Protection Vs Free Speech (Censorship)

[Mr Silver]

I've been thinking recently about my country's (UK) lack of any concrete free speech charter. In America, they have the first amendment, which virtually guarantees that anyone, no matter their background, has the right to free speech (within legal parameters of course).

Now what prompted this was the realisation that the UK regulary declines to sell movies, games, etc if they are not given a BBFC certificate. For those of you unaware, the BBFC (British Board of Film Classification) is the organisation that decides what age ratings films recieve. If an unedited movie, such as The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (until 1999) doesn't recieve a BBFC rating, it won't be released or stocked by any retailer within the UK, in other words, censorship. Now here is how the BBFC ratings work...

U (Universal): Suitable for all ages
PG (Parental Guidance): Generally suitable for all, but parental discretion required
12A: Suitable for those over the age of 12, younger children to be supervised by adults
15: Suitable for those over the age of 15
18: Suitable for those over the age of 18
R18 (Restricted 18): Used for Pornography, can only be stocked by adult stores.

Now as you can see, Porn can recieve a BBFC rating, but a fictional movie, with staged dramatic elements cannot. Which makes the BBFC just a tad contradictory.

I'm all for protecting children from unsuitable material, but I also want the freedom, as an adult to be able to choose what I want to watch. Unlike some other Countries where even possesion of a banned release is strictly prohibited, in the UK it isn't. So you can buy a banned movie abroad or over the Internet and own a copy, it just won't be stocked by UK retailers. Now where does the logic in that lie exactly? It just seems as if Britain is living through an ancient moral code sometimes.

The obvious things such as torture videos, child pornography and rape/snuff movies are illegal for a reason and I fully support that and wouldn't have it any other way. But as I've stated earlier, I just don't see why an uncut film gets banned just because a few corporate panelists don't think its suitable...Surely as adults, its up to us to determine what is suitable for us or not?

Asides from this argument, It would be interesting to hear where people stand on the debate of free speech. In the United Kingdom, if people are preaching hate on the streets, by law they can be arrested (and often are, in the case of Abu Hamza), whereas in many other Countries, practises such as this are seen as an individuals right to free speech.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Censorship is, by definition, only imposed by governments.

Private organizations have the near-absolute right to not sell anything they do not wish to sell. If UK retailers don't want to sell unrated material, they are exercising *their* rights. The government is not forcing anything upon them.

 

[Mr Silver]

If UK retailers don't want to sell unrated material, they are exercising *their* rights. The government is not forcing anything upon them.

Ahh but they are, thats the whole point. Because the UK has several unwritten laws, regarding censorship, if something is refused a BBFC rating, then legally it cannot be sold in the country.

Every retailer in the United Kingdom is liable to the governments standards and practises.

For instance, when Manhunt was released, several stores crumbled to pressure from the government and refused to stock it, despite the fact it was given a provisionary BBFC rating. Eventually it was released properly without any backlash when it was re-examined by the BBFC, admist pressure from the media and various public organisations, dedicated to preserving free speech.

 

[scotpens]

. . . The obvious things such as torture videos, child pornography and rape/snuff movies are illegal for a reason and I fully support that and wouldn't have it any other way. But as I've stated earlier, I just don't see why an uncut film gets banned just because a few corporate panelists don't think its suitable...Surely as adults, its up to us to determine what is suitable for us or not?

One would think so. That’s why I’m glad to live in a country where freedom of speech is enshrined in our founding document. There are problems with inconsistency in the Motion Picture Association of America’s rating (classification) system, but at least the MPAA is a private industry group, not a government agency.

Oh, and as for “snuff films” (in which someone is actually killed on camera for entertainment), they’re an urban myth. So far, they’ve never been proven to exist.

 

[RJDiogenes]

Well, since I'm very strongly against censorship and strongly for freedom of speech and freedom in the arts, it's easy to see where I stand on this issue. I think the UK should have the equivalent to our First Amendment to guarantee everybody these Rights (well, of course, I think every country should have this).

 

[Myasishchev]

I'm not getting into this again!

 

[Count Zero]

Well, Germany has a similar system. The industry formed a board that rates all media. Stuff without a rating is automatically considered for adults only. But then, we also have the dreaded 'index', which is short for index of youth endangering media. If something is put on there, it can be sold but not advertised for or even openly displayed. There were some controversies about certain works that landed on the index in the past because the board just overreacted. I personally think it's a nuisance of the highest order, not the ratings system itself but the index. I, too, think that, except for the obvious exceptions already mentioned, you should be able to consume all media as an adult.
However, due to the existence of the internet, laws like this have become somewhat obsolete because you can get pretty much everything there, without anyone even asking for your age.

As for a charter delineating rights, yeah, that's a good idea. Freedom of speech is guaranteed in the German Constitution but the article also lays down its limits, and, unfortunately, protection of the youth is among the things limiting it. (Together with personal honour.) So all those laws that bug me have their basis in the Constitution. Oh well.

 

[Pingfah]

I don't mind the BBFC and the general concept of age ratings, but I would amend the current situation so that the BBFC can't refuse a film a rating, and that anything they give an 18 rating to, they cannot demand any cuts to it to achieve that, with a few exceptions regarding the commiting of a crime in order to obtain the footage.

I would also do away with the R18 certificate.

 

[MacLeod]

I suspect you'll find the actually number of films that have been denied a certifcate by the BBFC is miniscule. A quick check on wiki (not always accurate I know) lists 3 with video nasties adding another 11 (none of which have been resubmitted). So out of the tens of thousands of films released only something like 14 remianed banned in the UK.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_banned_films#United_Kingdom

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_nasty


Remember as well attitudes change and what was once a PG film if resubmitted today might get a U.

So it seems as if it is very rare, that a film gets banned in the UK.

 

[Pingfah]

^ That's true, but the BBFC still requires plenty of cuts to some films to make an 18 certificate. The only reason that list isn't a lot longer is because distributors make the cuts that they demand in order to get it released. They shouldn't be allowed to demand anything to qualify for an 18 rating.

 

[MacLeod]

The counter argument is why put something in the film if you know it's going to be asked to be cut. I recall hearing/reading something once regarding the James Bond films, the UK censors where concerned about the violence and the US censors about the sex. Not saying if it's trur or not or just a myth.

But soceity has generally alwasys imposed the will of the majority on to the minority, not saying if it's right or wrong just the way it is.

Just to ask the question name a film that has been banned this year, and the reasons why it has been banned.

You can't apply 2011 standards to a film that was banned in 1974, you have to look in context what was happening in 1974 and aply the standards of that time to the reasons why it was banned. Doesn't soceity as a whole have a role to play in protecting minors and the more impressionable people.

That doesn't mean soceity gets it right all of the time, after all most of us have might have heard the phrase nanny state.

Remember as well just because it gets a certifcate doesn't mean it'll be released, after all cinemas can refuse to show it.


Just playing devils advocate.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Is an R18 rating banned in conventional stores by law or custom?

 

[MacLeod]

By law, R18 can be only sold in licesned Adult stores

 

[Pingfah]

The counter argument is why put something in the film if you know it's going to be asked to be cut. I recall hearing/reading something once regarding the James Bond films, the UK censors where concerned about the violence and the US censors about the sex. Not saying if it's trur or not or just a myth.

That's not an argument as to whether we should have censorship or not, it's just giving in to censorship.

But soceity has generally alwasys imposed the will of the majority on to the minority, not saying if it's right or wrong just the way it is.

I don't know that it IS the will of the majority, it's not been put to a public referendum any time in my lifetime, if at all. I imagine most people don't really care.

Just to ask the question name a film that has been banned this year, and the reasons why it has been banned.

None, but lots of films have been cut, and if they hadn't been cut they would have been banned.

You can't apply 2011 standards to a film that was banned in 1974, you have to look in context what was happening in 1974 and aply the standards of that time to the reasons why it was banned. Doesn't soceity as a whole have a role to play in protecting minors and the more impressionable people.

Yes, that is why we have age restrictions, banning a flying star or an image of a butterfly knife from an 18 rated film though? I don't see any good reason for it. That's one example of cuts made this year.

That doesn't mean soceity gets it right all of the time, after all most of us have might have heard the phrase nanny state.

Remember as well just because it gets a certifcate doesn't mean it'll be released, after all cinemas can refuse to show it.


Just playing devils advocate.

Cinemas are not known for doing that sort of thing over here, and the cuts apply to video too, in fact the censors are more strict with videos on the grounds that it can get into the hands of minors more easily. But apparently the censors haven't heard of the internet, or the US amazon which are two blindlingly easy ways of getting your hands on uncut versions of films from within the UK.

Anyway, cinemas are privately owned businesses, I am not questioning the right of private firms to refuse to distribute what they want, that is not government censorship. There's always somebody willing to distribute a film if they think they can turn a profit.

 

[iBender]

Is this why we don't get The Boondocks in England?

 

[MacLeod]

If as you say pingfah people don't really care that some films have some cuts or on the very rare occasion banned, they are giving tacit approval to the system as it stands at the moment. If enough people cared then perhaps it would change. As for the internet and importing DVD's etc..

Different soceitys have differing standards of what is acceptable and what isn't.

I agree some cuts I don't agree with, some I do. Can't reacll any of the top of my head. As always the best way to change things is to become invovled, become a BBFC reviewer and you can have a greater say in what gets a certifcate.

Though as we are talking films and touched on DVD's, it really annoys me when we get an inferior DVD release in terms of extras than say R1 or A. It wouldn't be so bad except than in the case of the UK R2 (B) we speak the same language have bradly similar cultures so very little changes if any would have to be made to have the UK having the same extras as say the US. I know with DVD we had PAL and NTSC but Blu-ray is different.

 

[Pingfah]

If as you say pingfah people don't really care that some films have some cuts or on the very rare occasion banned, they are giving tacit approval to the system as it stands at the moment. If enough people cared then perhaps it would change. As for the internet and importing DVD's etc..

Different soceitys have differing standards of what is acceptable and what isn't.

I agree some cuts I don't agree with, some I do. Can't reacll any of the top of my head. As always the best way to change things is to become invovled, become a BBFC reviewer and you can have a greater say in what gets a certifcate.

There are only 20 censors in total, which is absurd in it's own right, so the chances of that happening are rather unrealistic. Plus, I already have a job as a graphic designer, giving my entire life over to watching films doesn't exactly sound appealing. None of this precludes me from having an opinion on the matter however.

Besides, the BBFC are irrelevant, since I can get whatever I want anyway. The only thing they really achieve is to take business away from British distributors.

 

[MacLeod]

Just out of interest where would you draw a line. Are there somethings so distaseful that should a film depict them it shoul be banned or at the very least have the scenes cut?

 

[Pingfah]

Not if they are staged, no. Obviously I would draw the line at anything that involved committing a crime in order to create. But simulated violence, I would not have any limit on, nor sex as long as all actors are consenting and of legal age.

Although as I said before, I do support age restrictions.

What about you? I see you are not averse to the censorship of some content in films. But impressionable people read books and listen to music too, and violent music is more pervasive into popular culture and has grown more of a fashion culture around itself than violent films have, quite significantly.

Would you have a problem if lyrics were censored or you weren't allowed to describe certain acts of violence in a book? If we are going to assume images of certain types of filmed violence might cause impressionable people to do harm and consequently ban them, isn't it reasonable to assume the same of music?

 

[iBender]

We have a Watershed. 'Like everyother network out there I guess.'
You can say what you like on the BBC for example, sometimes it'll conflict with the Government, I've never seen it conflict with Royalty, but, I have seen it's comedy poke fun of history, many many times. It goes a little bit like this; 6am - 9pm, it's 'Ruddy', 9pm - 6am, it's Bloody. 'Or something like that.'