Viewing Thread:
"Censorship"

For some reason, I've found myself arguing with my friends about censorship recently. Seeing as I like few things better than a good and good-natured argument, I don't view this as a bad thing. Nor do I generally view it as a particularly noteworthy thing. But for some reason I've found the topic of censorship has tattooed itself onto my brain, and so it is that I'm sitting in front of a computer screen trying to put my thoughts in order about the subject. Hopefully it will provide an interesting read. I'm equally hopeful that it will help me settle on a firm opinion about censorship so that I no longer argue whichever point of view is the most likely to wind up the other person (What? Don't look at me like that; you know what I'm like...)

So then; is censorship a good thing or a bad thing? It has been with us since Roman times, where the office of Censor of Public Morals existed. It was, rather ominously for us, an office abused by successive Emperors who used the position to declare any point of view that conflicted with theirs as immoral. Unhappily, many countries use censorship in exactly the same way (Burma and Singapore spring immediately to mind, but just look at how often Blair or Dubya play the "moral high ground" card when faced with criticism.)

If, like me, you're a film, music, or literature buff, you'll almost certainly be inclined to say that it is a bad thing. The last 50 years has seen censorship of good films (A Clockwork Orange, though that was unusual in that it was Kubrick himself who ordered it's withdrawal from the UK. Numerous "video nasties" were also banned; The Evil Dead is my favourite among these.), good music (we are plagued with radio edits of songs in order to protect our delicate little ears from the trauma of hearing a swearword; why the hell we can't apply these same criteria to protect us from the anodyne earsmells that Stuttering Stanley of Pop Idol fame vomits out with alarming regularity I'll never know...), and good literature (Lady Chatterley’s Lover being the most famous casualty here).

However, you may just as easily be inclined to say that it is a good thing. I saw the Evil Dead when I was 8 and have been treated to a lifetime of nightmares about zombies ever since. Many of the video nasties that have now been freed from the thrall of the censors have turned out to be badly made and exploitative balls. I was as surprised as anybody to find myself thinking that I agreed wholeheartedly with the censors who wanted to ban Bad Lieutenant; it was the worst, most boring film I've ever seen. It consisted of a series of scenes that were designed to shock the viewer and...that's it. It's easier to find pirate treasure that it is to find the plot of this turgid lump of sensationalist rubbish. Obviously I'm being facetious when I say I wanted it banned, I merely wanted to stop watching it. Nevertheless, it is a film used by both the pro and anti censorship camps to justify why censorship should be increased or reduced. So who is right?

As we live in a relatively liberal western society (I'm talking only about Europe here; their are conflicting reports from the US that claim the current government are either the cultural equivalent of the Spanish Inquisition, or the last guardians of decency depending on your point of view.), there has been an increasingly relaxed attitude to censorship. Most people, if questioned, would probably say that censorship is not a good thing, or that censorship begins and ends in the home. To which the reply is "What about kiddie porn? If you don't believe in censorship at a government level then what is to stop this stuff being made?"

Well, sorry to rely on sophistry and nitpicking here, but I think that's rather a dishonest way to argue in favour of greater censorship. Child pornography is, first and foremost, a human rights issue. Children should not have to be forced into doing something that will be physically and psychologically damaging, and I'm pretty damn sure that I would want the government to do everything in their power to stop it's production (unless you live in Belgium, where it would appear that the government are the biggest consumers of child porn...). Again I must stress; that is not censorship, it is protecting the rights of the vulnerable.

Yet isn't that what censorship is about; protecting the vulnerable? Well, yes in theory that is exactly what it is for. But the fact is that our trust in the censors and that they will know what is best for us has been eroded considerably. I've already mentioned how Blair, and all politicians for that matter, use censorship for political reasons; the Brass Eye special concerning the media's hypocrisy in dealing with Paedophiles was condemned without having been seen because that is the sort of thing that middle england wanted to hear. But it's not just politicians that one should be wary of; it's not often that I will punch the air in delight at the news of someone's death, but that's exactly what I did when I heard that Mary Whitehouse had shuffled off this mortal coil. How DARE that self righteous cow tell me that she knows what is best for me, especially when she never used to watch most of the programs she condemned.

Michael Grade described her as "a bully in the guise of a victim", and I agree wholeheartedly with the description. Not just of her, but of pretty much every self appointed censor. Whether they argue for censorship on religious grounds (such as those peace loving Christians who hurled abuse and threats of violence at people who committed the cardinal sin of going to see "The Last Temptation of Christ"), or for moral reasons (the simpering titheads who constantly worry about the negative effects of any TV program racier than "Little House on the Prairie"), or simply for personal reasons (if there are any bigger morons in the world than the ones who signed the petition calling for the second Lord of the Rings film to change it's title from "The Two Towers" because they believed it was a clear reference to September 11th, then I have yet to be made aware of their existence), they are essentially trying to force their views on others. And if you don't accept their view, then you are the enemy and you are to be condemned for your sinfulness/immorality/insensitivity.

So what is it that I'm trying to say here? Well, I do believe that there are certain fundamental things that the government (or some public body) should concern themselves with in respect of censorship. Personally, I believe that anything that involves a lack of consent of one or more of the participants at any stage of the creation of a particular piece of work should fall under the governments censorship remit. As far as I can see, that takes care of the horror stories that certain pro-censorship advocates will have you believe we are on the slippery slope to (I have, and I swear to God this is true, heard someone say that if we were to revoke the blasphemy laws in this country then we will see an increase in things like snuff films because "sacrifice is always prevalent in a godless society"). Other than that...well, as far as I can see it's a matter of personal choice and parental control. I rather like organisations such the BBFC (who decide the ratings for films depending on suitability) because they are provide a useful guideline to parents who wish to ensure that their children don't watch anything unsuitable (such as The Evil Dead...). Yet even then, I don't think that their ratings should be anything more than guidelines, and not rules set in stone.

In short, my ideal is a world where the likes of Chris Morris can continue to produce programs such as Brass Eye and the people who dislike it will all remember how to change the channel of their television rather than writing foaming letters to their MP's demanding that the filth be stopped. If people want to be so egocentric as to believe that something that offends them must therefore offend everybody, then by all means let them carry on. Perhaps listen to them for a while, and even allow yourself a few cooings of sympathy. Then remind them that all they have to do is stop reading or watching whatever it is that is upsetting them and do something else. Failing that, you could always do what I do and start complaining bitterly to them that something that they like or enjoy is offensive to you. Trust me, there is nothing funnier than watching a tinpot 'moral guardian' being forced to argue against censorship when you complain to them about sexism in an Enid Blyton book.

I'll argue for the necessity of censorship, and I know that you'll give me a good argument too :).

I'm also going to try and do this without sounding too old, but I think I'm going to fail.

Anyways, censorship - why it's a good thing.

I think basically without censorship, or as censorship becomes more slack attitudes change. I'm frequently surprised and shocked and yes, even offended at some of the language I hear coming out of children's mouths. Is this a question of disciplining by the parents? Yes, but the reason that f***ing this slips of the tongue so easily is because we have become desensitized to a lot of swearing. Similarly with violence, and with pornography. If there were no censorship then the boundaries would be pushed and pushed. I can remember years ago finding the girl on page three extremely titilating. These days it takes a little more.
If you look to other european countries who have taken a more relaxed view of pornography than we have and you'll see that the "hardcore" porn they are pedalling is far more extreme that what would be referred to as hardcore in this country. Another example to think about is by looking at films that were contravertial in their day, which look pale in comparison to the regular, say horror, films that are being released today.

Another point that you made is that you watched Evil Dead when you were 8 and have been treated to a lifetime of nightmares about zombies ever since. Children do not know what is best for them. Yes, as an adult you have the capacity to know what you do and do not want to watch. Children do not.

You said that censorship is about protecting the vulnerable, yet you seemed to complain at swearing being removed from radio edits. Surely that is protecting the vulnerable, as is having guidelines as to what time swearing is acceptable on television (a barrier which seems to be frequently tested). Parent's cannot keep tabs on what their children are doing all the time. I agree that censorship in a lot of cases should be a matter of personal choice or parental control, but the parents cannot always control what is said on the radio, or what is portrayed on television.

I kind of feel like I'm agreeing with a lot of what you wrote, so I'm not making for a very good argument really.

I guess I'm basically saying that censorship is a good thing in terms of stopping children hear or see things that they shouldn't until they are able to make those choices for themselves. I also think that censorship is a good thing in terms of kerbing the desensitization of certain things like sex, violence and even bad language.

Another issue that you didn't touch upon, but I think is also important is the censorship of information. Whilst trying to avoid current affairs topics the government is privvy to all sorts of intelligence that we never know about, and never get to know about. That has to be a good thing to avoid mass hysteria and to enable potential threats to be dealt with efficiently.

Bit of a rambling lame argument. Sorry I couldn't make it a little more interesting but a lot of what you said I thought was pretty sound.

Mind if I read it later? Not really in the correct frame of mind right now.

I went to a debate on censorship on Tuesday. I don't know what significance that has, just thought I'd say it.

For some reason, I've found myself arguing with my friends about censorship recently. Seeing as I like few things better than a good and good-natured argument, I don't view this as a bad thing. Nor do I generally view it as a particularly noteworthy thing. But for some reason I've found the topic of censorship has tattooed itself onto my brain, and so it is that I'm sitting in front of a computer screen trying to put my thoughts in order about the subject. Hopefully it will provide an interesting read. I'm equally hopeful that it will help me settle on a firm opinion about censorship so that I no longer argue whichever point of view is the most likely to wind up the other person (What? Don't look at me like that; you know what I'm like...)

So then; is censorship a good thing or a bad thing? It has been with us since Roman times, where the office of Censor of Public Morals existed. It was, rather ominously for us, an office abused by successive Emperors who used the position to declare any point of view that conflicted with theirs as immoral. Unhappily, many countries use censorship in exactly the same way (Burma and Singapore spring immediately to mind, but just look at how often Blair or Dubya play the "moral high ground" card when faced with criticism.)

If, like me, you're a film, music, or literature buff, you'll almost certainly be inclined to say that it is a bad thing. The last 50 years has seen censorship of good films (A Clockwork Orange, though that was unusual in that it was Kubrick himself who ordered it's withdrawal from the UK. Numerous "video nasties" were also banned; The Evil Dead is my favourite among these.), good music (we are plagued with radio edits of songs in order to protect our delicate little ears from the trauma of hearing a swearword; why the hell we can't apply these same criteria to protect us from the anodyne earsmells that Stuttering Stanley of Pop Idol fame vomits out with alarming regularity I'll never know...), and good literature (Lady Chatterley’s Lover being the most famous casualty here).

However, you may just as easily be inclined to say that it is a good thing. I saw the Evil Dead when I was 8 and have been treated to a lifetime of nightmares about zombies ever since. Many of the video nasties that have now been freed from the thrall of the censors have turned out to be badly made and exploitative balls. I was as surprised as anybody to find myself thinking that I agreed wholeheartedly with the censors who wanted to ban Bad Lieutenant; it was the worst, most boring film I've ever seen. It consisted of a series of scenes that were designed to shock the viewer and...that's it. It's easier to find pirate treasure that it is to find the plot of this turgid lump of sensationalist rubbish. Obviously I'm being facetious when I say I wanted it banned, I merely wanted to stop watching it. Nevertheless, it is a film used by both the pro and anti censorship camps to justify why censorship should be increased or reduced. So who is right?

As we live in a relatively liberal western society (I'm talking only about Europe here; their are conflicting reports from the US that claim the current government are either the cultural equivalent of the Spanish Inquisition, or the last guardians of decency depending on your point of view.), there has been an increasingly relaxed attitude to censorship. Most people, if questioned, would probably say that censorship is not a good thing, or that censorship begins and ends in the home. To which the reply is "What about kiddie porn? If you don't believe in censorship at a government level then what is to stop this stuff being made?"

Well, sorry to rely on sophistry and nitpicking here, but I think that's rather a dishonest way to argue in favour of greater censorship. Child pornography is, first and foremost, a human rights issue. Children should not have to be forced into doing something that will be physically and psychologically damaging, and I'm pretty damn sure that I would want the government to do everything in their power to stop it's production (unless you live in Belgium, where it would appear that the government are the biggest consumers of child porn...). Again I must stress; that is not censorship, it is protecting the rights of the vulnerable.

Yet isn't that what censorship is about; protecting the vulnerable? Well, yes in theory that is exactly what it is for. But the fact is that our trust in the censors and that they will know what is best for us has been eroded considerably. I've already mentioned how Blair, and all politicians for that matter, use censorship for political reasons; the Brass Eye special concerning the media's hypocrisy in dealing with Paedophiles was condemned without having been seen because that is the sort of thing that middle england wanted to hear. But it's not just politicians that one should be wary of; it's not often that I will punch the air in delight at the news of someone's death, but that's exactly what I did when I heard that Mary Whitehouse had shuffled off this mortal coil. How DARE that self righteous cow tell me that she knows what is best for me, especially when she never used to watch most of the programs she condemned.

Michael Grade described her as "a bully in the guise of a victim", and I agree wholeheartedly with the description. Not just of her, but of pretty much every self appointed censor. Whether they argue for censorship on religious grounds (such as those peace loving Christians who hurled abuse and threats of violence at people who committed the cardinal sin of going to see "The Last Temptation of Christ"), or for moral reasons (the simpering titheads who constantly worry about the negative effects of any TV program racier than "Little House on the Prairie"), or simply for personal reasons (if there are any bigger morons in the world than the ones who signed the petition calling for the second Lord of the Rings film to change it's title from "The Two Towers" because they believed it was a clear reference to September 11th, then I have yet to be made aware of their existence), they are essentially trying to force their views on others. And if you don't accept their view, then you are the enemy and you are to be condemned for your sinfulness/immorality/insensitivity.

So what is it that I'm trying to say here? Well, I do believe that there are certain fundamental things that the government (or some public body) should concern themselves with in respect of censorship. Personally, I believe that anything that involves a lack of consent of one or more of the participants at any stage of the creation of a particular piece of work should fall under the governments censorship remit. As far as I can see, that takes care of the horror stories that certain pro-censorship advocates will have you believe we are on the slippery slope to (I have, and I swear to God this is true, heard someone say that if we were to revoke the blasphemy laws in this country then we will see an increase in things like snuff films because "sacrifice is always prevalent in a godless society"). Other than that...well, as far as I can see it's a matter of personal choice and parental control. I rather like organisations such the BBFC (who decide the ratings for films depending on suitability) because they are provide a useful guideline to parents who wish to ensure that their children don't watch anything unsuitable (such as The Evil Dead...). Yet even then, I don't think that their ratings should be anything more than guidelines, and not rules set in stone.

In short, my ideal is a world where the likes of Chris Morris can continue to produce programs such as Brass Eye and the people who dislike it will all remember how to change the channel of their television rather than writing foaming letters to their MP's demanding that the filth be stopped. If people want to be so egocentric as to believe that something that offends them must therefore offend everybody, then by all means let them carry on. Perhaps listen to them for a while, and even allow yourself a few cooings of sympathy. Then remind them that all they have to do is stop reading or watching whatever it is that is upsetting them and do something else. Failing that, you could always do what I do and start complaining bitterly to them that something that they like or enjoy is offensive to you. Trust me, there is nothing funnier than watching a tinpot 'moral guardian' being forced to argue against censorship when you complain to them about sexism in an Enid Blyton book.