pornography in the gallery? That's the question that I ask.

"And if it's not pornography in the gallery, it's not pornography on my computer.''

Tony Abbott, the moronic twit, hasn't seen the images for himself. He has, however, heard they are "pretty confronting."

"Shocking people is all very well but I don't think we need to be shocked by everything, I think some things are off limits.''

Not off limits for Tony Abbott is bombing the fuck out of 13 year old children in Iraq, a corpse-soaked war of occupation he has enthusiastically supported. As has Andrew Bolt. Curiously, most of those in the media who are kicking up most of the fuss are also active supporters of the Iraq War, including the Sydney Morning Herald's Miranda Devine.

Non-sexualised images of naked children? Pure evil. Children blown to pieces by American Hellfire missiles? Perfectly acceptable.

Now there's a double standard that drips blood.

Note : The first image (now removed - ed) was sourced from the website of the Melbourne Age newspaper, where it remains archived as of this posting.

Internet Censorship Clampdown Begins In One Month

Chatrooms Will Be Forced To Undergo "Professional Assessment" To Continue Operating

Will Fight Against Child Pornography Prove To Be The Trojan Horse For Far-Reaching Online Censorship?

By Darryl Mason

A new wave of "restrictions" on mobile phone content, websites, chatrooms and message boards will be introduced in Australia by late January, 2008.

Do you like the way this has been announced only days before Christmas, and will be in place by the time most Australians return from their Christmas holidays? Surely, it's just a coincidence?

The first push in this new wave of censorship of Australian internet content begins with what may well prove to be a 'trojan horse' of sorts - the almost unanimously supported push to keep children from viewing "unsuitable material".

You are supposed to immediately think of child pornography, or graphic adult pornography, but the censorship regime is wide open to interpretation. For example, "violent imagery" also falls under these news bans. It doesn't simply mean photographs of children being abused or raped. It also means imagery that shows the results of acts of violence. War violence, for example. The censorship body in Australia has already tried to ban imagery from a video game that showed two animated android-like women kissing, and backed down to widespread outrage and mockery.

The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) will be able to force content providers to take down offensive material and issue notices for live content to be stopped and links to the content deleted.

But ACMA chairman Chris Chapman said adults will not be affected by the new laws.

Of course not. Not yet, anyway.

"In developing these new content rules, ACMA was guided by its disposition to allow adults to continue to read, hear and see what they want, while protecting children from exposure to inappropriate content, regardless of the delivery mechanism," Mr Chapman said in a statement.

Providers of live services, such as chatrooms, must have their service professionally assessed to determine whether its "likely content" should be restricted.

And what if you are a one man chatroom operator who can't afford what is likely to be very expensive "professional assessment"? You won't allowed to operate your business online.


story continues after...
-------------------------
Other Blogs By Darryl Mason

Go Here For The Latest Stories From 'Your New Reality'

Go Here For The Latest Stories From 'The Orstrahyun'

Go Here To Read The Latest Chapter From Darryl Mason's Online Novel About Life After The Bird Flu Pandemic

--------------------------
story continues...


Earlier this year, The Orstrahyun reported on moves to censor online content that is deemed, by the government censor, to be supportive of terrorism, or supplies information on how to carry out acts of terrorism. President Bush tells us we must read what Osama Bin Laden has to say to understand the threat of terrorism, but the Australian internet censorship body will be moving to stop you from getting access to that kind of information. Which must also mean you can forget about reading histories of Jewish terrorists fighting for the establishment of Israel, and the history of the IRA.

The new censorship regime for internet content was introduced by Howard government in September, and emulates the steel fist approach used by China. More on that here.

Back to the current story :

Personal emails and other private communications would be excluded from the new laws and so would news or current affairs services.

Is that all news and current affairs services, or just the ones approved by the government censor?

The censorship of website content will begin with tough restrictions on access to pornography and "violent images", but the temptation will be strong to broaden the scope of what material is deemed to be unsuitable for under-18s. Or what should not be available online to Australian web surfers at all.

Pornographic images of children are clearly unacceptable to all Australians, but what about an image of children torn apart by NATO bombs in Afghanistan?

Will a particularly feisty message board about government corruption or filled with commenters voicing great displeasure at the 'War on Terror', with lots of swearing, fall under the censor's blanket bans and restrictions?

Not yet.

But what about six months from now?

And what happens when independent internet media in Australia start pulling the same sort of visitor numbers as the mainstream media news sites?

This is already happening in the US, where sites like Crooks & Liars and PrisonPlanet, on a good day, can pull the same volume of readership as CBS News. Will the mainstream media work behind the scenes to freeze out the new competition? Will they push for tighter censorship and restrictions that makes it all but impossible for the independents to remain in business?

The use of the extremely distressing issue of child pornography is the beginning of the widespread censoring of internet content in Australia. It remains to be seen just how far this new censorship will go, or how far independent media and bloggers will allow it to spread before they start fighting back.

Government Expands "Black List" Of Banned Internet Sites

Porn, Violence, 'Terror' And Social Networking Sites Now In Firing Line

Australia Now Bans More Video Games Than Any Other Country In The World

'Terror' Books And Movies To Be Banned Under Extraordinary New Censorship Laws

"Patriotic" Movies, Video Games That "Glorify War" Will Be Excluded From New Ban Regime

Australia Bans War....Video Game

Australia Now Bans More Video Games Than Any Other Country In The World




You can watch it, but you can't play it.

Australia now leads the world in officially banning video games for having "adult content", even though the average age of gamers in Australia is now 28 years old.

Adult content determined by our enthusiastically draconian censorship board to be unacceptable for adult gamers includes graphic nudity or sex, extreme violence, gore, drug use or imagery depicting prostitution.

Indonesia is a majority Muslim nation, with supposedly restrictive rules on acceptable entertainment, but every single video game banned in Australia in the past three years fill the shelves of gamer shops in Jakarta.

Australia's classification regime has now decided that the forthcoming shooter title, Solider Of Fortune : Pay Back, is too gory and violent for the millions of adult Australians who play video games every evening, instead of tuning into Dancing With The Australia Idols.

The game was refused classification by the Office Of Film and Literature Classification.

The absurdity of the ban is compounded by the fact that the news.com.au website features a collection of YouTube clips showing exactly the kind of graphic violence that led to the game being banned. There is clearly no age restriction to viewing the game's most violent scenes and action. You just can't participate.

Australia is now, the only country in the world to officially, and regularly, ban video games for violence or "adult content". We now ban more video games, through censorship legislation, than any other country on the planet.

Yet the Australian Defence Force now uses very realistic video games to help recruit teenagers into a militaristic way of thinking. The games are specifically designed to begin training teenagers for war, long before they are old enough to sign up for the real thing. Those games, naturally, are not banned. They are, in fact, free.

So is the problem here that Soldier Of Fortune : Pay Back actually shows the kind of injuries, decapitations, amputations and spouting head wounds that are part of every day life in the war zones of Iraq and Afghanistan where Australia has deployed thousands of troops?

Clearly, it's a dangerous and terrible thing for even adults in Australia to see what happens to the human body when it is hit by high calibre bullets and RPGs. Even in a video game.

Some of the video games now banned in Australia - Blitz: The League, BMX XXX, Manhunt, Reservoir Dogs, 50 Cent: Bullet Proof.

Blitz was banned in January due to the fact it "contains drug use related to incentives or rewards."

More here :

In its board report on Soldier of Fortune: Pay Back, dated October 16, the OFLC said frequent high impact violence made the game unsuitable for those aged under 18 years.

It's animation.

"Successfully shooting an opponent results in the depiction of blood spray," the board said.

It's animation.

"When the enemy is shot from close range, the blood spray is substantial, especially when a high-caliber weapon is used, and blood splatters onto the ground and walls in the environment.

It's animation.

"The player may target various limbs of the opponents and this can result in the limb being dismembered.

It's animation.

"Large amounts of blood spray forth from the stump with the opponent sometimes remaining alive before eventually dying from the wounds."

It's animation.

Australia has no classification to restrict violent video game sales to person over 18 years of age, despite the fact that the average age of players is 28, and the vast majority of all gamers are over legal adults.

You can't legally play the Soldier Of Fortune : Payback video game in Australia. But you can sign up to the Army on your 18th birthday and clock up a tour in Iraq, shooting real guns at real people, by your 20th birthday.

But a video game?

God, no.

Fight in real wars, but ban the fake ones.

You know it makes sense.