@selfconfessedcynic: Do they not have freedom of speech in Australia? I'm honestly shocked and appalled that you would use a phrase like "goes against the values of the Australian government". I'm trying not to shout here, but the government does not exist to impose its values on the citizens, the citizens impose their values on the government! You're supposed to be living in a constitutional democracy not a police state where the government decides what's best for you. You bring up that it's legal to view, just not legal to sell to adults; imagine if the Australian government decided that there were certain books that weren't legal to be sold. Or you couldn't legally sell anything that espoused a political viewpoint that "goes against the values of the government".
FURTHERMORE, who are these 4 middle-aged women, and who elected them to decide what art a democratic nation is allowed to consume? Are they government appointees, and who gave the government the rights to extend this privilege to censor to unelected officials?
You know I watched a YouTube video by an Australian, it was titled The Forbidden History of Unpopular People. It's primarily about how freedom of speech is more important than playing to whatever the popular culture or status quo believes is right, and near the end it talks about a new 'News Media Board' or something similarly scary sounding, whose sole role was to police news channels and programs to make sure that the reporting was 'fair and balanced'. Fair to whom, according to whom? Balanced according to whom? Apparently it's according to the values of the Australian government, overriding the free speech of the people.
The only situation in which you can constrain freedom of expression in this manner is when it can be proven that the participants within do not consent to being in it (the difference between actors and actresses in rape scenes compared to actual snuff films and etc). In effect, it doesn't matter if you don't like graphic sexual violence, I don't either, but what you or I like has no impact on free speech. That's what comes with a free society, you don't get to erase anything you don't like and you should be ecstatic that you can't; because it means the government can't erase things they don't like either. But hey maybe you just want to be told what is and isn't acceptable for you to know. Maybe just get rid of this whole constitutional democracy thing and go back to monarchy and doing what you're told.
Edit; sorry if I come off extremely hostile but next to the abuses that go on in the third world, I place people in the first free societies in human history actually advocating against their own freedom. It just sounds like "please put the chains back on me" and that's how you arrive at those third world abuses.
Log in to comment