Comments on: Margaret Pomeranz on R18+

By: Matt

Matt — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 12:35:13 +0000

She means actual footage of illegal acts, not actors acting them out. I must say I disagree with her – what about docos that detail the real life of an ice addict or something? But, as Lyndon said, that's what she means.

By: Alan

Alan — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 11:16:09 +0000

Hi Schmucktacular, Thank you for your link to the research you have found. This study is new to me, and I found it very interesting in that it presents the proposition that most research is coming from the wrong end of the question. Not being a social scientist, I don't feel qualified to present a peer review of the work, but my only comment is that it is now relatively old reserach, having being published in 1998. I have attached some links to more recent studies which you might find interesting. There is heaps of it out there, as I am sure you probably know.

http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2003/10/ande...

http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/issues/viol...

P.S. Glib comments from commedians are amusing, and entertaining but in this debate they are hardly relevant.

By: Schmucktacular

Schmucktacular — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 05:38:20 +0000

Alan, please supply some sources for your assertion of "scientifically proven facts". In the meantime, here is some real evidence regarding the fallacy that media violence causes real-world violence: http://www.theory.org.uk/david/effects.htm As Dick Cavett put it, "There's so much comedy on television. Does that cause comedy in the streets?"

By: Alan

Alan — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 02:29:31 +0000

I find this an interesting debate when Australians so passively give up their rights to DO things (i.e. not smoke in public places) but fight so ferociously for their rights to SEE things. Personally, I agree with the view that classification and advice on content is more appropriate than banning. However, given the scientifically proven facts surrounding the effects of violence in the media and the proven inability of parents to regulate not only themselves, but also their children presents society with quite a dilema.
P.S. I also can't wear this comment that not allowing violence stiffles the creativity of the game designer. What's creative about resorting to the same old, same old? Putting obstacles in a truely creative person's way surely encourages and gives them even more reason / opportunity to come up with something new and not thought of previously.

By: Juice.

Juice. — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 14:01:08 +0000

Watch out tbontony, hentai is considered child pornography in canada, might wanna move to sweden instead.

By: Paul`

Paul` — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 13:22:12 +0000

She means as long as it isn't actually real. A snuff film would obviously be illegal but those crappy Saw movies keep getting released.

By: Jake

Jake — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 01:01:37 +0000

Haha, Good call… Margaret your seat is ready in S.A!
And if that doesn't work out, grab a seat on the OFLC review committee =)

By: Jake

Jake — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:18:24 +0000

She also may be touching on the irony in that depictions of legal activity is banned, while depictions of illegal activity is permitted.

By: Lyndon

Lyndon — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 10:30:33 +0000

I think her point is that you shouldn't be able to watch real depictions of illegal activities. So for example it's okay to watch a pretend murder and not okay to watch a real one. See the difference?

By: Andy

Andy — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 03:42:03 +0000

I find it weird that her argument is that you should be allowed to watch things on film that aren't illegal, but the film she got in trouble for (Ken Park) contains all sorts of things that are illegal, like child abuse. I'm not sure what she's trying to say…