The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
In this post, I want to express my views on censorship, classification and links between violence and films.
I will set it out in 3 sections:
1: IS CENSORSHIP RIGHT OR WRONG?
2: ARE THE CURRENT LAWS RIGHT?
3: ARE FILMS (AND GAMES) JUST SCAPEGOATS WHEN DEALING WITH VIOLENCE?
I think that the current views on censorship are wrong. I do not believe we should be told what we can or can’t watch in our own homes. Yes, there should be laws that permit only those over a certain age to watch a film in a cinema - nobody wants scared kids screaming and ruining it for everyone. But watching a DVD or video is a different matter. You are in the comfort of your own home, with a DVD you bought. In all reality, are you really going to watch a film and try to mimic what you see on it? I highly doubt it.
I do not believe that the government or the Film Censorship company should be able to tell us what we can / can’t watch. However, I am all for them giving us advice on what we should /shouldn’t watch. I think the majority of people over the age of 12 has enough common sense, maturity and education to decide what they watch.
I can’t see that there should be laws regarding film classification. It should not be a criminal offence to watch and 18 movie when you are not quite the designated age. And what powers do these laws hold? People who are clearly underage are not let into cinemas showing 15’s or 18’s. Big electronic chains like HMV or Virgin will not be seen selling and 18 movie to a minor. However, it is perfectly possible that the same kid will be able to buy the same movie from a local outlet, with no questions asked. These people are in it for the money. They are not going to care that a 15 year old is watching and 18 movie. However, I think it would be a unique occurrence if a person was arrested or cautioned for watching a movie when they are too young. These laws have no enforcement, and should be guidelines only - not legal requirements.
Lets take a look at what things are taken into consideration when classifying a film:
"Sex Scenes"
Ok, I can understand young people not being allowed to watch scenes of this nature. But why should a film with a steamy sex scene in it be 18? I don't wish to be crude, but people can HAVE sex at 16, but aren't allowed to watch it until they are 18? A little strange? And there is also the case that pornographic material is readily available on the internet, for free. If a young person is denied watching a film because it has sex in it, they may just find another way to watch it anyway.
Also, people are shown 'sex education' before they leave Junior School. Just because of this, mild scenes of sex should carry only a 15, or maybe a new 16 (look at reasoning above) certificate.
"Bad language"
Ok, to start with, I can understand that young people. I.e. under 10's may not be allowed to hear this language. However, i for one was confronted with this bad language every day from year 5 onwards. I honestly don't think *children* should have to be restricted from hearing what they hear at school already! It's not as if there is this attitude "Some action hero on a film told a bad guy to "rot in hell you ****** **** ***" so I have to do it everyday" is there?
Some stronger language should receive a "13" certification, but most should be no more than a 12.
"Violence"
Right, here is a tester. Should younger children be allowed to watch violence? This is one case where I think They've nearly got it right. Some violence does warrant an 18. For instance, killing someone in gunplay should carry a 12, and often does. More violent death, like realistic swordplay should carry a 15. Anything more than this, such as torturing or very gruesome deaths should carry and 18. Its not as if a child will copy everything they see on TV or a game is it?
"Theme"
I can understand that a film about a psycho who kills everyone, even if the violence/language only warrants a 12, and there's no sex, should receive a 15 or 18. Not because younger people will copy, but it may distress them, and they may be scared, thinking such things happen normally. But other films, i.e.. scary ones will rate themselves. If a small child is watching a scary film, and they don't enjoy it they will not watch it!
It's all about enjoyment. If a squeamish 18-year-old hates violence, they should not, and won’t want to, watch violent movies. If a mature 12 year old, who can handle violence watches one of the same movies, they will often be OK.
I honestly think that the ratings systems are far too harsh, even after the latest 'easing up' of the classifications. Perhaps instead of Uc, U, PG, 12, 15 and 18, we should have Children, teens, and adults. Or maybe a rating system which classifies films in classes i.e. Very gory, and leaves the viewer to decide whether it is suitable.
After all, young children will still be under parental supervision. It is up to the parent to ‘censor’ the films their children watch. a responsible parent will watch a film first, and then decide whether it is suitable or not.
I am in full agreement that films should carry age ratings on them to advise people of what to expect. However, I think that they should be for guidance only. On the other hand, these laws have very little backing, so most of the time, it is up to the person watching the film if they want to or not. The laws are often effective in preventing large chain-stores from selling to minors. However, they have little effect on small enterprises, and do not prevent parents buying such material FOR their children.
Which brings me onto another point. Are 18 rated films seen as some kind of taboo? Can you show off to your friends that you watched and 18 last night without your parents knowing? I think so. This is another reason why I believe films should not carry AGE ratings, but descriptions of the content. This would get rid of the taboo, and maybe less younger people would watch these films for the sake of it. If someone is mature enough to handle it, that is fine. However, a person who watches a film like this once, and does not enjoy it, will not watch it again. So in a way, films censor themselves in most cases.
Now to my final section. Are films and games simply scapegoats? Can peoples violent nature be blamed on watching a violent film?
The example is wish to call upon is the case of Jamie Bulger. I won’t go in depth into what happened, but basically, two young people killed an innocent toddler. It is believed by some that they did so mimicking what they saw in the film ‘Child’s Play 3’. I have not seen this film myself, but from what I heard, the content is much like that which was committed in real life. However, should we not be asking why these ten year olds were watching the film in the first place? Apparently, the killers father was a regular customer at a local video rental store. This particular film was left lying about for the children to just pick up and watch. I said above that most people over 12 will have enough common sense to either not watch such a film, or not allow themselves to be affected by it. Perhaps linking the violence to this film was simply a way of skirting the issue of sub-standard parenting.
Another example is wish to point out, is when the parents of a child who went on a killing spree in America tried to sue the makers of the game ‘Doom’. This young child opened gunfire on his unsuspecting classmates, apparently un-provoked. The links to the game Doom are very thin. The game is set in hell, where you must kill demons and monsters. I suggest that to believe something like that was happening, this kid must not have been mentally stable to start with. And what grounds does the mother have to sue the producers? There is a legal age limit for purchasing these games - it is clear that this game was bought for the child by the mother, and therefore she was breaking the law in giving it to him.
Perhaps this a an upside of legal censorship - if an event like the one above is linked to films or games, it can be pointed out that the child should not have watched or played it in the first place. I’d also like to make it clear that i think nobody in perfect mental health would be influenced to do such things by a film or game. Even if it was triggered by one of the aforementioned forms of entertainment, there must have been some mental instability there to start with.
So, in conclusion, there are upsides and downsides to the classification laws. Should they be left in place to avoid a claim like the one mentioned above from succeeding? Should they be for guidance only and not a legal requirement? Are they imposing on our free will to watch videos in our own homes? These are the questions I put to you.
I look forward to reading replies.
I will set it out in 3 sections:
1: IS CENSORSHIP RIGHT OR WRONG?
2: ARE THE CURRENT LAWS RIGHT?
3: ARE FILMS (AND GAMES) JUST SCAPEGOATS WHEN DEALING WITH VIOLENCE?
I think that the current views on censorship are wrong. I do not believe we should be told what we can or can’t watch in our own homes. Yes, there should be laws that permit only those over a certain age to watch a film in a cinema - nobody wants scared kids screaming and ruining it for everyone. But watching a DVD or video is a different matter. You are in the comfort of your own home, with a DVD you bought. In all reality, are you really going to watch a film and try to mimic what you see on it? I highly doubt it.
I do not believe that the government or the Film Censorship company should be able to tell us what we can / can’t watch. However, I am all for them giving us advice on what we should /shouldn’t watch. I think the majority of people over the age of 12 has enough common sense, maturity and education to decide what they watch.
I can’t see that there should be laws regarding film classification. It should not be a criminal offence to watch and 18 movie when you are not quite the designated age. And what powers do these laws hold? People who are clearly underage are not let into cinemas showing 15’s or 18’s. Big electronic chains like HMV or Virgin will not be seen selling and 18 movie to a minor. However, it is perfectly possible that the same kid will be able to buy the same movie from a local outlet, with no questions asked. These people are in it for the money. They are not going to care that a 15 year old is watching and 18 movie. However, I think it would be a unique occurrence if a person was arrested or cautioned for watching a movie when they are too young. These laws have no enforcement, and should be guidelines only - not legal requirements.
Lets take a look at what things are taken into consideration when classifying a film:
"Sex Scenes"
Ok, I can understand young people not being allowed to watch scenes of this nature. But why should a film with a steamy sex scene in it be 18? I don't wish to be crude, but people can HAVE sex at 16, but aren't allowed to watch it until they are 18? A little strange? And there is also the case that pornographic material is readily available on the internet, for free. If a young person is denied watching a film because it has sex in it, they may just find another way to watch it anyway.
Also, people are shown 'sex education' before they leave Junior School. Just because of this, mild scenes of sex should carry only a 15, or maybe a new 16 (look at reasoning above) certificate.
"Bad language"
Ok, to start with, I can understand that young people. I.e. under 10's may not be allowed to hear this language. However, i for one was confronted with this bad language every day from year 5 onwards. I honestly don't think *children* should have to be restricted from hearing what they hear at school already! It's not as if there is this attitude "Some action hero on a film told a bad guy to "rot in hell you ****** **** ***" so I have to do it everyday" is there?
Some stronger language should receive a "13" certification, but most should be no more than a 12.
"Violence"
Right, here is a tester. Should younger children be allowed to watch violence? This is one case where I think They've nearly got it right. Some violence does warrant an 18. For instance, killing someone in gunplay should carry a 12, and often does. More violent death, like realistic swordplay should carry a 15. Anything more than this, such as torturing or very gruesome deaths should carry and 18. Its not as if a child will copy everything they see on TV or a game is it?
"Theme"
I can understand that a film about a psycho who kills everyone, even if the violence/language only warrants a 12, and there's no sex, should receive a 15 or 18. Not because younger people will copy, but it may distress them, and they may be scared, thinking such things happen normally. But other films, i.e.. scary ones will rate themselves. If a small child is watching a scary film, and they don't enjoy it they will not watch it!
It's all about enjoyment. If a squeamish 18-year-old hates violence, they should not, and won’t want to, watch violent movies. If a mature 12 year old, who can handle violence watches one of the same movies, they will often be OK.
I honestly think that the ratings systems are far too harsh, even after the latest 'easing up' of the classifications. Perhaps instead of Uc, U, PG, 12, 15 and 18, we should have Children, teens, and adults. Or maybe a rating system which classifies films in classes i.e. Very gory, and leaves the viewer to decide whether it is suitable.
After all, young children will still be under parental supervision. It is up to the parent to ‘censor’ the films their children watch. a responsible parent will watch a film first, and then decide whether it is suitable or not.
I am in full agreement that films should carry age ratings on them to advise people of what to expect. However, I think that they should be for guidance only. On the other hand, these laws have very little backing, so most of the time, it is up to the person watching the film if they want to or not. The laws are often effective in preventing large chain-stores from selling to minors. However, they have little effect on small enterprises, and do not prevent parents buying such material FOR their children.
Which brings me onto another point. Are 18 rated films seen as some kind of taboo? Can you show off to your friends that you watched and 18 last night without your parents knowing? I think so. This is another reason why I believe films should not carry AGE ratings, but descriptions of the content. This would get rid of the taboo, and maybe less younger people would watch these films for the sake of it. If someone is mature enough to handle it, that is fine. However, a person who watches a film like this once, and does not enjoy it, will not watch it again. So in a way, films censor themselves in most cases.
Now to my final section. Are films and games simply scapegoats? Can peoples violent nature be blamed on watching a violent film?
The example is wish to call upon is the case of Jamie Bulger. I won’t go in depth into what happened, but basically, two young people killed an innocent toddler. It is believed by some that they did so mimicking what they saw in the film ‘Child’s Play 3’. I have not seen this film myself, but from what I heard, the content is much like that which was committed in real life. However, should we not be asking why these ten year olds were watching the film in the first place? Apparently, the killers father was a regular customer at a local video rental store. This particular film was left lying about for the children to just pick up and watch. I said above that most people over 12 will have enough common sense to either not watch such a film, or not allow themselves to be affected by it. Perhaps linking the violence to this film was simply a way of skirting the issue of sub-standard parenting.
Another example is wish to point out, is when the parents of a child who went on a killing spree in America tried to sue the makers of the game ‘Doom’. This young child opened gunfire on his unsuspecting classmates, apparently un-provoked. The links to the game Doom are very thin. The game is set in hell, where you must kill demons and monsters. I suggest that to believe something like that was happening, this kid must not have been mentally stable to start with. And what grounds does the mother have to sue the producers? There is a legal age limit for purchasing these games - it is clear that this game was bought for the child by the mother, and therefore she was breaking the law in giving it to him.
Perhaps this a an upside of legal censorship - if an event like the one above is linked to films or games, it can be pointed out that the child should not have watched or played it in the first place. I’d also like to make it clear that i think nobody in perfect mental health would be influenced to do such things by a film or game. Even if it was triggered by one of the aforementioned forms of entertainment, there must have been some mental instability there to start with.
So, in conclusion, there are upsides and downsides to the classification laws. Should they be left in place to avoid a claim like the one mentioned above from succeeding? Should they be for guidance only and not a legal requirement? Are they imposing on our free will to watch videos in our own homes? These are the questions I put to you.
I look forward to reading replies.
I posted something similar a while, from a different, less detailed perspective. I think I'll say it again though...
The problem for me is that censorship has lost sight of its purpose. We stop people from watching things that we do not want them to copy. That is the point of censorship. But which is more dangerous, a film that depicts drug abuse and drug users dying realistically, or a film that shows people having a line of cocaine with no ill effects, shot minimalistically so it gets opast the censors. In my opinion the latter is far more dangerous as it would probably gain a 15 certificate and a naive 15 year old might go away thinking that cocaine is harmless and go and try it. However, he would have been unable to see a film dissuading him from taking cocaine by showing intricately how damaging it can be.
In my opinion we have begun to censor the wrong things. There is now a checklist mentality that means if a film has x, y and z then it's an 18, but if it only has x and y then it's a 15. This means that censorship is no longer fulfilling it's original intention, which is to stop young people copying dangerous/undesireable things.
I am all for censorship when done properly, with flexible guidelines. Then again I think a lot of people on these forums who are under 18 are more than adult enough to watch an 18, while some 18 year olds I know shouldn't be allowed into 15's. There's no way that we'll ever find a way around this, so for the mean time the cumbersome, antiquated system will have to stay. Don't worry though... you'll probably be 18 anyway by the time they get round to reforming it.
The problem for me is that censorship has lost sight of its purpose. We stop people from watching things that we do not want them to copy. That is the point of censorship. But which is more dangerous, a film that depicts drug abuse and drug users dying realistically, or a film that shows people having a line of cocaine with no ill effects, shot minimalistically so it gets opast the censors. In my opinion the latter is far more dangerous as it would probably gain a 15 certificate and a naive 15 year old might go away thinking that cocaine is harmless and go and try it. However, he would have been unable to see a film dissuading him from taking cocaine by showing intricately how damaging it can be.
In my opinion we have begun to censor the wrong things. There is now a checklist mentality that means if a film has x, y and z then it's an 18, but if it only has x and y then it's a 15. This means that censorship is no longer fulfilling it's original intention, which is to stop young people copying dangerous/undesireable things.
I am all for censorship when done properly, with flexible guidelines. Then again I think a lot of people on these forums who are under 18 are more than adult enough to watch an 18, while some 18 year olds I know shouldn't be allowed into 15's. There's no way that we'll ever find a way around this, so for the mean time the cumbersome, antiquated system will have to stay. Don't worry though... you'll probably be 18 anyway by the time they get round to reforming it.
Good post with very valid comments.
And the bottom line is that you dont pick up a gun and kill everyone, because a game/film told you to, you do it because your insane.
And i dont believe there should be an 18 certificate at all, i may be wrong, but i think in Great britain, you can go to war at 17 or at least be trained to kill. I cant imagine a film being more distressing than that.
And the bottom line is that you dont pick up a gun and kill everyone, because a game/film told you to, you do it because your insane.
And i dont believe there should be an 18 certificate at all, i may be wrong, but i think in Great britain, you can go to war at 17 or at least be trained to kill. I cant imagine a film being more distressing than that.
SK wrote:
>And what bugs me is, you can legally have sex at 16 but you can't watch porn 'till your 18. Now, I persoanlly don't watch porn, but it's just a law that shows how stupid our ratings are.
Exactly, surely doing it is more *something* than watching it! It just shows what old men who havn't had any for years do to our films and games :D
>And what bugs me is, you can legally have sex at 16 but you can't watch porn 'till your 18. Now, I persoanlly don't watch porn, but it's just a law that shows how stupid our ratings are.
Exactly, surely doing it is more *something* than watching it! It just shows what old men who havn't had any for years do to our films and games :D
Good post Darkness. I totally agree with a lot of your points. They really do need to come up with a new rating system. And I THOROOUGHLY HATE censorship! Why censor something and make it a lower certificate when you could just leave it uncensored and give it a higher certificate?!? And what bugs me is, you can legally have sex at 16 but you can't watch porn 'till your 18. Now, I persoanlly don't watch porn, but it's just a law that shows how stupid our ratings are.
Hunky Funky Monkey wrote:
>Hey cool post Dan, and I agree with most of the points made. You're right, I think it should be the child's parent's decision and consent on what their child
should be allowed to watch. It's not really anyone else's business to decide what film is suitable for a kid to be able to watch in the comforts of his own home.
Exactly, a parent decides what books their child reads, where they go and what music they listen to, in most cases. Why not films? Music has 'parental Guidance', but thats what it is, guidance, not law.
The only thing is, if censorship was not used by the Government, we may well see a rise in the amount of violence in Britain due to the fact that easily influenced people/children might think it would be a cool thing to follow their hero's actions in a film, for example slitting someone's throat because they saw that it was okay for their action hero to do so in a film.
I think this would have to be a very small percentage of the population, and their mental issues are probably being adressed anyway, so I think there is little chance, as long as they are around 12 or older, depending on how mature they are.
>Good post anyway :D
Cheers Jon!
>Hey cool post Dan, and I agree with most of the points made. You're right, I think it should be the child's parent's decision and consent on what their child
should be allowed to watch. It's not really anyone else's business to decide what film is suitable for a kid to be able to watch in the comforts of his own home.
Exactly, a parent decides what books their child reads, where they go and what music they listen to, in most cases. Why not films? Music has 'parental Guidance', but thats what it is, guidance, not law.
The only thing is, if censorship was not used by the Government, we may well see a rise in the amount of violence in Britain due to the fact that easily influenced people/children might think it would be a cool thing to follow their hero's actions in a film, for example slitting someone's throat because they saw that it was okay for their action hero to do so in a film.
I think this would have to be a very small percentage of the population, and their mental issues are probably being adressed anyway, so I think there is little chance, as long as they are around 12 or older, depending on how mature they are.
>Good post anyway :D
Cheers Jon!
Hey cool post Dan, and I agree with most of the points made. You're right, I think it should be the child's parent's decision and consent on what their child should be allowed to watch. It's not really anyone else's business to decide what film is suitable for a kid to be able to watch in the comforts of his own home.
The only thing is, if censorship was not used by the Government, we may well see a rise in the amount of violence in Britain due to the fact that easily influenced people/children might think it would be a cool thing to follow their hero's actions in a film, for example slitting someone's throat because they saw that it was okay for their action hero to do so in a film.
Good post anyway :D
The only thing is, if censorship was not used by the Government, we may well see a rise in the amount of violence in Britain due to the fact that easily influenced people/children might think it would be a cool thing to follow their hero's actions in a film, for example slitting someone's throat because they saw that it was okay for their action hero to do so in a film.
Good post anyway :D
In this post, I want to express my views on censorship, classification and links between violence and films.
I will set it out in 3 sections:
1: IS CENSORSHIP RIGHT OR WRONG?
2: ARE THE CURRENT LAWS RIGHT?
3: ARE FILMS (AND GAMES) JUST SCAPEGOATS WHEN DEALING WITH VIOLENCE?
I think that the current views on censorship are wrong. I do not believe we should be told what we can or can’t watch in our own homes. Yes, there should be laws that permit only those over a certain age to watch a film in a cinema - nobody wants scared kids screaming and ruining it for everyone. But watching a DVD or video is a different matter. You are in the comfort of your own home, with a DVD you bought. In all reality, are you really going to watch a film and try to mimic what you see on it? I highly doubt it.
I do not believe that the government or the Film Censorship company should be able to tell us what we can / can’t watch. However, I am all for them giving us advice on what we should /shouldn’t watch. I think the majority of people over the age of 12 has enough common sense, maturity and education to decide what they watch.
I can’t see that there should be laws regarding film classification. It should not be a criminal offence to watch and 18 movie when you are not quite the designated age. And what powers do these laws hold? People who are clearly underage are not let into cinemas showing 15’s or 18’s. Big electronic chains like HMV or Virgin will not be seen selling and 18 movie to a minor. However, it is perfectly possible that the same kid will be able to buy the same movie from a local outlet, with no questions asked. These people are in it for the money. They are not going to care that a 15 year old is watching and 18 movie. However, I think it would be a unique occurrence if a person was arrested or cautioned for watching a movie when they are too young. These laws have no enforcement, and should be guidelines only - not legal requirements.
Lets take a look at what things are taken into consideration when classifying a film:
"Sex Scenes"
Ok, I can understand young people not being allowed to watch scenes of this nature. But why should a film with a steamy sex scene in it be 18? I don't wish to be crude, but people can HAVE sex at 16, but aren't allowed to watch it until they are 18? A little strange? And there is also the case that pornographic material is readily available on the internet, for free. If a young person is denied watching a film because it has sex in it, they may just find another way to watch it anyway.
Also, people are shown 'sex education' before they leave Junior School. Just because of this, mild scenes of sex should carry only a 15, or maybe a new 16 (look at reasoning above) certificate.
"Bad language"
Ok, to start with, I can understand that young people. I.e. under 10's may not be allowed to hear this language. However, i for one was confronted with this bad language every day from year 5 onwards. I honestly don't think *children* should have to be restricted from hearing what they hear at school already! It's not as if there is this attitude "Some action hero on a film told a bad guy to "rot in hell you ****** **** ***" so I have to do it everyday" is there?
Some stronger language should receive a "13" certification, but most should be no more than a 12.
"Violence"
Right, here is a tester. Should younger children be allowed to watch violence? This is one case where I think They've nearly got it right. Some violence does warrant an 18. For instance, killing someone in gunplay should carry a 12, and often does. More violent death, like realistic swordplay should carry a 15. Anything more than this, such as torturing or very gruesome deaths should carry and 18. Its not as if a child will copy everything they see on TV or a game is it?
"Theme"
I can understand that a film about a psycho who kills everyone, even if the violence/language only warrants a 12, and there's no sex, should receive a 15 or 18. Not because younger people will copy, but it may distress them, and they may be scared, thinking such things happen normally. But other films, i.e.. scary ones will rate themselves. If a small child is watching a scary film, and they don't enjoy it they will not watch it!
It's all about enjoyment. If a squeamish 18-year-old hates violence, they should not, and won’t want to, watch violent movies. If a mature 12 year old, who can handle violence watches one of the same movies, they will often be OK.
I honestly think that the ratings systems are far too harsh, even after the latest 'easing up' of the classifications. Perhaps instead of Uc, U, PG, 12, 15 and 18, we should have Children, teens, and adults. Or maybe a rating system which classifies films in classes i.e. Very gory, and leaves the viewer to decide whether it is suitable.
After all, young children will still be under parental supervision. It is up to the parent to ‘censor’ the films their children watch. a responsible parent will watch a film first, and then decide whether it is suitable or not.
I am in full agreement that films should carry age ratings on them to advise people of what to expect. However, I think that they should be for guidance only. On the other hand, these laws have very little backing, so most of the time, it is up to the person watching the film if they want to or not. The laws are often effective in preventing large chain-stores from selling to minors. However, they have little effect on small enterprises, and do not prevent parents buying such material FOR their children.
Which brings me onto another point. Are 18 rated films seen as some kind of taboo? Can you show off to your friends that you watched and 18 last night without your parents knowing? I think so. This is another reason why I believe films should not carry AGE ratings, but descriptions of the content. This would get rid of the taboo, and maybe less younger people would watch these films for the sake of it. If someone is mature enough to handle it, that is fine. However, a person who watches a film like this once, and does not enjoy it, will not watch it again. So in a way, films censor themselves in most cases.
Now to my final section. Are films and games simply scapegoats? Can peoples violent nature be blamed on watching a violent film?
The example is wish to call upon is the case of Jamie Bulger. I won’t go in depth into what happened, but basically, two young people killed an innocent toddler. It is believed by some that they did so mimicking what they saw in the film ‘Child’s Play 3’. I have not seen this film myself, but from what I heard, the content is much like that which was committed in real life. However, should we not be asking why these ten year olds were watching the film in the first place? Apparently, the killers father was a regular customer at a local video rental store. This particular film was left lying about for the children to just pick up and watch. I said above that most people over 12 will have enough common sense to either not watch such a film, or not allow themselves to be affected by it. Perhaps linking the violence to this film was simply a way of skirting the issue of sub-standard parenting.
Another example is wish to point out, is when the parents of a child who went on a killing spree in America tried to sue the makers of the game ‘Doom’. This young child opened gunfire on his unsuspecting classmates, apparently un-provoked. The links to the game Doom are very thin. The game is set in hell, where you must kill demons and monsters. I suggest that to believe something like that was happening, this kid must not have been mentally stable to start with. And what grounds does the mother have to sue the producers? There is a legal age limit for purchasing these games - it is clear that this game was bought for the child by the mother, and therefore she was breaking the law in giving it to him.
Perhaps this a an upside of legal censorship - if an event like the one above is linked to films or games, it can be pointed out that the child should not have watched or played it in the first place. I’d also like to make it clear that i think nobody in perfect mental health would be influenced to do such things by a film or game. Even if it was triggered by one of the aforementioned forms of entertainment, there must have been some mental instability there to start with.
So, in conclusion, there are upsides and downsides to the classification laws. Should they be left in place to avoid a claim like the one mentioned above from succeeding? Should they be for guidance only and not a legal requirement? Are they imposing on our free will to watch videos in our own homes? These are the questions I put to you.
I look forward to reading replies.
I will set it out in 3 sections:
1: IS CENSORSHIP RIGHT OR WRONG?
2: ARE THE CURRENT LAWS RIGHT?
3: ARE FILMS (AND GAMES) JUST SCAPEGOATS WHEN DEALING WITH VIOLENCE?
I think that the current views on censorship are wrong. I do not believe we should be told what we can or can’t watch in our own homes. Yes, there should be laws that permit only those over a certain age to watch a film in a cinema - nobody wants scared kids screaming and ruining it for everyone. But watching a DVD or video is a different matter. You are in the comfort of your own home, with a DVD you bought. In all reality, are you really going to watch a film and try to mimic what you see on it? I highly doubt it.
I do not believe that the government or the Film Censorship company should be able to tell us what we can / can’t watch. However, I am all for them giving us advice on what we should /shouldn’t watch. I think the majority of people over the age of 12 has enough common sense, maturity and education to decide what they watch.
I can’t see that there should be laws regarding film classification. It should not be a criminal offence to watch and 18 movie when you are not quite the designated age. And what powers do these laws hold? People who are clearly underage are not let into cinemas showing 15’s or 18’s. Big electronic chains like HMV or Virgin will not be seen selling and 18 movie to a minor. However, it is perfectly possible that the same kid will be able to buy the same movie from a local outlet, with no questions asked. These people are in it for the money. They are not going to care that a 15 year old is watching and 18 movie. However, I think it would be a unique occurrence if a person was arrested or cautioned for watching a movie when they are too young. These laws have no enforcement, and should be guidelines only - not legal requirements.
Lets take a look at what things are taken into consideration when classifying a film:
"Sex Scenes"
Ok, I can understand young people not being allowed to watch scenes of this nature. But why should a film with a steamy sex scene in it be 18? I don't wish to be crude, but people can HAVE sex at 16, but aren't allowed to watch it until they are 18? A little strange? And there is also the case that pornographic material is readily available on the internet, for free. If a young person is denied watching a film because it has sex in it, they may just find another way to watch it anyway.
Also, people are shown 'sex education' before they leave Junior School. Just because of this, mild scenes of sex should carry only a 15, or maybe a new 16 (look at reasoning above) certificate.
"Bad language"
Ok, to start with, I can understand that young people. I.e. under 10's may not be allowed to hear this language. However, i for one was confronted with this bad language every day from year 5 onwards. I honestly don't think *children* should have to be restricted from hearing what they hear at school already! It's not as if there is this attitude "Some action hero on a film told a bad guy to "rot in hell you ****** **** ***" so I have to do it everyday" is there?
Some stronger language should receive a "13" certification, but most should be no more than a 12.
"Violence"
Right, here is a tester. Should younger children be allowed to watch violence? This is one case where I think They've nearly got it right. Some violence does warrant an 18. For instance, killing someone in gunplay should carry a 12, and often does. More violent death, like realistic swordplay should carry a 15. Anything more than this, such as torturing or very gruesome deaths should carry and 18. Its not as if a child will copy everything they see on TV or a game is it?
"Theme"
I can understand that a film about a psycho who kills everyone, even if the violence/language only warrants a 12, and there's no sex, should receive a 15 or 18. Not because younger people will copy, but it may distress them, and they may be scared, thinking such things happen normally. But other films, i.e.. scary ones will rate themselves. If a small child is watching a scary film, and they don't enjoy it they will not watch it!
It's all about enjoyment. If a squeamish 18-year-old hates violence, they should not, and won’t want to, watch violent movies. If a mature 12 year old, who can handle violence watches one of the same movies, they will often be OK.
I honestly think that the ratings systems are far too harsh, even after the latest 'easing up' of the classifications. Perhaps instead of Uc, U, PG, 12, 15 and 18, we should have Children, teens, and adults. Or maybe a rating system which classifies films in classes i.e. Very gory, and leaves the viewer to decide whether it is suitable.
After all, young children will still be under parental supervision. It is up to the parent to ‘censor’ the films their children watch. a responsible parent will watch a film first, and then decide whether it is suitable or not.
I am in full agreement that films should carry age ratings on them to advise people of what to expect. However, I think that they should be for guidance only. On the other hand, these laws have very little backing, so most of the time, it is up to the person watching the film if they want to or not. The laws are often effective in preventing large chain-stores from selling to minors. However, they have little effect on small enterprises, and do not prevent parents buying such material FOR their children.
Which brings me onto another point. Are 18 rated films seen as some kind of taboo? Can you show off to your friends that you watched and 18 last night without your parents knowing? I think so. This is another reason why I believe films should not carry AGE ratings, but descriptions of the content. This would get rid of the taboo, and maybe less younger people would watch these films for the sake of it. If someone is mature enough to handle it, that is fine. However, a person who watches a film like this once, and does not enjoy it, will not watch it again. So in a way, films censor themselves in most cases.
Now to my final section. Are films and games simply scapegoats? Can peoples violent nature be blamed on watching a violent film?
The example is wish to call upon is the case of Jamie Bulger. I won’t go in depth into what happened, but basically, two young people killed an innocent toddler. It is believed by some that they did so mimicking what they saw in the film ‘Child’s Play 3’. I have not seen this film myself, but from what I heard, the content is much like that which was committed in real life. However, should we not be asking why these ten year olds were watching the film in the first place? Apparently, the killers father was a regular customer at a local video rental store. This particular film was left lying about for the children to just pick up and watch. I said above that most people over 12 will have enough common sense to either not watch such a film, or not allow themselves to be affected by it. Perhaps linking the violence to this film was simply a way of skirting the issue of sub-standard parenting.
Another example is wish to point out, is when the parents of a child who went on a killing spree in America tried to sue the makers of the game ‘Doom’. This young child opened gunfire on his unsuspecting classmates, apparently un-provoked. The links to the game Doom are very thin. The game is set in hell, where you must kill demons and monsters. I suggest that to believe something like that was happening, this kid must not have been mentally stable to start with. And what grounds does the mother have to sue the producers? There is a legal age limit for purchasing these games - it is clear that this game was bought for the child by the mother, and therefore she was breaking the law in giving it to him.
Perhaps this a an upside of legal censorship - if an event like the one above is linked to films or games, it can be pointed out that the child should not have watched or played it in the first place. I’d also like to make it clear that i think nobody in perfect mental health would be influenced to do such things by a film or game. Even if it was triggered by one of the aforementioned forms of entertainment, there must have been some mental instability there to start with.
So, in conclusion, there are upsides and downsides to the classification laws. Should they be left in place to avoid a claim like the one mentioned above from succeeding? Should they be for guidance only and not a legal requirement? Are they imposing on our free will to watch videos in our own homes? These are the questions I put to you.
I look forward to reading replies.