Boycottaru?

What are censorship laws? I don't know what you mean by this question. Don't you believe in free press/speech?

I don't see anything in that treaty that says that children should be protected from media or other entertainment, though.

we have a government body who's job it is to make sure nothing too extreme gets released to the general public, they are called the OFLC and they censor things like gratuitous gore in films, certain types of pornography, K Rudd wants them to censor the internet- but i doubt that will happen.

Article 3.2:
States Parties undertake to ensure the child such protection and care as is necessary for his or her well-being, taking into account the rights and duties of his or her parents, legal guardians, or other individuals legally responsible for him or her, and, to this end, shall take all appropriate legislative and administrative measures.

Article 3 is all about the "best interests of the child", this article is the main reason we don't have a R18+ rating for games, and why games that would normally fall into this rating are in fact banned (Fallout 3 for example).

Article 13.1(b) is also focussed on this:
1. The child shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of the child's choice.

2. The exercise of this right may be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:

(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others; or

(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.

whew- long post, eh?

Glenjamin wrote:we have a government body who's job it is to make sure nothing too extreme gets released to the general public, they are called the OFLC and they censor things like gratuitous gore in films, certain types of pornography, K Rudd wants them to censor the internet- but i doubt that will happen.

Technically they don't perform any censoring. They classify things according to their content and give them a rating. Only the most hardcaw libertarian would be opposed to a ratings board. Then they say to a film's producer, hey guy, this is the rating you get. Then the producer can modify that film to achieve a lower rating, which means a wider release. I happen to think that censorship is bad, mmkay.

Glenjamin wrote:Article 3.2:
States Parties undertake to ensure the child such protection and care as is necessary for his or her well-being, taking into account the rights and duties of his or her parents, legal guardians, or other individuals legally responsible for him or her, and, to this end, shall take all appropriate legislative and administrative measures.

Article 3 is all about the "best interests of the child", this article is the main reason we don't have a R18+ rating for games, and why games that would normally fall into this rating are in fact banned (Fallout 3 for example).

That's not the reason we don't have an R18+ rating for games. The reason we don't have an R18+ for games is because that it's only in recent years that videogames have become capable of displaying images and so on that would make an R18+ necessary. The reason we haven't legislated for that is that the Attorney General of South Australia is holding out, because he is too conservative to vote Yes on the issue. We need unanimous AG voting to change the legislation.

The "bests interests of the child." Well, that's pretty vague, dude. That's what we've been debating the whole time. It doesn't say in the treaty "the best interests of the child is no sexual or violent media." In fact, it leaves it open to the parent or guardian, which is what I've been advocating this whole time.

Glenjamin wrote:Article 13.1(b) is also focussed on this:
1. The child shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of the child's choice.

2. The exercise of this right may be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:

(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others; or

(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.

whew- long post, eh?

Again, that seems to agree with my point; the exercise of this right IS subject to restrictions: ratings classification. The parents still have the LEGAL right to show their children whatever they deem appropriate.

Dun wury bout long post, guy, that's what this place is for.

Marc wrote:The parents still have the LEGAL right to show their children whatever they deem appropriate.

Actually they don't- Docs has a whole dept. for people reporting parents, in fact if a child i have on camp or at church has what i deem to be an inappropriately high level of Sexual knowledge i have to investigate and it's mandatory for me to report this inappropriate knowledge. like a 12 year old not just knowing about but being able to describe something like Anal sex. it happened on a camp in Jan of last year, the director had to report it and the child was removed from parental care (though i think it was for other reasons too).

There's no way the State has the legal right to take a child away for sexually educating their child and showing them R18+ movies. Those parents had to have been doing other things (as you said).

Is that reporting of "inappropriate knowledge" a Christian thing or do DOCS require this?

DoCS, Teachers, Youth workers, anyone in a paid supervisory position regarding Children- Mandatory reporting.

unpaid ppl's are Voluntary reporters.

Makes sense I guess. The idea being that a child with lots of sexual knowledge might be an abuse victim?

Still, I dunno, if I educate my kids about sex and then I have a humiliating investigation...that's a bit much.

Though obviously in this case the kids were removed, so some shit was going down. I'll have to think about this.

Ok, well I just spoke to Viv about the DOCS thing and she said that, a child having inappropriately high level of Sexual knowledge is not enough to warrant even an investigation from them. Also there work load is so big they can only really afford to deal with the one in immediate danger and for a child to be removed there has to be admittance from a parent or the child.

Hi Viv.

Marc wrote: I would say that it's not society's goal or responsibility to shelter children. I would say that falls squarely on parents; not to censor, but to educate and provide context for anything their children encounter.

Oh man, this is a truckload of fail.

I certainly hope you don't mean to say that society shouldn't have a responsibility to protect children. If a child is being abused, shouldn't they be removed from the situation?

Also, what about children with parents that don't give a shit about them? Or kids living on the streets because their parents are too high all the time to care for them the way they should be?

I'ma gonna run off and eat some dinner so I'm gonna cut it off there. I may have missed the point of what you were trying to say... For my sake, please, specify man!

The failure here is indeed one of specification. It should read "it's not society's responsibility to shelter children from media and other entertainment they consume. (Though we do to an extent, with ratings and so on.)

Of course society should care for orphans and other kids who have a fucked up situation.

Very good. Carry on.

Further on this point, would you prefer it if we didn't have a classification system? As it stands, the reason that we have it is in the same spirit of all laws protecting children.

The Child & Young Persons (Care & Protection) Act 1988 defines child abuse as:

(a) the physical injury or sexual abuse of a child or young person, or
(b) a child or young person suffering emotional or psychological harm of such a kind that the emotional or intellectual development of the child or young person is, or is likely to be, significantly damaged, or
(c) the physical development or health of a child or young person being significantly harmed,

Media classification is here because as a society we agree that if children of a certain age are exposed to certain content (graphic sex, violence, etc) then that will affect their emotional development, and is technically child abuse.

Secondarily, Marc, can I lose the GOONTOOLMOON rank? It reminds me too much of MOOSE CAR TOOL.

For a point of interest:

http://www.futureofchildren.org/information2827/information_show.htm?doc_id=675392

+postcount

No, I think we should have a classification system. I guess I never spelt out the ages of children that I was referring to, either, as I'm not sure what age I would set for this kind of thing. I certainly don't think that a 12-year-old will be emotionally harmed by seeing a movie with a sex scene in it, particularly if they're properly educated about sex. I'm not sure how low in age I'd go with that, though.