[LINK] the Bill Henson 'mistake' - Conroy

[rene]

On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 15:28:14 +1100, Stilgherrian wrote:

> On 27/03/2009, at 3:09 PM, Marghanita da Cruz wrote:
>
>> SBS's Insight program looked at this in June 2008. Was it the site
>> or the photograph that is rated PG?
>>
>>> Charges were never laid against the artist and the Classification
>>> Board rated the image PG - but the debate continues...
>>>
>> <http://news.sbs.com.au/insight/episode/index/id/22>
>>
> These are different cases.
>
> The SBS story refers to the incident where a Sydney art gallery
> exhibiting Henson's work mailed out an invitation which include one
> of his photos. Police were called in. A Classification Board member
> has told me they didn't look at the work in the exhibition itself
> (they were never formally asked), but at the use of a Henson photo on
> news websites.

The C/Board did that (news site images had black bars across them) and they 
also classified, for the ACMA, an uncensored copy of the 'invitation image' 
on a web page/blog, which was rated PG.

1. Copy of the Classification Board's decision report on the uncensored 
Henson 'invitation image' on a web page - classified PG - is here:
http://libertus.net/censor/history/docarchive/pdf/200805-CB-henson-invitati
onimage.pdf

2. Copy of the Classification Board's decision report on Henson images, on 
news sites, that contained black bars - classified G - is here:
http://libertus.net/censor/history/docarchive/pdf/200805-CB-henson-news-sit
es.pdf

[...]
> Since the ACMA blacklist works at the granularity of the URL, it wold
> be the "page" that is rated. However one PG image on an otherwise G-
> rated page would presumably make the page PG.

Yes, that would be consistent with item (1) above CB decision report.

Irene