"Censor" or "classify"? (letter)

by Carol Phillips

News Weekly, July 13, 2002
Sir,

The Office of Film and Literature Classification called for submissions last year on their Draft Guidelines, regarding videos and computer games. The 372 submissions received were analysed by a Dr Brand, and reported in a document entitled Report on the Review of Classification Guidelines 2001.

Fifty-three per cent of submissions to the OFLC were by individuals, and one third of these "sought protection of children from harmful or disturbing material", one third of these calling for "greater restriction of sex, violence, drug use and coarse language".

Those calling for lessening of restrictions - users of media materials and producers of the materials - cited principle 'a' of the Code:

(a) adults should be able to read, hear and see what they want.

Those calling for more restrictions cited principles 'b' and 'c' of the Code:

(b) minors should be protected from material likely to harm or disturb them;

(c) everyone should be protected from exposure to unsolicited material that they find offensive.

A reading of the whole Report reveals a stark contrast between those concerned about others (minors) and those focussed entirely on themselves.

In his final summary, Dr Brand uses definitions of "censor" and "classify" to maintain that the classification of films, etc, by the OFLC, should not mean the censoring of them. This now means that commercially vested interests and the consumers of pornography and related material will most probably be given yet more freedom to do their damage.

Concerned individuals can gain access to the Brand Report through OFLC on the Internet.

Carol V. Phillips,
Burswood, WA