Hard News: Media3: We have much to discuss
44 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 Newer→ Last
-
Euan Mason, in reply to
Ok. Missed the Maori Council's response, and also Metiria Turei's. They have abandoned the moral high ground.
-
Stephen Doyle, in reply to
How many versions of Romeo and Juliet have there been? She was only 13.
-
Matthew Poole, in reply to
How many versions of Romeo and Juliet have there been? She was only 13.
And anyone who tried to produce an explicit version that wasn't the written word would have to find an actor and actress who were at least 18 in order to not be breaking the (current) law. What's scary is that this proposal would make it illegal to produce an explicit version where the leads simply look under 18, regardless of their actual age.
-
Emma Hart, in reply to
What's scary is that this proposal would make it illegal to produce an explicit version where the leads simply look under 18, regardless of their actual age.
No. It increases the penalty, but this is already the law.
Our laws ban material that encourages the sexual exploitation of children. If pornography involving only actresses aged 18+ encourages the sexual exploitation of children (for example, by using actresses that look younger than 18, in situations that suggest they are younger than 18), then it will fall foul of the law.
What would protect any production of R+J that went further down the Zeffirelli line would be the view that it was primarily artistic rather than pornographic
-
Tommy Honey, in reply to
Olivia Hussey was 15 when she appeared as Juliet in Zeffirelli's version - still the best, but illegal to take out of the video shop now? Or watch it (heaven forbid) at a high school?
-
Sacha, in reply to
link whoring
please do
-
Sacha, in reply to
only 13
Middle-aged at the time, then
-
BenWilson, in reply to
What would protect any production of R+J that went further down the Zeffirelli line would be the view that it was primarily artistic rather than pornographic
Yes, presumably underage sex can be depicted, just as sexual violence can be, so long as the presentation is in a way that is not designed to tittivate. I can't imagine Platoon being banned on account of the scene where soldiers rape an underage girl (she appears to be around 10) whilst sacking the village. The point of the scene was to be extremely unsympathetic to the rapists, to depict the soldiers as barbaric to the point of evil. It's not tittivating, even though it's very clear what's happening.
If Spartacus started showing underage sex, though, I expect they would not get away with it. Sexual violence is constantly depicted, gratuitously, though. It's pretty near the line already.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
Yes, presumably underage sex can be depicted, just as sexual violence can be, so long as the presentation is in a way that is not designed to tittivate.
Seriously, what the hell does that mean? Arthur Everard got slagged off from both the left and right for being an excessively permissive chief censor, but he worked on the (to me entirely sensible) baseline that... well, New Zealand isn't a nation of high-functioning psychotics who can't distinguish between representation and act, reality and shadow.
Sorry for being a scratched CD on this, but I'm damn certain there are fucked up twists out there who find all the at least implicitly underage raping and sexposition in Game of Thrones enormously titilating, and I'm in no position to know whether it was "intended" to be so by the producers and writers. I'm not really comfortable with on-telepathic legislators, and the law, getting into areas so far beyond their pay grade.
-
Graeme Edgeler, in reply to
If Spartacus started showing underage sex, though, I expect they would not get away with it. Sexual violence is constantly depicted, gratuitously, though. It’s pretty near the line already.
Actually, they might. The censorship legislation doesn't cover broadcasting. It would be a breach of broadcasting standards, but wouldn't be a crime.
Possessing copies within New Zealand might still be, so they'd have to try to get around that somehow...
-
BenWilson, in reply to
Possessing copies within New Zealand might still be, so they’d have to try to get around that somehow…
Does having it on MySky count as possessing a copy?
-
BenWilson, in reply to
Seriously, what the hell does that mean?
Yes, it's a crap standard. I suspect it comes down to whether they think people will wank off over it. But the pleasure release from watching extreme graphic violence is somehow less disturbing? I don't get it.
-
Witches, eh. You'll know 'em when you see 'em. All out to eat your children they are. Horrible. Don't wait 'till the kids are in the pot, just watch for the signs; black cats, night walks, unmarried women, don't attend church, said anything bad about the witchfinder, denied the danger of witches.
As to racism in mass media, yes it is very bad and hurts us all. Same as racism in justice, education, and employment, which all feed each other. There's pretty good statistical proofs of that about the place now, but like climate change, a lot of people don't want to hear it.Censorship is also very bad and hurts us all, in that people think the stuff which gets through is OK, when a lot of it is very bad indeed (that usually being the point of it), and a lot of the things which get blocked are just minority political statements. One rather fine thing it does is limit popular censorship, which is often much worse.
Same as any old rubbish justice system is better than a lynch mob.
-
Mediaworks in receivership - holy shite!
Steven Joyce just got out in time, eh?
-
Rich of Observationz, in reply to
Obviously the $40mln bailout from the taxpayer wasn't enough.
They seem to be using this as an
opportunity to opt out of tax and pay "suppliers" (for which read overpaid "talent" and management) ahead of other creditors. Which I thought was illegal? -
Russell Brown, in reply to
Steven Joyce just got out in time, eh?
In 2001, when he sold Radioworks to Canwest?
-
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
attempted offhand humour...
shan't try it again. -
Russell Brown, in reply to
attempted offhand humour…
shan’t try it again.Ah. I see :-)
-
John Drinnan calls bailout (again). One's mileage may vary.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.