Onya, Mickijo and Maximus.

To Steve Madden.

Yeah, mate, we have the OFLC to watch over our public morals, don't we? The only problem with that argument, is that those who work as public censors are on record as saying that they don't believe in censorship.

Former Commonwealth Chief Censor, Peter MAckay, once addressed a conference held for this countries most senior Supreme Court and Federal Court judges. He was reported as saying that there was "no imperical evidence" to support the theory that media images influenced behaviour. That must have surprised the boys at advertising firms like Mojo, Clemenger and Saatchi and Saatchi, who are part of a worldwide, trillion dollar industry which claims the exact opposite.

If you strain your ears real hard, Steve, you can probably still hear the advertising boys laughing their heads off.

Then there was computer games censor for the OFLC, Peter Mackay, who did not believe that computer games should be censored at all. Not surprisingly, he resigned his job at the OFLC and became a lobbyist for the very industry that he had been charged with censoring.

Many civil servants (and their "partners") have very liberal views on censorship and they fiercely oppose it. They lead insular lives up their ivory towers with their six figure salaries, and they apparently believe that the artistic freedoms of artists is far more important that the welfare of mere children.

One suspects that the real reason why they never consider the concerns of parents, is because their "partners" are biologically prevented from having any kids themselves.

redneck

Peter Mackay has not worked for the OFLC for over 10 years and yet you extrapolate that too mean all “public censors” don’t believe in censorship. Drawing a long bow to back your spurious argument, where did you read that gem?

The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) is the authority responsible for the regulation of free-to-air radio and television, pay TV, digital broadcasting and Internet content in Australia. You can’t even quote the relevant body.

Your attack on “civil” servants (we use the term public, are you a POM?) insinuating they are homosexual is yet another example of the bile you vomit.

Big Brother?Voyeristic self indulgence.It is all about lowering the bar of human achievement.Cheapened sexuality means lower expectations of our human psyche,since our sexuality is also our aspirational self.

If we don't repect ourselves,we cannot respect others.You only reveal your real feelings to those whom you have forged a path of trust.Your sexuality is not a thing to be traded lightly,and Big Brother will gladly trade it for a few pieces of silver.

I agree with John Howard on this point,but not on some of his IR reforms.

The behavior of the housemates and the question of censorship in the media are two quite separate issues.Television IS subject to censorship, and BB hasn't breached the guidelines on this - although the now defunct AO version has certainly tried to push the envelope. Depicting banality and questionable behavior are not in themselves grounds for censorship. There wouldn’t be much left on TV if they were.

By all means argue for stricter boundaries about what can and can’t be depicted in different media for different audiences, but I reckon we’ve got it about right.

Our knowledge of what went on that night (including the graphic pictures) have all come through other media, not through the BB show. Arguably they stuffed up for allowing it to be webstreamed unmediated at 4 am, but that’s a whole different can of worms. If you’re keen to suppress descriptions and pictures of the incident start with the Herald Sun et al who’ve presented it in all its graphic detail while simultaneously calling for it to be excised from the public domain.

The BB phenomenon does raise some serious questions, for example the proper boundaries between public and private space and the ethics of manufactured “celebrity” (especially involving young people who clearly haven’t anticipated the ramifications of exposing themselves so publicly).

The incident itself could, if used properly, serve as a discussion point on the line between horseplay and abusive behavior, a line that many young people find confusing. BB’s action in evicting the two young men gave a very clear message on this – although they blew it the following Monday with their strainedly defensive and highly scripted “interview” designed to minimize the lads’ responsibility for their actions.

Admittedly, BB’s relentless baiting of the censorship conservatives throughout the run of the Uncut/AO show has undermined its moral authority, following a long tradition of this in Australian television from Graham Kennedy to Number 96. Unfortunately it’s got the moral conservatives in such a lather that they’re having trouble distinguishing what should be quite separate issues. Calls to “ban” BB are a consequence of this confusion.

To Steve Madden

Reading back through your previous posts, I see that you have no trouble at all prejudging and stereotyping those who wish to clean up our entertainment media as just a bunch of wowsers aided by the religious right. Yet when I do exactly the same thing, and prejudge and stereotype those people who wish to impose their sordid morality on the rest of the community as being primarily homosexuals, you put on your pious face and pretend that my premise is outrageous.

Homosexuals are noted for their very obvious presence in the entertainment and creative industries. The connection is so close, that the word “artist” was once used in the same way that the word ‘gay” is used today. It is only natural that the poofters do not want any restrictions put upon their abilities to earn a buck. The entertainment industries are fabulously wealthy industries, and the people who earn their living from it want to keep mining the gold that is keeping them in luxury. In this aim they appear to be aided by their very good friends in the OFLC, whom they defend so passionately.

The “artists” in the entertainment industries know that parents and grandparents are the most socially responsible people in OUR community, and that these people prefer entertainment that is cerebral and family oriented. The avalanche of violent, profane, and sexually explicit media which we in the community are now being daily bombarded with, is primarily created to appeal to adolescents, young teenagers and young adults, who make up the biggest slice of the entertainment industries consumers. But parents are quite rightly concerned that these programs are lowering the bar of acceptable behaviour to their children by presenting offensive and crude behaviour as being fun and normal.

MAX and others... yes.. quite well argued.

BUT....

I would go further.

The 'Cause' Gemma erroneously speaks of.. is in fact nothing more than a SYMPTOM !

Where, pray tell, do these permissive, liberal, sexual free4all,sexually objectifying women (and men if we're honest) COME FROM ?

Blind Nellie knows they come from our 'socialization' of the community.

Through:

EDUCATION.
ARTS.
LEGISLATION.

I fail to see how it helps young people to believe that the Government of this country wants them to be sexually responsible/restrained and morally positive when the ONLY state from which you can buy XXX rated pornography is ACT ! (by mail order)

Sidenote: the ACT Porn industry is whining like a spanked child at the moment because its profitability has been white-anted by Internet porn. Oh Oh..shock, horror... 3 microseconds of sustained sympathy...NOT !

VALUES FRAMEWORK

If we constantly mentally 'criminalize' the "wowsers" and moan and groan about socially conservative elements in the community, don't moan when we find ourselves smack bang in the cesspool of depravity described in Romans 1.

I recommend that ALL of us read 1 and II kings in the Old Testament.
Don't panic this not a backdoor attempt to 'convert' you, but when you see the behavior of each king, and the IMPACT on the community, it might tweak that depravity on the throne (or Parliament)=depravity in the community.

I suppose for those who are 'into male and female cult prostitution/fertility rites and burning your children in fires in worship/placation of pagan deities, they won't really enjoy such phrases as

"And King Josiah did right in the eyes of the Lord, and removed the High Places and Baals and cult prostitutes in the temple."

But if you see nothing else, I hope you see one thing, that national depravity and immorality had ONE result.

Weakness/Invasion/enslavement

Whether you see this (as the Bible does) as 'Judgement on sin' or.. just a 'bad experience', it does not change the actual outcome.

Be WARNED.