Printer Friendly

Media classification: content regulation in an age of convergent media.

In March 2011, the then Attorney-General of Australia, Robert McClelland MP, asked the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) to inquire into and report on the framework for classification of media content in Australia, and to recommend reforms to the National Classification Scheme. In doing so, the ALRC was required to consider the extent to which the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 (Cth) (Classification Act), state and territory enforcement legislation, Schedules 5 and 7 of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (Cth) and the Intergovernmental Agreement on Censorship and related laws continued to provide an effective framework for the classification of media content in Australia.

In the terms of reference provided to the ALRC for the National Classification Scheme Review, the Attorney-General required the ALRC to give consideration to such matters as:

* technological convergence and associated transformations in media consumption

* community expectations about content regulation in a changing media environment

* the impact of media on children across a range of media types

* future development of the Australian media and digital content industries

* the scope to reduce regulatory burdens on relevant industries

* classification schemes operating in other jurisdictions, and

* Commonwealth, state and territory laws and practices relevant to the classification of media content (ALRC, 2011a).

The terms of reference also noted that this was the first comprehensive review of censorship and classification in Australia since the ALRC's review in 1991. The Classification Act and complementary state and territory enforcement legislation were enacted in 1995 on the basis of the ALRC's recommendations at the time, which established the current cooperative scheme through which the Commonwealth, states and territories undertake a national approach to classification.

The review of Australia's media classification framework has been occurring alongside a range of other reviews, including parliamentary inquiries into cyber-safety and outdoor advertising, the Independent Media Inquiry into future regulations for newspapers and online publications, and a National Cultural Policy. Other factors that the ALRC needed to consider included the Attorney-General's Department's public consultation on an R18+ classification for computer games conducted during 2010, which had received over 58,000 public submissions; the scope of the existing Refused Classification (RC) category, through which media content can be banned from sale and distribution; and the scope of the category reflecting the content that should be prohibited online in the context of debates about mandatory internet filtering in Australia (Edwards, 2009; Moses, 2011).

Perhaps most significantly, occurring in parallel with the ALRC's Inquiry has been the Convergence Review, conducted by an independent committee chaired by Glen Boreham, and supported in its work by the Department for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy (DBCDE). The task of the Convergence Review is 'to review the operation of media and communications legislation in Australia and to assess its effectiveness in achieving appropriate policy objectives for the convergent era'. A key contextual factor behind this plethora of media-related inquiries has been the Labor government's commitment to developing a National Broadband Network, intended to deliver high-speed broadband to over 90 per cent of Australian homes, schools and workplaces by 2017, as a universally available platform for convergent media content.

The context of classification reform: Regulatory fragmentation and media convergence

In the Australian context, classification historically has not been a direct element of media policy. Under section 51 of the Constitution of Australia (1901), the states granted the Commonwealth powers over 'postal, telegraphy, telephonic and other like services', which has been interpreted as giving the federal government exclusive powers over broadcasting, telecommunications and, since the late 1990s, the internet. The Commonwealth can also use its trade and commerce powers under section 51(i) to restrict or prohibit the importation of books, films and video-tapes, and its territories powers under section 122 to establish national censorship and classification schemes. However, the power to restrict access to films and publications, as well as enforcement powers, continues to reside primarily with the states and territories, whose regulatory approaches in relation to such powers vary considerably.

The general trajectory of policy in Australia since the late 1960s has been away from direct government censorship and towards content classification by independent agencies, with a sliding scale of classifications from material for general exhibition to age-based restrictions to material that is refused classification or banned (Flew, 1998). The ALRC's review of censorship and classification in 1991 recommended that common national classification guidelines be established, and that a national Classification Board should have primary administrative responsibility in the area, replacing a complex and confusing web of state- and territory-based legislation.

While these recommendations generally were accepted, there were two significant areas where the framework adopted continued to present difficulties. First, the failure to achieve agreement among the states and territories on the introduction of an 'X' classification for sexually explicit material has meant that its treatment and degree of legality continue to vary significantly across Australia, from being legal in the ACT and much of the Northern Territory to being illegal in states such as Queensland and Western Australia. Second, the period between the release of the ALRC's report and the passing of the Classification Act saw a 'moral panic' emerge around the potential impact of computer games, leading to the decision to refuse an 'R' classification to computer games. The absence of such a classification has meant that games such as Mortal Kombat, which would otherwise be for adults only, have been put into the Refused Classification category in Australia--a category reserved for illegal, abhorrent or offensive material. This matter has taken over a decade to resolve, with the states and territories finally agreeing to an 'R' category being introduced in mid-2011, after massive lobbying from the games-playing community.

The 1990s also saw a transformation of broadcasting policy in Australia, with the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (BSA) coming into force in 1993, replacing the 50-year old Broadcasting Act. The BSA established a co-regulatory framework for Australian broadcast media, devolving responsibility for matters such as the development of program classification and the handling of complaints to industry bodies, through the development of industry codes of practice approved by and registered with the Australian Broadcasting Authority, which in 2005 became the Australian Communication and Media Authority (ACMA), a converged media regulator.

This co-regulatory framework was extended to the internet in the late 1990s with the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Act 1999, which established the legislative framework for online content regulation in Australia. It extended the co-regulatory system to online content through a code developed and administered by the Internet Industry Association, combined with a complaints-based mechanism for content assessment focused more specifically--if somewhat confusingly--on 'higher level' online content. In contrast to the co-regulatory scheme as it has applied to broadcasting, the extension of the BSA to online content has always been contentious. By approaching online content in a manner akin to that of broadcasting, critics have argued that there has been a basic category confusion of media types, between centrally distributed media content accessed on a mass scale such as radio and television, and the dynamic, niche-oriented and more user-driven internet environment (Coroneos, 2008; Crawford and Lumby, 2011; Moses, 2011).

The National Classification Scheme can be seen as highly fragmented and increasingly ineffective. It applies inconsistent regulations to similar media content across different platforms, has inconsistent enforcement provisions, has failed to operate effectively in relation to areas such as 'X' content, and has unclear lines of responsibility between the Commonwealth, state and territory governments, and between Commonwealth agencies such as the ACMA and the Classification Board. The costs and regulatory burden of the current classification framework operate very unevenly across industries--the differential treatment of console-based games and mobile games is a case in point--and the scheme's alignment to contemporary community standards and expectations is unclear. The existing classification framework has been described as being 'like a bowl of spaghetti ... complex, tangled and, from a media user point of view, impossible to tell which bit of media content connects to which regulatory framework' (Lumby, 2011).

All of the problems with the current framework are magnified by media convergence, and by growing access to media content through high-speed broadband networks and the rise of user-created content. Convergence has a number of dimensions, including the rise of the internet or digital economy, now estimated to account for 3.6 per cent of Australia's Gross Domestic Product (Deloitte Access Economics, 2011), the blurring of platform-based distinctions between firms and industries, accelerated innovation in information-based/ knowledge-based industries, and the shifting nature of the media consumer from audience member to content co-creator and media participant.

In terms of policy and regulation, the key issue arising from convergence is the manner in which it breaks the link between media content and delivery platforms. Convergence points towards a shift from vertically integrated industry 'silos' (print, broadcast, telephony, and so on), and the associated need for sector-specific regulation, to a series of horizontal layers of (1) infrastructure, (2) access devices, (3) applications/content services, and (4) content itself.

In an overview of Australian broadcasting and telecommunications regulations undertaken for the Convergence Review, the ACMA (2011) identified 55 'broken concepts' in current legislation, including: the concept of 'influence' in broadcasting; the 'Australian identity' of media owners'; the concept of a 'program' in broadcasting; the distinction between a 'content service provider' and a 'carriage service provider' in relation to the internet; and regulations specifically applied to activities such as telemarketing and interactive gambling. At the core of these 'broken concepts' is the manner in which digital convergence is making media services and content increasingly independent of particular delivery technologies; its central regulatory consequence is that 'regulation constructed on the premise that content could (and should) be controlled by how it is delivered is losing its force, both in logic and in practice' (ACMA, 2011: 6).

The ALRC review process

Since its establishment as an independent statutory authority in 1975, the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) has developed an approach to law reform that has 'valued full and open consultation, public meetings, the harnessing of publicity, and the promulgation of draft papers designed to elicit full participation' (Tilbury, 2005: 14). Drawing upon the observation of its first chair, Justice Michael Kirby, that 'law reform is much too important to be left to the experts', the ALRC has a multi-stage process to conducting inquiries involving the release of an issues paper and a discussion paper, public submissions and consultations with relevant stakeholders. Internet communications tools such as e-newsletters, blogs, and the use of Facebook and Twitter have come to complement these consultation processes (see Figure 1).

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

The ALRC's Issues Paper (IP40), released in May 2011, attracted over 2300 submissions, of which about 98 per cent came from individuals, as distinct from industry, government and community organisations. This was a huge volume of submissions, and use was made of Leximancer software to process the range of responses to the 29 questions raised in the issues paper. Analysis of the responses can be found on the ALRC's website (ALRC, 2012a). This led to the release of a discussion paper (DP77) in September 2011, which attracted over 70 responses, before completion of the final report, Classification: Content Regulation and Convergent Media, completed in February 2012 (ALRC, 2012). Over 60 consultations were conducted over the period May-December 2011 in five Australian capital cities, and there were also two e-consultations conducted through a public discussion blog hosted by the ALRC, in August 2011 and November 2011.

While the nature of classification is as an area marked by major differences on matters of principle between its engaged stakeholders, an overwhelming message that came from the consultation process concerned the need for fundamental reform to the National Classification Scheme, rather than incremental changes to existing legislation.

The message came through most strongly from industry participants that the current scheme was 'an analogue piece of legislation in a digital world' (APA, 2011), that there was an urgent need for 'a framework that applies across platforms in a consistent and equitable manner' (SBS, 2011) and that the ALRC needed to 'undertake a holistic examination of the National Classification Scheme with the objective of developing a national classification framework for the modern media environment' (Telstra, 2011).

The ALRC took the view in its discussion paper (DP77) that 'the major principles that have informed media classification in Australia, such as balancing the rights of adults to make informed media choices with the protection of children and restriction of access to some media content on the basis of community standards, continue to be relevant' (ALRC, 2011b: 43). At the same time, it was observed that:

In the context of media convergence, there is a need to develop a framework that focuses upon media content rather than delivery platforms, and can be adaptive to innovations in media platforms, services and content ... and there is a case for a new Act governing classification, as well as revised regulatory arrangements. The costs and regulatory burden of the current classification framework align poorly to community standards and expectations. There is too much top-down regulation of some media content and platforms, including double handling of the same content, while regulatory responsibilities are unclear in relation to other media. (ALRC, 2011b: 44)

One way of identifying priorities for a revised National Classification Scheme was through the development of a statement of guiding principles. This is consistent with Australian Public Service Commission guidelines for 'smarter policy', as it enables discussion of policy goals to be uncoupled to some degree from evaluation of the available policy instruments, such as direct government regulation, co-regulation and industry self-regulation, and the use of economic instruments such as taxes and incentives (APSC, 2009). Drawing upon submissions received, existing laws and codes, relevant international conventions and Australian public policy guidelines, as well as an online consultation process, the ALRC proposed eight guiding principles for reform that should inform the development of a new National Classification Scheme that can meet community needs and expectations, be more effective in its application and be responsive to the challenges of technological change and media convergence. The eight guiding principles were:

1. Australians should be able to read, hear, see and participate in media of their choice.

2. Communications and media services available to Australians should broadly reflect community standards, while recognising a diversity of views, cultures and ideas in the community.

3. Children should be protected from material likely to harm or disturb them.

4. Consumers should be provided with information about media content in a timely and clear manner, and with a responsive and effective means of addressing their concerns, including through complaints.

5. The classification regulatory framework needs to be responsive to technological change and adaptive to new technologies, platforms and services.

6. The classification regulatory framework should not impede competition and innovation, and not disadvantage Australian media content and service providers in international markets.

7. Classification regulation should be kept to the minimum needed to achieve a clear public purpose.

8. Classification regulation should be focused upon content rather than platform or means of delivery (ALRC, 2011b: 57-58).

ALRC recommendations

In its final report, Classification--Content Regulation and Convergent Media (ALRC, 2012), the ALRC recommends a new National Classification Scheme for a new convergent media landscape. The key features of the ALRC's model are:

* Platform-neutral regulation--one legislative regime establishing obligations to classify or restrict access to content across media platforms, with a single regulator.

* Clear scope of what must be classified--that is, feature films, television programs and certain computer games made and distributed on a commercial basis that also have a significant Australian audience.

* A shift in regulatory focus to restricting access to adult content--imposing new obligations on content providers to take reasonable steps to restrict access to adult content and to promote cyber-safety.

* Co-regulation and industry classification--more industry classification of content and industry development of classification codes, subject to oversight by a convergent media regulator

* Classification Board benchmarking and community standards--a clear role for the Classification Board in making independent, benchmarked classification decisions that reflect community standards, and classification categories and criteria that also reflect community standards.

* An Australian government scheme--replacing the current classification cooperative scheme with enforcement of classification laws under Commonwealth jurisdiction.

* A single regulator--with primary responsibility for regulating the new scheme.

The report makes a total of 57 recommendations, covering such matters as: what content must be classified and by whom; classification categories and criteria; restricting access to content classified R18+ and X18+; the scope of prohibited content; industry codes and co-regulation; and responsibilities for classification laws, regulations and enforcement. The major features of the new National Classification Scheme recommended in Classification--Content Regulation and Convergent Media are outlined below.

Platform-neutral regulation

The cornerstone recommendation of the ALRC Report is that a new Classification of Media Content Act should be introduced, incorporating all classification obligations applying to media content, including:

* publications, films and computer games currently subject to the Classification Act

* online and mobile content currently subject to the regulatory regime under Schedules 5 and 7 of the Broadcasting Services Act, and

* broadcast and subscription television content currently regulated under the Broadcasting Services Act.

Traditional distinctions based on how content is accessed or delivered are becoming less relevant. Accordingly, the three key statutory obligations recommended in this report are platform neutral--that is, they apply to certain media content, whether the content is screened in cinemas, broadcast on television, sold in retail outlets, provided online or otherwise distributed to the Australian public. The report recommends platform-neutral laws for what media content must be classified, what media content must be restricted to adults and what media content is prohibited.

The intention is to avoid inconsistencies manifest under the current scheme, and enable a new classification framework to be more adaptive to changes in technologies, products and services that are arising out of media convergence. This would also eliminate costly 'double handling' or 'double classification' of similar content on different media platforms. Further, for all media content that is required to be classified, this would occur according to a single set of classification categories and criteria.

As the internet has greatly expanded the possibilities for public participation as producers as well as consumers of media content, there is a greater need for future classification regulations to avoid impinging unnecessarily upon the communications activities of individuals. The challenge, then, is to think about how to move from platform-based models of media regulation and associated 'broken concepts' such as hierarchy of media influence to consider how to set boundaries to the role of the state around the question of whether online communication is primarily for commercial or non-commercial purposes, and hence subject to the laws of business regulation rather than the implied rights of freedom of communication. (1)

Clear scope of what must be classified

The volume of original media content that becomes available to Australians on a daily basis has grown exponentially. There are over one trillion websites, hundreds of thousands of 'apps' available for download to mobile phones and other devices, and every minute over 60 hours' worth of video content is uploaded to YouTube (one hour of content per second). As it is impractical to expect all media content to be classified in Australia, the scope of what must be classified should be confined to feature films, television programs and higher-level computer games.

A classification obligation that applies to online content must be focused on the content for which Australians most need and demand classification information. Therefore, it is proposed that feature films, television programs and computer games should only be required to be classified if they are both made and distributed on a commercial basis and likely to have a significant Australian audience.

Decisions about what media content is classified, and who undertakes classification activities, are currently platform based and historic. The need to classify should be based upon the nature of the content itself--including its likely audience reach--rather than being based primarily upon the platform from which it is delivered and accessed. The ALRC envisages that obligations to classify content would not generally apply to persons uploading online content on a non-commercial basis, and would exclude some internet intermediaries, including application service providers, host providers and internet access providers, from classification-related obligations other than those concerning prohibited content.

A shift in regulatory focus to restricting access to adult content

Content providers should be required to take reasonable steps to restrict access to all adult content that is sold, screened, provided online or otherwise distributed to the Australian public. Adult content refers to media content that has been, or if classified would be, classified R18+ or X18+. A new National Classification Scheme should provide minimum requirements for restricting access. The various 'reasonable steps' that different types of content provider might be expected to take should be prescribed in industry codes and standards, approved and enforced by the regulator.

This approach to adult content recognises that formal classification is not the only response to concerns about media content, including those about protecting children from material likely to harm or disturb them. The sheer volume of adult content on the internet suggests that the focus should be on restricting access to this content, rather than having it formally classified by Australian classifiers. This approach also accords with the principle that classification regulation should be kept to the minimum needed to achieve a clear public purpose.

The steps that are reasonable to take to restrict access will be based upon what is appropriate for delivery platforms, and may be prescribed in industry codes. Restricting access offline may be straightforward in some instances, such as the packaging of certain content in plastic, or requiring proof of age on purchase. While the challenges are clearly greater with online content, content providers will still be expected to take reasonable steps to restrict access. Some content providers may be able to issue warning and use age-verification systems. Others may be expected to promote self-regulatory initiatives to assist consumers to manage their own access to media content, and protect children and others in their care.

Measures to restrict access to adult content are complementary to other government cyber-safety initiatives, as well as industry initiatives. Measures to assist parents and guardians in particular may include:

* public education about the use of parental locks and other technical means to protect children from exposure to inappropriate media content

* digital literacy and education programs

* the use of PC-based dynamic content filters, and

* user reporting--or 'flagging'--of inappropriate content.

The ALRC has also recommended that mandatory access restrictions no longer be applied to MA15+ content in either online or offline formats, as well as the phasing out of mandatory time-zone restrictions for M and MA15+ content for commercial broadcasting.

Co-regulation and industry classification

A greater role for industry in classification is recommended by the ALRC in order to allow the government to focus on the content that generates the most concern in terms of community standards. The new scheme would introduce additional elements of co-regulation into the classification system in two important ways.

First, the scheme provides for innovative and efficient classification decision-making mechanisms. Most content that must be classified under the new scheme may be done so by authorised industry classifiers, subject to regulatory oversight and review. The development of new classification decision-making instruments, such as comprehensive online questionnaires that incorporate Australian classification criteria, may be an element of this. The regulator should also have the power to approve other rigorous and transparent classification decision-making systems, perhaps developed in other jurisdictions or by digital and online content distributors. Classification decisions made under an approved system could be deemed to have an equivalent Australian classification. This deeming provision would facilitate the provision of Australian classification information in a media environment characterised by vast volumes of content.

Second, the scheme will provide for the development and operation of industry classification codes. The intention is that such industry codes will provide flexibility for different industries to comply with regulatory requirements in a manner that is suited to their particular business models and that is responsive to their particular audience and consumers. Industry codes would include details on matters such as the application of classification markings, display requirements for classified content, reasonable steps for restricting access and complaints handling.

Industry classification and the extended use of codes will assist classification regulation to be responsive to technological change and adaptive to new technologies, platforms and services. It also provides the basis for greater 'buy in' by industry players to the classification scheme, thereby allowing industry knowledge and expertise to be applied directly to addressing consumer issues. The regulator would provide a critical 'backstop' to the scheme by providing for safeguards and oversight to ensure that it is operating effectively, that industry is complying with its regulatory obligations and that consumer needs and concerns are being met adequately.

Classification Board benchmarking and community standards

It is proposed by the ALRC that the Classification Board will be retained as an independent statutory body responsible for making some classification and reviewing decisions. The board, whose members are intended to be broadly representative of the Australian community, is suited to a benchmarking role. There is a high level of public confidence in the board's decisions, as an independent body whose decisions should be objective and free of self-interest.

Independent, benchmarked decisions that reflect community standards become more important under a system that allows for more content to be classified by industry. In this context, the role of the Classification Board is particularly important. The ALRC therefore recommends that films for cinema release and computer games likely to be classified MA15+ or above continue to be classified by the board. It is important that independent benchmarks be established across a range of media content and classification categories.

Classification categories should also be harmonised and the underlying criteria should be combined so that the same categories and criteria are applied in the classification of all media content--irrespective of its form and the platform by which it is delivered or accessed. This would mean the abolition of such categories as: 'Unrestricted, 'Restricted 1' and 'Restricted 2' for publications, and AV (Adult Violence) and MAV (Mature--Adult Violence) used in television. Classification criteria and guidelines should also be reviewed periodically, through comprehensive national research--including a mix of quantitative and qualitative research--in order to ensure that they reflect prevailing community standards.

One classification category that may no longer align with community standards is the 'RC' category. This category should be renamed 'Prohibited', and its scope narrowed. The Australian government should review current prohibitions in relation to the depiction of sexual fetishes in films, and 'detailed instruction in the use of proscribed drugs', and possibly remove these from the 'Prohibited' category. Further, the government should also consider confining the prohibition on content that 'promotes, incites or instructs in matters of crime' to 'serious crime'.

A Commonwealth government scheme

The new National Classification Scheme based upon the Classification of Media Content Act should be a federal government responsibility, enacted pursuant to the legislative powers of the federal parliament, and not as part of any new cooperative scheme. The ALRC's view is driven by the need for classification law to respond effectively to media convergence, and for classification laws, decision-making and enforcement provisions that are consistent nationally. Under the classification cooperative scheme, the enforcement of classification laws is primarily the responsibility of states and territories, but these arrangements contribute to problems of inconsistency in offence and penalty provisions, and to low compliance with classification laws in some industries, most notably the adult content industry.

An important part of the rationale for replacing the existing classification scheme is to avoid such inconsistencies. The Australian government should be responsible for the enforcement of classification laws and a regime of offences and penalties. The new Act should express an intention that it is to cover the field. It is nonetheless envisaged that consultation with the states and territories and classification enforcement will continue to be an important element of the new National Classification Scheme, including consultation on membership of the Classification Board and enforcement of classification laws through the continuing activities of state and territory police forces.

A single regulator

A single regulator would have primary responsibility for regulating the new scheme. The regulator would be responsible for a range of functions similar to some of those currently performed by the Classification Branch of the federal Attorney-General's Department, the Director of the Classification Board, the DBCDE and the ACMA. The ALRC has identified advantages in having one regulator responsible for all forms of content regulation, including classification matters, and these advantages are likely to increase significantly in the context of media convergence. The final form of such a regulator will be also shaped by the recommendations of the Convergence Review.

In relation to classification, the new convergent media regulator's functions should include:

* encouraging, monitoring and enforcing compliance with classification laws

* handling complaints about the classification of media content

* authorising industry classifiers, and providing or approving classification training

* facilitating the development of industry classification codes, and approving and maintaining a register of such codes

* liaising with relevant Australian and overseas media content regulators, classification bodies and law-enforcement agencies, and

* educating the public about the new National Classification Scheme and promoting media literacy more generally.

In addition, the regulator's functions may also include:

* providing administrative support to the Classification Board

* maintaining a database of classification decisions

* assisting with the development of classification policy and legislation, and

* conducting or commissioning research relevant to classification.

Conclusion

The ALRC's final report, Classification--Content Regulation and Convergent Media, recommends a new National Classification Scheme for a new convergent media landscape. It is the Commission's view that if the federal government chooses to implement its recommendations, the net effects of the changes for media classification in Australia will be that it:

* applies consistent rules to content that are sufficiently flexible to be adaptive to technological change

* places the focus of regulation upon restricting access to adult content, helping to promote cyber-safety and protect children from inappropriate content across media platforms

* retains the Classification Board as an independent classification decision-maker with an essential role in setting benchmarks

* promotes industry co-regulation and encourages greater industry content classification, with government regulation more directly focused on content of higher community concern

* provides for pragmatic regulatory oversight, including checks and safeguards that address the community

* reduces the overall regulatory burden on media content industries while ensuring that content obligations are focused on what Australians most expect to be classified

* harmonises classification laws across Australia for the benefit of consumers and content providers.

Note

While the High Court of Australia has implied from the Constitution a freedom of political communication, this is narrower than a guaranteed freedom of communication or expression in a general sense. It is not of an equivalent status to the First Amendment to the US Constitution, or Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

References

Australian Communications and Media Authority 2011, Broken Concepts: The Australian Communications Legislative Landscape, ACMA, Canberra, August.

Australian Law Reform Commission 2011a, 'Review of Censorship and Classification--Terms of Reference', 23 March, www.alrc.gov.au/inquiries/classification/terms-reference.

-- 2011b, 'Law Reform Process', 30 November, www.alrc.gov.au/law-reform-process.

-- 2011c, National Classification Scheme Review, ALRC Discussion Paper No. 77, September, ALRC, Canberra.

-- 2011d, 'Responses to ALRC National Classification Scheme Review Issues Paper (IP40)

-- Graphical Representation of Submissions', 17 November, www.alrc.gov.au/publications/ responses-IP40.

-- 2012, Classification--Content Regulation and Convergent Media, ALRC Final Report No. 118, February, ALRC, Canberra.

Australian Public Service Commission 2009, Smarter Policy: Choosing Policy Instruments and Working with Others to Influence Behaviour, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.

Australian Publishers Association 2011, 'Australian Law Reform Commission's Inquiry into National Classification Scheme Review--Submission by the Australian Publishers Association', Submission CI1226a, www.alrc.gov.au/sites/default/files/pdfs/ci_1226a_australian_ publishers_association_.pdf.

Coroneos, P. 2008, 'Internet Content Policy and Regulation in Australia', in B. Fitzgerald, F. Gao, D. O'Brien and S.X. Shi (eds), Copyright Law, Digital Content and the Internet in the Asia-Pacific, Sydney University Press, Sydney, pp. 49-65.

Crawford, K. and Lumby, C. 2011, The Adaptive Moment: A Fresh Approach to Convergent Media in Australia, Journalism and Media Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney.

Deloitte Access Economics 2011, The Connected Continent: How the Internet is Transforming the Australian Economy, August, Deloitte Access Economics, Sydney.

Edwards, L. 2009, 'Pornography, Censorship, and the Internet', in L. Edwards and C. Waedle (eds), Law and the Internet, 3rd ed., Hart, Oxford, pp. 623-70.

Flew, T. 1998, 'From Censorship to Policy: Rethinking Media Censorship and Classification', Media International Australia, no. 88, August, pp. 89-98.

Lumby, C. 2011, 'Media Users Should Have Say in Regulation', The Australian, 6 May, p. 14.

Moses, L.B. 2011, 'Creating Parallels in the Regulation of Content: Moving from Offline to Online', UNSW Law Journal, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 581-604.

Special Broadcasting Service 2011, 'ALRC National Classification Scheme Review: Issues Paper: SBS Submission', www.alrc.gov.au/sites/default/files/pdfs/ci_1833a_sbs_.pdf.

Telstra 2011, 'Telstra Submission--Australian Law Reform Commission's National Classification Scheme Review', www.alrc.gov.au/sites/default/files/pdfs/ci_1184a_telstra.pdf.

Tilbury, M. 2005, 'A History of Law Reform in Australia', in B. Opeskin and D. Weisbrot (eds), The Promise of Law Reform, Federation Press, Sydney, pp. 3-17.

Terry Flew is Professor of Media and Communications in the Creative Industries Faculty at Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia. He is a Chief Investigator with the ARC Centre of Excellence for Creative Industries and Innovation, and was a lead researcher with the ARC Cultural Research Network and the Smart Services Co-operative Research Centre. From May 2011 to February 2012, he was seconded to the Australian Law Reform Commission to head a review of media classification for the federal Attorney-General.
COPYRIGHT 2012 Sage Publications, Inc.
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2012 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

 
Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Flew, Terry
Publication:Media International Australia incorporating Culture and Policy
Article Type:Essay
Geographic Code:8AUST
Date:May 1, 2012
Words:5618
Previous Article:ANZCA News.
Next Article:News media consumption among young Australians: patterns of use and attitudes towards media reporting.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2018 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters