Blog Post 6

Objections to Censorship

Throughout history, and in current times there have been many objections to the reasoning’s of censoring particular items. From the research it has always been a case of a difference of opinion. Below are a couple of items that demonstrate a difference of opinion and how things can be changed because of it.

Crowe v Graham and Others (1986)

After a publication of 2 magazines in Sydney, Censor and Obscenity which depicted allegedly obscene works and contained risqué jokes and photographs of female nudes, the authors of this publication were found guilty of breaching the New South Wales Obscene and Indecent Publications Act 1901-1955. At that time there was only a common law test of obscenity, which had been in place since 1868. After the conviction, which saw them fined $20.00 each. Graham and Others later filed for an appeal of this conviction relating to wording in the act that may not necessarily apply. After this case the High Court of Australia replaced, the common law test of obscenity “tendency to deprave and corrupt”, with a community standards test “whether materials offends against contemporary community standards, or the modesty of the average man.” (Crowe v Graham (1968)). This adjustment to Act related to all published materials, including books.

Luv Ya Bunches by Lauren Myracle

Scholastic a well known publisher of and distributor of children’s books in the world, more recently had decided to censor the book Luv Ya Bunches in 2009, as it was about a girl, with two mothers.  They had originally declined publishing the books as they considered it offensive and inappropriate for children. A Gay Rights Petition was commenced against Scholastic to stop the censoring of gay books the organisation Change.org received over 4,000 signed petitions with Scholastic overturning their decision of the book Luv Ya Bunches, allowing it to be published and included in their spring 2010 Book Fair. Afterwards, Scholastic informed that a reason for the consideration of censoring the books was that they wanted to avoid receiving complaints from anti-gay parents.

Reflection of Research:

For this blog post I used basis material from my last post where I had discovered the Crowe v Graham case, I then further researched it to find out what the case was about and what had actually occurred to enable a change to the Act. I then used general internet search techniques to find information on another book that had been censored but later overturned due to the demand of the people. This was an interesting post to research and it demonstrated to me the differences in people’s opinions on what should and should not be censored.

References:

History of censorship and classification in Australia 2012, Parliament of Australia, viewed 29 April 2012, < http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate_Committees?url=legcon_ctte/classification_board/report/c02.htm>.

Fox, R.G 1969, Obscenity and indecency : Interpretation of the Obscene and Indecent Publications Act 1901 – 1955 (N.S.W.), Adelaide Digital Library, viewed 06 May 2012, <http://digital.library.adelaide.edu.au/dspace/bitstream/2440/24769/1/alr_V3n3_1969_FoxObsCaseComm.pdf>.

Change.org 2009, Tell Scholastic to stop censoring gay friendly books, Change.org, viewed 06 May 2012, <http://www.change.org/petitions/tell-scholastic-to-stop-censoring-gay-friendly-books>.

Scholastic 2012, viewed 06 May2012, <http://www.scholastic.com.au/>.