Censorship and Freedom of Information

Censorship laws in the UK mean that virtually any media product which is published or broadcast can be inspected to ensure that it does not contain any material which is deemed "immoral", "blasphemous", "obscene", or "seditious". If it is shown to contain such material, it can be suppressed.
Reasons for censorship may be on the grounds of political security, sexual mores, religious or public taste, or "decency".
Unfortunately, decency and morality are relative values. It appears that the so-called "moral majority" whose will is purportedly carried out by the censors is, more often than not, made up of those who have a position of power which would be threatened by whatever it is that is censored.
James C. Robertson in his book "The Hidden Cinema" writes that "censorship for adults is, in whatever guise, always a device to perpetuate the political and social status quo."
This is certainly the only feasible reason I can come up with for the continued application of the archaic British laws on Blasphemy (relating to the Christian religion only, of course - those damned heathens aren't allowed to take offence at their religious beliefs being slandered) being applied to the media, notoriously Nigel Wingrove's "Visions of Ecstasy", the infamous "nun has masturbatory fantasies about Jesus" flick.
To be honest, what I've heard of the film, and what shots I've seen bring to mind Ken Russell's 1974 film "The Devils", a film which is as blatant attack on churchmen and politicians as any you're likely to find, which received no such ignominious treatment, despite great controversy surrounding it's release. Of course, having Ken Russell and a major studio behind it can't have hurt.
Admittedly, it doesn't actually feature sexual fantasies about Christ per se, which is what "Visions of Ecstasy" has been crucified over, so to speak, but it still seems ludicrous to me that blasphemy has been used as an excuse to ban a film in the latter part of the 20th century. So much for Britain advancing boldly towards the next millennium.

But then, how many of the general public would honestly want to watch a perverse, erotic, heretical, and above all obscure little film about some woman's fantasies about Christ? Not exactly the sort of thing that breaks box-office records, is it?
How about more mainstream censorship, that affects things the majority of people are likely to actually see?
Censorship, both self regulated and enforced by the BBFC, the ITC, and whichever other bodies have relevant oars to stick in seems to be becoming more and more prevalent in film and television.
'Home and Away' is regularly censored by ITV for plot, and for individual scenes. Some things would appear to just be not suitable for a teatime audience, mostly scenes with sexual implications.
'The Simpsons' is censored by both the BBC and Sky for, most frequently, sexual suggestion, bad language and violence. Yes kids, Itchy and Scratchy, parodies of cartoon violence, are themselves censored. Sky have removed an entire episode from their showing of Series 9.
'Star Trek: Deep Space Nine' has been censored. So have the Muppets. A film featuring the Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers has been banned, in addition to existing censorship of both the series and the spin-off films for violence and various martial arts & weapons which are considered to be just too tempting for Little Johnny not to have a try at.
Okay, so all this can be justified by saying "it's being done to protect the children". Somehow, I have my doubts as to whether hearing Bart Simpson say the word "bastard" is all that likely to deprave and corrupt your average 7 year old, but I'll let that pass for the minute.

A serious problem with the current state of film and television censorship as I see it is that censors approach everything they look at with the view that it is going to be watched by children. What they assume these proverbial children need to be protected from is largely an issue for another debate. It is the assumption that we are not, collectively, responsible and well grounded enough not to be influenced by films which irritates me.
A 1994 amendment to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act, requires the BBFC to "have special regard ... to any harm that may be caused to potential viewers or, through their behaviour, to society by the manner in which the work deals with:- criminal behaviour, illegal drugs, violent behaviour or incidents, horrific behaviour or incidents, or human sexual activity."
Now, films with scenes of that nature are targeted towards adults. We are, in the eyes of the law, assumed to be mature enough to think for ourselves and take responsibility for our actions. At least, I was under the assumption that this was the case.
Evidently, going by the BBFC's attitude, when a character in a film which I empathize with does something in a sufficiently glamourous way, I'm likely to immediately be compelled to imitate it. Please excuse me while I go and shoot up a quarter of a gram of heroin and then go and eviscerate someone by the use of a number of large fishhooks on chains.

I consider myself mature and independent enough to be able to watch pretty much anything and still retain enough of a social responsibility and survival instinct not to do anything suicidally stupid or murderously sadistic as a result. I'm generous enough to hold the opinion that this applies to the majority of adults.
The truly psychotic are as likely to be inspired to wreak havoc by a newscast or a book as by a video nasty. I feel that the argument that a few people could be inspired to commit crimes by certain films is an extreme generalisation. There are a great number of films which have scenes which could theoretically inspire crime, and most of them haven't even come close to being banned.

As for protecting children, I will admit that home video systems are a particular stumbling block with this one. No one can really control how much access a parent gives their child to videos which may be unsuitable. Most pornography, in my opinion, is largely harmless - a young child is most likely to find it boring, and an adolescent will probably know exactly what is being shown, and is unlikely to suffer anything worse than a temporarily increased libido.
Violence is a more contentious issue, and is more likely to be emulated by children. To be honest, I'm of the opinion that violence of the sort portrayed in a children's series such as the 'Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers' is far more likely to be emulated without thought by a child than the most gruesome scene from a horror, martial arts, or gangster film. The difference is that when the Power Rangers deliver a kick to the back of someone's neck, there are no repercussions. No blood. No death. No bones breaking. Violence is portrayed as a game in which no one gets hurt.
If we're going to permit this on our screens (and despite a certain degree of censorship which I mentioned above, such things do appear pretty regularly for our children's viewing pleasure), I don't see that there are any real grounds for the banning of violent films because "they may be a detrimental influence upon children". And if we assume that even the Power Rangers are thoroughly unsuitable to be shown, for the sake of the children, then where do we stop declaring material to be unsuitable on the grounds that a child may get hold of it?
The real solution to children being influenced by film & TV is in upbringing. Upbringing, and buying a locking cabinet for your adult films.

Film is a form of art, and a form of expression. Censorship at the level it is currently enforced in Britain is unsuitable, not to mention patronising, given the maturity of our audiences. We have minds of our own, and can make choices for ourselves. The laws of marketing will dictate that, should enforced censorship be abolished, all but a minority of specialist films would be deemed perfectly acceptable by the majority of people. Individuals with the taste (and the stomach) for extremes of any sort are rare.

Return to Delirium's Phantasy