IMO we need to move away from classifications and censorship, not further embrace it.
this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2025
13 points (88.2% liked)
Australia
4465 readers
100 users here now
A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.
Before you post:
If you're posting anything related to:
- The Environment, post it to Aussie Environment
- Politics, post it to Australian Politics
- World News/Events, post it to World News
- A question to Australians (from outside) post it to Ask an Australian
If you're posting Australian News (not opinion or discussion pieces) post it to Australian News
Rules
This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone. In addition to those rules:
- When posting news articles use the source headline and place your commentary in a separate comment
Banner Photo
Congratulations to @Tau@aussie.zone who had the most upvoted submission to our banner photo competition
Recommended and Related Communities
Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:
- Australian News
- World News (from an Australian Perspective)
- Australian Politics
- Aussie Environment
- Ask an Australian
- AusFinance
- Pictures
- AusLegal
- Aussie Frugal Living
- Cars (Australia)
- Coffee
- Chat
- Aussie Zone Meta
- bapcsalesaustralia
- Food Australia
- Aussie Memes
Plus other communities for sport and major cities.
https://aussie.zone/communities
Moderation
Since Kbin doesn't show Lemmy Moderators, I'll list them here. Also note that Kbin does not distinguish moderator comments.
Additionally, we have our instance admins: @lodion@aussie.zone and @Nath@aussie.zone
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Realistically, any kid with an internet connected device can access whatever they want.
kids be accessing lemmy on their 3DS web browser
Ratings and classifications are not censorship. I rather enjoyed the movie 300, but my kids aren't ready for that sort of content yet.
If they stop you accessing something, they are censorship.
If there's a policy that says 'content of X classification is not allowed to be distributed to the public', then you are against that policy. That's not the same thing as classification.
Classification is not something that mattered much to me until I had kids. But now that I do, it is vital. I personally vet individual games for the kids. For example I allow Zelda, Minecraft, Prince of Persia, Hogwarts Legacy but don't allow Witcher, Assassins Creed or Red Dead Redemption, yet.
Do I think these games should be censored? Not at all. But, the classification informs parents whether they should be letting their 10-year-olds access that sort of material.
In that case, I'd argue that you should be informing yourself about the product and making your own opinion on a case by case basis and showing full understanding of the thing you're allowing, not relying on some governmental agency's feelings.
Regardless this certainly isn't anything that needs to be handled at a political level.
And I do inform myself on a case by case basis. My starting point is the classification of the media (I automatically permit all games/shows/movies that are PG without the kid needing to come to me for consent). The movie Robocop is a great example here. That movie is about a cool cyborg blowing away bad guys, it's not that bad in your memory having seen it decades ago. You notice that it has an R rating, and you think harder about why that might be. Then you remember the early scene of the human cop's death and go 'Yeah fair enough'.
Now, I can reach this same point by re-watching the movie. But that takes a couple of hours. And the kid is asking about watching the movie now.
But that's all classification. I see no issue with classification. I'm not really sure why you do other than there are policies that lead to censorship based on classification. If we're talking about censorship, we're talking about things that are illegal. I don't want to go all straw-man, but there are things that we pretty-much all agree are not ok (eg child exploitation/abuse, Rape/snuff, revenge porn). Removing all censorship makes everything legal. I don't think you're wanting that any more than I do. But if we agree that some content needs to be illegal, then all you're arguing about is what that line is.
But none of that was my point. My point was that classification is not the same thing as censorship.
Fyi this might be a useful resource to quickly review a movie. Despite the name it contains a wide range of content warnings https://www.doesthedogdie.com/
But yeah… classification isn’t censorship yet. Your point about LGBT content is a very good one.
Considering recent attempts to remove a kids book from shelves because it contained two dads (and spurious claims about it being pornographic), it’s kind of looking like conservative and religious groups are looking for any angle they can find to control content they don’t like. And once they’ve had one win, the scope will creep.
Especially combined with recent trends. There is an agenda.
This isn't a particularly well thought out stance, but I do wonder if books are kind of self-selecting for appropriate audiences? As in, just being able to read and understand something in a book might be enough to warrant your permission to read it.
Movies and shows can be consumed more passively, with almost no maturity required to experience the media, so I can see why providing that guidance would be warranted.
But I don't know, that stance might crumble under scrutiny.
No.
Absolutely not.
There's tools online for parents that want this kind of information.
Books need informative ratings that aren't enforced. You should be able to tell what sort of book you're about to read to your kid, before you get to the detailed sex scene.
There are already children’s and YA sections in physical libraries.
As for online the Booktok stuff is trash but censoring fictional things that make people uncomfortable isn’t going to address the actual occurrence of domestic violence in society. This seems like a moral panic gone wild.
I feel like it would be more effective to both supervise and have age appropriate discussions with kids, because a nebulous age rating system isn’t going to catch everything (and then kids won’t come to parents to discuss it) or prepare them for challenging content/situations when they get older.
And if this person is so concerned with family violence they should address the actual causes and consequences.
Edit: I missed seeing this.
“Emma Hussey, a digital criminologist and child safeguarding expert at the Australian Catholic University's Institute of Child Protection Studies.”
Whoop, there it is.
I think classification is important. That said, I'm not so concerned with books. While I don't want my kids reading First Law Trilogy or Throne of Glass , that sort of content also isn't really accessible language-wise to them. In that way, books tend to self-classify themselves with the level of language found within.
Reading between the lines of this article, I think "Emma Hussey, a digital criminologist and child safeguarding expert at the Australian Catholic University's Institute of Child Protection Studies" is probably more concerned with the normalisation of LGBTQ characters in modern fiction. She specifically said "Just because there are cartoons on the front, [it] doesn't necessarily mean that it's going to be developmentally appropriate for a 12 to 17-year-old".
Translation: 'We don't like the Heartstopper books because they're teenage love stories all about gay boys'
I’m not opposed. It’s a clear guideline. Information for parents. Parents let kids watch R rated movies all the time. The issue will be if they start getting declared unclassified and banned.
There is too, precedent, American Psycho was given an R+ rating when it was released and to be honest it deserved it. The capitalistic debauchery of the characters was grossly offensive.