Censorship attitudes in the UK

[Chodon]

I'm not really interested in getting into a huge flamewar about censorship or Wal-Mart.    What interested me was that there were a several comments coming from the UK favoring government censorship to corporate censorship.  The argument was that one can petition the government to change the law, but you can't petition a corporation; they can do what they want. 

Yeah, so it sounds like we're doing just what wakela didn't want.  Sorry.  I'll leave it at this: businesses should be able to run things how they like, no matter their size.  If they want to pander to a vocal minority they do it at their peril since it's their business.  I don't like government censorship because it's more absolute (law of the land) and, as Russell said, it's a lot of work to overturn a government system.

The responsibility lies with parents and individuals to make informed decisions about what is and isn't appropriate for them and their family.  The buck stops there.  Censorship is the suxors.

[birdless]

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.

Bear in mind I'm still trying to figure all this out, and sincere apologies for the mass snippage, but isn't our "buy-in" the option whether to shop there or not? If the bottom-line is all Store X is looking at, then decisions will be made thus, regardless of minority outcry... sure, Store X may pull ItemABC temporarily, but if their sole reason for pulling it is fear of loss of business, then, if ItemABC is truly a mass marketable product, Store X will see the profits Store Y (who chose to continue selling it) is making. I would think that then Store X would weigh the profits they'd make by retracting that decision against the losses that they'll incur by stocking it on their shelves. If it looks like the business gained will overcompensate for the business lost, don't you think they'll retract their decision? This is, of course, if they decide that ItemABC fits their marketing image (e.g. it wouldn't make sense for Wal-Mart to sell Tiffany Crystal because that's just not addressing their market; being in marketing myself, there are a lot of decisions based on whether it just looks right for a business to sell any given product).

[wintermute]

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.

Bear in mind I'm still trying to figure all this out, and sincere apologies for the mass snippage, but isn't our "buy-in" the option whether to shop there or not? If the bottom-line is all Store X is looking at, then decisions will be made thus, regardless of minority outcry... sure, Store X may pull ItemABC temporarily, but if their sole reason for pulling it is fear of loss of business, then, if ItemABC is truly a mass marketable product, Store X will see the profits Store Y (who chose to continue selling it) is making. I would think that then Store X would weigh the profits they'd make by retracting that decision against the losses that they'll incur by stocking it on their shelves. If it looks like the business gained will overcompensate for the business lost, don't you think they'll retract their decision? This is, of course, if they decide that ItemABC fits their marketing image (e.g. it wouldn't make sense for Wal-Mart to sell Tiffany Crystal because that's just not addressing their market; being in marketing myself, there are a lot of decisions based on whether it just looks right for a business to sell any given product).

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.

[birdless]

Hmm.... Okay, but why begrudge them the freedom to not sell it for any reason, since we have the freedom to not shop there? Maybe you don't begrudge, since you also said that freedom to do a thing doesn't make it a good idea... maybe you're just saying it's simply bad business and it irks you? Also, why is the "refuse-to-shop-there" solution inefficient?

[qwints]

I'm not really interested in getting into a huge flamewar about censorship or Wal-Mart.    What interested me was that there were a several comments coming from the UK favoring government censorship to corporate censorship.  The argument was that one can petition the government to change the law, but you can't petition a corporation; they can do what they want. 

Yeah, so it sounds like we're doing just what wakela didn't want.  Sorry.  I'll leave it at this: businesses should be able to run things how they like, no matter their size.  If they want to pander to a vocal minority they do it at their peril since it's their business.  I don't like government censorship because it's more absolute (law of the land) and, as Russell said, it's a lot of work to overturn a government system.

The responsibility lies with parents and individuals to make informed decisions about what is and isn't appropriate for them and their family.  The buck stops there.  Censorship is the suxors.

I'm amazed at how I agree with everything you say here and yet our positions feel so different. Absent a few obvious caveats (e.g. businesses should not be allowed to commit fraud) I'm against unnecessary government regulation. That said, the argument which has been brought up by a number of people that I don't think you've addressed is that those business's freedom is the problem with corporate censorship. The MPAA's raters are not only unelected, their identities are actually kept secret. Even worse, the standards they use to rate (which, in practice, means censor) movies is unknown. When a movie maker appeals his case to the MPAA, he is not even allowed to cite precedent to criticize a rating.

It's also important to remember that courts can provide a check on government censorship when it oversteps the lines. The Supreme Court can protect the right to demonstrate in Skokie, but not in a shopping mall.

[CammoBlammo]

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? 

In deference to our Quaker friends (boom boom!) you'd probably struggle to find Quakers willing to serve on such an authoritarian body. And if you could, they'd probably let most things go as a matter for the individual conscience.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled programme...

[birdless]

… the standards they use to rate (which, in practice, means censor)….

Wow! I've never considered rating the same thing as censoring... am I alone in that? If I am, can someone explain how they are the same?

<edited to clarify that any tone of smartassedness was unintended>

[stePH]

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? 

In deference to our Quaker friends (boom boom!) you'd probably struggle to find Quakers willing to serve on such an authoritarian body. And if you could, they'd probably let most things go as a matter for the individual conscience.

I think Chodon was thinking "Puritans" when he/she said "Quakers"

[eytanz]

… the standards they use to rate (which, in practice, means censor)….

Wow! I've never considered rating the same thing as censoring... am I alone in that? If I am, can someone explain how they are the same?

<edited to clarify that any tone of smartassedness was unintended>

Rating does not equal censorship, but it is a tool of censorship. Classifying things into groups is the first stage in declaring one or more of those groups out of bounds. This has happened, de facto, with movie ratings in the US, where NC-17 rated movies are not screened in most markets.

[Heradel]

For an example of the ratings system leading to censorship, how much male (or female for that matter) frontal nudity is there in (US) films? Or when it does appear (like in Forgetting Sarah Marshall), you barely have time to register what you're seeing before it's off screen, because while breasts and butts of both genders are fine for limited periods in R movies, almost any actual depiction of a penis gets you sent to NC-17, and less than a hundred theaters, without passing Go and collecting $200. If you want the whole story, This Film is Not Yet Rated is a good guide.

[Chodon]

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? 

In deference to our Quaker friends (boom boom!) you'd probably struggle to find Quakers willing to serve on such an authoritarian body. And if you could, they'd probably let most things go as a matter for the individual conscience.

I think Chodon was thinking "Puritans" when he/she said "Quakers"

Sorry the funny hats throw me for a loop.  I did mean puritan.



(Let's see how long these hijacked photos last)

[stePH]

For an example of the ratings system leading to censorship, how much male (or female for that matter) frontal nudity is there in (US) films? Or when it does appear (like in Forgetting Sarah Marshall), you barely have time to register what you're seeing before it's off screen, because while breasts and butts of both genders are fine for limited periods in R movies, almost any actual depiction of a penis gets you sent to NC-17, and less than a hundred theaters, without passing Go and collecting $200. If you want the whole story, This Film is Not Yet Rated is a good guide.

I recall seeing Graham Chapman's "full monty" rather prominently in Life of Brian, which was rated R in the USA.

[Heradel]

For an example of the ratings system leading to censorship, how much male (or female for that matter) frontal nudity is there in (US) films? Or when it does appear (like in Forgetting Sarah Marshall), you barely have time to register what you're seeing before it's off screen, because while breasts and butts of both genders are fine for limited periods in R movies, almost any actual depiction of a penis gets you sent to NC-17, and less than a hundred theaters, without passing Go and collecting $200. If you want the whole story, This Film is Not Yet Rated is a good guide.

I recall seeing Graham Chapman's "full monty" rather prominently in Life of Brian, which was rated R in the USA.

True, but the ratings board has changed a bit since '79.

[birdless]

For an example of the ratings system leading to censorship, how much male (or female for that matter) frontal nudity is there in (US) films? Or when it does appear (like in Forgetting Sarah Marshall), you barely have time to register what you're seeing before it's off screen, because while breasts and butts of both genders are fine for limited periods in R movies, almost any actual depiction of a penis gets you sent to NC-17, and less than a hundred theaters, without passing Go and collecting $200. If you want the whole story, This Film is Not Yet Rated is a good guide.

I recall seeing Graham Chapman's "full monty" rather prominently in Life of Brian, which was rated R in the USA.

True, but the ratings board has changed a bit since '79.

Harvey Keitel equally uninhibited in 1993's The Piano, which also had an R rating. Oh, and there was Basic Instinct, too....

[wakela]

This was very interesting.  Now that we are discussion Harvey Keitel's shlong I suspect the discussion has run its course. 

question 1:  does the breakdown between those who prefer government censorship to corporate censorship and those who go the other way coincide with nationality?

question 2: For the people who prefer government censorship if I say "corporate censorship is wrong, but there isn't much we can do about it because the corporation has the right to sell what they want.  Government censorship can be fought more easily and openly.  This is why corporate censorship is worse."  would you agree?

[Tango Alpha Delta]

This was very interesting.  Now that we are discussion Harvey Keitel's shlong I suspect the discussion has run its course. 

question 1:  does the breakdown between those who prefer government censorship to corporate censorship and those who go the other way coincide with nationality?

question 2: For the people who prefer government censorship if I say "corporate censorship is wrong, but there isn't much we can do about it because the corporation has the right to sell what they want.  Government censorship can be fought more easily and openly.  This is why corporate censorship is worse."  would you agree?

Emphasizing once again that both are ineffective and misguided approaches, I think they each have their relative merits.  They can both be made to seem as sinister or innocuous as you like; "corporate" being a decision made by a company, which in the U.S. is treated as an individual (with no accountability for hir actions, of course) and "government" being a decision made by the representatives chosen by the voters (who tend to be completely ignorant of who their "representatives" are, or who "contributed" to their campaigns).

Personally, I like "ratings" of some kind... the way Steve does it is usually pretty helpful.  The stupid "PG" or "R" stuff on movies doesn't tell me anything, even with the new "descriptive phrases" they add.  The Piano should say "Warning: dong shown within - one time, oh, and there's some hitting."  That way, I know why it's rated whatever it's rated, and I don't know whose dong it is (could be Holly Hunter's, right?) and give away the ending.

But that's what reviews are for.  And putting ANY rating should not keep a film (or any other thingy) from getting circulated.  We tout the triumph of our free-market society so much, we should let our dollars do the voting.  Oh, that's right... the $2-billion/year porn industry actually kind of prefers it the way it is. 

Aw... I've exceeded my "quotation mark quota" for the evening.  Better "go to bed".