Talk:Classification Office (New Zealand)

Urolagnia?

Is urolagnia really banned? Is it for a medical reason, since I cannot see any direct moral or practical reason why it should be? 惑乱 分からん 21:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The FVPC Act is here: [1]. The provision that's probably most relevant is 3(2)(d): "A publication shall be deemed to be objectionable for the purposes of this Act if the publication promotes or supports, or tends to promote or support the use of urine or excrement in association with degrading or dehumanising conduct or sexual conduct". This fits in with the wider aims of the act, as shown in 3B(3)(a)(iii): "The material referred to [...] is material that describes, depicts, expresses, or otherwise deals with physical conduct of a degrading or dehumanising or demeaning nature". That's why urolagnia is deemed objectionable. --Dom 02:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I should also mention there's a clear distinction between 'promote', and merely 'depict'. --Dom 02:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

No criticism from the left?

I noted that the entire criticism section consisted solely of right-wing critics wishing for more stringent censorship. I would assume that there are plenty of people in NZ who want to go the other direction and move to a US-style system where "anything but kiddie porn goes"

--Seriously, these guys banned manhunt and Postal2.70.168.88.158 16:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathic practioners

I added [2] as the statement seems fairly odd. I don't see why they'd consult homeopathic practioners on books which had no real relation to homeopathy. However it was added by the same editor who added the rest of the stuff which makes more sense so I presume it isn't vandalism. [3] I wonder if the IP confused homeopathy with other alternative medicine practioners (although it seems surprising if they didn't consult medical experts as well). Nil Einne (talk) 21:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Classification Office (New Zealand)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

==Start-class assessment== I have only marked this article as a start class one, but it may well move up if it developed some references, particularly inline citations. Adabow (talk) 21:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Substituted at 18:32, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Office of Film and Literature Classification (New Zealand). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.censorship.govt.nz/thelaw-history-of-the-law.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071008032854/http://spcs.org.nz/content/view/132/ to http://spcs.org.nz/content/view/132/
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/64Rw9X6GH to http://www.censorship.govt.nz/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)