https://www.classification.gov.au/classification-ratings/wha...
>Every film and computer game has to be classified before it can be legally made available to the Australian public, unless it is exempt or is being shown at a registered event.
If they refuse classification then it is banned.
As of 27th July 2012 [1] UK enacted a Statutory Instrument "The Video Recordings (Labelling) Regulations 2012" [2] ...
> From today, it is a criminal offence to sell video games with a “12” rating to those younger than that age.
... manadated VSC as the sole organisation...
> The new law ends the dual system, gives legal backing to PEGI 12, 16 and 18 ratings and will result in clearer, unambiguous guidance about the suitability of games content for specific age groups.
... with responsibility for PEGI (Pan European Games Information)[3] ratings.
> PEGI provides age classifications for video games in 38 European countries. The age rating confirms that the game is appropriate for players of certain age. PEGI considers the age suitability of a game, not the level of difficulty.
[0] https://videostandards.org.uk/RatingBoard/about-history
[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-rules-to-better-prote...
[2] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/1767/contents/made
I think even when some films (e.g. Clockwork Orange at first I believe?) were banned they were still rated by the BBFC, it was councils that banned cinemas from showing them locally?
As an example, Life of Brian (1979) was only an “AA” (14 years+) but a moral panic made 28 councils raise to an “X” (18+) and 11 actually banned it completely.
(For clarity, a film is de facto banned when either the BBFC or a local council refuses to rate it. It can still be shown privately (eg at a film society) provided it doesn’t contain illegal material (ie it’s not obscene))
Life of Brian was another example I was thinking of, and as you say, same as I described there - rated, then banned.
I’m surprised by how long the list is; I thought it was much rarer and more exceptional. The only time I’d heard of them rejecting a film was when it showed unsimulated animal cruelty, but I guess there must be other reasons.
I wonder if the ones never released are just because they didn't want to cut enough, preferring to abandon the project though.
> The only time I’d heard of them rejecting a film was when it showed unsimulated animal cruelty, but I guess there must be other reasons.
Porn, or rather it somehow going too far, seems to be a big one based on a lot of the titles there.
But I don't think that's a thing anymore because there outdated policys have changed. Video games aren't "new" anymore for a long time.
This has worked so far because we don’t have extremist police who apply the law to the letter- they themselves see laws as mostly suggestions
Something most people don't understand is that Australias' sovereign, the Queen, is used to keep embarassing state secrets well and truly out of the public eye. This is an intolerable state of affairs that will hopefully get addressed when she dies, and the Australian Republic movement gets fresh air under its wings ..
Australia has secret prisons, and a star court for the things it doesn't want the world to know. Witness J, K, L, M, &etc.
So does america. I'm not sure how a republic movement could save australia from having these things when one of the largest republics in the world also has, e.g. hundreds of thousands of censored warcrimes on wikileaks and guantanamo bay
The proof is in the pudding: Yemen, Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Nigeria, Somalia, Ukraine, etc.
The USA has exactly this, in the form of the revolving door that connects the Joint Chiefs of Staff with the CFR.
https://www.opensecrets.org/revolving/
See also: https://s3.amazonaws.com/docs.pogo.org/report/2018/POGO_Bras...
Its figureheads give the impression of democracy, but nobody voted to murder 5% of Iraqs population - the generals went ahead and did it anyway.