Shipton sex video to be banned?
March 28th, 2007 at 7:02 am by David FarrarIn a somewhat weird move, the SPCS has asked the Chief Censor to classify, and preferably ban as objectionable, the Brad Shipton sex tapes.
As presumably only “Mary” has a copy, it seems a waste of time trying to have a private video classified. I mean imagine if everyone started sending in their private sex tapes to the poor Censor’s office asking for a classification?
In fact as SPCS doesn’t have a copy of the Shipton tape, they can’t get it classified I would have thought.
March 28th, 2007 at 9:08 am
I would assume they are concerned about it leaking out over the internet?
Vote:March 28th, 2007 at 9:16 am
If I want to see a fat guy having sex I’ll set up a mirror in our bedroom.
Vote:March 28th, 2007 at 9:17 am
Well sonic, they can rest assured that no person in their right mind is going to stop downloading One night in Paris just so they can get the drop on seeing some fat ex cop have group sex.
Quite frankly Id only want to watch porn to get turned on, not repulsed. I can just imagine it now…
Me: Hey babe, I downloaded the Shipton sex tape, wanna watch?
Wife: You want me to vomit?
Vote:March 28th, 2007 at 10:12 am
The SPCS would have actual sex banned as objectionable if they could only figure out how…
Vote:March 28th, 2007 at 10:38 am
I’m surprised it’s not on youtube yet… is it?
But the SPCS – well, does anyone really care what they think?
Vote:March 28th, 2007 at 10:57 am
Maybe Steve Crow could see a business opportunity in all this – police batten fetish….
is that a police batten in your pocket or are you just pleased to see me?
Vote:March 28th, 2007 at 11:03 am
I’m also not sure that the SPCS have thought this through too much.
If private sex tapes require classification then it’s clearly going to place a significant extra workload on the office of the censor. Which means we’re going to have to spend public money on hiring people to watch amateur porn…
Or perhaps David Lane is after the job?
Vote:March 28th, 2007 at 11:27 am
perhaps it has something to do with the fact that the tape is in the posession of a media organisation?
Vote:March 28th, 2007 at 12:03 pm
Under s. 13(1)(c) of the Films, Videos and Publications Classification Act (1993) any person “may submit a publication to the Classification Office for a decision on that publication’s classification”.
The Society for Promotion of Community Standards Inc. (SPCS) recently submitted a sexually explicit video featuring mock police officers using mock police batons on women as penetrative ‘sex toys’ (dildos). That video was submitted by the Society to the Chief Censor Bill Hastings under s. 42 of the Act for a reassessment of its classification, as his Office had passed it for adult viewing (R18) in 2004 and found nothing objectionable about the expoitative, degrading, demeaning, and dehumanising group sex acts involving batons, double penetrations, hand cuffs etc. The Society has neither viewed the video or ever obtained a copy of it. However, it did obtain a copy of the Classification Office’s classification report on the video. The censors described the sexual content as “humorous”. The application has been saccepted.
Hasting’s Office has cleared hundreds of videos containing much more sexually degrading and exploitative videos and DVDs than the Shipton video. Literally hundreds of them. All are viewed by censors, some of whom, like Hastings and his Deputy Nicola McCully, have been viewing hardcore porn professionally for over 10 years.
The one-hour sex video featuring convicted rapist Brad Shipton has been viewed by the editor of the Sunday News Chris Baldock and a lawyer (as Baldock stated on TV One’s Morning Report). Its contents have been reported on extensively in the media. Colour still-frames (partly censored) have been published in the Sunday News and on the internet. The fact that the video was recorded, as claimed, for private purposes only, is not essentially relevant to the Act. If it was picked up by a police officer from a “private residence” during a routine search for drugs, for example, and found to contain material that could be “objectionable” the Commissioner of Police is able to submit it to the Chief Censor’s Office for classification. The Police regularly submit videos recorded for private purposes that they have picked up in the course of investigating criminal matters – to the Classification Office. They do this under s. 13(1)(ab) of the Act.
If the person making the submission for classification does not possess a copy of the publication (video, DVD etc), as in the case of the Society’s application re the Shipton sex video; that does not invalidate the application. The application form makes this clear. The applicant is asked to indicate where the publication can be sourced. In the case of the Shipton sex tape it can be sourced from Sunday News editor who says he intends to publish more revelations on its content this weekend. If he will not assist the Classification Office the Chief Censor can use his extraordinary powers under the law to obtain a copy.
Under s. 13 (3) of the Act “The Chief Censor, on his or her own motion, determine that any publication should be received for examination by the Classification Office. In any such case the Chief Censor shall, by notice in writing, direct the Chief Executive of the New Zealand Customs Service or the Secretary [of Internal Affairs] to take all reasonable steps to obtain a copy of the publication and submit it to the Classification Office….”
The Society is seeking to have the sick, sordid and expolitative sex tape featuring Shipton, banned by the Classification Office.
Vote:March 28th, 2007 at 12:10 pm
Under s. 13(1)(c) of the Films, Videos and Publications Classification Act (1993) any person “may submit a publication to the Classification Office for a decision on that publication’s classification”.
The Society for Promotion of Community Standards Inc. (SPCS) recently submitted a sexually explicit video featuring mock police officers using mock police batons on women as penetrative ‘sex toys’ (dildos). That video was submitted by the Society to the Chief Censor Bill Hastings under s. 42 of the Act for a reassessment of its classification, as his Office had passed it for adult viewing (R18) in 2004 and found nothing objectionable about the expoitative, degrading, demeaning, and dehumanising group sex acts involving batons, double penetrations, hand cuffs etc. The Society has neither viewed the video or ever obtained a copy of it. However, it did obtain a copy of the Classification Office’s classification report on the video. The censors described the sexual content as “humorous”. The application has been saccepted.
Hasting’s Office has cleared hundreds of videos containing much more sexually degrading and exploitative videos and DVDs than the Shipton video. Literally hundreds of them. All are viewed by censors, some of whom, like Hastings and his Deputy Nicola McCully, have been viewing hardcore porn professionally for over 10 years.
The one-hour sex video featuring convicted rapist Brad Shipton has been viewed by the editor of the Sunday News Chris Baldock and a lawyer (as Baldock stated on TV One’s Morning Report). Its contents have been reported on extensively in the media. Colour still-frames (partly censored) have been published in the Sunday News and on the internet. The fact that the video was recorded, as claimed, for private purposes only, is not essentially relevant to the Act. If it was picked up by a police officer from a “private residence” during a routine search for drugs, for example, and found to contain material that could be “objectionable” the Commissioner of Police is able to submit it to the Chief Censor’s Office for classification. The Police regularly submit videos recorded for private purposes that they have picked up in the course of investigating criminal matters – to the Classification Office. They do this under s. 13(1)(ab) of the Act.
If the person making the submission for classification does not possess a copy of the publication (video, DVD etc), as in the case of the Society’s application re the Shipton sex video; that does not invalidate the application. The application form makes this clear. The applicant is asked to indicate where the publication can be sourced. In the case of the Shipton sex tape it can be sourced from Sunday News editor who says he intends to publish more revelations on its content this weekend. If he will not assist the Classification Office the Chief Censor can use his extraordinary powers under the law to obtain a copy.
Under s. 13 (3) of the Act “The Chief Censor, on his or her own motion, determine that any publication should be received for examination by the Classification Office. In any such case the Chief Censor shall, by notice in writing, direct the Chief Executive of the New Zealand Customs Service or the Secretary [of Internal Affairs] to take all reasonable steps to obtain a copy of the publication and submit it to the Classification Office….”
The Society is seeking to have the sick, sordid and expolitative sex tape featuring Shipton, banned by the Classification Office.
Vote:March 28th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
Good lord. Still doesn’t explain why you bother though, does it? What precisely would having the tape banned actually achieve, in real life? Nothing? Well, that’s just another day in the life of the SPCS then, isn’t it…
Vote:March 28th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
Ban it I say – it shows consenting adults having sex – that is a danger to society….. We are doomed if word gets out that woman can enjoy sex…. Years of denial and religious guilt have hidden this reality and it’s going to ruin society of people understand the truth.
Vote:March 28th, 2007 at 1:28 pm
What is the point in having either censorship or government ratings in the era of the Internet? It makes it impossible to ban anything. And also allows people to determine beforehand just what it is they’re thinking of viewing using a variety of online sources, rather than relying on a government agency. There are plenty of film critique sites… why do we need to employ bureaucrats to perform this function?
Vote:March 28th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
“perhaps it has something to do with the fact that the tape is in the posession of a media organisation?”
The tape is not in possesion of the media outlet, rather it is still with the owner of the tape. They were permitted to watch it in the presence of a lawyer, but not to make any copies or to keep the original.
BTW sonic just cause our exchanges are shall we say not typically of a plesant nature, Im not purposely digging, just giving you the facts as I know them.
Vote:March 28th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
The SPCS are still peddling their we-know-what’s-best ‘morality’? I thought the demise of Pat Bartlett would have seen the end of people thinking they have a right to determine what the rest of us see and do. But it seems there’s no shortage of repressed, frustrated individuals who think they have a right to meddle in the lives of others but who try to cloak their actions as being on some sort of “mission from God” so as to avoid having to explain just what qualifies them to make such judgements.
Let’s say FatBentThugsHavingSex.com gets hold of the tape and those of us with incredibly strong constitutions (with sick bags handy, just in case) watch it. The ‘damage’ to society would be…? Aside from a run on anti-nausea medication – nothing whatsoever.
Vote:March 28th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
Rex
The danger is that people will not be able to claim that NO self respecting woman enjoy group sex. It’s clear some do… But it’s not sanctioned in the bible so we must deny it.
Vote:March 28th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
So when is the mystery performer Mary going to be “outed”
Vote:If at the time she was a cosenting adult then there is no reason she should be able to hide behind anonimity.
Assuming she is the holder of this tape, then it has been released for profit and any of the bullshit that she thinks now she might have been exploited is just drivel.
March 28th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
Fair enough Bevan, I did not know that.
Vote:March 28th, 2007 at 5:42 pm
er..:The SPCS would have actual sex banned as objectionable if they could only figure out how…
I’m still surprised that so many religious nutters are opposed to reproductive cloning (and even IVF sometimes). This seems like the perfect way to get rid of sex. Just do it all with technology instead.
Vote:March 28th, 2007 at 8:20 pm
People wondering when “Mary” will be outed are missing the point. What we should be asking is how much has she been paid.
Vote:April 18th, 2007 at 10:02 pm
zykbm pgbmj qnou grif quomzpitj qywd mzxkrjybl
Vote:April 18th, 2007 at 10:02 pm
zykbm pgbmj qnou grif quomzpitj qywd mzxkrjybl
Vote:April 18th, 2007 at 10:03 pm
zykbm pgbmj qnou grif quomzpitj qywd mzxkrjybl
Vote:April 18th, 2007 at 10:04 pm
zykbm pgbmj qnou grif quomzpitj qywd mzxkrjybl
Vote: