Able Seaman Ryan Donovan had been obsessed with the video game Grand Theft Auto – linked with murders in the US. After being disciplined for disobedience, Donovan told shipmates he was planning a killing frenzy based on the game. He later shot dead an officer and seriously wounded three others (The Guardian, 19/9/11).

Not long afterwards, UK and Swedish researchers identified evidence of “Game Transfer Phenomena”, where some gamers integrate video experiences into their real lives (Daily Mail, 21/9/11). The study involved 42 in-depth interviews with participants ages 15 to 21, all of whom were frequent video gamers.

Almost all had experienced some type of involuntary thoughts in relation to video games, and half sought to use something from a video game to resolve a real-life issue.

“This study reinforces our concerns about the link between violent and explicit games and real life behaviour,” said FamilyVoice research officer Ros Phillips.

“It also reinforces our concerns about the proposed new 18+ games caregory agreed to by Australian attorneys-general in July. There is doubt the new guidelines would exclude games with a higher impact than games currently available – despite the agreement reached by attorneys-general last November,” Mrs Phillips said.

Source: VoxPoint, November 2011, p/. 7.

Reprinted from VoxPoint by permission of FamilyVoice Australia, 4th Floor, 68 Grenfell Street, Adelaide SA, 5000.

 ”The game presents still images and text that legitimises sexual violation and rape in a manner that is intended to sexually arouse the player who takes on the role of a rapist who preys primarily on school girls… Sexual violation and rape are essential to complete the game in its entirety”.

The Society considers it important that the public be made aware of the nature of the objectionable corrupting publications that are being produced for the commercial market by hard core pornographers and others bent on profiteering by the exploitation of people with addictions to moral vices etc.

 The public needs to learn about the vital role played by our Classification Office  to  ensure that such morally corrupting material that injures the “public good” is banned. For this reason it has sought over the last ten years to recommend quality, well-qualified people for nomination to the Film and Literature Board of Review that deals with appeals against classification decisions issued by the OFLC.

The video, for Derty Sesh’s second single, Forever, was pulled from YouTube by Move The Crowd Records this week, at the same time the censor’s office began a classification process for the video.

For more see NZPA Report:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/music/3542326/Derty-Sesh-exhausted-from-backlash

The video for rapper Derty Sesh’s second single, Forever, has been pulled from YouTube by Move The Crowd Records.

Interested parties, including Move the Crowd Records, Rape Prevention Education, the Society for the Promotion of Community Standards and the Department of Internal Affairs, were yesterday invited to make comments on the video.

They would be given two to three weeks to make comments before they were considered by the Censor’s Office and classified.

For more see: http://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/music/3533304/Graphic-hip-hop-video-taken-down

Ministry of Justice and Internal Affairs officials have been meeting key stakeholders and industry and government body officials during the past fortnight to gather submissions for a “tightly targeted review” of the current laws.

However, that scope may widen, given that the present act has been described as “unwieldy and expensive” and badly out of step with technology…

For more see article by James Croot. The Press 30 March 2010. Link below.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/3525995/Time-to-reform-NZs-censorship-laws

As the Sunday Star-Times reported in the weekend: “An extended, online version of the video for Nathan King’s second single “Forever” depicts the rapper, who performs under the name “Dirty Sesh”, crouching over a bound woman with a knife to her head, before stabbing her in a frenzy and cutting out her organs. The clip, which features shots of mutilated women’s bodies and body parts, then segues into the television version of the video, which shows the rapper stalking a young couple in a park, dispatching the boyfriend, then driving the woman to a secluded hut. The television version ends with the woman screaming as the hooded rapper appears; in the online version, he assaults her.”

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sunday-star-times/news/3517368/Mike-Kings-son-in-horror-splatter-video-storm

Venue: Connolly Hall, Guilford Tce.
(off Hill St), Thorndon, Wellington

Date: Monday 8th June

Members’ Only AGM: 6.45pm – 7.20 p.m.
Followed by Free Public Address
(All welcome)
7.30 p.m. to 8.15 p.m.

GUEST SPEAKER

John Terris Q.S.O. ANZIM

Topic: “Media Matters in Society”

John James Terris is a New Zealand politician who initially represented the Labour Party in the NZ parliament. In that capacity he held the positions of Acting Speaker, Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Committees of the House of Representatives from 1984 to 1990

He represented the electorate of Western Hutt in Parliament from 1978 to 1990 when he was defeated by National’s Joy McLauchlan, one of a number of losses contributing to the fall of the Fourth Labour Government.

He was later the politically independent Mayor of Lower Hutt, from 1995 to 2004. He is the only person ever to have been both MP and Mayor in the Hutt Valley where he has lived since 1965.

His early working life was in radio and television and he is an ordained Anglican priest.

He is currently the President of Media Matters in NZ, (www.viewers.org.nz)an advocacy group which campaigns against gratuitous sex and violence in the electronic media. He is a member of the Hutt Mana Charitable Trust and patron of a number of community groups in the Hutt area

He is a writer, publisher and broadcaster. His autobiography “Being Who You Are” (Steele Roberts) was published in 2004. He is a member of the Queen’s Service Order and a holder of the 1990 Medal.

Source: Wikipedia

Judge Shaw rejected the ERA ruled that employer, Arthur D Riley & Co., had “a significantly flawed and less than consistent approach” to its policy against accessing and transmitting “inappropriate material” via the internet/intranet because other staff who she had forwarded an offensive and sexually explicit email on to, had not been disciplined as she had. The ERA also ruled the images were not as objectionable as the company claimed. However, Judge Shaw commended the company for its fair and reasonable approach to the disciplinary action and the clarity of its policies and negated the ERA compensation payout.

In its Business Update e-newsletter published soon after the ERA decision was released in 2007, employer lobby group Business NZ scoffed at the authority’s suggestion that the company could have gone to the Chief Censor’s Office – The Office of Film and Literature Classification – for an “objective view” of the email.

“The thought of companies all over New Zealand having to run to the official censor [Bill Hastings] to rule on employees’ naughty emails is a humorous one,” it said. “But more important, the ruling raises the question of a company’s right to set its own standards, both for the protection of staff and protection of the company’s image and brand … Why shouldn’t companies have the right to set and maintain standards of appropriate workplace behaviour?” [Ref. 1]

The Society points out that much of the inappropriate, lewd, racist and obscene email content that gets passed around some workplace computers by employees, would hardly raise the eyelids of the Chief Censor Bill Hastings and his Deputy Nicola McCully, who have sanctioned films like Baise-Moi, Visitor Q and Irreversible, featuring lengthy, explicit and gratuitous scenes of brutal rape, necrophilia, etc. for adult film festivals. These censors have approved truckloads of grossly offensive sexually explicit and gratuitous DVDs and videos for home adult entertainment and the public cinema, that demean, degrade and dehumanise women.

For a static computer image or images (such as those forwarded to work colleagues via email by Miss Wood) to be classified “objectionable” by the Chief Censor’s Office the image(s) must feature content extending way beyond mere adult nudity, racial slurs, exposed adult private parts etc. Generally, it would have to promote and support activities such as paedophilia, sexual violence, etc. before the Chief Censor’s Office would even consider ruling it “objectionable”, thereby banning it.

What the general public considers grossly offensive – in terms of sexual content – often bears little if any relationship with the judgment of the Chief Censor’s Office. However, occasionally the Society has been pleasantly surprised – as when the Office recently banned the blasphemous and offensive “Cradle of Filth” T-shirt.

References

Ref. 1. Censoring makes sense, but only if it’s consistent, by Simon Hendery:

The General Manager of Arthur D Riley & Co Ltd, Garth Mickell, says a level of common sense has been applied in the decision by the Employment Court which has found that his company was justified in dismissing an employee.

The case, which was originally an appeal against a decision from the Employment Relations Authority, involved the dismissal of an employee for forwarding offensive images by e-mail to internal and external recipients.

Ms Wood forwarded an email containing pictures of naked people, having twice previously been warned about similar behaviour.

Mr Mickell says his company has only applied the terms of employment and policies that Ms Wood had signed, and she had been warned about on more than one occasion.

“It has been a long and costly process, but we could not let the ERA ruling stand as is, due to the ongoing impact it may have on employment disputes. Each and every employment environment is different and this ruling allows this to be taken into account.” 

The Employment Court held that the company was justified in dismissing the employee because of the relatively conservative nature of the workplace, the clarity of the company’s policies as to what constituted unacceptable behaviour, that previous warnings had been given, and because of the employee’s actions.

The Court also held that in situations where an employer does not strictly apply its own policies, this does not necessarily disentitle it from pursuing disciplinary action.

Blair Scotland, from EMA  Legal who represented Arthur D Riley & Co Ltd, says this case is important for employers as it highlights that individual organisations can have their own moral codes and standards, and can enforce these.

“Section 103A of the Employment Relations Act 2000 does not require a ‘one size fits all’ approach to an employer’s standards, so that behaviour deemed acceptable in the local mechanic’s workshop may not necessarily be acceptable at the childcare centre down the road,” Mr Scotland said.

ENDS