Cyber Safety Committee censors Family Guy

By Ry Crozier on Jul 16, 2010 2:30 PM
Filed under Telco/ISP

Sign of things to come?

A Senate Committee has censored a link to a morally-ambiguous parody on the US TV show Family Guy that was included in a written submission [PDF] by prominent anti-filter campaigner Mark Newton.

The committee was established to review cyber-safety measures including the Government's controversial internet filter and the effects of exposing children to inappropriate content.

But before handing down a finding, it drew a line in the sand on the type of content it saw as objectionable.

The censored Family Guy episode was legally available for sale in Australia with a MA15+ rating from later this month.

It showed the family's dog, Brian, showing baby Stewie a fetish video: 2 Girls 1 Cup.

Communications Minister Senator Stephen Conroy has said that the filter will block only content that "you can't buy [on] DVD" or watch on TV.

The redaction gave ammunition to critics who warned the filter will expand to cover content not originally under its mantle.

And it underscored fears held by campaigners such as Newton over the types of borderline content that could be swept up.

A committee spokesman told iTnews it had "exercised its discretion" in not publishing the link.

"The committee reserves the right to exercise its discretion not to publish any submission, or part of a submission, which in its view contains objectionable material, or material that is or purports to be refused classification or links directly to refused classification material," he said.

A case of conflation?

Newton wrote the Government had conflated the terms 'illegal' with 'inappropriate' in respect to proscribed content to the point where "various types of legal but controversial content [were being portrayed] as if it were illegal".

The fetish video became an internet sensation when viewers posted videos online of their friends' reactions to it; about 6500 such responses are on YouTube with many generating millions of views.

The animated parody mimics the phenomenon by showing Stewie's reaction to the contentious video.

Newton said it was the cartoon character's facial expression that ran afoul of public servants: "Stewie Griffin needs to be redacted for even hinting at something that might be RC if ever assessed".

RC redactions

Three other links included in footnotes were also redacted for pointing to RC content.

They included a graffiti film and an Amazon.com web page where the banned film Ken Park could be bought on DVD.

Newton used his submission to argue that at Senator Conroy has variously "portrayed types of legal but controversial content as if they were illegal".

"The current Government has created the manifestly false impression that material can become illegal by means of a decision by the Commonwealth Classification Board to rate it as refused classification," Newton said.

"RC content is not, and never has been, illegal.

"It is lawful for Australian citizens to possess, own, read or view, give away and purchase RC content in all forms, except in Western Australia (which has a state law which criminalises possession of RC content) and parts of Western Australia and the Northern Territory associated with the Aboriginal Intervention (where possession of content rated higher than MA 15+ is an offence).

"It is also legal to transmit RC content over a telecommunications network everywhere except Western Australia."

Similar readings can be found on other anti-censorship websites.

Conroy has told iTnews that such arguments were a "complete furphy" and "an attempt to try and confuse people".

"Lots of things are illegal but that is not what we are blocking," Conroy said.

"We are blocking material that is currently refused classification."

The committee didn't censor all RC content in Newton's submission.

A link to a 1998 Federal Court decision that publishes the text of an article called the Art of Shoplifting was left untouched.

The article, published by Latrobe University student newspaper Rabelais, was refused classification due to its potential to encourage crime.

Cyber Safety Committee censors Family Guy

27 comments in this discussion

"Likewise, @block. My experience is exactly the same as yours - I have never, ever, seen child porn on the Net (or anywhere else). The whole Conboy/pedophile nexus is a complete beatup to get us ..."

By anonymous

Tags

cyber safety committee, censorship, family guy, brian, stewie, video, conroy, internet, filter, nocleanfeed, no clean feed

Tim Berners-Lee calls data retention a 'really, really bad idea'

Attorney-General agency implicated in web blocking scandal

Industry backs 'workable' filter solution

Pirate Party wins right to contest federal election

Breaking Stories

Telstra opposes 700 MHz for emergency 4G network

AusPost, NAB combine on Agile project

Aussie IT workers threatened by skilled migrants: survey

Transfield wins new NBN contracts

G8 countries sign up to Open Data Charter

Comments: 27

Thysce Jul 16, 2010 3:00 PM	You've got to be kidding me... This'll cause nothing but oppression.
Mordd Jul 16, 2010 3:40 PM	Art of Shoplifting: http://danny.oz.au/freedom/cases/Rabelais.html 'Ken Park' is easy to find on Amazon.com, multiple listings for it. Mark makes the point once again though - RC content is not illegal content and contreversial but legal content is going to get swept up and censored under these laws.
Rhino Jul 16, 2010 3:44 PM	"The committee reserves the right to exercise its discretion not to publish any submission, or part of a submission, which in its view contains objectionable material, or material that is or purports to be refused classification or links directly to refused classification material," And this is the problem with the great Aussie filter.
RDEFCON1 Jul 16, 2010 3:53 PM	So the Senate Committee censors a submission arguing against a filter which enabled government censorship. Gee, I wonder why we all feel the filter will lead to restrictions on free speech in Australia?
Silverwolf Jul 16, 2010 3:56 PM	"The committee reserves the right to exercise its discretion not to publish any submission, or part of a submission, which in its view contains objectionable material, or material that is or purports to be refused classification or links directly to refused classification material," = "If we decide we don't like it, we won't let you look at it either." Who the hell are they to decide what I can and can't watch? I sure as hell never signed anything saying I would bend over and let the government have it's way, and that goes double for some random committee.
ITnovice Jul 16, 2010 5:15 PM	I don't have a problem with censoring the episode in question, as it was entirely unnecessary anyway. Some people seem to think that once an adult, no one has the right to tell them that they can't do (or watch)anything. That notion leads down a steep and slippery road (ethically and morally) if followed. But the Government does need to be more open on what types of things it censors or proposes to censor and why.
ITnovice Jul 16, 2010 5:17 PM	@Thysce 'You've got to be kidding me... This'll cause nothing but oppression.' You aint seen nothing yet! try living in China, North Korea, Myanmar or Iran - now that's oppression!
thorn Jul 16, 2010 5:50 PM	realy were all adults here censoring thing is one thing but realy we should chose weather we see it or not its our basic right if you dont wanna see it look at somthing else now if they censor somthing like THIS who knows what else they will censor what happened to our right of freedom of information our freedom of privacy. oh yer this country is going to be worse then china and north korea combined in a way this is just another form of terrorisim on a larger scalebut from churchy types and puppets of the government i say if this gets censored so should jesus be censored
anonymous Jul 16, 2010 6:03 PM	Conboy the Barbarian and his appointees will decide what information we may obtain and the manner in which we may obtain it. And ITnovice, thank you for reminding us exactly what it will be like living in the Democratic People's Republic of Australstan. Hail our Dear Leaders, and I hope your Party membership is in order so that you can be one of the few favoured ones in the new order.
Sams Jul 16, 2010 7:45 PM	Conroy: "We are blocking material that is currently refused classification." OMG, a parrot could argue better than that, and it would be less repetitive.
Ice Jul 16, 2010 10:44 PM	@thorn have a look at the new national curriculum anything linked to Christianity is not allowed to be taught but there are now submissions and references in the draft about teaching the Koran so much for the Christian background of this country and voice of the majority
btone Jul 16, 2010 11:09 PM	@thorn: "so much for the Christian background of this country and voice of the majority". Say what? The only majority religions in this country are plasma and lcd, even the hill wailers are a rump and the ACL a swill.
btone Jul 17, 2010 12:25 AM	@ITnovice: Some people seem to think that once an adult, no one has the right to tell them that they can't do (or watch) anything. I wouldn't say that, I for one believe any audiovisual portrayal of Senator Conroy in any media format should be banned to reduce the nation's blood pressure statistics.
BrettWinterford Jul 17, 2010 10:26 PM	"Say what? The only majority religions in this country are plasma and lcd," @bcmobile - superb.
pepi Jul 18, 2010 10:00 AM	@Ice - good point! I am a Christian, and totally abhor the whole filter proposal. It's about time that the Christian pro-filter lobby wakes up and realizes that Christian websites are likely to be amongst the first to be blocked, after the dreaded scope creep sets in and Christianity is deemed as not sufficiently inclusive or suchlike.
anonymous Jul 18, 2010 10:24 AM	Yes, Brett, +1 all round. But @btone, it's always better to use the correct description - so shouldn't the reference be to "unrepresentative swill"? ;-)
gdt Jul 19, 2010 12:06 PM	Since when are publications of Senate Committees subject to Executive rulings like those of the OFLC? How can the Senate expect to report on organised crime, drug abuse, abortion (and in previous years, gay relations aka sodomy) without falling foul of the OFLC's ruling on Instructions on Matters of Crime? The Senate Committee's use of the OFLC as a guide is simply wrong. It also sets a poor precedent for Senate inquiries into other matters which fall under the view of the OFLC (including the performance of the OFLC itself). The Senate Committee should make up its own mind, with "bringing the Senate into disrepute" as a guide. Senator Bernardi has already discussed Family Guy in some depth within a Senate Committee. I don't see why the clerks of this committee are applying a stricter standard for a submission than that already established -- without any opposition -- by a Senator. Similarly, the Senators in the Chamber have discussed controversial films such as Salo at some depth and in some detail. If I were Mark I'd be contacting the Clerk of the Senate, as things have come seriously off the rails with this committee. The previous Clerk wouldn't have stood for the confusion of Executive with Legislature for a moment.
EMwyres Jul 19, 2010 12:14 PM	This is a load of bollocks - the Family Guy episode certainly does not show the video in question in it. It is not even specifically described. You have to have SEEN or HEARD of the video to even get the joke. I've never seen the video, but laughed my arse off at the Family Guy, because I understood the reference...if you'd never seen or heard of it, it would make no sense. That's the problem - by censoring this in Mark's submission, it highlights it to more people, and more people are likely to hunt it down to watch it. Talk about defeating its own purpose...
Rhino Jul 19, 2010 12:56 PM	I saw the family guy episode, and I had to Google what the hell 2 girls 1 cup was. Frankly banning it is an absolute joke.
aboctok Jul 19, 2010 8:10 PM	We're living in interesting times.. does anyone else get the recurring feeling that influential people in ages past had a greater capacity to see the whole picture, than the best of our best thinkers and leaders? I don't hold out any hope that the Senator Conroys of the world will ever acknowledge the complexities of the censorship issue. We have a wonderful dilemma approaching us like a runaway train: Stephen Conroy and his perception-constraint device, vs Tony Abbott stopping in at every home to see that all residents are duly attending Mass.
ITrant Jul 19, 2010 9:04 PM	All of this is happening BEFORE the government has in place a censorship regime which is not open to public scrutiny. Just imagine what they'll get up to once they have carte blanche!
peterhau Jul 20, 2010 7:48 AM	For god's sake, why can't the moral objection people consider that we aren't children? the times that these shows come on ensure that the content is not easily accessible - unless you record it on a PVR for your kids, then the responsibility is yours. considering that with the lockdown in china, not only can't I speak to a mate there, I can't tweet to him, leave a message on facebook or call him on skype. Is this the ICT environment you want for us senator conroy? Well done Prime minister, you could have attracted innovation in the ICT industry, with these stupid ideas, you will force more talent overseas.
tin Jul 20, 2010 12:39 PM	I'm going to echo what pepi said... I'm a churchgoing Christian, and I am praying this filter legislation does not go through. I don't believe it's necessary, or even a good idea. While I don't agree with some content on the internet, I really don't see how blocking direct access will help anyone. Put the money into tracking and prosecuting people who are actually breaking laws.
ITrant Jul 20, 2010 1:45 PM	Banning that episode was not a censorship issue. It was a political move to assert the power and position of the censorship body. Surely nobody here believes the filter is to protect children from porn. It's the government's attempt to control the content of the internet. The first in a long line of steps to control what information is available to citizens. Naturally a government would LIKE all information to support government policy. That makes things so much easier for them. Naturally this should be resisted by all means possible, including maybe changing a lifetime habit of voting for two sides of the same coin??
meski Jul 20, 2010 5:09 PM	Plasma & LCD? Sure you don't mean Holdens & Fords? Rugby & AFL? I can see really good reasons for voting for an obstructionist Senate, and probably returning Labor in the lower house.
block Jul 21, 2010 4:26 PM	I have been a heavy internet user for well over 14 years and have NEVER stubbled onto child porn. I've never intentionally looked for it either. When I was a kid before the internet, there were other ways to see naked ladies. This will not change with the filter. Put the money into catching these people that make it and distribute rather than attempting to block it with an inaffective filter!!!
anonymous Jul 21, 2010 5:47 PM	Likewise, @block. My experience is exactly the same as yours - I have never, ever, seen child porn on the Net (or anywhere else). The whole Conboy/pedophile nexus is a complete beatup to get us to accept giving the government the power to secretly censor the information that we can access. So it's not about porn of any kind, it's about the government having the power to secretly censor what we may be allowed to know.