Censorship – A necessary evil?

Throughout my life, Censorship has fascinated me. It’s not that I always approve of it, in fact there are often times I am vehemently against attempts to censor certain things. Of course, there are many different types of censorship, for example, I usually swear a lot in real life, but choose to keep that to a minimum on here as to not alienate people that may enjoy my content. That is an example of self-censorship, something a lot of the campaigners to ban things they don’t like should practice.

The main type of censorship that most people consider is the gatekeeping nature of authorities, be it a board such as the BBFC or governmental restrictions via laws (of course this is a UK-centric perspective). Attempts are currently being made to censor the internet in the west, something which is an entirely different article altogether, but if you are interested, take a look on YouTube for some of the established content creators talking about how their content, by merely containing bad language, are being forced out of making a living due to demonetised videos being pre-flagged to advertisers.

The type of censorship I particularly despise is that of outside groups, such as the PMRC, who put pressure of vendors, advertisers and sometimes the government in a public manner, often outright lying about the content of the media they find offensive, or at the very least, taking excerpts out of context to simply prove the point that they don’t have. Rather than try to debate what society considers acceptable, context included, they try to ban something that was considered acceptable from the outside.

The icon that possibly single-handedly boosted sales of albums in the 90s.

 

In the UK in the 80s, a term called ‘video nasties’ was coined sometime in 1982. A moral panic about the sweeping popularity of home video was generated by the tabloids. A famous headline by the Daily Mail (surely a target for censorship under the grounds of hate speech if ever I have seen one) was ‘Ban This Sick Filth’. It was the first time it was used, but it certainly wasn’t the last. Proving if anything, that the Daily Mail is a piss-rag written by hacks. A campaign, led by Mary Whitehouse, was started and championed by the aforementioned tabloids to ban the Video Nasties.

A list of films, which at one point grew as large as 72, was drawn up, making it illegal to sell or rent copies of the titles contained on it. Some of the titles are today considered bona-fide genre classics, such as Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Evil Dead. Others were the kind of schlocky straight to video fare one would expect. James Ferman, who at the time was the director of the BBFC, would often offer up cut versions of the film for release, as he fancied himself as an editor too. Watching some of these films with their cuts (available on the DVD boxset Box of the Banned) is laughably bad. He famously said of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre that he could not recommend any cuts, but it was the overall tone of the film that led to it being banned. Despite the lurid title, Texas Chainsaw Massacre was not a particularly gory or violent film, even at the time.

There was a lot of confusion around this time too. One film included on the banned list was The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas, which was a rather twee Dolly Parton musical. This served only to prove that the people responsible for this artistic cull were not even watching the films they were banning. Which was ironic, as the primary focus on the campaign was the accusation that children were watching ‘horrific images’ based on surveys that were conducted. An amusing counter survey was also conducted where interviewers had a list of made up titles on it. Just as many children claimed to have watched the majority of that list too and even when on to describe in loose terms what happened in the non-existent movies.

The campaign faded from consciousness as the British public focussed on other hyperbolic moral quandaries such as Devil Dogs, poisonous eggs and the fact that ugly politicians were able to have sex with people. It reared its ugly head again after the terrible murder of James Bulger, in which the tabloids again blamed home video, this time a specific title; Child’s Play 3. Over time, it was proven that the children who committed the heinous act had not even watched the film, but that fact was ignored in favour of shrieking outrage. The Daily Mirror has an iconic headline from this era stating ‘Banned! Thanks to the Daily Mirror!’ with an image of the Chucky Doll leering menacingly next to it. Child’s Play 3 has never been banned for release in the UK. This is what we have to deal with.

Media has changed over time and now the imminent collapse of society has been frequently blamed on videogames, especially the Grand Theft Auto franchise. Thankfully, these kind of morality crusades don’t gain as much traction today, possibly due to the availability of the internet to fact check and because of logic. If Grand Theft Auto genuinely caused copycat violence, then due to its status as making the most money in an opening weekend of any media property ever, then outside would be an orgy of violence, like an apocalyptic Purge night that never sees a dawn.

Of course, idiots still exist, the type that believe every drop of warm diarrhoea spoon fed to them by tabloid journalism (more often than not, right wing). That’s why these campaigns are so dangerous. Idiots lack reason and are unable to grasp anything other than what they are originally told. They fill Facebook comments lists with barely legible rants punched into their keyboards with fists formed of pious moral superiority, a phrase they can’t understand, let alone spell. As I mentioned earlier, now they are coming for the internet…

Caption competition? My entry is pixelated porn.

I’m not suggesting that Censoring bodies are not necessary though. Far from it. They help to protect children, animals etc. A film that shows animals being killed in a non-documentary format would not be granted a release, in a similar way that child porn is obviously and thankfully illegal. It is (at least in the UK) not permissible to release a film that promotes hate speech (although in the terms of misogyny, this is highly debatable), all of these aspects being things people can generally agree on.

 

Society’s moral compass is always flexible over time. It can often take longer for some people to move on as quickly as others. The type of entertainment on TV that is permissible now, would be impossible to imagine 30-40 years ago. Censoring bodies have to reflect that shift in a timely manner. Debate on where those lines should be drawn is always healthy, but always remember the golden rule – if you really don’t like something, you can quite easily censor yourself and not watch it/play it/look at it. There are no solid answer to if we have it right or wrong at the moment, which is why I find the topic so interesting. Let me know your take in the comments.