Week 33 - State of Internet Censorship Legislation in regards to violence, gender & art

The implications are grander than even I suspected. *List of trigger warnings inside*

THE FOLLOWING CONTENT DISCUSSES SELF-HARM, SUICIDE, TORTURE AND TRANSGENDER CENSORSHIP REGARDING ACTUAL LEGISLATION. IF YOU ARE SENSITIVE TO THIS MATERIAL PLEASE CLOSE THIS ARTICLE.

In June 2021, NSW Courts ruled that the Defendant Contemporary Art Gallery Gadigal Council had violated Australian Censorship laws. The exhibit performed by notorious artist Azazel was live-streamed globally and depicted a medically and textbook accurate Penile Inversion Vaginoplasty. While the claim of the gore and horror was admittedly hyperbolic, the court still ruled the takedown of the livestream via ACMA (Australian Communications and Media Authority) unless certain conditions were met. This was not followed by the general public and was then live-streamed by various illegal sources.

This was a shock to the public aware of ‘Azazel’, a notorious artwork that had already sparked controversy, fanatics and scepticism. This also came as a shock to the Contemporary Art Gallery, which had no suspicions that Azazel’s acts could be classified under the Criminal Code Amendment (Sharing of Abhorrent Violent Material) Bill 2019, under its definition of ‘torture’.

This set a precedent that recognised unfinished bodies as alive and capable of pain.

The following material will outline the debates since this ruling, especially in light of the eventual outcome of Azazel’s life. We would like to note that the ending of the livestream was not, and is not currently legally punishable as even if we had more confirmation of our suspicions, Australian legislation cannot issue takedowns of self-harm or suicide. Had this been an issue, the general public would have been reliant on the independent policy of Social Media groups, which have historically been lax about this type of content. We do see this time and time again, and this essay will also provide various recommendations about more accurate policy concerning this material.

This essay will be separated into a few of the major concerns and precedents set by this ruling.

1. The recognition of unfinished bodies as capable of pain, and victims of torture

2. The censorship of textbook-accurate depictions of transgender medical care

3. The state of the Criminal Code Amendment (Sharing of Abhorrent Violent Material) Bill 2019 concerning its limited definitions and scope

4. The censorship of artistic expression

REFERENCES
 [REDACTED] v Contemporary Art Gallery Gadigal Council [2021] [REDACTED] (7 July 2021)

Graffiti artists vandalise the street following Azazel’s disappearance by The Azure News Breakfast