As the government censorship model under examination is the British one, let's examine how that specific model actually works:
It is illegal to sell a movie that has not been submitted to the British Board of Film Classification to be rated (exceptions include non-fiction documentaries and features acted entirely by non-humanoid puppets).
If a movie is rated 12, 15, 18 or R18, it is illegal to sell or rent that movie to someone below that age. If a movie is rated R18 (reserved for hardcore pornography), it is illegal for any business other than a licensed sex shop to sell it. Similarly, specially licensed cinemas may show such a movie.
In theory, it's a criminal offence to sell (but not to buy or own) movies that have been refused a certificate, or whose producers did not apply for a certificate, but despite the brisk trade in imported titles I'm unaware of this ever having been invoked.
The American model is to shame stores into not stocking movies or games that might possibly be harmful to young children, making it difficult for people to get hold of such titles, even if they're old enough to make their own decisions.
A couple of issues with the UK system. First, who appoints the British Board of Film Classification? What if they are a bunch of Quakers and make everything R18?
They're appointed by the government, who are elected by the general public. Thus, if the public disapproves of the BBFC's actions, they can take direct action at the polls through a technique we like to call "voting".
Having said, that I'm surprised that you're not happy with the answer that "you can still go to your friedly neighbourhood sex shop and buy it there.
If the MPAA rates something innocuous but politically sensitive as NC-17, thus ensuring that it won't get shown in cinemas, what do you do? Write a snarky letter to the the CEO of Universal Studios?
Second, isn’t this just government-sanctioned “corporate censorship”? By rating films R18 they aren’t available in mainstream stores, the same as Wal-mart won’t carry some films. The only difference I can see is Wal-mart does this without government mandate, but instead they make the judgments regarding what they think their target customers will want.
Well, if a retailer "chooses" not to stock a title because doing so is illegal, I would say that is very different then them choosing not to do so because Jack Thompson writes apparently-persuasive editorials.
China is not a democracy.
People are favouring government regulation within a democracy, because it means that the power is in the hands of the people, and not a corporate oligarcy. One might as well complain that if the East India Trading Company of the 18th Century didn't carry a particular good, then it was unavailable to everyone in America, and therefore corporations deciding for themselves what to carry is a bad idea!
Is that really what you reccomend?
First of all, the East India Trading Company was a government sanctioned monopoly, totally different than modern companies in an almost pure competition. The East India Trading Company is a very poor analogy to modern day superstores, especially since the explosion of the internet.
Yes, you're right: it's a very poor analogy. Almost as poor, one might dare to suggest as using censorship in a totalitarian democracy in which the Government own all media outlets as an analogy for censorship in a mature western democracy. If any one government can stand in for any other in your argument, why can't any one corporation stand in for any other in mine?
In a free market corporations don't decide the products they carry, the consumers do. If people want something a corporation is not providing some other company will step in. If the corporations did decide to try to "change the market" they would find themselves out of business in very short order. Are you suggesting government regulation for what businesses must offer? I'm really confused. Something could be rated 12 in the UK (or lower if a lower rating exists), but not carried by UK stores because it's crap. So yes, I do recommend stores get to make their own decisions about what they put on their shelves. The market and consumers will decide if it is the right decision or not. We aren't in a situation where consumers are corralled into one store. There is a huge variety of places where people can get their media now.
Agreed.
Now you're being silly. Did you even read other people's replies, here?
I was taking the points made by others to an extreme to make a point. I haven't heard anyone suggest how to end corporate "censorship". There is no way to distinguish between targeting a market and censorship. I think the examples given previously are arbitrary at best. I'll use the example of Redacted again. There really isn't a market for a film showing killed Iraqi civilians in the US. I know I don't want to see it. Does that mean that a company is censoring it by not carrying Redacted? No, they are simply filling their shelf space with something that will sell instead of something that won't (and will probably get them all kinds of angry letters). If there are consumers who complain about a certain film is it worth it financially to risk losing their sales revenue to keep a marginally selling item on the shelves? Hell no! Even if they had a moral obligation how would it be enforced?
My point is this: removal of “corporate censorship” is the removal of a free market and the removal of the freedom of a business owner to run their business as they see fit.
No-one has argued that a company shouldn't be free to carry what they want, and not what they don't want. Really, they haven't. Read the thread again, and see if you can find such a suggestion, if you don't believe me.
What people
have suggested is that it is possible to create a system in which the moral decisions about what should be accessible happen at a more public and more transparent level, and are geared towards keeping such media out of the hands of children while still allowing adults to make their own decisions. If a retailer believes that product X will not sell, and so chooses not to carry it, in order to make room for product Y, then fine. No-one will begrudge them that freedom. On the other hand, if they decide that Product X is injurious to public morals, and that they will refuse to sell in (for the children!), regardless of the degree of demand, then I'm somewhat more torn; just because you're free to do a thing doesn't mean that it's a good idea. If the store is one that sets itself up as a moral authority (such as your local Christian bookstore), then I'm more inclined to accept such behaviour from them than from a corporation whose sole aim to to make a profit. Especially as their target demographic is far less likely t show demand for whatever it is their preacher is railing against this week.
Basically, if people are going to decide what it would be moral for me to buy / watch / read, the I want to have some buy-in into that decision-making process. True, I can choose to shop only at places that don't consider my moral development to be any of my business, but that seems like an inefficient solution, to me at least.
