Australian pornography laws?
King Daevid MacKenzie, UltimaJock!
are the basic laws governing smut in Australia (what can and can't be
displayed, depicted, produced domestically, imported, sold, possessed,
whatever)?...
--
King Daevid MacKenzie, UltimaJock! (opinions expressed solely his)
heard in Chicago-Milwaukee-Lake Geneva-Whitewater
ultim...@eudoramail.com http://come.to/ultimajock
"If I've offended you in any way, you needed it." ROBIN TYLER
Erik de Castro Lopo
>
> ...hope you don't mind a quick question from a Statesider---exactly what
> are the basic laws governing smut in Australia (what can and can't be
> displayed, depicted, produced domestically, imported, sold, possessed,
> whatever)?...
Everything except child porn and beastiality can be purchased by
adults in adult bookstores. The new laws that were recently passed
only cover the internet. Under these new laws the material which
can be viewed on the interest will ba tamer than what is on open
display at any newsagent.
Erik
--
+-------------------------------------------------+
Erik de Castro Lopo er...@zip.com.au
+-------------------------------------------------+
"MS apparently now has a team dedicated to tracking problems with Linux
and publicizing them. I guess eventually they'll figure out this back
fires..." -- William Burrow
Peter F Bradshaw
Erik de Castro Lopo <er...@zip.com.au> writes:
> Everything except child porn and beastiality can be purchased by
> adults in adult bookstores.
Hi;
I'm not sure that this is true. The situation is rather complex because there
is censorship at both the federal and state level. In the case of printed
material there is currently about 30,000 publications banned federally at
this time. Included in these is "Steal This Book" by Abby Hoffman (remember
him) and technical texts published by McGraw Hill. There is also an indicative
case regarding a student newspaper known as "Rabelais". You can read about
this at: http://rene.efa.org.au/censor/rabelais.html. The censorship system
in Australia is, at best, bizarre.
The federal classification guidelines are at:
http://www.oflc.gov.au/latest.html.
The new Internet censorship laws which curtail content to sub-set of that
allowed in movies run the risk of blocking some of the larger US
universities (e.g. Northwestern and Carnegie Mellon) because they have
literature on their web sites that is banned in Australia.
Cheers
--
Peter F Bradshaw | http://www.nautronix.com.au/, p...@nautronix.com.au
Nautronix Ltd. | PGP public key at
108 Marine Terrace | http://www.iinet.net.au/~pfb/public_key.html
Fremantle, WA, 6160 | "Needs more salt" - Archimedes
Travis Morien
: Everything except child porn and beastiality can be purchased by
: adults in adult bookstores. The new laws that were recently passed
: only cover the internet. Under these new laws the material which
: can be viewed on the interest will ba tamer than what is on open
: display at any newsagent.
T clarify, it depends on what state you are in. When I went to melbourne
I was very surprised to see hardcore being sold in newsagents, in Perth
you have to go to an adult store...
Travis
Danny Yee
>Everything except child porn and beastiality can be purchased by
>adults in adult bookstores.
This isn't correct. It is illegal to sell X-rated videos anywhere in NSW.
It is illegal to sell restricted category 1 or category 2 publications
in Queensland. Other states have their own laws.
It is, however, legal to buy either X-rated videos or restricted
publications from the ACT (or overseas) by mail-order.
Danny.
--
Stop Internet censorship! I disapprove of what you say, but will defend
http://www.efa.org.au/ to the death your right to say it. --Voltaire
------------------------- ---------------------------------------------
Bob Bain
Yee) wrote:
>Erik de Castro Lopo <er...@zip.com.au> wrote:
>>Everything except child porn and beastiality can be purchased by
>>adults in adult bookstores.
>This isn't correct. It is illegal to sell X-rated videos anywhere in NSW.
>It is illegal to sell restricted category 1 or category 2 publications
>in Queensland. Other states have their own laws.
You are correct that it isn't correct. It is not only illegal to sell
X-rated videos in New South Wales, it is illegal to sell any
unclassified video in New South Wales.
>It is, however, legal to buy either X-rated videos or restricted
>publications from the ACT (or overseas) by mail-order.
This also misses the point the first respondee missed and that it isn't
illegal to _purchase_ video tapes of bestiality or indeed X rated video
tapes if they are on sale in New South Wales, which from flashes of
memory has been the case from time to time, although I note that one
store recently has decided the video tapes they have on display aren't
for sale, which makes one wonder why they bother displaying them. I
guess they're for viewing in private viewing booths, although I'm not
sure if this is permitted ( I must check the Act ).
Generally eels, horses and llamas seem reasonably popular, at least
I've seen some presumably zoological type video cases in some adult
video outlets in New South Wales, both several years ago, and sometime
this year (from memory).
It isn't illegal to purchase them.
--------------------------
Bob Bain. Sydney Australia
bo...@alt.net
bo...@acslink.aone.net.au
Peter Kelly
our times Peter F Bradshaw<p...@nautronix.com.au> did eloquently
compose:
> In article <379C20FC...@zip.com.au>,
> Erik de Castro Lopo <er...@zip.com.au> writes:
> > Everything except child porn and beastiality can be purchased by
> > adults in adult bookstores.
>
> Hi;
>
> I'm not sure that this is true. The situation is rather complex because there
> is censorship at both the federal and state level. In the case of printed
> material there is currently about 30,000 publications banned federally at
> this time.
That must Australia a more authoritarian regime than even the glory
day of the Vatican's black list of reading materials. The really
depressing part is that few Australians seem to even care. We are like
the frog in the jar of water that is slowly warming up.
--
#1417 rot-13 on email reply
Director of Cryptography Services -
Evil Atheist Conspiracy
Atheists are people with no invisible means of support.
Fingerprint for PGP Keys at key server or go to
http://www.newave.net.au/~neko/key1.htm
RSA - 71 BA 7C 45 B5 4A 5F EA 72 DB EC 7F 7F A8 70 99
DSS - 196D 0C35 95C9 BFD2 0677 C238 8FDE 0133 86E9 7B89
King Daevid MacKenzie, UltimaJock!
da...@thrud.anatomy.usyd.edu.au (Danny Yee) sez:
□ It is, however, legal to buy either X-rated videos or restricted
□ publications from the ACT (or overseas) by mail-order.
...ok---here's a hypothetical. Let's say a U.S., Canadian or South African
citizen either visits or takes up residence in Victoria or New South
Wales. Said foreign national wishes to bring with them X-rated or
restricted videos or publications that they've already purchased in their
native country. What kind of jams can said foreign national expect to get
into, if any, when landing on Australian soil with these items?...
King Daevid MacKenzie, UltimaJock!
(Peter F Bradshaw) sez:
¢¢ In the case of printed
¢¢ material there is currently about 30,000 publications banned federally at
¢¢ this time. Included in these is "Steal This Book" by Abby Hoffman (remember
¢¢ him) and technical texts published by McGraw Hill.
...what was the purpose in banning STEAL THIS BOOK? Are Hoffman's other
works banned as well? Something tells me Ol' Abbie must be smiling down
from the Ninth Circle at the concept that his ideas are still considered
dangerous by a national government a dozen years after his death...
...similarly, I recall reading in David Yallop's book THE DAY THE LAUGHTER
STOPPED that the films of Roscoe "Fatty" Arbuckle were banned in Australia
as of the writing of that book (1976), never mind that the man was ever
convicted of anything warranting such recognition or the films themselves
contain anything objectionable. Is that still the case?...
Bob Bain
(King Daevid MacKenzie, UltimaJock!) wrote:
>...ok---here's a hypothetical. Let's say a U.S., Canadian or South African
>citizen either visits or takes up residence in Victoria or New South
>Wales. Said foreign national wishes to bring with them X-rated or
>restricted videos or publications that they've already purchased in their
>native country. What kind of jams can said foreign national expect to get
>into, if any, when landing on Australian soil with these items?...
The answer lies in the Prohibited Import regulations to the
Customs Act 1901. There are specific prohibitions in the
regulations regarding importing child pornograpy etc, but the
wording is mostly along the lines of that which will be forbidden
entry into Australia is that which offends against the standards
of a reasonable adult to the extent that they shouldn't be
imported. As far as I can tell in practical terms it would be
possible to import anything that would be rated up to and
including "X" rated material, and indeed much video material
readily on sale in many parts of Sydney would possibly be rated
"X" if it were rated.
There were some changes to the regulations when the Liberal
Party came to power and specific prohibitions such as those
relating to the import of certain material such as bestiality
were removed, leaving simply the "reasonable adult" and "to the
extent they shouldn't be imported" paragraphs.
I have seen video tapes of bestiality for sale many times in
Sydney, and although illegal to sell, they are not illegal to
purchase, nor to own in New South Wales.
The importation of such material is governed under Federal Law -
namely the Customs Act and the regulations to that act. The
ownership of certain material varies from state to state. In New
South Wales it is permitted to possess RC material, but not child
pornography. I believe in Western Australia it is prohibited to
own RC (Refused Classification) material, hence it depends on
your port of entry.
What can and could happen depends on whether you land at Sydney
or Perth. What you import depends on Federal Law. You wouldn't
be permitted to sell the material in any state of Australia under
State laws, although you possibly could in the Australian Capital
Territory ( ie Canberra), and possibly the Northern Territory (ie
Darwin or Alice Springs).
You might find if landing in Western Australia you might be
permitted to bring possibly RC rated material into the country,
but might be arrested by West Australian police for ownership.
It's a hard one. The importation seemingly depends on a
"reasonable adult" and whether it's offensive enough such that it
shouldn't be imported. Somewhere there's some alleged link
between the ratings of the OFLC (Office of Film and Literature
Classification ) and Federal Import Regulations, although I
haven't been able to find a specific reference.
I'm not a lawyer, but this is roughly my understanding.
Don't depend on it.
---------------------------
Bob Bain, Sydney, Australia
bo...@acslink.aone.net.au
Peter Mckenzie
Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
> King Daevid MacKenzie, UltimaJock! wrote:
> >
> > ...hope you don't mind a quick question from a Statesider---exactly what
> > are the basic laws governing smut in Australia (what can and can't be
> > displayed, depicted, produced domestically, imported, sold, possessed,
> > whatever)?...
>
> Everything except child porn and beastiality can be purchased by
> adults in adult bookstores. The new laws that were recently passed
> only cover the internet. Under these new laws the material which
> can be viewed on the interest will ba tamer than what is on open
> display at any newsagent.
>
> Erik
This thread indicates most Australians don't realise how heavily censored they
actually are.
Reference to *anything except child porn & bestiality* are very wrong. You
often don't know what has been submitted for rating & RC'd (refused
classification) and the idea of *reasonable person* should be read as very
conservative and reactionary person.
I have had a new magazine with the Film & Lit Censors Office for over 4 months
whilst they make up their mind about it. There is nothing controversial, a
bit of pro decrim / legalize politics; general medical/industrial hemp; very
minor marijuana cooking. Nothing like say High Times in the states (it by the
way IS BANNED for import or sale in Aust)
The Censors will probably end up RCing it & even if they don't what earthly
use is it to me having the go ahead, with some level of distribution/sales
restriction, for a current issues news magazine when it is 4+ months out of
date. Add my month or so to put it together and then print / distribute
delays and its half a year out of date. All this assume they give an answer
soon & there is no guarantee of that at all. For all I know, or they say, it
could be another 4 months before they even bother to give me a decision.
Thus you have absolute censorship and denial of information to the public by
inertia and delaying by our thought police. Obvoiusly there are many others
suffering similar death by bureaucratic stealth, they even admit that there
are others subjected to similar delays in obtaining any sort of rateing.
Overall, we are denied much and usually don't even know it.
Don't rely on a common idea of the *reasonable person* but make all decisions
on the real basis of the *unreasonable obstructionist determined to delay or
ban the maximum they can possible get away with* we do not have any concept of
free speech or media.
Good luck in any battles with the censors, they will find a way of getting
their way.
--
Peter Mckenzie. Principal of inspiration & information
for Computer & General Advice & Assistance to Small Businesses
PO Box 81 Nth Balwyn Victoria 3104 Email insp...@vicnet.net.au
Publisher of HEMP TIMES MAGAZINE - The magazine for Australia's
Cannabis Culture and Hemp Industry.
PO Box 12670 A'Beckett St PO Melbourne Victoria 8006
Danny Yee
>...ok---here's a hypothetical. Let's say a U.S., Canadian or South African
>citizen either visits or takes up residence in Victoria or New South
>Wales. Said foreign national wishes to bring with them X-rated or
>restricted videos or publications that they've already purchased in their
>native country. What kind of jams can said foreign national expect to get
>into, if any, when landing on Australian soil with these items?...
IANAL, but...
I believe that there are no problems bringing X-rated videos into
Australia. (Refused Classification material is another matter.) In New
South Wales, it is legal to own such material and to view it in private
(with the proviso that it is *not* legal to allow minors to view it, even
your own children, even if they are 17). It is not legal to distribute
or publically screen X-rated material.
In Western Australia, posession of some X-rated material is an offence.
Peter F Bradshaw
ultim...@eudoramail.com (King Daevid MacKenzie, UltimaJock!) writes:
> ...what was the purpose in banning STEAL THIS BOOK? Are Hoffman's other
> works banned as well? Something tells me Ol' Abbie must be smiling down
> from the Ninth Circle at the concept that his ideas are still considered
> dangerous by a national government a dozen years after his death...
"Steal This Book" is banned because it "instructs in crime". I don't think
Abbie's other books are banned.
>
> ...similarly, I recall reading in David Yallop's book THE DAY THE LAUGHTER
> STOPPED that the films of Roscoe "Fatty" Arbuckle were banned in Australia
> as of the writing of that book (1976), never mind that the man was ever
> convicted of anything warranting such recognition or the films themselves
> contain anything objectionable. Is that still the case?...
I don't know the status of that film. It would not surprise me if it where
banned now. The censorship regime was less strict in 1976 than it is now.
Its not so much that the laws have changed much but rather the guide lines
are applied more strictly now.
I have never seen a list of banned books or movies. There is meant to be an
online database but it has either been down or off-line for maintenance every
time I've tried to look at it. And this is from the government that wishes
the censor the Internet! These people are accountable to no one.
odo
Peter F Bradshaw <p...@nautronix.com.au> wrote in message
news:7npjid$ca6$1...@narciss.pri.iinet.net.au...
> ultim...@eudoramail.com (King Daevid MacKenzie, UltimaJock!) writes:
> > ...similarly, I recall reading in David Yallop's book THE DAY THE LAUGHTER
> > STOPPED that the films of Roscoe "Fatty" Arbuckle were banned in Australia
> > as of the writing of that book (1976), never mind that the man was ever
> > convicted of anything warranting such recognition or the films themselves
> > contain anything objectionable. Is that still the case?...
>
> I don't know the status of that film. It would not surprise me if it where
> banned now. The censorship regime was less strict in 1976 than it is now.
> Its not so much that the laws have changed much but rather the guide lines
> are applied more strictly now.
I don't think that would be the point in this case. Arbuckle's films were simple
comedies, any bans would have been due to his off-camera exploits (well
described in Kenneth Anger's Hollywood Babylon).
They would undoubtedly pass if resubmitted. Their current status could be rather
hard to pin down. I doubt if anyone cares (and therein lies the great
explanation of censorship in this country) as there's very little taste in this
country for material of that period.
- odo
Bob Bain
(Danny Yee) wrote:
>I believe that there are no problems bringing X-rated videos into
>Australia. (Refused Classification material is another matter.)
The prohibited import regulations of the Customs Act make no
mention of either. The pertinent paragraphs as at 31st. July
1996, and which are possibly still current state under
"Importation of objectionable goods" state in part:-
-------------
(1A) This regulation applies to publications and any other
goods that:
(a) describe, depict, express or otherwise deal with matters
of sex, drug misue or addiction, crime, cruelty, violence
or revolting or abhorrent phenomena in such a way that
they offend against the standards of moratlity, decency
and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults
to the extent that they should not be imported; or
(b) describe or depict in a way that is likely to cause offence
to a reasonable adult, a person who is, or who looks like,
a child under 16 (whether the person is engaged in
sexual activity or not); or
(c) in relation to a computer game - are unsuitable for a person
under 18 to see or play; or
(d) promote, incite or instruct in matters of crime or violence;
or
(e) promote or incite the misuse of a drug specified in
Schedule 4.
----------------
Missing from these (possibly) current prohibited import
regulations are earlier paragraphs and I quote from part of the
regulations at the printing of the regulations dated 17 November
1994, before the change of Federal Government, which expressly
prohibited some forms of bestiality. (repeat soeme forms!).
-----------------
(1A) ....
(ii) depict in pictorial form bestiality in a manner likely
to cause offence to a reasonable adult person.
-----------------
However bestiality in any form would be refused classification
by the OFLC and would have been refused classification in 1994.
However note that by implication bestiality which doesn't cause
offence to a reasonable adult person would, by my simple reading,
(despite the OFLC guidelines as to classifcation) be allowed
import into Australia. I have never been able to determine from
these "guidelines" whether they draw the line at certain types
of animal, or certain types of act in relation to bestiality.
Given the ambigious wording of the current regulations I cannot
agree that some forms of material which might be rated "X" if
they were produced locally would either be permitted or refused
entry as there is nothing in writing that I can see regarding
classification of imported material.
The fact that bestiality has been widely available in video form
in many adult book shops for about 3 to 4 years in New South
Wales appears to indicate to me that bestiality in certain forms
appears NOT to offend the standards of moratlity, decency and
propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults to the extent
that they should not be imported. Hence I determine that the
videos I see on sale (which appear to originate from Northern
Europe) have presumably been imported quite legally under the
regulations as stood at the time I purchased a copy of these
regulations ( in 1998 ).
Prohibited Import and Export regulations are available for a
small fee from the (Federal) Government printing office, or at
least the shops which sell copies of the appropriate Acts.
Jonathan Dutton
there is an inconsistency between Federal and State Law, Federal Law
applies for the extent of the inconsistency?
Danny Yee wrote:
>
> Erik de Castro Lopo <er...@zip.com.au> wrote:
> >Everything except child porn and beastiality can be purchased by
> >adults in adult bookstores.
>
> This isn't correct. It is illegal to sell X-rated videos anywhere in NSW.
> It is illegal to sell restricted category 1 or category 2 publications
> in Queensland. Other states have their own laws.
>
> It is, however, legal to buy either X-rated videos or restricted
> publications from the ACT (or overseas) by mail-order.
>
Gibson H R
: Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the Constitution state that if
: there is an inconsistency between Federal and State Law, Federal Law
: applies for the extent of the inconsistency?
I think the thing with the censorship is is that legally speaking, they
aren't inconsistent. i.e. There is no inconsistency re: X rated videos
since the prohibition is on their sale in NSW, not on NSW residents owning
or viewing them. Hence it is legal to purchase them from canberre then
'import' then back into NSW for private viewing.
--
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Randyte (Heath Gibson)
"The interest in encouraging freedom of expression in a democratic society
outweighs any theoretical but unproven benefit of censorship."
from the majority judgement in Reno_v_ACLU, striking down the CDA.
++++++++++http://www2.hunterlink.net.au/~ddhrg/randyte.html+++++++++++++++++++
Bob Bain
R) wrote:
>I think the thing with the censorship is is that legally speaking, they
>aren't inconsistent. i.e. There is no inconsistency re: X rated videos
>since the prohibition is on their sale in NSW, not on NSW residents owning
>or viewing them. Hence it is legal to purchase them from canberre then
>'import' then back into NSW for private viewing.
It's also legal for me to walk across a field to a neighbouring main
street in New South Wales and purchase "X" rated videos which have been
on display for as long as I've lived in this neighbourhood. (It's a
leisurely 30 minute walk). I normally step over a somewhat large
sleepy dog to get some idea of current status as to implementation of
laws in New South Wales. There doesn't appear to be a great deal of
demand at this particular outlet, and I don't add to it, simply view
what's available.....
Peter F Bradshaw
Jonathan Dutton <dut...@mpx.com.au> writes:
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the Constitution state that if
> there is an inconsistency between Federal and State Law, Federal Law
> applies for the extent of the inconsistency?
Hi;
Only in those matters that the Constitution gives to the Commonwealth a
power to legislate. For instance, the Commonwealth has a legislative power
over over post and telegraph (and by extension, the Internet). It has no
power to prohibit the sale of any item within a State.
Jonathan Dutton
> Only in those matters that the Constitution gives to the Commonwealth a
> power to legislate. For instance, the Commonwealth has a legislative power
> over over post and telegraph (and by extension, the Internet). It has no
> power to prohibit the sale of any item within a State.
In that case, is the Western Australian Censorship Act 1996, which
covered the Internet, invalid?
NegatemX
LAW ?
Legislation, statutes, ordinances, codes, and the decisions under them are NOT
law. cf. 1926 Preface, US Code, eg. West's US Code Annotated (USCA) leaf,
1971/72 ed., 1980/81 ed. and later eiditions.
"Sir, the law is as I say it is... (Lord Chancellor Fortescue, C.J. 1458 YB).
Only the chief judge (or his deputy) of a common law three judge judicial
review (error) panel can declare what the Law is.
Lawyers and barristers cannot aid you in winning against the state; only
personal knowledge and application of the strict language of the common law
forms can assert universal court binding truths which shall set you free...
cf. the USA's c.1844 - 1960 code pleading books, particularly the discussions
under rule 2, and the question of jurisdiction.
"governments come and go, but the law stays the same." Caulder v. Bull; US v.
Cotton Bales. This settled,-- how can legislation be the law when legislation
changes with the nitwits that fill the legislatures ? Think fellas and gals,--
think.
A rule of the science of Linguistics (general semantics) is that "We think in
the language we speak"-- wherefore if our language is screwed up,-- our
thoughts, ideas, conclusions, decisions and thereupon based actions are screwed
up.
Legislation is NOT law, and you activists must get this in your thick sculls or
you will never win !
Only through the common law forms which govern and bind the USA's local, state
and federal courts (cf. the decisions)-- and bind English and thus Australian
courts,-- can you become free.
"LINGUISTICS (the science of reality) is everything"-- a great Linguist once
said to me. cf. Profs. Postman & Weingartner, LINGUISTICS, Delta 1966, p. 131;
35, 104, 111; Prof. Noam Chomsky, et al., works.
When you say "law" when refering to statist writings (eg. legislation) -- you
are polluting your own mind as well as all listening to or reading your
materials, and thus -- you can never win.
Wake up
Your enemies (statists: governmental agents and their boss ruling class
eliltists*) just love to hear you say and depend upon and assert that which is
untrue.
Remember,-- you can cite USA's courts decisions/opinions as declaring the law
general, eg. the law of Australia (evidence of Australia's law). but see
limitations, Peo. v. Simms (Calif., Mar. 1982); compare "by anaolgy," Karlen,
PROCEDURE BEFORE TRIAL, West's 1972.
USA's courts only ones ever and now still declaring the law. Under
international law, among other things -- USA is sovereign of the world (cites
omitted), and to retain that sovereignty -- courts must declare law or lose it.
These principles apply and bind the stupid corrupt courts of Australia,
Britain, Peru, Mexico, Afganastan, Iran, Iraq, even the moronic courts of
Russia.
All judges are anxiously awaiting those who can get there pleading right so
they can rule in favor of truth (freedom).
C'mon fellas and gals,-- wake up...
Enjoy ! The "Professor" et al.
___________________
* Governmental agents are the enemies of the individual, truth, freedom. cf.
Redfield v. Fisher, 292 P 813, 819 (Ore. 1930), and are out to destroy all
established institutions (Ashida Kim). Crandall v. Nev., 73 US 35, 46 (1869);
Enoch v. Wms., 5CA Fla. 1962;
Governmental agents are the source and cause of all crime. Elkins v. US 1960,
Olmstead v. US 1928 What are you waiting for ? Publishing this stuff can
cause the population to laugh bureau-
rats -- right out of town !
NegatemX
Copyright 1999 All rights reserved. The "Professor" et al.
Addendum:
States (eg. Australia) have power and right to however tax, take from,
regulate, and assess the hell out of all state chartered (state created, state
owned, state controlled) corporations (collectives, communes: communistic
entities)-- even unto their destruction. Veazie Bank v. Fenno; cf. Crandall v.
Nev., etc. (prior message).
The reason for this is that all state chartered corporations are owned by the
parent creator states. cites omitted.
As a matter of law,-- all state chartered corporations are agencies of and
agents for the state, and are NOT whatsoever involved in private enterprise,
free enterprise nor the free market, but conduct only state/governmental
business.
Thus the libertarians and John Birchers in their clamor to deregulate
corporations are purposefully (conspiratorially) misleading their dupe members
and supporters and the libertarian leaders are agents of the ruling class
corporative (corporate: collectivst, commune: communistic) elite. cf. Prof.
Peter Woll 1971; Prof. R.C. Tucker 1963/71 ed., other cites omitted (to same
effect: too many to cite).