what are the censorship laws on print media in australia?
410330
In Australia, the task of rating all but television broadcasts is carried out by the Office of Film and Literature Classification (OFLC), a statutory body within the Federal Attorney General's portfolio, which is empowered under Commonwealth Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995. Each of the States and Territories have enacted what is said (by governments) to be "complementary" censorship enforcement legislation although the laws vary.
549970
I do not know the laws in Australia but I don't believe they differ to much from the US. In the US you still qualify as a bigot.
598821
There is no official censor board in the United States. There are plenty of people who form groups to influence what should be allowed in schools, but they don't have an official capacity.
108176
I think that the idea of business decisions inadvertently leading to censorship is interesting. The broadcasters decide to play things that cannot possibly be deemed acceptable.  What does the FCC say about censoring, what are their guidelines for acceptable broadcasting?  Why is the FCC legal if it censors?  Is a broadcaster wrong by choosing to play morally irresponsible music in order to make money?
583599
No, there are no laws to keep any groups from trying to influence the media. Their influence is what the media allows it to be, just as the influence of the media is what the people allow it to be.
223134
I support the right to publish the toons.  But with free speech you need to have respect and restraint.  You should publish something just because you can.  So if the material is disrespectful, or offensive, you need to be sure that's what you want to do...in this case it feels like they just published them to see if they could get a rise out of people. That's wrong.
948189
When freedom of the press is infringed,you no longer have a democracy Same rules should apply to the eletronic media There are libel laws to keep them honest
177505
We don't have freedom of expression.  We have free speech.  We have laws to protect this right, and laws against the things you mentioned.  The only thing missing is ethics on the part of the public.  Remember the quote:\n\n‘When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.’ \n\nThat quote from Edmund Burke in ‘Thoughts on the Cause of Present Discontents’ has, in general use, come to be delivered as, ‘The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.’ \n\nWhich ever version you prefer, the message is the same: evil will, therefore good must.\n\nPeople too often remain silent, then wonder why "Government", as if it some outside agency, does not control their lives more.  Look to your own lives and ask, "Have I been more present and active in protecting our institutions of free speech, journalism, publishing, and other media?"\n\nThat is the only way it will change, not further legislation and government paper and ink.
901078
Government censorship is a constitutional violation. The protections in the constitution only apply to govt (not private) action.\n\nIf you're talking about Yahoo, that's a private forum. And private forums are subject to whatever internal rules and policies they choose to adopt. Yahoo has guidelines that you argee to follow as a condition of using this private service.\n\nI agree with your core concept -- people need to stop being so irrationally sensitive, and allow broad discussions. I don't agree with personal attacks, because they are largely pointless, but rarely is a general comment actually going to be a personal attack.\n\nThat being said, again this is a private forum, with established rules.
864522
OJ Simpson has not been censored by the government, he has every right to say whatever he wants to in that regard.  But the publishers have every right not to publish his book or show his interview on TV too.  And they decided it was distasteful, disrespectful and downright disgusting, and so they used their right not to waste their money printing those books.
146215
It is controlled by libel and slander laws.  That being said there should be sanctions against those who plagerize, lie, and release national security information. Whether it's just the free market that controls it the editors there should be some sort of oversight.\n\nThere is not absolute rite to freedom of speech and there is no absolute rite when it comes to the press either
860775
It really depends on what part of the inernet your on. If it is a forum board moderators and creators censor the content. If your talking about something more along the lines of a login business class environment there will be webmasters and programs that will censor your material. Overall though the internet is not controlled or fully censored, it just isn't possible.
981853
I had heard on NPR a while ago that they actually ARE censoring the internet.  Something about how they have a different version of Google or something and certain sites are not available to users in....I forget which country exactly - but it was in Asia.   Of course, the news report was saying how some hackers were trying to bypass the censorship and how they were putting themselves in danger to access government censored information.
969252
Journalists can be ordered by a judge to reveal their sources and jailed if they refuse, but they do not have to reveal their sources without a court order.\n\nNude dancing is not protected by the first amendment, which is why cities can ban nude bars and they tend to be in unincorporated areas. "Obscene" material has no first amendment protection.\n\nBible study can be conducted in public schools if and only if it is conducted as part of a literature course and it is only discussed in so far as it is literature. Otherwise, religious events can be held on school grounds outside of school times as long as the grounds are available for any religious meeting that may want to use them.
266512
1).  Little to no responsibility over the information released on news sources and the internet --> false information and easier ways to gain access to illegal materials.\n\n2).  Uncontrolled media --> masses reacting to uncensored material.  For example, with the threat of the Bird Flu, economies are going bust even though the actual threat may be minimal.
847619
Among the biggest journalists' organizations are SPJ, the Society of Professional Journalists, and the Reporters' Committee for Freedom of the Press. Both have active websites.\n\nHowever, the case - actually Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, has no practical effect on journalists. In the case, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down certain provisions of the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 as void for vagueness, and thus overbroad and unconstitutional. Specifically, the section of the law involved materials that neither involved children nor were obscene.\n\nAs to public impact, I suspect it freed certain publications, including websites, from the threat of prosecution under the act - but left them still vulnerable if they produce or contain child (or other) pornography.
148108
Well, that can be a tricky question. Most censorship and obscenity regulation is set based on what the majority of people find offensive. Sometimes it is not even the material to be censored that is offensive, but studies showing that it leads to something offensive, a study linking obscenity to mistreatment of women as an example. \n\nOfficials either elected or appointed by, elected officials set these guidelines. Who elects these people? The majority of voters elect them. \n\nSo, we have people electing officials and those officials either directly setting censorship guidelines, or appointing other people to set those guidelines. \n\nSo while censorship is set directly be a small number of people, the majority sets those people in place. It's like censorship via proxy. So it is based both on our values and those of others. Democracy is about compromise, keeping things neither to liberal or too conservative.\n\nAs for whether or not censorship is based on your morals, you would have to ask yourself on each issue, are you in the majority, or the minority?