MSA News and Issues Archive.

Controversial film ‘Mysterious Skin’, which features extended and detailed scenes of boys being sexually abused by an adult male has ‘educational merit’ which contributes to ‘the understanding of the consequences of this horrific crime’ according to Australian film classification (OFLC) Board Convener Maureen Shelley

This statement from a recent OFLC media release as justification for giving the film an ‘R’ rating (suitable for adult viewing on film, DVD and VHS throughout Australia) despite the fact that this film contravenes classification guidelines prohibiting the release in Australia of any films that:

“depict in a way that is likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult, a person who is, or who looks like, a child under 18 (whether the person is engaged in sexual activity or not)”.

or contain

“depictions of child sexual abuse or any other exploitative or offensive depictions involving a person who is or who looks like a child under 18 years”.

The OFLC Board’s media statement implies that the detailed, highly sexually suggestive, portrayal of child sex abuse in this film (even if not explicit or actual child pornography) actually has some benefit to offer the community – making adults (including perhaps potential and established paedophiles) more conscious of child abuses harmful effects, thereby reducing the inclination to commit this crime. This supposed benefit justifies ignoring the explicit prohibition on film depictions of child abuse. But how grounded is this justification in reality?

Some questions the Australian community needs to ask Australian’s Censors about their justification for releasing child sex abuse film ‘Mysterious Skin’

Qu. 1. MSA found a gay website promoting DVD s of the controversial film ‘Mysterious Skin’, which features scenes of adult men abusing boys, as ‘Gay Erotica’ with the keyword ‘Man/Boy love’. The site’s film reviewers describe how one of the abused children is “played with smoldering sensuality by Joseph Gordon-Levitt” and says of the sex scenes between the boys and their adult ‘Little League’ coach; “Without ever being explicit, we know exactly to what level the sexual activity is between these two people”. It does not seem as if this website is selling this movie to men who want to learn about the harm child abuse does! ,

If ‘Mysterious Skin’ is, as the OFLC statements imply, a ‘turn off’ rather than a ‘turn on’ to viewers why would at least some film watchers categorise this film as ‘man/boy love’/’Gay erotica’ rather than ‘educational’/’unambiguously condemns child sex abuse” as the OFLC media statement claims. Does the OFLC know how widespread this erotic perception of the film is and the consequences of the arousal these viewers experience on any child they have access to?

Qu. 2. If, as Ms Shelley claims, this film has educational merit because it promotes understanding of the consequences of abuse, would Ms Shelley recommend convicted child sex offenders viewing this film as part of their rehabilitation therapy? An aim of much rehabilitative treatment of paedophiles is to induce an empathy for, and understanding of, the long-term suffering this crime causes children in order to limit re-offending. If this film is claimed to have this effect would the OFLC recommend using this and other similar films showing child sexual abuse (eg. Palindromes?) to treat sex offenders?

Most reasonable persons would NOT recommend that a film portraying high impact scenes of adults having sex with children be shown to sex offenders. We are well aware of the ease with which men in particular are stimulated by sexually suggestive images. The pornography and advertising industries routinely make use of this fact to make profits!

It seems obvious that rather than ‘educate’ sex offenders about the harm of sexual abuse of children, the sexually charged images would prove stimulating to these criminal’s perverse and harmful sexual orientation – and perhaps to other persons who have not been convicted of this crime. This is why the Classification Guidelines, which were formulated in consultation with the Australian community, expressly prohibit the depiction of such scenes!

The OFLC Board should NOT be overriding the Classification Guidelines regarding the film portrayal of child abuse on such flimsy and unsubstantiated claims as that showing such images has ‘educational merit’. Where is the evidence that showing this film will have a significant (positive) impact on the rates of child abuse? It is clear that some see this film as erotic rather than educational and a deterrent to child sex abusers.

Most reasonable adults in the community already know only too well the harmful effects of child abuse. We read the sad reports in the newspaper of yet another inadequate jail term for the destruction of a child’s innocence. Too many of us have seen friends and family members battling with the lifelong effects of this crime. Unfortunately a significant percentage of those reading this will have personally experienced this abuse. We don’t need to see high impact portrayals of young boys being raped to be ‘educated’ so stop feeding us this nonsense and stick to the Guidelines!

Petition Update – over 22,000 call for Mandatory Internet Filtering.

(April 2004)

Last year, MSA’s Vice President, Gail Gifford initiated a “Petition for Internet Child Protection”. Like many other concerned parents, Mrs Gifford was disgusted at her young daughter’s exposure to grossly inappropriate porn adverts while using the internet due to the deceptive, aggressive and intrusive techniques designed by those selling internet pornography to induce children (and unwilling adults) to view their material.

This petition calls on the Federal Government to introduce mandatory ‘filtering out’ of pornographic and other illegal and offensive material by Internet Service Providers (ISP’s). Such legislation would oblige ISP’s to take responsibility for the material they provide access to in family homes and NOT leave parents battling to protect their children from an aggressive, international porn industry alone.

This petition was keenly taken up and supported by many pro-family organizations, including the Australian Family Association, which recently presented over 22,000 petition signatures to the Senate, with more petitions flowing in daily. A number of surveys have shown that a significant majority of parents want the Government to do more to limit porn on the internet.

Despite predictable resistance from the internet industry (who derive significant profits from the unrestricted distribution of internet pornography) and civil liberties groups (demanding their right to view whatever they want regardless of the social cost) pressure on the internet industry to introduce appropriate restrictions on internet content is increasing.

In particular, the objections that effective mandatory ISP internet filtering is technically unfeasible and unaffordable have been overcome by recent advances in filtering technology. This was comprehensively explained to many MPs in the recent Sexual Integrity Forum, held at Parliament House, Canberra on 8-9th August.

After hearing about these technical advances and also about the harm done to children by exposure to pornography, the Sexual Integrity Forum participants voted to call on the Government to implement mandatory filtering by ISPs. (see www.sif.com.au for further details of this forum and its resolutions.)

This petition will continue to circulate, so if you haven’t already signed it please download a copy and pass it around (see MSA Home page link). More and more concerned parents are becoming aware that the Internet Industry has an ethical obligation to provide a child-safe service (like any other industry). Let the Government know you will not tolerate our children being assaulted by inappropriate pornographic images while using the internet due to industry avoidance of social responsibility and government inaction!

Internet Child Protection Petition

(April 2004)

The Federal Parliament recently considered a long awaited review that examined the effectiveness of current Internet regulations in Australia and considered some alternative approaches.

A number of studies have exposed there is a major problem in Australia with children accessing hard-core pornography on the Internet

In early 2003 The Australia Institute released a report highlighting the high percentages of children experiencing unwanted exposure to explicit material on the internet.

The Institute also expressed concerns about the effects of this exposure to hard-core, often violent, porn on child development and attitudes.

The Australia Institute called for more regulation of Internet content, suggesting mandatory filtering out of pornographic content by Internet Service Providers (ISPs) as an effective way to combat this problem.

In November 2003, the Child at Risk Assessment Unit, Canberra Hospital reported that exposure to pornography on the Internet is one significant factor in children younger than 10 years old sexually abusing other children.

The Canberra Hospital report noted that there has been a dramatic increase in the numbers of children who sexually abuse other children since the mid nineties and most of these children have been exposed to Internet pornography.

Despite this evidence of harm to children, the Government Reviewer considered that mandatory filtering at the ISP level, though effective at reducing children’s exposure to porn, would be too expensive!

It estimates costs as $45 million for set up and $33 million annually for maintenance of the scheme, though admits that these costs could be brought down through competitive tendering between vendors of filtering software.

Considering the multi-million dollar profits being made by the porn industry thanks to the Internet, it could be asked why the cost of filtering can’t be paid at least partly by the porn industry?

Regardless of cost, children’s safety and wellbeing must be placed above the porn industries desire for unrestricted marketing opportunities on the Internet!

MSA urge the Government to reconsider it’s position on Internet regulation and ask concerned Australian parents and citizens to support our petition seeking better regulation.

Right click link to download MSA Petition in Word'97 format.

"Irreversible" rating to be reviewed.

(April 2004)

MSA (along with other community organisations) have been lobbying Australia’s State Censorship Ministers to call for a review of the “R” rating of the film “Irreversible”. We believe this film should be classified “”RC” due to its extremely sexually violent content.

We were recently informed that S.A. Attorney General and Censorship Minister, Michael Atkinson has called for a review of the film's "R" rating, which will now be carried out on the 28th June.

The film ‘Irreversible’ contains scenes of extreme and sexualised violence including a detailed and prolonged (nine minute) scene of anal rape of a woman.

The OFLC Board Report assesses this scene as follows:

“The impact of this scene is high due to the lengthy, real time depiction of the act of sexual violation described above and the static, unedited camera work. The amount of verbal and visual detail in this scene was also considered to be a contributing factor in the Board’s decision to classify the film.”

The 1996 Guidelines for the Classification of Films and Videotapes state that for the R18+ classification “Sexual violence may only be implied and should not be detailed.”. You would expect therefore that the detailed sexual violence in this film would be outside the “R” rating guidelines and should be classified “RC”. However, the State Censorship Ministers recently approved a new revised Classification Guidelines. Under these 2003 Guidelines, an ‘R’ rating for “Irreversible” is justified because it is claimed the “impact of the classifiable elements do not exceed high”. In the 2003, supposedly ‘streamlined’ guidelines, exceeding ‘high’ impact and being classed as ‘very high ’ impact is the now vague and subjective delineation between an ‘R’ and ‘RC’ rating.

When the new 2003 Classification Guidelines were approved, MSA expressed concern that they were much more subjectively and vaguely worded than the guidelines they replaced. We were concerned that they could result in more violence and higher levels of other classifiable elements being tolerated under the various ratings. However, we were assured by the (then) Federal Attorney-General Daryl Williams that the changed guidelines would NOT result in a greater tolerance of classifiable elements such as sexual violence. Accordingly we decided to continue to monitor the content of film and TV being classified to see if they ratings did indeed remain the same rather than become more tolerant. It now seems that the community’s trust in the rating system and the Classification Board is being abused and the revised 2003 guidelines do indeed, as we feared, allow for the portrayal of higher levels of violence and classifiable elements in the media.

The Classification Review Board should either determine that Irreversible exceeds the standard for sexual violence permitted for the R18+ classification under the 2003 Guidelines (as understood with reference to the 1996 Guidelines) or confirm that the Attorney-General was wrong in giving a public assurance that there “there are no changes to the classification standards in any of the classification categories in the Combined Guidelines”.

New Laws to Fight Internet Child Pornography

(March 2004)

On 14 March this year Communications Minister Hon. Daryl Williams and Justice Minister Hon Chris Ellison jointly announced the planned introduction of the Telecommunications Offences Bill 2004 - new legislation to help combat use of the Internet to access, transmit or make available child pornography. (see website for the Ministers’ media release:

http://www.law.gov.au/www/justiceministerHome.nsf/0/A5B8C444EB88F77CCA256E58007F1FDD?OpenDocument

The new laws will also target those who use the Internet to ‘groom’ a child for sex. This is some good news at last for the protection of children who use the Internet.

This Bill also contains some interesting provisions concerning Internet Service Providers (ISPs). It seems they will be liable for criminal charges if they do not block access to child pornography sites they are made aware of.

The media release states that this new Bill was drafted with the aim of introducing “tough new penalties for peddling repulsive material via the Internet in recognition of the community's concern about the use of new technology to commit odious crimes targeting children.”

Review of Commercial Television Australia's Code of Practice.

(August/September 2003)

The Federation of Australian Commercial Television Stations (FACTS) has been re-birthed as Comercial Television Australia (CTVA).

It's mandatory bi-annual Code review is open for public submissions until September 16 2003. Not surprisingly, the proposed guidelines have also been reborn, with drastic cuts to G rated sessions being replaced by PG time slots (and Advertising).

PG advertisements will allow a broader "target market" to be exploited and will therefore generate greater shareholder profits & satisfaction at the expense of pre-school childrens wellbeing and enjoyment.

Of far greater concern is the proposal to incorporate hard core film theatre classifications into the TV programming classifications.

Review documents in Adobe .pdf format can be downloaded from Comercial Television Australia's Website at http://www.ctva.com.au/

Draft Classification Guidelines - Nudity and Drug use for Children.

(February 2003)

New Guidelines for the Classification of Films & Computer Games come into effect on 30 March 2003 following their approval by attorneys general from the Commonwealth, States and Territories at their November 2002 meeting. The Victorian Government was in caretaker mode at the time of this meeting but the Victorian Attorney-General has since signed off on the Guidelines.

These Guidelines have significantly more nudity and drug use than the previous version which had been in place since September 2000.

Changes to the G classification will be of particular concern to parents. This classification is for a general audience. While not all G classified movies will be of interest to all children (many documentaries would attract a G classification) parents should be able to have confidence that nothing in a G classified movie will be unsuitable for children's viewing. However, this revision of the Guidelines has, for the first time, provided for both drug use and nudity in the G classification. This means that there is now no classification which will indicate to a parent that the film is completely free of drug use and nudity. Very mild course language and very mild and very discreetly implied sexual activity have been permitted in the G classification for some time.)

The Censorship Act does not require the Classification Board to provide consumer advice for the G classification so there may not even be a notice to parents that a particular G film or computer game contains nudity or references to drug use.Previously the G classification made no reference to drug use.

The 2000 Guidelines provided that "discreet verbal references and mild, incidental visuals of drug use" would attract a PG classification. The new Guidelines allow films in which drug use is "implied only very discreetly and justified by context" to be classified G.

The previous Guidelines then had a graded set of rules for depiction of drug use through M (discreetly shown); MA (shown, but detailed depictions should not have a high degree of impact) R (shown but not gratuitously detailed). The new Guidelines abandon this gradation and for PG, M and MA simply state that "drug use should be justified by context". The concept of 'justified by context" is not clearly defined although the introduction to the Guidelines state "Context is crucial in determining whether a classifiable element is justified by the story-line or themes. In particular, the way in which important social issues are dealt with may require a mature or adult perspective. This means that material that falls into a particular classification category in one context may fall outside it in another."

Detailed instruction in the use of proscribed drugs and material promoting or encouraging proscribed drug use remain prohibited,so that films violating this rule should be Refused Classification (RC).

In a parallel development, nudity is now referred to the first time in relation to the G classification. For G, PG, M and MA the new Guidelines state with no further qualification that "Nudity should be justified by context". The previous Guidelines had a graduated approach - no nudity in G; "not detailed" in PG; "depictions that contain detail should not be gratuitous" and "nudity In a sexual context should not contain a lot of detail or be prolonged" in M; and "depictions of nudity in a sexual context which contain detail should not be exploitative" in MA.

For the R rating the previous requirement that "Nudity in a sexual context should not include obvious genital contact has been replaced with the bald statement that "Nudity is permitted".The R rating retains the rule on sex that "Sexual activity may be realistically simulated. The general rule is "simulation, yes - the real thing, no." This rule is far from clear as shown in two divergent decisions by the Classification Review Board.

The Board in its decision on Romance, stated that while the "general rule is simulation, yes - the real thing, no" this "provides the Board with a discretion in certain limited instances to permit explicit depictions of sexual activity within an educational or artistic context within the R18+ classification". In its subsequent decision on the Baise Moi the Board relied on the rule, along with the prohibition on "obvious genital contact" in part of its finding that this film did not qualify for the R classification.

The tighter restrictions on X films, imposed by the Federal Government after the defeat by National Party backbencher Deanne Kelly of the pornography industry's campaign to rename this classification "Non Violent Erotica" in the hope of legalising its sale in the States, have survived this review intact.

None of the above changes were canvassed in the discussion paper issued by the Office of Film and Literature Classification (OFLC) in late 2001 seeking public submissions on revised classification guidelines.

The review received 372 submissions. These were analysed by Dr Jeffrey Brand of Bond University's Centre for New Media Research and Education.

Among his recommendations were that "the standards in the Guideiines be less restrictive than those in both the Draft Revised Guidelines and the existing Guidelines". This recommendation was neither justified by the submissions - many of which called for more restrictive guidelines - nor explained in any further detail.

The OFLC was authorised by the Commonwealth, State and Territory censorship ministers meeting on March 8, 2002 to "develop a clear set of classification guidelines for both films and computer games and to further consult with industry and the community, as appropriate". No public consultation with the community took place before the Censorship ministers approved the final new Guidelines in November 2002.

At that same meeting the censorship ministers decided not to proceed with the proposal to establish an R classification for computer games. This was the result of resistance from South

Australian Attorney General Mick Atkinson and a lack of enthusiasm from Federal Attorney General Daryl Williams following a targeted campaign involving Federal backbenchers. The new Guidelines do, however, combine the classification schemes for films and computer games.

In the introduction to the Guidelines there is a discussion on "interactivity" which states "except in material restricted to adults, nudity and sexual activity must not be related to incentives and rewards". This comment seems to be left over from an earlier draft that must have included provision for R classified computer games. It should be amended to state that "material that contains nudity and sexual activity related to incentives and rewards is Refused Classification''.

Concerned parents and citizens should start lobbying now to ensure that in the next revision of the Guidelines the final draft is made public before being approved by Censorship Ministers.

A review process in which the final product bears no resemblance to the previous guidelines issued for public comment, or the weight of public submissions is unacceptable in a democracy.

Concerned parents and citizens should start lobbying now to ensure that in the next revision of the Guidelines the final draft is made public before being approved by Censorship Ministers.

A review process in which the final product bears no resemblance to the previous guidelines issued for public comment, or the weight of public submissions is unacceptable in a democracy.

Outrage.....WA Government Sponsors "Terrorist Training School -Route 65".

(October 2002)

The above unique event is part of the Western Australian Government (and Local Government) sponsored WA Artrage Festival, to be held in Perth in October/November 2002.

According to the Artrage website...."Terrorists are in some respects the super-entertainers of our time, join the Terrorist tourist bus - indiscriminate civilians only invited".

The TERROR(IST) TRAINING SCHOOL event starts October 30 2002 and is described as "an alternative site seeing road-trip thru the Perth cityscape for a guided tour in manufacturing terror" that "taps directly into current myths and fears surrounding the notion of terrorism the light of the global political climate and Australia's recent anti-terrorist legislation, violent political theatre has stepped up a gear. Join our unreasonably paranoid tour guide for candid insights into local danger zones for 10 nights only. Board the terror bus and witness your city in a whole new light".

The artrage festival is promoted on their website http://www.artrage.com.au. It is also promoted in booklet form from a number of music shops and at their own office in 51-53 JAMES ST NORTHBRIDGE WA 6003.

According to the promotional booklet yet another event is described as "peep-in death". This event takes place at Risque Erotica, a Northbridge sex boutique and places spectators in a peepshow booth which claims to "challenge artists to present an "artopsy of their own death scene." In our opinion this seems to be associating viewing dead corpses in a sexually charged situation of a peepshow and clearly contravenes censorship guide-lines. In addition to the text, a picture clearly associates the peepshow event with a line of corpses with feet poking out from under white cover sheets, complete with toe tags.

These events (and others) in the festival are being promoted at a time when the families of the Australian victims of the Bali slaughter (terrorist attack) will be burying and grieving for their love ones.

The MSA committee is sending letters of complaint to Hon. Sheila McHale WA Minister for Culture and Arts, Hon. Cheryl Edwardes WA Shadow Minister for Censorship and the Hon. Darryl Williams the Federal Attorney General.

Viewers "tune out" to ads shown in Sexual and Violent programming

(July 2002).

According to new research at the Iowa State University published by the American Psychological Association ad sponsors may be waisting their advertising dollar during Sexual and Violent programs. The study shows impaired memory retention for ads shown during these types of programs affecting both males and females of all ages whether they liked the content or not.

If your Advertising goes un-noticed, everthing else is Academic.....

Right click to download the research report in pdf format - 8 pages (91Kb)

Download above Acrobat Reader to view the Portable Document Format (.pdf) file above.

Banned Grand Theft Auto III Re-engineered under MA15+ with new ID Codes...."780"

(25/6/2002)

An enquiry by the MSA to the OFLC as to why the banned computer game Grand Theft Auto III was again being sold in stores across the country, the Director of the Office of Film and Literature Classifications Mr Des Clark responded with the following information:-

The Classification Board classified the game "RC"-refused classification on the 28 November 2001 effectively banning it from sale.
The Classification Review Board upheld the "RC" decision on the 11 December (amid controversial relevations that the game had been packaged and sold in stores with MA 15+ packaging well prior to Nov 28. The banned product ID code on the back of the CD casing ends with the digits 612).
Apparently on the 17th January 2002 the distributors Take 2 Interactive Pty Ltd submitted a re-engineered cut down version that was classified and approved as MA15+ with the following warning "High Level Animated Violence". The legal product ID code on the back of the CD casing ends with the digits 780).

The above explains the differences so you can tell the banned from the legal law abiding version. The MSA would like to thank Des Clarke of the OFLC for taking the time and in making the information public.

French Film - "Baise Moi" withdrawn from Australian Cinema's

(14/5/2002 - updated 29/5/2002)

Australian Federal Attorney-General the Hon. Daryl Williams recently upheld complaints from Federal MP's backed by a groundswell of public opinion that the french film Baise Moi" had been incorrectly classified, acted to withdraw the film from all Australian cinema's.

The film, mildly translated from it's native french means "intercourse / rape....me" contained scenes of graphic violence, sexual violence, included a rape scene that was not simulated and was roundly criticised for it's nil artistic merrit.

The film's scenes of excessive elements, outside both Australian 'R' and 'X' categories were also banned in France. The film was originally approved for screening by the Australian OFLC by a bare majority of 6/5.

Promoted with advertising like "Who decides what you can see?”, “2002’s most controversial film” and “ Baise Moi gets recalled for censorship review on Fri May 10 - This may be the only chance to make up your own mind” disturbing reports arose that some women who had taken the cinemas on with their challenge, left the film traumatised. One particular lady who viewed the film said this:-

"I was, in NO WAY, prepared for the extent of 'Actual Sex' & the repetitive, gratuitous violence, which included an innocent woman getting money from an ATM, being shot, in cold blood, by the two so-called victims. I failed to see what part that might have played, in their act of so-called vengeance. I left the theatre feeling totally invaded & fearful & my concerns led me to wanting to ask, 'Is this the beginning of an onslaught of X rated type films that could be publicly screened, which would then become more readily available through our video stores?"

The concern of the film’s content was not just followed up by family groups but also those involved in the sex industry. As recently as last year, the review of the X-rating dis-allowed any form of violence to be associated with actual sex.

The film was originally passed because of its so-called artist merit, but then the critics reported that there was none, which beggars the belief, “Would films with bestiality or child pornography be allowed through because of its artistic merit?”

Responding to numerous complaints by the public, the Film Classification Review Board handed down a unanimous 4/0 decision in favour of an RC - refused classification. That decision was simply ratified in the "normal course of business" by the Australian Federal Attorney-General.

Why then, the resulting furore about "citizens rights" from civil libertarians and "social control" by some State Parliamentarians resulting in some misinformation and perpetrating the outdated 1974 myth that "people should be able to view and hear whatever they want" and that "media content does not encourage bad behaviour".

Not touted by civil libertarians is the little known, but academically accepted fact that 10% of all Australian crime and violence is directly related to viewing the media. This equates to $600million dollars spend annually in Australia, still a larger sum again is known to be "indirectly" related. Because the states have to "cop the bill" for media regulation, it is currently the responsibility of all nine State and Territory governments. Enforcement provisions for the classification schemes are also contained in State and Territory legislation and takes some account of the very large variations in the social fabric of each state.

Of the 50,000 Australians who saw the "Baise Moi" film before it was withdrawn, the vast majority were not gratified by seeing the film, reported as being "put off" by the violence and themes.

MSA Members Note: In contrast and for an upper...try sourcing the hard to find, and highly unusual "Picnic" (1956)**** Kim Novak, William Holden, Cliff Robertson, Rosalind Russell & Susan Strasberg. Somewhat dated, but well ahead of it's time it also contains one of the 5 top movie love scenes of all time (Novak and Holden). When you see 'THE scene'...you will remember it!! There is some lengthy character development in the first half, but if you want to see some rare and "astonishing good" acting, keep an eye on Rosalind Russell mid-latter film. In Cinemascope and brilliant Technicolour (113 mins).

Grand Theft Auto III - Officially Banned.

(13/12/2001)

Distributor Take 2 Interactive's request for a review of the "Refused Classification" rating given to Grand Theft Auto 3 by the Office of Film & Literature Classification (OFLC) has resulted in the review board upholding the original classification of "RC"-- making sale of the game illegal and causing all remaining copies to be pulled from retail.

This means that the game, rather than existing under a seemingly innocuous MA15+ rating, now falls under a black market shadow. In fact, the "Refused Classification" status of Grand Theft Auto 3 leaves retailers who continue to sell it liable for prosecution under relevant Australian State and Territory legislation.

Take 2 Interactive have moved quickly to comply with the letter of the law, according to the OFLC director, Des Clark.

"I have been assured by the distributor all stock will be recalled and retailers had previously been asked to remove stock from their shelves. Community Liaison Officers have also been visiting retailers to let them know of the substantial penalties involved in selling refused classification stock."

The statement prepared by the OFLC takes pains to illustrate the repercussions of releasing game software with incorrect classification labelling. This seems to add weight to indications that Take 2 Interactive had allegedly released the game with an OFLC MA15+ rating on the packaging, when in fact no such classification had been awarded.

The OFLC's spokesperson, Tricia Flanagan would not be drawn today on the subject of enforcement. She once again re-iterated the OFLC's advisory role, explaining that: "Censorship is the responsibility of all nine governments. Enforcement provisions for the classification scheme are contained in State and Territory legislation. There are some variations (between states)."

Considering the title's high popularity and critical acclaim, original copies of the Australian region encoded game may now become collector's items for videogame aficionados. Particularly as Take 2 Interactive is considering releasing a toned down version of the game to comply with local censorship guidelines.

ZDNet Australia spoke to Take 2 Interactive Australia spokesperson Leanne Pine on the subject of re-releasing the game: "It is something we are looking at it, we don't know if it is going to be possible, but that's something we would look forward to. We have to wait for the full report from the OFLC, to be able to know what element of the game resulted in the RC rating. To be able to then cut that part out." she said.

However, such activities hold a substantial cost for the game publisher and distributor, which may impact the likelyhood of re-release. Ms Pine elaborated: "We would have to look at the timelines and the cost for it, as it's (the banning of a game title) never happened to us before."

This appears to be the first outright banning and product recall of Grand Theft Auto 3 in the world.

Grand Theft Auto III - Refused.

(28/11/2001)

Video game Grand Theft Auto III which depicts acts of extreme and sexual violence has been distributed for sale in Australia by the game's publisher, despite being refused classification by the Office of Film and Literature Classification.

The game, Grand Theft Auto 3, involves embarking on a criminal career where the player directs an on-screen counterpart to commit road rage, engage in drug trafficking and murder innocent civilians and police officers.

It was given an RC (Refused Classification) rating by the OFLC because it depicts acts of sexual violence, OFLC director Des Clark said yesterday.

According to the Guidelines For The Classification of Computer Games, published by the OFLC, "Material so classified may not be sold, hired, exhibited, displayed, demonstrated or advertised." The game enables the player to solicit the services of a prostitute and engage in a sexual act with her in a car, then kill her and steal money.

The game was reviewed on November 28 by the OFLC and refused classification, meaning that by law the game cannot be sold or viewed by the public.

However the game's distributor and publisher, Take 2 Interactive, placed MA15+ rating stickers on the game's packaging and distributed it to stores, where it remained until the OFLC was alerted on December 4. The game then was voluntarily removed by the distributors.

"The view of the majority of the board is that the violence a player can inflict on a prostitute can be conceptually linked to sexual activity which precedes it," Mr Clark said. "The player has the motion of bashing and killing the woman with whom he has just had sex."

Take 2 Interactive has lodged an appeal with the review board of the OFLC, which will deliver a final verdict today.

James Ellingford, Take 2 Interactive managing director, yesterday said the game was placed in stores due to "a failure of communication on both parts" between the OFLC and his company, which Mr Clark denies.

Parents can NO longer protect their Children from Violent Media.

Ex-Review Board Chief slams Entertainment Industries (22/07/2001).

Ms Barbara Biggins who stepped down yesterday (22/07/01) after seven years an chief convener of the Australian Classification Review Board lashed out at the "entertainment industries ignorance of the harmful effects that violence had on children." She also said that "the entertainment industry was marketing violence specifically to children."

Violent computer games including Doom and Quake were the biggest concern for parents she said. Shops selling violent computer games were not displaying posters explaining the meaning of the different classifications as required by the law.

"Television Networks breach their own Code of Practice on violence, without penalty, by classifying violent programs and films to suit their own needs" she said.

"Advertisements by Film distributors often did not have full classification information" she said. Ms Biggins was also concerned that video stores were not displaying posters explaining the meaning of the different classifications as required by the law.

The classification system is due for review later this year.....start preparing your submissions now!!

U.S. Federal Trade Commission follow-up Report. (March 2001).

Following release of the United States Federal Trade Commission report (Sept 2000) on aggressive target Marketing violent R-rated entertainment to children, the FTC has now released a 6 month follow-up report March 2001. The findings are:-

Substantial commitment & compliance were recorded by the Movie and Electronic Games industries.
The music industry pledged commitment to report recommendations two days before public release of the Sept 2000 report. A short while after the release, the music industry withdrew from all commitments, citing it had been targeted by several states for prosecution. The music industry however still continues to aggressively target market Violent R-rated material to children.
The US Senate Commerce Committee therefore responded by calling for a second FTC follow-up report by October 2001. This report will include information on specific industry members, and both their level and reasons for non-compliance.

Link to page containing both reports

MSA "Death Metal" Report

In March 2001 a Revealing MSA Report was forwarded to the Australian Attorney General's Justice and Customs Committee on Hard Core Death Metal Music and specifically Target Marketing to Children.

The report details what many Professor's of Clinical Psychology have found to be the "toxic entertainment" of emerging Death Metal Music specifically marketing to young children in Australia. Includes reports on Death Metal related murders and resulting emerging Youth Culture.

Link to page containing report

Columbine High School Massacre

Clinton calls for Summit on Youth Violence.

Bill Clinton has called a meeting with entertainment exec's and educators in the White House to sort out the Youth Violence problem, a step in the right direction.

Saying that he is not looking "to place blame" for the Columbine High School shootings, President Clinton today opened a daylong summit on combating youth violence. About 60 participants — from a computer and entertainment company CEO to authors and religious leaders — are attending today’s brainstorming session.

The National Rifle Association was not invited. However, two gun-manufacturing groups — the National Shooting Sports Foundation and the American Shooting Sports Council — planned to attend today’s gathering.

The closed-door summit comes amid complaints from gun makers and the entertainment industry, which say they’ve been unfairly singled out for criticism in the aftermath of last month’s high school shooting in Colorado.

But in opening remarks today, Clinton said he hoped the session would provide a groundwork for a national campaign to reduce youth violence. He also directed Surgeon General David Satcher to prepare a report on the causes of youth violence, the first in more than 10 years.

"Obviously, we have asked you to come here to see what we can do together to give our children safer childhoods," Clinton said. "Let’s leave here today resolved to be, all of us, part of this national campaign. I want us to have a good conversation about where we go from here."

National Campaign in the Works
In the aftermath of the massacre in Littleton, Colo., politicians and parents alike have been quick to decry the culture of violent video games and movies so much a part of the lives of the teen-age shooters, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, who killed 12 students and one teacher before committing suicide.

Not surprisingly, reports have floated about the entertainment industry’s skittishness concerning the White House meeting. Jack Valenti, president of the Motion Picture Association of America, and others in the film, TV and software world are wary of becoming the scapegoat for parents looking for answers to the question of what could inspire affluent, suburban teen-agers to slaughter their classmates. At a recent Senate hearing on the marketing of violence to children, Valenti said parental responsibilities, not entertainment industry regulations, are the way to keep kids away from violence. "American parents have the supreme right not to patronize what they judge to be soiling their children’s future," he said in a statement."The parental bill of rights declares the power of parents to turn away from that which they don’t want their family to listen to or watch."

Others in the computer gaming industry say there has already been enough finger-pointing and that meetings like this can only be successful if everyone involved shows up with an open mind. "I think the best thing that can come of this is to open up communication between all parties," says Vince Desiderio of Running With Scissors, the company responsible for the video game Postal. "I think everyone has to take a long hard look in the mirror."

The NRA, meanwhile, called a news conference to assert that the Clinton administration has failed to aggressively prosecute juveniles caught with guns and adults accused of providing them. Executive vice president Wayne LaPierre decried the conference, saying the NRA was left out.

"Clearly, we wanted to be there because this mirror needs to be held up to the administration," LaPierre said. "You can talk about the culture of violence for the next 10 years. Unless you start prosecution, you’re never going to cut to the culture of violence."

Washington Gets Involved ......
The White House promises the East Room session will only be "the beginning of a long-term campaign," and it appears certain Washington involvement in the youth violence discussion will only grow larger in the near future.

While Clinton is lobbying for a host of gun-control measures proposed after the April 20 shootings, including limiting monthly handgun purchases and instituting background checks for firearms bought at gun shows, Congress is also preparing to have its say.

Just four days after the White House session, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde, R-Ill., will begin a series of hearings to identify the cause of, and "look for solutions" to, the problem of youth violence.

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, says he plans to ask the Federal Trade Commission to investigate whether manufacturers are illegally or unfairly marketing their violent games and films toward young people. Other members of Congress have asked Surgeon General David Satcher to undertake a yearlong examination of the impact of multimedia violence on the nation’s young people.

List of Attendees
White House Youth Violence Summit

1. The President
2. The Vice President
3. The first lady
4. Mrs. Gore
5. The Attorney General
6. The Secretary of Education
7. The Secretary of Health and Human Services
8. William Kennard, FCC
9. General Barry McCaffrey
10. Les Moonves, President, CBS Television
11. Bob Iger, Chairman, ABC Group and President, Walt Disney International
12. Steve Case, CEO, America On-Line
13. Doug Lowenstein, President, Interactive Digital Software Association
14. Jack Valenti, President, MPAA
15. Hillary Rosen, President, RIAA
16. Edward Fritts, President, NAB
17. Decker Anstrom, President, NCTA
18. Roxanne Spillett, President, Boys & Girls Clubs of America
19. Sandra Feldman, President, AFT
20. Bob Chase, President, NEA
21. Ginny Markill, President-Elect of the Parents-Teacher Association
22. Pam Eakes, Mothers Against Violence
23. Eric Heydenberk, Strayer Middle School
24. Simonna Woodson, Arsenal Tech High School
25. Shane Cambronero, City Year Staff Member and Americorp Member
26. Dr. Prema Mathai-Davis, CEO, YWCA of USA
27. Abraham Foxman, National Director, ADL
28. Rev. Msgr. Thomas McDade, Secretary of Education, US Catholic Conference
29. Reverend Eugene Rivers
30. Robert Ricker, Executive Director, American Shooting Sports Council
31. Robert Delfay, President and CEO, National Shooting Sports Foundation
32. L.E. (Ed) Shultz, President and CEO, Smith & Wesson
33. Paul Jannuzzo, VP & general counsel, Glock USA
34. Bill Brewster, Former Rep., Board Member, NRA (Nat’l Rifle Assoc.)
35. Sarah Brady, Handgun Control, Inc. (HCI)
36. Steve Young, National Vice-President, Fraternal Order of Police (FOP)
37. Carl Bell, M.D.
38. Robert Pynoos, M.D.
39. James Garbarino, PhD.
40. Nancy Dickey, President, American Medical Association
42. Dr. Maya Angelou
41. Eli Segal
42. Judge Alan Page
43. Mayor Sharon Sayles Belton
44. Ken Salazar, Colorado, Attorney General
45. Gloria Estefan
46. Drew Altman, President and CEO, Kaiser Foundation
47. Governor Roy Romer, Chairman, Policy, Advisory Committee, The Advertising Council, Inc.
48. Senator Sam Brownback, R-KS
49. Senator Harry Reid, D-NV
50. Representative Richard Gephardt, D-MO
51. Representative Jennifer Dunn, R-WA.

AUSTRALIAN

TV CODE REVISION & 1997 REPORT

OVERDUE...

A revision of the Commercial Television Code of practice was due three years after the Code was first established in August 1993. It has not yet been completed. Under federal legislation, the Commercial Television industry Code of Practice compiled by the Federation of Commercial Television Stations (FACTS) and approved by the Australian Broadcasting Authority (ABA), is the Code which the commercial stations must observe in areas such as programme content, promotions, advertising and the handling of complaints. The Code itself contains a clause which provides for a formal review of the Code after it has been in effect for three years. As the Code came into effect in August 1993, the review is now overdue.

The ABA's Update newsletter for September 1998 notes that a draft revised Code was submitted by FACTS in May 1997 and reports that:

The ABA's assessment of the revised code has included:

research into issues of concern identified over the life of the old code and the ways these have been addressed in the revised code;

an examination of the submissions made to FACTS in the public consultation phase of the review, and FACTS response: and

an in-depth comparison of the old and revised codes.

The report does not, however, indicate when we can expect the revised code to be established. Nor does it mention:

precisely what the "issues of concern" are,

what the ABA's "examination" found, or

what came out of the "in-depth comparison".

This is an unsatisfactory state of affairs. So is the lack of response from FACTS to two letters the MSA has written last year (1998) asking about the revision and about the fact that FACTS 1997 Annual Report on the administration of the Code (required by the Code itself) does not appear to have been published as yet. MSA will continue to pursue the answers....

UPDATE ON THE AUSTRALIAN

TV CODE REVISION & 1997 REPORT (Overdue)

FACTS (Federation of Commercial Television Stations) have finally called for Public comment on the proposed draft revised Code of practice (2years overdue). Public comment was recently invited and closed within 5 working days in late April 1999! Surely an important review of a draft code of practice should warrant something more than a 5 day cursory glance and reply from the public, who by the way supply the licences for use by TV Networks on the public's transmission bands. Further, submissions by the MSA, and other interested parties to the Federation of Commercial Television Stations (FACTS) have not been acknowledged as is required. A copy of the MSA's submission was sent to the Australian Broadcasting Authority with a covering letter stating the obvious sad state of affairs.

In our opinion, FACTS is a sad reflection of the continuing and marked degeneration of Australian TV both in programme Standards and Content. In our opinion, it is hardly surprising that people are now turning off their TV's in droves in response to a FACTS which is out of touch with it's public.

Simply put, if you thumb your nose at the customer....your probably not going to be in business for very long.

BROWNBACK CRITICIZES VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES AIMED AT KIDS.

WASHINGTON -- In the wake of last week's tragic school shooting in Littleton, Colorado, U.S. Sen. Sam Brownback today spoke on the Senate floor criticizing violent video games marketed to children.

"The video game industry has received far less attention than television or movies, but is among the fastest-growing entertainment media," Brownback said. "Last year, the video game industry was worth more than $6 billion. It's profitability is climbing steadily and rapidly.

"The rise in profitability is fueled by the rise in popularity of these games. Video games are being played more often by more people, and particularly, more kids.

"Even industry executives acknowledge that video games are a growing part of the cultural landscape. Donald Miele, the executive producer for Command and Conquer games, went so far as to assert in a recent Wall Street Journal interview that 'games are a primary vehicle for popular culture'.

"Although many video games are non-violent, a growing number of companies are producing and promoting unimaginably gory interactive video games.

"'Carmaggedon' is a highly popular video game put out by Interplay, which debuted a little over a year ago. The purpose of the game is for the player, who controls a race car, to mow down as many pedestrians as possible. Points are awarded for each pedestrian 'kill' --and the more gruesome, the better. Unlike some games where the player aims to kill villains such as monsters or aliens, the targets in this game are innocent people. The game player is no longer cast in the role of vigilante, but is simply a cold-blooded killer.

"The video game 'Quake', put out by Midway Games and ID Software, the same company as the producers of 'Doom' consists of a lone gunman confronting a variety of monsters. For every kill, he gets points. As he advances in the game, the weapons he uses grow more powerful and more gory --he trades in his shotgun for an automatic, and later gets to use a chain saw on his enemies. The more skilled the player, the gorier the weapons he gets to use. Bloodshed is his reward. 'Quake' sold more than 1.7 million copies its first year out.

"This may seem over-the-top, but they are among the more popular games around. One survey of 900 4th-8th graders found that almost half the children said their favorite electronic games involved violence.

"Columnist John Leo put it this way: 'We are now a society in which the chief form of play for millions of youngsters is making large numbers of people die. Hurting and maiming others is the central fun activity in video games played so addictively by the young. Can it be that all this constant training in make-believe killing has no social effects?'

"One would think that some of these games are so violent that they are out on the fringe somewhere, snubbed by respectable companies, cringing somewhere in the electronic red-light district. Not so. They are backed and distributed by some of the biggest names in business. GT Interactive distributes 'Quake' and 'Duke Nuke 'Em'. Sony Corporation is developing the 'Doom' game, which so inspired the two young killers in Littleton, into a movie; and is in the process of negotiating with its own game division's 'Twisted Metal' car game, where the object is to mow down innocent pedestrians.

"In these games, the goal is death. Success is determined by the body count. Others' pain is your gain.

"Moreover, almost all of these games are sold in toy stores. Reports indicate that they are typically arranged in alphabetical order, not by rating or age level. Now, it seems pretty apparent to me that toy stores are designed to appeal to children. Children are the target audience. Parents do not enter toy stores to buy toys for themselves. But right there, on the shelves, are products which are supposedly unsuitable for children.

"Defenders of these games say that they are mere fantasy, and harmless role-playing. But is it really the best thing for our children to play the role of a murderous psychopath? Is it truly harmless to fantasize about mass murder?

"We need to do better than this. I'm not saying that companies don't have a right to peddle this trash, but it is not right to make a killing off peddling violence to children.

"Raising children is a precious duty and precarious task. It requires nurture, sacrifice, and lots of love. But even the most devoted parents may find it impossible to shield their child from these images and messages that surround them at school, at the mall, at a friend's house, through music, TV, movies, video games. We can no more shield our children from a polluted culture that we can shield them from polluted air.

"Just as a polluted physical ecosystem is poisoned by several sources, so our cultural ecosystem has many points of source pollution. This is one. We all need to do our part in cleaning up our cultural ecosystem --or else, we shall all be poisoned by it," Brownback said.

Brownback will chair a full committee hearing in the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation entitled, "Marketing Violence to Children", Tuesday, May 4, at 9:30 a.m. in Senate Russell Office Building, Room 253.

BROWNBACK SLAMS MARKETING VIOLENT MUSIC TO CHILDREN

WASHINGTON -- Continuing his long-time interest and concern about youth and violence, U.S. Sen. Sam Brownback spoke on the Senate floor today about the effect violent music may have on children.

"The tragedy of the last week has caused all of us to reflect on causes and cures,even as we mourn the loss of so many precious young lives," Brownback said. "We have to ask ourselves: how did we get to this place? Why do so many young people with so much going for them live in such despair, with so much hate?

"Obviously, there are no easy answers. There are many factors which led these two young men to don trench coats and kill, just as there were many factors that resulted in the shootings in Jonesboro, Paducah, Pearl, and Springfield. But there are enough common factors that I believe we can draw some conclusions.

"One of the most obvious conclusions is this: the immersion of troubled kids in a violence-glorifying culture is a recipe for disaster.

"Of course, no one spends more time listening to music than young people. In fact, one recent study conducted by the Carnegie Foundation concluded that the average teenager listens to music around four hours a day. In contrast, they spend less than an hour a day on homework or reading, less than 20 minutes a day talking to Mom, and less than five minutes a day alone in conversation with their father. If this study is true, there are thousands, perhaps even tens or hundreds of thousands of teens who spend more time listening to the music of such artists as Marilyn Manson or Master P than Mom and Dad.

"Over the past few years, I have grown increasingly concerned with the popularity of some lyrics --lyrics which glorify violence and devalue life. Some recent best-selling albums have included graphic descriptions of murder, torture, and rape. Women are objectified, often in the most degrading ways. Songs such as Prodigy's 'Smack my B--ch Up' or 'Don't Trust a B--ch' by the group 'Mo' Thugs' actively encourage animosity or even violence towards women. A few years ago, the alternative group 'Nine Inch Nails' enjoyed critical and commercial success with their song 'Big Man with a Gun' which describes forcing a woman into oral sex and shooting her in the head at point-blank range.

"Many of these songs are not obscure. They are immensely popular, and hugely profitable. Violent music like this is backed by some of the largest, most prestigious corporations in our country and the world --Time-Warner, Seagrams/Universal, Sony, Polygram, Viacom, BMG, and Thorne-EMI.

"Many of my colleagues may not be familiar with these lyrics. Until the past couple of years, I wasn't, either. But most kids are very familiar with them. They make up a vital part of the cultural ocean in which they swim. The messages of these songs are heard over and over, until they are, at the least, familiar, and at worst, internalized.

"A little over a year ago, I chaired a hearing on the impact of violent music on young people. During this hearing, we heard a variety of witnesses testify on the effects of music lyrics that glorified violence, sexual torture, and suicide. We heard from the nation's experts on the subject. Their conclusion was unanimous: music helps shape our attitudes.

"This is important. Studies indicate that the average teenager listens to music around four hours a day. It simply stands to reason that what we hear, and see, and experience cannot help but affect our attitudes and assumptions, and thus, our decisions and behavior. If it didn't, commercials wouldn't exist, and anyone who spent a dollar on advertising would be a fool. But advertising is a multi-billion dollar business --because it works. It creates an appetite for things we don't need, it affects the way we think, the things we want, and the things we buy. What we see and what we hear changes how we act.

"Let me be clear: I am absolutely opposed to any sort of censorship or government restriction on music. I believe the First Amendment ensures the widest possible latitude in allowing various forms of speech --including offensive, obnoxious speech. But the fact that lyrics which celebrate violence should be allowed does not mean that they should be given respectability. There are some forms of speech which should be thoroughly criticized and roundly stigmatized, even though they are allowed. Freedom of expression is not immunity from criticism.

"What we honor says as much about our national character as what we allow. There is an old saying 'Tell me what you love, and I'll tell you what you are'. Our national love of violence, murder, mayhem, destruction, debasement and pain, as reflected in the popularity of gory movies, violent music, a burgeoning porn industry, grotesque video games, and sleazy television is a cause for national concern. What we honor and esteem as a people both reflects and affects our culture. We grow to resemble what we honor, and we become less like what we disparage. What we choose to honor forecasts our cultural condition.

"Next week (Tuesday, May 4), with the cooperation of Chairman John McCain, I will be chairing a Senate Commerce Committee hearing to explore whether violence is actually marketed to children. We have invited the Presidents and CEOs of the big entertainment conglomerates --Time-Warner, Viacom, BMG, Sony, Sega, Nintendo, Hasbro. We hope they will come and help us begin a fruitful discussion on what can be done to protect our children from entertainment which glorifies and glamorizes violence," Brownback said.

For several years Brownback has been studying the link between violence in our culture and violence among young people. He has chaired two hearings in Senate committees, and hosted forums on this subject.

BROWNBACK ENCOURAGES CORPORATIONS TO STOP MARKETING VIOLENCE TO CHILDREN

WASHINGTON -- Continuing his long-time interest in the impact violent messages in society have on children, U.S. Sen. Sam Brownback today chaired a hearing in the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation entitled "Marketing Violence to Children".

"Over the past several years, our society seems to have become increasingly flooded with violent images --movies that depict teens killing their classmates, music with lyrics that glorify suicide, torture, and murder; TV that trivializes the consequences of violence, and video games that simulate real-life killing and give points for each death," Brownback said.

"This is not a legislative hearing. There are no bills to be considered on this. Rather, we aim to gather more information on a matter of great public concern, and considerable national urgency. We are not here to point fingers, but to pinpoint the causes of cultural pollution, and seek solutions. We hope to lay the groundwork for a fruitful discussion with industry leaders on how best to address this problem.

"The problem is not one industry, but can be found in virtually every form of entertainment: movies, music, television and video games. Together, they take up the majority of our children's leisure hours. Studies show that children spend more time watching TV, listening to music, and playing games than they do with mom or dad. And the messages they get and lessons they learn from this entertainment often run directly counter to the values they learn at home, in school, or at church.

"For example, the movie industry has given us the 'gift' of teen-slasher movies, such as Scream, Disturbing Behavior, I Know What You Did Last Summer --and the critically-acclaimed sequel, I Still Know What You Did Last Summer.

"These movies are rated 'R' --not recommended for teens under 18. But the teen cast and high school setting indicates that the targeted audience is precisely the same people who are supposedly discouraged from seeing it --teens.

"The violence in video games is, in some ways, even more disturbing. A game player does not merely witness violence, he takes an active part. Indeed, the point of such games as Postal, Kingpin, Duke Nuke 'Em, Guilty Gear, and others, is to kill as many characters as possible. The higher the body count, the higher your score.

"The ads for some of these games run in Sports Illustrated for Kids and game magazines. Moreover, the sale of children's 'action figures' which are based on characters from M-rated video games further indicates that these characters are well-known to children, and that this is precisely what the entertainment industry had in mind.

"The music industry is another area where violence-saturated lyrics are marketed to children. Teenagers have been among the biggest buyers of music albums, and are the most likely to favor music genres such as gangsta rap and shock-rock that appear to glamorize violence.

"Every year, there is more evidence that violent entertainment harms children. Both the American Medical Association and the American Association of Pediatrics have warned against exposing children to violent entertainment. And Dr. Leonard Eron, the past president of the American Psychological Association said this: 'Television violence affects youngsters of all ages, of both genders, at all socio-economic levels and all levels of intelligence. The effect is not limited to children already disposed to being aggressive and is not restricted to this country.'

"These games, movies, and albums are not put out by some obscure company pushing the envelope. Rather, they are produced, marketed and distributed by subsidiaries of some of the largest, most prestigious companies in the world -- companies that have lent their corporate support to marketing violence.

"We invited the presidents and CEOs of Time-Warner, Seagrams / Universal, Sony, BMG, Viacom, Sega, Nintendo and Hasbro to testify at this hearing. They all refused. It is disappointing that multi-billion dollar communication companies have no one on staff willing to communicate with us on this important issue.

"I am hopeful that our discussion here today will set the stage for further hearings, and positive action. I don't think anyone in this room believes that cleaning up our culture is a panacea for all that ails us. But I believe that more and more people think it is a vital -- perhaps central -- part of the equation.

"I hope each of us here can unite around a common goal and purpose -- that of making our culture a kinder, gentler, more life-affirming place to raise our children. It may mean losing a buck here and there. But the alternative -- continued cultural debasement -- impoverishes the soul.

"Our situation was pretty well stated by the father of one of the young boys killed last week in Canada. He said, 'We pray that people will see by this incident that lots of things have to change in our society. Lots of things need to be healed. May God have mercy on this broken society, and all the hurting people in it.'

"We have a lot of people hurting in our society, and a lot of things that need to be healed. I hope we can make a start today," Brownback said.

For several years Brownback has been studying the link between violence in our culture and violence among young people. Prior to today, he has chaired two hearings in Senate committees, and hosted forums on this subject. Today's full committee hearing was scheduled weeks in advance of the Littleton, Colorado tragedy.

BROWNBACK CALLS FOR CREATION OF A NATIONAL COMMISSION ON YOUTH VIOLENCE

WASHINGTON -- Continuing his long-time interest in the impact violent messages in society have on children, U.S. Sen. Sam Brownback today joined U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman in calling for the establishment of a national commission on youth violence.

"We need to take a deeper look at the cultural climate in which our children develop," Brownback said. "We need to examine whether the violence they are daily surrounded by -- on TV, in the movies, in games, in music, even in advertising -- undermines their development and well-being. We need to take an unflinching look at the real-world effects of family breakdown.

"Ultimately, much of the problem of youth violence is, I believe, a cultural problem --one that requires cultural solutions. It will take sustained effort, and a long-term view. But we need to make a start. And this is a good place to do it.

"Effectively addressing a problem requires properly defining it. Before we can effectively address the problem of youth violence, we need to be clear about the trends, pressures, and cultural climate which affect our youth. This commission would be an important start," Brownback said.

Brownback is original cosponsor of legislation establishing a national commission on youth violence that will be introduced in the Senate today.

The commission would:-
1. Focus on long-term, systemic causes and solutions, not quick fixes.
2. Provide more information on why youth have grown more violent, including the cultural forces that have denigrated the value of life, and desensitized some of our young people.

For several years Brownback has been studying the link between violence in our culture and violence among young people. He has chaired three hearings in Senate committees, and hosted forums on this subject. Last week, Brownback chaired a Senate Commerce Committee hearing on the subject of 'Marketing Violence to Children'.

viewers@mediastandards.org