You'll never please everyone (Are Britain's censorship laws too strict?)

Member Name: RussellC

Product:	Are Britain's censorship laws too strict?
Date:	24/08/00 (171 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: Classification can help people see what they want.

Disadvantages: Denies our human rights?

Censorship is a highly emotive topic on which I doubt there will ever be a true consensus, as such the best I can do is present my own opinions and thoughts on the topic as they are. As with most people my most obvious and frequent encounter with censorship is at the cinema where films may be cut or edited to make them more suitable for public viewing. The other main area where debate on censorship crops up is with the Internet, it's lack of regulation and the inherent difficulty in maintaining any regulations meaning it can be easy to get around the limits of a country's laws.

The essential principle of censoring what we watch seems to be that we may either be offended by what we see, or that we may be incited to behave in a similar manner. Considering the first option, a simple classification system, without any censoring (i.e. giving films a rating, but never removing any of their content as submitted) should be sufficient to reduce the risk of people being offended. If someone knows they are offended by particular types of scenes be they religious or sexual in nature, simply following the classification, reviews and film tag lines should be indication enough as to whether a film is likely to upset. Failing that they can always leave the cinema. I feel that for the case of viewers being offended by the images they see doesn't really apply as a solid argument for censorship.

The primary issue of any censorship debate is the ability of images to 'deprave and corrupt' (to use the wording of the BBFC). It has long been the stance of the government and the BBFC that certain images are liabel to corrupt some members of society and may induce them to physical or sexual violence. It's a hard point to argue, especially when the press often make the connection between the media and the actions of a criminal. So we have instances where the tragic gun massacres that took place in a anumber of American High Schools were immeadiately
linked to a variety of films and video games. Following on from this media created link there have been one or two poorly arranged, unscientific experiments performed that have shown links between aggresion and videogaming. Lack of or weak controls in these experiments along with a lack of strong proof of a connection between the video games and genuine acts of violence make the evidence questionable, though some elements of the media have promoted it. A strong link between what we see and how we behave is always going to be somehing we cannot prove given the complexity and range of experiences the average person is subject to. There's also a need to make a distinction between technique and drive to commit an act. Again sticking with the extreme end of the scale, if a murder is commited which mimics a murder in a film, surely we can see a case where the murderer was already susceptible to commit an act of murder, but merely adopted the technique they had witnessed. The question is did the film incite the act or merely shape its otucome? It's neither a pleasant question, nor one to which an easy answer springs.

The process of classification determines what material is suitable for which age group, and in this it seems fair enough. I have no problem with restricting children from buying videos, video games or going to see certain films. What a child sees and how they assimilate what they see is the responsibility of the parent, by classifying material we give the parent a guideline as to what they allow their children to see. Should we really object if a parent bought an 18 certificate video for a 12 year old? Mine did, but despite seeing scenes of graphic violence I was never incited to behave in a similar manner largely due to being instiled with a firm opinion that all violence was abhorent. Obviously that's anecdotal and the debate is far more complex, parents cannot watch over their children 24 hours a day so something is liabel to slip th
rough. To continue the anecdote, friends would have watched some of my films and I couldn't say what their parent's view of the issue would be.

A few months ago the BBFC rejected four R18 videos (films restricted for sale in licensed sex shops) arguing that they were liabel to corrupt minors if they were to see them. The distributors of those films responded by taking the matter to the Video Appeals Commity, the body which monitors the activites of the BBFC. The VAC found that the videos were not liabel to corrupt minors as their sales would be restricted to licensed sex shops and the risk of a child seeing a parent's copy was small. Also the evidence the BBFC gave that children could be corrupted by such viewing was seen as insufficient. The BBFC's response to this was to go to court to get the VAC's rulings overturned, just recently the court case failed and the videos will now be available. The result is that the BBFC is finally reconsidering their stance on censorship and will be allowing more material through on the R18 label. It's not of much interest to me really, but it shows a fundamental flaw with censorship in this country. If we are to have censorship it should reflect the current state of the country, but the BBFC's rulings were based on the 1983 Video Recording Act, which is itself based on older obscenity laws and upon closed consultations they have held. Hardly a reflection of the current state of the country and the ability of video material to 'deprave and corrupt' has frequently failed to stand up in court.

Another interesting facet of media censorship in this country is the lack of coordination between the three primary organisations involved in this process. The BBFC, customs and the police all act upon their own guidelines, so it has been known in the past for disagreements to cause confusion. Further examples of confusion come when you consider the fact that a local council may overrule th
e BBFC decision and choose to show or not show a film despite the BBFC's rating or rejection. So when Crash was released Westminster council would not allow cinemas to show the film whilst surrounding councils would. Having seen Crash the film was more likely to bore people than corrupt them. More interestingly their have been cases where a local council has given permission for a cinema to show a particular uncertified film, but then the police have siezed the film considering it in breach of obscenity laws. Such confusion amongst censoring bodies doesn't help their situation or that of the viewers.

Briefly considering Internet we have the problem here that there isn't even the conept of classification let alone censorship. Add to that the difficulty with International law and the technical difficulties of censoring it and it becomes a difficult dilemna. The Internet does give easy access to material of any nature and to anyone who wants it, even sometimes those who don't. There probably isn't an easier place for kids to get hold of pornography and there isn't an easy way to stop this. Prevention of this sort of thing is dependant on the nature of these site, are they willing to conform to system to reduce the risk? The best we can do at the moment is Net Nanny like programs that restrict the sites you can view. Not an ideal solution, the smart kids can turn them off and they don't block every site. I cannot see a way, short of parent's monitoring every step of their children's Internet activity, that you can guarantee they won't stumble across something you wouldn't want them to see. At which point I think we're returning to the question of does it harm the children?

To sum things up my debate on censorship is large and complex and there is no solution that will satisfy everyone. I've only considered the censoship of film in any great detail as well so the problem becomes more complex when we op
en it out to a broader range of media. Things are laso likely to be made more interesting when the European Human Rights Bill comes into force here as it may well have impacts on the way censorship is enforced here (particualrly custom's ability to arbitarily confiscate anything by their own internal guidelines). My own stance is that we should have classification in place of censorship and good control over ensuring these products are only freely available to the appropriate age groups. I'm not convinced of a link between violent images and violent behaviour, or at least not the strong one that the media often applies. I think there is a definite need for clarification of the way censorship functions in this country and organisations like the BBFC must be open about all their decisions. If you are interested in film censorship I'd recommend looking at: the BBFC (www.bbfc.co.uk), melonfarmers (www.melonfarmers.co.uk - be warned strong language is used) and I enjoyed the book 'Censored!' by Tom Dewe Matthews for a detailed look at the history and problems of UK censorship.

Summary: