I had never thought of RC like that before. It just didn't occur to me that RC might be the category used by our moral keepers for stuff that is legal, but they don't want us to see it anyway.

It is amazing how blind I am to the obvious, at times.

Thank you for bringing attention to RC and to the topic!

As anything with an RC classification cannot be sold legally in Australia, it means that one has either have it posted from overseas or download it.

As it cannot be sold in Australia, the owners cannot sue for loss of revenue, and downloading is risk free.

As far as the Australian tax office (ATO) it is classified "Revenue Clear"

This goes for games, video etc.

In *that* case, shadow minister, how long before purely commercial pressure is brought to bear?

We already track american copyright protection, both in identifiable breaches and in duration (will disney's copyright *ever* expire, anywhere), so how long before "free trade" or "protection of yank copyright interests in major trading partners" forces the classification of games rather than just letting it through for free?

We must be a small market and the copy protection must be intrinsically difficult to defeat, else we might already know.

Rusty

Thanks Arved for continuing to write powerfully about this issue. This is another timely piece which highlights the inherent overreach of the refused classification system.

On the ejaculation issue, the below article in the new scientist should underscore the sheer stupidity of our double standard over male vs female ejaculation.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227101.200-everything-you-always-wanted-to-know-about-female-ejaculation-but-were-afraid-to-ask.html?page=1

If you read the above link, it's clear there is proof of female ejaculation, even though we probably don't know as much about it as we should. But that is sufficient to regard the Classification Board's treatment of all 'squirting' as being urination or 'golden showers' with the contempt it deserves.

Whilst the sex industry probably went too far in the headline about banning small breasts, Arved is correct to highlight this is another era where RC is problematic for women. Personally, I think actual age is what should really matter. When you have a mandate to ban merely the appearance or suggestion of youth, you open a can of worms. Whilst I understand the intent is to starve off what the government views as an appetite, that approach is not proven to work and is doomed to fail. It also sends a bad message that adult petite women are seen as the equivilent of children.

Thanks for this... the morality of the board seems really quite bizarre to me, to be honest. It's not religious based; but nor is it grounded in secular ethical systems.
At any rate, we supposedly live in an enlightened, free society.
People should be allowed to make their own moral choices about what to see, read, and enjoy. We don't want the government deciding these things for us.