I had a look at Big Brother a few years ago. I even had a look at the late night version. I was neither amused, entertained nor titillated. So I haven't watched it since. But, unlike the AFA and other right wing fundamentalist people, I don't regard myself as the unappointed keeper of public morality. Nor do I claim to have a direct line to God and imagine that I know what God does or does not want.

http://www.serendipity.li/cda.html#oz

'If you wish to read how the Australian government attempts to justify its role as censor then you can read their Publications Guidelines, which states:

The matters to be taken into account in making a decision on the classification of a publication include:
(a) the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults;

Who decides what "a reasonable adult" is? Who decides what these supposed "standards" are? That pathetic excuse for a prime minister, John Howard? Or perhaps some faceless bureaucrat with a psychological problem, afraid of anything which challenges his (or her) concept of "morality"? And these "standards" are then to be imposed upon everyone in Australian society.
Different people, all of them "reasonable adults", may have widely different interests and values. This is a clear case of "the tyranny of the majority" — or actually a tyranny of a minority, since in a pluralistic society no set of "standards" is likely to be those of anything but some minority of the population, which, by means of the Office of Film & Literature Classification, is then able to impose its "standards" on everyone else. So much for freedom in Australia.'

I'm sure the AFA would just love to take on the role of public censor, "for the good of all Australians", [whether they realise it or not!].

redneck,
Your last post I felt was excellent argument.

Rex, whether we like it not, we need Censorship. Can you imagine what it would be like if there were absolutely no rules and everyone was allowed to do what they liked. You can see what happens when you put some people in a house together and let them do what they like - the outcome is not pretty and should never be classified as entertainment. Yes - we can turn it off, but unfortunately, many bored people don't. They watch it and they allow their families to watch it and then what do you have? Children who grow up believing that anything goes and this terrible behaviour is normal and acceptable. Even though the recent episode was restricted to computer screens - who use computers the most - our young people. Surely you are not so backward that you haven't worked that out. Why do you think there are already so many problems in our society. Unfortunately people act out what they see - and already they see enough junk without tv shows contributing to it.
What we need Rex, is more people who will stand up for decency.

The many "Well done Bill.", "Good on you, Bill.", "I'm with Bill .."and "Thanks Bill" posters here are first time posters to OLO ...... quite a number, more than half and an obvious jellybean lobby.

Immediately following my post, one such jellybean presented this as his first OLO post ...... "It is unfortunate that when Christians or anyone who is associated with a church or para-church organisation presents a moral view, that they are then critised for presenting their opinion." Being a curious type I then re-read this Bill's article, checked out who this Bill is and make the following few points.

BB is not reality TV but an artificial construct of a temporary nature designed so you get very extreme responses of people to situations but in the end it is entertainment, a comedy and it can’t be expected to be ethical or profound. It is not drawing a long bow in this respect of entertainment to consider Shakespeare who was just as bawdy and interested in rather low humour as well as consciously promoting interactivity involving audiences. Is this surprising when we see similar in BB? When we see emotions like fear and desire getting connected, cheeky intimacies and back stabbing, is this not the stuff of drama for a few hundred years?

Whilst the BB playpen is entertainment, religious playpens are playpens of the mind and are anything but entertainment. One could say they represent a joke of cosmic proportions if it weren't so tragic. There are no solutions in pure selfishness and ignorance. So whilst one can always be curious as to why we don't agree on certain issues with others there is always for myself a serious problem when it comes to anyone infected with a teddy ("Big Brother" god) mind virus. I just know that with these people the mechanisms essential to human functioning have been poisoned and are of no use through such obvious insecurity.

Rex, the idea of a 'reasonable' person is a concept in law: in a murder trial it is the 12 members of the jury who decide whether the actions of an accused person, say in self defence or provocation, are those of a 'reasonable' man.

That is, if a person reacts to having an orange thrown at him or her by shooting the thrower, it is up to a jury of that persons peers to decide whether the actions of shooting are those of a reasonable adult, and are therefore justified.

In the context of BB, a reasonable person is someone who not only represents the average views of the community, but also the overall mean, rather than average, views. What these views are can be gleaned from how a proportion of the ADULT population react to certain events and depictions.

They do not represent the average view of 15 year old girls, or of a conservative Anabaptist. They do not represent a single minor viewpoint that lives life vicariously through watching, and manipulating by their votes, the behaviour of abnormal young people who are willing to throw away some months of their lives in some hope of making their fortune. I say abnormal because normal people are not picked for BB. If the contestants were 'normal' they would not consent to such restrictions on such things as not being able to take reading material into the house with them. Those possible contestants who are sane and reasonable are deliberately screened out. This also says something about the audience, and those who justify this from the point of view of 'freedom'. The people who watch BB are not exercising reason, they are like porn addicts who get off on seeing others behaving abnormally.

But by all means maintain your freedom, just be willing to prove that you are over 18 and willing to pay for it.

Getting back to something that Kipp has said:

Censorship = Ignorance = Dictatorship

Posted by Kipp, Thursday, 6 July 2006 1:10:15 PM

Kipp, I have just gone over a post of yours in another topic, and it has made me think just a little.

The reduction and possible future elimination of anti-homosexual literature, the official frowning upon, and sanction again, depiction of gays as negative, and similar actions, are all a form of censorship.

If a person, or groups of persons, started a campaign of deliberate slander against the gay community, they would be censored, in the broadest sense of the word, as well as being censured.

Or are you claiming, in your three word rant describing censorship as a pathway to dictatorship, that any and all views and depictions should be allowed in the public arena, no matter how hurtful and harmful those depictions would be?

This forum itself has a practice of censorship - against flaming and the like - if you don't agree with that then what are you doing here?

Some of us feel about BB the same way that you feel about openly anti-gay sentiments expressed in the media. You are free to argue against those sentiments, with good cause. Let some of us argue, with good cause, the censorship of BB.