🚀 go-pugleaf

More comments on this subject.

Taken together, the committee recommendations create a totally
different censorship regime to that imposed on other media. The main
difference is that the matter of classification is left to the content
provider, not the Office and Film and Literature Classification, and
that penalties are imposed differently. Examples will help here.


Example 1
---------

Real space: Suppose that I publish a magazine that includes images of,
say, a couple having sex. In the normal course of events, I do not
have to submit my magazine to the OFLC before publication; rather, I
can publish it as is, and if someone files a complaint with the OFLC
about it, they will view the magazine and classify it, or refuse to
(if it breaches their guidelines). In the case of refusal,
classification as X, or classification as R, the publication may have
to be withdrawn, but unless it can be shown that I _knowingly_
breached the law, I am not going to be prosecuted.

Cyberspace: In contrast, it appears that under the committee's
recommendations, if I publish material on the WWW that would be rated
R, X, or would be refused classification, I can be charged, even if
nobody complains. Ignorance is no excuse, as it is with the magazine
example above. (This is despite the fact that the OFLC guidelines are
vague, often inconsistent, and change from time to time.)


Example 2
---------

Real space: Suppose that I make a movie. By law, I submit it to the
OFLC for classification. That classification is, in a sense, a
guarantee; it frees me from harassment and prosecution. Folks can
complain to the OFLC, of course, who may review their decision, but
even in the event that they change their mind, I still can't be
prosecuted.

Cyberspace: The cyberspace situation is utterly different. We have to
self-censor, and we generally don't know the guidelines that well, so
we have no guarantees whatever that our efforts are going to free us
from prosecution. This will result in censorship being imposed far
more severely than is really necessary, in many cases. This will be
particularly true of commercial content providers, who will tend to
sink to the lowest possible level of controversy; they will also
take no risks. For example, the OFLC guidelines allow for sexually
explicit images if they are part of a bona fide education document.
No commercial provider would risk making that call. The result will
be a general impairment of the usefulness of the net for actual
communication.



----------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Herring                                         revdoc@uow.edu.au
 (c)1995 Phil Herring. This article may not be reproduced for profit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------