>>An early slide in the talk did warn that it would contain content that was not suitable for under-12s.
>> On one hand, this is good and I could have chosen to walk out if I had wanted to - though there was no sub-text like the OFLC provides: e.g. "profane language, sexual imagery". "simulated violence" etc. That would have informed my choice more effectively. I don't think censorship is appropriate (for adults), but I do believe in "informing your choices". Mark made a step in that direction which should be commended, but it wasn't a very big step.
Out of curiosity, would OFLC sub-text (or country specific equivalent) be a useful addition/revision to the policy?
>> On the other hand, the fact that he clearly knew it was offensive in this way and went ahead with the talk was,
I'm not convinced he thought it was offensive. Provocative certainly, 'shocking' perhaps, but deliberately offensive?
I understand and support the policy but would hate to see it used as a weapon, especially for something like acceptable language.
>> ... If provocative imagery is wanted, I feel that imagery of slavery would be much more apt and less contentious than the imagery that was used.
Thats an interesting distinction. Would images of slavery have drawn the same reaction? I think they probably would have.