A right to censor? (Are Britain's censorship laws too strict?)

Member Name: MichaelR

Product:	Are Britain's censorship laws too strict?
Date:	29/01/01 (24 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: Prevention of hatred, ensures national security

Disadvantages: Restrictions on free thought, free speech, and the right to decide

Well, I believe that there are many issues involved here.

This is something (hey, well, it always is isn't it?) that I feel quite strongly about, so I fear I may descend into a rant. I apologise most profoundly in advance if I do descend into one.

Firstly, let me attempt to split this into two halves if I may.

There is the issue of censorship over extreme images of sex and violence, and other such elements that society, the government, and our self-appointed "moral guardians" have chosen to replace restrictions on.

I have mixed feelings on this type of censorship, and I will come to them later.

There is then the issue of what I would term "gagging" - The restriction of a person's right to free speech and free thought - something which is not guaranteed us by statute within the UK (it's high time this was changed) but something that the same self-appointed moral guardians mentioned above, would surely like to restrict too.

There are people out there that would like to shut down sites like this, and silence people like me, and most of you reading this, as I am sure you all have opinions on this issue too.

There are people out there that believe you should shut up and do what you're told, because they know what's best for you, you are simply misguided or stupid and don't know what's best for you. You're not entitled to an opinion.

That's what they think anyway.

Who are "they"? "They" are a great many people - most of them just Mr. and Mrs. Average from Normal Town. But then there are those who have made it their duty in life to "protect" us. It's surely no coincidence that many of them are involved in organised religion, but that's a separate issue.

Many of them though are just sad old men and women with nothing better to do than tell people what to think.

If the USA can have a b
asic right to free speech written into it's constitution, then why can't we? Oh yeah... that's right, we don't have a written constitution. (Again though, that's probably a separate issue)

I think that every human being has a fundamental right to free speech and free thought, even if they are spouting a load of cr*p. You don't have to listen to it, you certainly don't have to agree to it.

The only time that I can see a justification for censorship on people speaking out it to prevent the incitement of hatred etc, for example I accept a person has a right to think racist thoughts - (I do not agree with racism before anyone starts - not at all. I am most definitely anti any kind of bigotry like that) but if that person starts speaking his or her mind on that subject in order to incite others towards hatred and violence, then I think for obvious reasons, that has to be stopped.

I think there are also times when free speech has to be restricted in the interests of national security, although this is frequently used as an excuse in my opinion. If it is a genuine security risk though, then again, censorship is justified.

Now, (at last, I hear you cry!) to the restrictions on sex, drugs, violence, and all that is evil in the world (or so some people would have you believe)

First off, I'm totally against all censorship of nudity. Perhaps now would be a good time to declare that I am something of a naturist, and so biased in my views here perhaps, but there is nothing wrong or shameful about the human form. I don't believe that there are many people around now who still genuinely find a nude human being to be an offensive sight. I accept there are some that do, but if they do not want to see this on TV or video, or in magazines, then nobody is forcing them to look.

We all (well, perhaps we don't, but we should) have the right to choose what we watch, and that right also allows us to
choose what NOT to watch.

I am also anti-censorship of sex acts, unless they involve paedophilia, or abuse.

I think that censorship laws concerning sex are very outdated in this country, and one-sided. e.g., you can show a fully naked female in a state of full nudity and arousal, but you can not show an erect penis. Why? What's so offensive about it?

I'm not proposing we screen hard-core sex as lunch-time viewing. (Would make a change from all those home make-over shows though!) But as late night viewing for adults who wish to watch this kind of thing, or want to buy a magazine depicting these kind of images, then why not?

I also disagree with the censorship of violence, not because I particularly like to watch violent imagery, but because I believe that it doesn't have the brain-washing effect that some people would have you believe it does.

I have not felt the need to go out and shoot people dead after watching and Arnie film, or lop someone's head off with a big axe after playing Tekken.

I think that it requires a serious state of mental instability to be incited to copy what you see on a television screen.

You may be saying, "what about our children?" Well, I believe that although minors can be affected badly by such imagery, it doesn't have the effect that some might believe. Many youngsters watch 18 rated films many years before their 18th birthday, and it does not have such a bad effect on them.

We shouldn't encourage them to watch this sort of thing, but it's not the end of the world if they get their hands on it.

Should we all have restrictions based on our liberties in order to prevent children being exposed to it? Well, you could make a good argument for it I suppose, but I don't believe that we should.

It is the responsibility of those who purchase the material, those who sell the material, and it is also the responsibility
of parent to ensure that children are not exposed to anything unsuitable.

Why should adults be told what they can and cannot view though?

Summary: