Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2014/03/02 06:56:26
Subject: Australia and Children's Island (I didn't see a thread on this already...)
Censors have refused classification for a 30-year-old award-winning Swedish film, in effect banning it, after an application by the Australian Federal Police.
The Classification Review Board’s decision to refuse classification for Children’s Island, handed down in October but not reported until now, has echoes of the 2008 controversy over Bill Henson’s photographs of naked children.
Titled Barnens ö in Swedish, the arthouse film focuses on an 11-year old boy grappling with the onset of puberty and contains scenes in which the boy is naked. It won Sweden’s most prestigious film prize, the Guldbagge, when it was released in 1980 and was Sweden’s official selection for the 54th Academy Awards. The film was directed by Kay Pollak, who later won acclaim for his box office hit As it is in Heaven.
Advertisement
Fairfax Media has not found any evidence of the film being refused classification in other countries.
The Australian Communications and Media Authority referred it to the Australian Classification Board last year after receiving a complaint.
The classification board originally gave the film an R18+ rating, but this decision was overturned on appeal following an application by the federal police.
In their ruling, three Classification Review Board members found that a 49-second sequence depicting the boy masturbating was likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult.
The boy’s erect penis is clearly shown in a three-second close-up.
‘‘The review board considered that although the scene was relevant to the story and was brief in duration it is still the depiction of actual sexual activity by a minor and is not justified by context,’’ the members wrote in their decision.
The review board found that other scenes — including of a boy lying naked in the bath and posing nude in front of a mirror wearing a wig — were justified by their context.
Anyone buying, selling or showing the film publicly will now face fines of up to $275,000 and a maximum 10 years’ jail. In Western Australia and parts of the Northern Territory, possessing the film would constitute a criminal offence.
Free-speech advocate Chris Berg, a research fellow at the Institute of Public Affairs, said: ‘‘It is a bizarre and rather extraordinary overreach by the AFP to go to the Classification Review Board to censor movies.
‘‘If they believe this is genuine child pornography they should contact their state colleagues and ask them to pursue it. If they are just concerned about offence, then that is none of their business. It is not the AFP’s job to protect people from taking offence.’’
An AFP spokesperson said: ''The film Barnens ö was first encountered by AFP officers in 2009 following a search warrant conducted in Sydney. The DVD was suspected of being illegally imported from overseas.
''While it is rare for the AFP to seek reviews of classification decisions, the AFP was concerned in this case that the movie contained child exploitation material. The AFP will continue to work with local and international law enforcement partners to detect, disrupt and bring to justice those who seek to produce, share and access child exploitation material.''
The spokesperson said two child exploitation material experts provided submissions to the Classification Review board.
Horst wrote:This is how trolling happens. A few cheeky posts are made. Then they get more insulting. Eventually, we revert to our primal animal state, hurling feces at each other while shreeking with glee.
2014/03/02 07:32:56
Subject: Re:Australia and Children's Island (I didn't see a thread on this already...)
Wasn't that because of one lone politician who was digging his heels in and bringing the whole issue to a grinding halt in defiance of reason and fact?
(The lesson I took from my, admittedly limited exposure to that issue, was that Australia's government was just as inefficient and laced with moralistic do-gooders who think it's okay to quash basic liberties because they know what's good for everyone else as my own. )
This didn't quite seem like that, though. I thought there might be a little wiggle room in this particular issue for either side to be right. I haven't seen the film myself, so I can't really comment on its content. I don't think it's unreasonable for a ruling body to draw a line and say, "okay, this thing here is child pornography." It seems like one of those crimes that there SHOULD be some latitude to prosecute. I'm just curious what everyone else thinks. (About whether this fits the bill, not whether or not child porn should be illegal! I should hope there isn't any room for discussion on that! )
Jimsolo wrote: Wasn't that because of one lone politician who was digging his heels in and bringing the whole issue to a grinding halt in defiance of reason and fact?
Quite correct.
But our classification board is... inconsistent at the best of times. Things make it through and then similar things don't. It never makes any sense.
Jimsolo wrote: I don't think it's unreasonable for a ruling body to draw a line and say, "okay, this thing here is child pornography."
The problem is that's not their justification:
In their ruling, three Classification Review Board members found that a 49-second sequence depicting the boy masturbating was likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult.
It's not about preventing abuse of children, it's the idiotic idea of someone being "offended" as justification for censorship.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
2014/03/03 03:07:56
Subject: Australia and Children's Island (I didn't see a thread on this already...)
I'm not a big fan of Australian censorship laws, but in this case honestly I don't have much of a problem.
We require, for fairly obvious reasons, that people give consent before being filmed naked or in sexual situations. Kids can't give that consent, and I'm not at all convinced that parental consent is a good enough alternative in that situation.
Does that mean that film makers won't be able to have sex and nudity in their films, even if its there for genuine artistic reasons? Yeah, it does. Doesn't mean that stuff can't be good art, I mean I saw the photographs by Bill Henson and they were great art, but I found it problematic that a young girl was put in such images without ever being able to give real consent. So it means that filmmakers will have a constraint on what they can make, and that's a shame but oh well, everyone else has to work with practical restraints, and this is a pretty minor one to put on artist's.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2014/03/04 03:41:57
Subject: Australia and Children's Island (I didn't see a thread on this already...)
Any child nudity receives this, there were concerns that old paintings would be included in this, like depictions of Madonna and child, or the Samnite women, and war photos including the prize winning image of a naked child fleeing down a street shot during the Vietnam war.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
2014/03/04 04:34:40
Subject: Re:Australia and Children's Island (I didn't see a thread on this already...)
I don't think child nudity is necessarily worth banning in all cases. But children engaging in sex acts? Such as masturbating? Seems like a different situation.
Orlanth wrote: In the Uk this would receive an instant ban.
Any child nudity receives this, there were concerns that old paintings would be included in this, like depictions of Madonna and child, or the Samnite women, and war photos including the prize winning image of a naked child fleeing down a street shot during the Vietnam war.
That Vietnam war photo was the one that came to mind as the counter-example. That one actually had artistic and historical merit, as it was a literal example of the suffering being inflicted by the war on the civilian populace. This one... what is the point, except to let a dirty old man watch a child masturbate?
"When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up."
-C.S. Lewis
2014/03/04 06:27:45
Subject: Re:Australia and Children's Island (I didn't see a thread on this already...)
Jimsolo wrote: I don't think child nudity is necessarily worth banning in all cases. But children engaging in sex acts? Such as masturbating? Seems like a different situation.
Just to clarify, not all child nudity receives a ban. You can show a naked baby, for instance. But once the child starts puberty, well then yeah, it's a no go.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AlexHolker wrote: That Vietnam war photo was the one that came to mind as the counter-example. That one actually had artistic and historical merit, as it was a literal example of the suffering being inflicted by the war on the civilian populace. This one... what is the point, except to let a dirty old man watch a child masturbate?
No, don't do that. Don't go speculating about what this film is about, without seeing it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/03/04 06:27:56
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2014/03/04 06:32:05
Subject: Re:Australia and Children's Island (I didn't see a thread on this already...)
Jimsolo wrote: I don't think child nudity is necessarily worth banning in all cases. But children engaging in sex acts? Such as masturbating? Seems like a different situation.
Just to clarify, not all child nudity receives a ban. You can show a naked baby, for instance. But once the child starts puberty, well then yeah, it's a no go.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AlexHolker wrote: That Vietnam war photo was the one that came to mind as the counter-example. That one actually had artistic and historical merit, as it was a literal example of the suffering being inflicted by the war on the civilian populace. This one... what is the point, except to let a dirty old man watch a child masturbate?
No, don't do that. Don't go speculating about what this film is about, without seeing it.
I'm don't think you have to speculate about intent, honestly. Your earlier comment about a child being unable to give adequate consent for this performance is really all I needed. Until I saw that, I wasn't really able to articulate my feelings on the issue, but I think you crystallized it pretty well.
sebster wrote: No, don't do that. Don't go speculating about what this film is about, without seeing it.
It is literally against the law for me to see it.
If this film uses underage nudity and sex scenes to serve some greater cause than to provide insight into the sex life of a fictional child, as that photograph did in showing the plight of the Vietnamese people, somebody should be able to say what that cause is.
"When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up."
-C.S. Lewis
2014/03/04 06:58:31
Subject: Re:Australia and Children's Island (I didn't see a thread on this already...)
sebster wrote: We require, for fairly obvious reasons, that people give consent before being filmed naked or in sexual situations. Kids can't give that consent, and I'm not at all convinced that parental consent is a good enough alternative in that situation.
But if it's about consent and the content of the movie is really illegal pornography then why aren't the people who produced it being prosecuted? What it seems like just from the article here is that this is a case of something that is being censored purely because many (or even most) people find it offensive. And I would agree with them, just like I would agree with the people who consider the KKK a bunch of racist s who would best contribute to the world by violently removing themselves from it, but I don't think that the government has any business banning things just because I don't like them.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
2014/03/04 07:07:01
Subject: Re:Australia and Children's Island (I didn't see a thread on this already...)
Peregrine wrote: But if it's about consent and the content of the movie is really illegal pornography then why aren't the people who produced it being prosecuted?
Because Australian courts have no jurisdiction over a Swedish moviemaker.
"When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up."
-C.S. Lewis
2014/03/04 07:15:14
Subject: Re:Australia and Children's Island (I didn't see a thread on this already...)
Jimsolo wrote: I'm don't think you have to speculate about intent, honestly. Your earlier comment about a child being unable to give adequate consent for this performance is really all I needed. Until I saw that, I wasn't really able to articulate my feelings on the issue, but I think you crystallized it pretty well.
That's exactly it. We don't need to villify anyone who made this, and we don't need to call it pornography or anything like that. We can just say that we are not going to show someone in a sexual scene when they weren't able to give consent, and that's enough.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2014/03/04 07:15:56
Subject: Re:Australia and Children's Island (I didn't see a thread on this already...)
AlexHolker wrote: Because Australian courts have no jurisdiction over a Swedish moviemaker.
Yes, but the fact that nobody is prosecuting him, or even calling for him to be prosecuted, suggests that the general consensus is that what he did is legal in most countries. So which do you think is more likely: that Australia is way ahead of everyone else in protecting children, or that the primary reason for the censorship is that people find it offensive? When you answer, remember that the film was originally approved and wasn't censored until they received a complaint about it.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
2014/03/04 07:35:55
Subject: Re:Australia and Children's Island (I didn't see a thread on this already...)
And me. Which means neither of us have seen it, which means we've got no place speculating what this film was about, and why any nudity, underage or not, might have been necessary.
If this film uses underage nudity and sex scenes to serve some greater cause than to provide insight into the sex life of a fictional child, as that photograph did in showing the plight of the Vietnamese people, somebody should be able to say what that cause is.
I'm not sure I'm sold on the argument that it's okay if it really is art. Even if something is good art, it still asked a child to do something I don't believe they can really consent to.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote: But if it's about consent and the content of the movie is really illegal pornography then why aren't the people who produced it being prosecuted?
I'm not sure that there are quite the resources in the Federal Police to begin mounting a case against the makers of a film in another country 33 years ago
What it seems like just from the article here is that this is a case of something that is being censored purely because many (or even most) people find it offensive.
The legal reason it is banned is called 'offense', but if you read what triggers it it is really all about sex and exploitation.
And to make it absolutely clear, I'm not defending Australia's censorship laws, especially not when it comes to sex. A couple of years ago a Ken Park film was banned because it had adult actors pretending to be under age having sex. By our censorship laws that's an automatic ban right there. Now Ken Park makes exploitation and dresses it up as indie film making, but the people involved were all above 18, and so the censorship ban there really was heavy handed.
But this one, where a child is shown in a sexual act... well there's no way you can get a young kid to meaningfully consent to that, so filming it and then distributing it around the world, well I'm quite happy that it doesn't end up being shown here.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/03/04 07:36:44
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2014/03/04 08:04:58
Subject: Re:Australia and Children's Island (I didn't see a thread on this already...)
sebster wrote: I'm not sure that there are quite the resources in the Federal Police to begin mounting a case against the makers of a film in another country 33 years ago
But, again, nobody is prosecuting him. Even in the US, where we've made a national sport of seeing who can come up with the most ridiculous laws about what is censor-worthy "obscenity", I (apparently) could own this movie without any problems. Nobody is calling for him to be prosecuted in his home country, and I doubt the statute of limitations has run out on it if it was in fact a crime. Obviously this doesn't mean that it's legal under Australian law, but it seems like pretty much everyone disagrees with you about the "think of the children" argument. So that leaves censoring it because people don't like it.
But this one, where a child is shown in a sexual act... well there's no way you can get a young kid to meaningfully consent to that, so filming it and then distributing it around the world, well I'm quite happy that it doesn't end up being shown here.
But my point is that personal happiness doesn't justify censorship. For example, the KKK in the US is free to speak and publish their racist ideology, and I find them absolutely repulsive. I would be happy if they didn't exist here anymore, and even happier if they all decided to commit mass suicide as their way of leaving. But they still have their right to free speech. Same with this film: do I like it? No. But I don't think that dislike alone justifies censorship.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
2014/03/04 08:52:00
Subject: Re:Australia and Children's Island (I didn't see a thread on this already...)
Peregrine wrote: But, again, nobody is prosecuting him. Even in the US, where we've made a national sport of seeing who can come up with the most ridiculous laws about what is censor-worthy "obscenity", I (apparently) could own this movie without any problems. Nobody is calling for him to be prosecuted in his home country, and I doubt the statute of limitations has run out on it if it was in fact a crime. Obviously this doesn't mean that it's legal under Australian law, but it seems like pretty much everyone disagrees with you about the "think of the children" argument. So that leaves censoring it because people don't like it.
That other countries have different legal views doesn't automatically invalidate our own. And again, the film was made in 1980. I wouldn't be surprised if it attracted a wildly different response if released today.
But to look at it another way, instead of framing it in terms of what you've deduced about other countries, what's your opinion? Do you have a problem with minors being put in sexual positions in films?
There was a large debate here a few years back when a series of photos of a nude teenage girl were displayed... everyone and their dog kicked off with all kinds of arguments and nonsense, but at the end of the day viewing these photos it was clear that they were art and not porn... but they were also of a young girl (14 or 15 IIRC) who simply couldn't give informed consent to being photographed in such a way.
But my point is that personal happiness doesn't justify censorship. For example, the KKK in the US is free to speak and publish their racist ideology, and I find them absolutely repulsive. I would be happy if they didn't exist here anymore, and even happier if they all decided to commit mass suicide as their way of leaving. But they still have their right to free speech. Same with this film: do I like it? No. But I don't think that dislike alone justifies censorship.
You're taking my use of the word 'happy' and running away on a tangent. At the same time you are skimming over the part where I describe how the vague term 'offence' actually works in Australian censorship law, and also ignoring the example I gave of a film that I personally believe was trashy, but think should not have been censored.
To explain it again... I don't like a lot of Australian censorship law. It is often described as much worse than it really is because of the strange structure of the law, so it's important to clarify that first of all. Australian law says a film is refused classification (banned) when it is deemed to offend against the population's morality... which sounds terrible, but then if you read on you learn that the law puts in detail exactly what is by law deemed to offend against the population's morality... and it's detailed instruction on committing crimes, paedophilia, simulated sex of people who are represented as being under 18, high impact sadistic violence and some other stuff like that. So while the word 'offence' is there, it isn't actually about offence at all. Most of it is about stuff that is criminal, is meant to help in the commission of crimes, and about stuff that's exploting the people involved.
Now, the part about simulated sex involving people who are represented as being under 18 is just wrong and shouldn't be there. And I've got real problems with the vagueness of the banning of simulated violence, even really gratuitous simulated violence because it is just too subjective (though to date I don't believe anything has been banned on those grounds).
But the parts about banning sex and nudity from people under 18, and stuff like that... yeah, that should be there. Not because it is offensive, but because it involves asking something of a person who cannot give informed consent. Yes, art and freedom of expression is very important, but you don't get to exploit people in making your art.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/03/04 08:58:32
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2014/03/04 09:33:14
Subject: Re:Australia and Children's Island (I didn't see a thread on this already...)
sebster wrote: That other countries have different legal views doesn't automatically invalidate our own.
No, but when you're the only country doing something it should make you wonder whether you're right or not. Is Australia the only country to correctly recognize the harm done by this film, or is the legal argument little more than a pretense to ban something many people find offensive?
But to look at it another way, instead of framing it in terms of what you've deduced about other countries, what's your opinion? Do you have a problem with minors being put in sexual positions in films?
I don't like it. I think there are some serious consent issues, I think some of the "it's just art, about how beautiful they are" justifications are really creepy, and I don't even want to know how many people are using the "art" loophole to get technically-legal porn. And I would be happier if people voluntarily stopped making and distributing that kind of stuff. But "I don't like it" isn't justification for censorship.
But the parts about banning sex and nudity from people under 18, and stuff like that... yeah, that should be there. Not because it is offensive, but because it involves asking something of a person who cannot give informed consent. Yes, art and freedom of expression is very important, but you don't get to exploit people in making your art.
But the issue here is that somehow everyone besides Australia thinks that it wasn't exploiting anyone, at least to a degree that it should be illegal. Maybe Australia is right and everyone else is too tolerant of abuse in the name of "art", but it feels like more of a case of people (justifiably) disliking the film and censoring it for that reason alone. I am very skeptical that there was any kind of careful study of the situation beyond "WTF IS THIS BAN IT".
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
2014/03/04 09:59:10
Subject: Re:Australia and Children's Island (I didn't see a thread on this already...)
Peregrine wrote: No, but when you're the only country doing something it should make you wonder whether you're right or not. Is Australia the only country to correctly recognize the harm done by this film, or is the legal argument little more than a pretense to ban something many people find offensive?
No, there is no pretense or pretend there. As I have explained twice already, if a film shows a person under the age of 18 naked or engaged in a sex act, it's an automatic ban. There's no pretense or reference to anything else, the law is black and white on this. It doesn't matter what anyone else in the world thinks of the issue. It actually doesn't matter what Australians think about it. The ban is automatic - show a person under 18 naked or in a sex act, and the film is refused classification.
I don't like it. I think there are some serious consent issues, I think some of the "it's just art, about how beautiful they are" justifications are really creepy, and I don't even want to know how many people are using the "art" loophole to get technically-legal porn. And I would be happier if people voluntarily stopped making and distributing that kind of stuff. But "I don't like it" isn't justification for censorship.
If it was just "I don't like it" then I'd agree with your opinion, but it isn't just "I don't like it", it's "a person under 18 is being shown in a sex act".
But the issue here is that somehow everyone besides Australia thinks that it wasn't exploiting anyone, at least to a degree that it should be illegal. Maybe Australia is right and everyone else is too tolerant of abuse in the name of "art", but it feels like more of a case of people (justifiably) disliking the film and censoring it for that reason alone. I am very skeptical that there was any kind of careful study of the situation beyond "WTF IS THIS BAN IT".
No, seriously, it isn't just a case of the censors disliking the film. Australian censorship has many, many problems, but one thing it does very well is transparency. It clearly states what content leads to a ban, and people under 18 shown nude or in sex acts means an automatic ban, no ifs or buts about it.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2014/03/04 10:11:10
Subject: Re:Australia and Children's Island (I didn't see a thread on this already...)
sebster wrote: The ban is automatic - show a person under 18 naked or in a sex act, and the film is refused classification.
So then why was it initially given a legal classification? Are your censors too incompetent to notice the obvious sex act until someone complains about it?
Edit: and their own ruling disproves your claim here.
The review board found that other scenes — including of a boy lying naked in the bath and posing nude in front of a mirror wearing a wig — were justified by their context.
‘‘The review board considered that although the scene was relevant to the story and was brief in duration it is still the depiction of actual sexual activity by a minor and is not justified by context,’’
So very clearly showing a person under 18 naked is NOT an automatic ban, and it depends on the "context" of the content. This is a blatant admission that it's not about protecting children from being exploited, because the same "exploiting" can be legal or illegal depending on what is done with the film long after the act of "exploiting" takes place.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/03/04 10:17:22
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
2014/03/04 10:25:38
Subject: Australia and Children's Island (I didn't see a thread on this already...)
Just for the record, the director of the movie in question, when interviewed by Swedish news agency TT, said (translated by me):
Pollak: A lot has happened over the years since we made the movie. We weren't as aware of pedophilia then but in light of what we know today I think one can understand this [decision].
TT: Would you have made the movie differently today?
Pollak: Yes, absolutely. And if it were to be shown again today I'd cut some, especially a closeup, says Kay Pollak.
So yeah, even the director of the movie's on board with it.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
2014/03/04 20:02:47
Subject: Australia and Children's Island (I didn't see a thread on this already...)
)
5000pts 
6000pts 
3000pts
s who would best contribute to the world by violently removing themselves from it, but I don't think that the government has any business banning things just because I don't like them.
