She frequently appears to be of the view that adults' freedom to read, hear and see what they want should be further curtailed than is already the case under Australia's censorship system. In other words, they ought to be free to get an R-rated video from their corner video store. It would appear that the law was not protecting. The issues are really around not whether individual parents can stop as they can children watching R-rated videos in their own home. The frustration of parents is that they see that there is a general freedom for adults to see, hear and read in relation to a home video system but they cannot keep their children away from it.
Children go to other people's homes.
Children even go to after school care programs and find unsuitable videos shown. No one is arguing that introducing children to the unpleasant fact of violence in the world isn't the job of parents. No one is arguing for early evening news services to be censored, just for sensitivity to a vulnerable audience. However, the Senate Committee certainly recommended that the early evening news be censored. It seems to me that the how question could be solved, as it has been in the UK, by having a different news at 6 o clock and having different standards for the 6 o clock news than you have for a later news.