WTF is wrong with Australia

[Teleku]

http://www.boingboing.net/2010/01/28/australian-censor-bo.html

Was the entire country molested as a child or something?  Why does Australia have such extreme fear of pedophiles that they keep on doing things like this?

[Musashi]

No.  That makes sense.  I see what they're up to now.

[Lantyssa]

I wonder if poorly endowed women can claim medical disability now.  Maybe it's time to move to Australia.

[caladein]

And The Onion wonders why it doesn't sell so well in Australia...

[angry.bob]

Thank god they're getting a handle on this whole adult-women-with-small-boobs-are-simulated-CP while stupid shit like figuring out where all the country's water is going and exciting new opportunities in giant red dust storms fall to the wayside.

[Chimpy]

Heard on the radio the other day that someone in Australia was trying to ban small breasted women from going topless at the beach too.

[Teleku]

The logical next step is to ban small breasted women.  Require by law that all women get breast implants!

[angry.bob]

Unfortunately, breast implants is just a temorary fix since sex with small breasted women is not only a substitute for fucking a 12 year old boy, but may lead to pregnant small breasted women and their children carrying on the small breasted gene. The only reasonable, long term fix is to include small breasted women in pedophile laws with minors. That way, men looking at or having sex with small breasted women can be legitimately convicted of baby-fucking. It's just common sense.

Seriously, isn't there some sort of high court there can look at this and ask them what the fuck they're thinking?

[Lakov_Sanite]

Australia: Tits or GTFO

[Pennilenko]

It's fricken australia people. Dingos eat babies there, that explains everything.

[Hoax]

It's fricken australia people. Dingos eat babies there, that explains everything.

Dingos are attracted to the smell of baby brains and eat all the smart ones?  I learn something new every day, thanks f13!

[Musashi]

No they eat the ones with little titty genes.  Duh.

[Tale]

The story isn't true.

Don't believe everything you read on the internets. It was only a claim in a press release by the Australian Sex Party (publicity stunt political party of the sex industry).

Journalist from crikey.com.au (passworded) found no truth to the report:

A spokesperson for the ACB told me today that publications which contain offensive depictions or descriptions of persons who are or appear to be persons under the age of 18 (whether they are engaged in sexual activity or not) must be classified RC. They said the Board classifies publications on a case by case basis, in accordance with the Guidelines for the Classification of Publications, the Code and the Classification Act and that the Publications Guidelines do not specify breast size.

Not that the internet seems to have taken notice, as the original story continues to gain traction around the web.

Never let the truth get in the way of a good trending Twitter topic.

[angry.bob]

Damn you pr0n0troll!!!

[Teleku]

Heh.  I did do a quick search to see if the story was being carried elsewhere, and saw it all over the place, and nobody was updating it with any corrections of it being false.  So figured it was probably true then.  Welp!

[Sir T]

This reminds me of that story of the Russian porn star who was paid to have a company brand tatooed across her breasts. Everyone fell for that one too. Sadly not true either. 

[caladein]

Heh.  I did do a quick search to see if the story was being carried elsewhere, and saw it all over the place, and nobody was updating it with any corrections of it being false.  So figured it was probably true then.  Welp!

It's okay, at least we all got to make fun of Australia again.

And is that not the true meaning of Christmas?

[Pennilenko]

Heh.  I did do a quick search to see if the story was being carried elsewhere, and saw it all over the place, and nobody was updating it with any corrections of it being false.  So figured it was probably true then.  Welp!

It's okay, at least we all got to make fun of Australia again.

And is that not the true meaning of Christmas?

The reason why this shit was even believable is that Ausi land has a history of retarded ideals and censorship issues. If they weren't out in lala land this stuff would be laughed at before being perceived as truth.

[Tale]

The reason why this shit was even believable is that Ausi land has a history of retarded ideals and censorship issues. If they weren't out in lala land this stuff would be laughed at before being perceived as truth.

What you've been hearing about is not retarded ideals and censorship issues, it's simply the lack of anything higher than an MA15+ rating for videogames. If a game is not suited to 15-year-olds, even if the classification board thinks it's otherwise OK, it has to be refused classification (banned). So we're in the news all the time about "Australia has banned another videogame".

To change classification rules requires agreement from every state attorney-general. They all want to add an R (18+) rating for computer games, except a guy called Michael Atkinson, the attorney-general of South Australia. For years he's taken a stand that videogames are for kids and therefore R rated games would be bad, in an attempt to be seen as the protector of kids.

So until he gets voted out, we continue to "ban" videogames with sex scenes or extreme violence. Not because we have any kind of problem with them, but because they can't be given a rating and therefore can't be sold. Until Atkinson moves on, we're stuck like this.

[Engels]

I'm both somewhat saddened and relieved. Relieved that Australia isn't that level of crazy. Saddened because after raising my hopes for a moment, I am back to knowing that the USA is all alone in this level of crezy.

[Lantyssa]

So until he gets voted out, we continue to "ban" videogames with sex scenes or extreme violence. Not because we have any kind of problem with them, but because they can't be given a rating and therefore can't be sold. Until Atkinson moves on, we're stuck like this.

The US (and other countries) gets blamed for the idiocy which results from an obstructionist minority or a single leader which makes bad calls.  While many of us might sympathize with the reality, pointing and laughing at the results while calling the country in question backwards is an ever popular tradition.

Especially in Serious Business.

[Musashi]

Why is it always the south?

[Sir T]

Why is it always the south?

Its closer to Mexico

[Lt.Dan]

Why is it always the south?

It can be the north too - Sarah Palin for example.

[Signe]

So Australia is just misunderstood, then, yeah?

[Musashi]

Why is it always the south?

It can be the north too - Sarah Palin for example.

She lives in the south of Alaska.

[Tale]

There's a massive DDoS attack on Australian govt websites today, led by Anon.

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/operation-titstorm-hackers-bring-down-government-websites-20100210-nqku.html

From that article: "The Classification Board confirmed that pornography could be banned if participants simply "appeared" to be under age, while female ejaculation was considered a form of urination, which is banned under content classification guidelines."

But it was a sex industry press release that interpreted "appearing under-age" as a ban on "small-breasted women".

[Sir T]

So they are striking a blow for women with small breasts?

[Tale]

So they are striking a blow for women with small breasts?

I think they are striking a blow for women with small breasts for the lulz, not actually for the women.

[Murgos]

From that article: "The Classification Board confirmed that pornography could be banned if participants simply "appeared" to be under age, while female ejaculation was considered a form of urination, which is banned under content classification guidelines."

But it was a sex industry press release that interpreted "appearing under-age" as a ban on "small-breasted women".

I'm curious as to what the actual 'Classification Board' definition of 'appearing under-age' is?  I'm finding it hard to believe there is an objective list of qualifications in there.

[Salamok]

From that article: "The Classification Board confirmed that pornography could be banned if participants simply "appeared" to be under age, while female ejaculation was considered a form of urination, which is banned under content classification guidelines."

But it was a sex industry press release that interpreted "appearing under-age" as a ban on "small-breasted women".

I'm curious as to what the actual 'Classification Board' definition of 'appearing under-age' is?  I'm finding it hard to believe there is an objective list of qualifications in there.

if the story were true then apparently you can start doing porn at age 12 if your tits are big enough.