Skip to main content
placeholder image

Regulatory regimes, the protection of children, and music subcultures online: contesting the terms of debate

Conference Paper


Download full-text (Open Access)

Abstract


  • When ‘child welfare’ becomes a robust legislative logic, the potential for music to fall under the remit of

    regulation is expanded. In Australia, materials that ‘describe or depict in a way that is likely to cause offence

    to a reasonable adult, a person who is, or appears to be, a child under 18 (whether the person is engaged in

    sexual activity or not)’ are prohibited. This applies to material which is visual, verbal, or in NSW, ‘in any

    other form’, extending also to representations or descriptions of fictional persons. It therefore has the scope

    to render work in several genres ‘potentially illegal’. Discussed here are two such genres: death metal and

    ‘noise’.

    Customary responses to this situation include critical accounts of the legislation and its underlying

    sociocultural logics, where ‘child protection’ becomes an ascendant regulatory rationale; and assessments of

    the material involved and its cultural significance, alongside accounts of the contexts rendering that material

    meaningful.

    There are however two germane anterior issues, usually only tacitly addressed. The first is the defence of

    free speech in academic culture, embedded particularly in accounts of ‘resistant’ subcultural practices. The

    second is the law as radically disjunctive – not in terms of critiquing the misalignment of law with common

    practice, but as indicative of the ‘fictive’ feasibility of regulation – such that ‘potentially illegal’ status

    remains just that. Where the debate can be conceptualised in terms of disparate cultural milieux (academy,

    law, and music subcultures), the senses in which their positions are co-constitutive warrants closer attention.

Publication Date


  • 2013

Citation


  • Whelan, A. (2013). Regulatory regimes, the protection of children, and music subcultures online: contesting the terms of debate. Researching Music Censorship Conference (pp. 34-34). Denmark: University of Copenhagen.

Ro Full-text Url


  • http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2264&context=lhapapers&unstamped=1

Ro Metadata Url


  • http://ro.uow.edu.au/lhapapers/1259

Start Page


  • 34

End Page


  • 34

Abstract


  • When ‘child welfare’ becomes a robust legislative logic, the potential for music to fall under the remit of

    regulation is expanded. In Australia, materials that ‘describe or depict in a way that is likely to cause offence

    to a reasonable adult, a person who is, or appears to be, a child under 18 (whether the person is engaged in

    sexual activity or not)’ are prohibited. This applies to material which is visual, verbal, or in NSW, ‘in any

    other form’, extending also to representations or descriptions of fictional persons. It therefore has the scope

    to render work in several genres ‘potentially illegal’. Discussed here are two such genres: death metal and

    ‘noise’.

    Customary responses to this situation include critical accounts of the legislation and its underlying

    sociocultural logics, where ‘child protection’ becomes an ascendant regulatory rationale; and assessments of

    the material involved and its cultural significance, alongside accounts of the contexts rendering that material

    meaningful.

    There are however two germane anterior issues, usually only tacitly addressed. The first is the defence of

    free speech in academic culture, embedded particularly in accounts of ‘resistant’ subcultural practices. The

    second is the law as radically disjunctive – not in terms of critiquing the misalignment of law with common

    practice, but as indicative of the ‘fictive’ feasibility of regulation – such that ‘potentially illegal’ status

    remains just that. Where the debate can be conceptualised in terms of disparate cultural milieux (academy,

    law, and music subcultures), the senses in which their positions are co-constitutive warrants closer attention.

Publication Date


  • 2013

Citation


  • Whelan, A. (2013). Regulatory regimes, the protection of children, and music subcultures online: contesting the terms of debate. Researching Music Censorship Conference (pp. 34-34). Denmark: University of Copenhagen.

Ro Full-text Url


  • http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2264&context=lhapapers&unstamped=1

Ro Metadata Url


  • http://ro.uow.edu.au/lhapapers/1259

Start Page


  • 34

End Page


  • 34