Media Freedom and Regulation - Article Example

Media Freedom and Regulation Name: Roll No: Class: Teacher: Subject: February 01, 2008 University: Table of Contents Table of Contents 3 Chapter-1 Introduction 4 Chapter-2 Literature Review 6 2.1 Role of Film and Video 6 2.2 Censorship on Films and Videos in Britain 6 2.3 British Board of Film Classification and Its Role 8 2.4 Policies and Activities of the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) 10 2.5 Disparity in Handling Affairs of Video and Film 12 Chapter-3 Factors Required to Explain Film and Video Censorship in Britain 13 3.1Violence 13 3.2 Ethical Values 14 3.3 Psychological Aspects 15 3.4 Issue of Pornography 16 3.5 Censorship on Broadcasting 17 3.6 Types of Censorship 18 3.7 Role of Government 19 Chapter-4 Conclusion 20 References 22 Chapter-1 Introduction A film is a significant mode for communication of concepts and ideas. The concept of free speech and liberated ideas are based on the fundamental rule that an energetic and independent marketplace of concepts will ultimately result in the materialization of most valuable plans as they are associated with all kinds of significant issues that confound and confront our society. In order for the people in society to establish informed assessments on argumentative questions, they must be presented with a fair representation of views on all aspects of such issues. Film industries, mostly in western world, neither represent a free market no a playing field. They are also not based on merit. It is significant, for the sake of communication that all ideas should be promoted through motion films having equality in opportunities that can be expressed. Films and videos promote independent ideas and are not just source of entertainment. Films and videos are the organ of public beliefs not lessened by the reality that they are in fact designed for the purpose of entertainment as well as for providing information. (Auerbach, Nina. 1990) Films are more than source of entertainment and a significant mode for communicating ideas and views. In fact they are mostly considered as most effective means of communication developed by human kind. Significance of films can be considered by assessing the talent and resources that are used in producing compressed two to three hours of vibrant experience termed as a feature film. A film is in fact an extremely influential form of communication. The producers of thousands of commercial products sense the significance of films and videos and pay thousands of dollars for the purpose of showing and sometimes using them in films. (Gale, Maggie B. 1997) For many decades this form of entertainment known as films have been used effectively for promoting a variety of products including sun glasses, clothes, cosmetics, VISA cards, cigarettes and fast food etc. The significance and popularity of this medium of communication can be judged from an example that a James Bond film had reportedly earned approximately one hundred million dollars prior to releasing of film, an amount that is almost equal to cost of producing the film. Many business pundits globally are not so dull-witted to invest one hundred million dollar in a film-related promotion just for one film without a concrete basis for recognizing that films influence human attitudes, lifestyles to some extent and commercial options of such filmgoers. (Auerbach, Nina. 1990) Chapter-2 Literature Review 2.1 Role of Film and Video Films and videos influence an important diversity of commercial decisions and linked conduct. Films are a powerful and significant agent for positive social alterations, such concept widely agreed around the world that serves as a bridge among public interest and entertainment community in addressing social and health matters through films. Films have not only influenced human behavior and thinking; they sometimes cause pivotal alterations in the lives of people. (Jackson, Allan Stuart. 1993) Besides positive role played by the films there are some negative aspects about films that they also convey powerful ideas and images that are absolutely positive. Moreover, the graphic violence, foul language, counter-religious, pro-drug and partial to smoking themes is regarded as creating a negative impact on citizens. Some of the film makers are considered as socially irresponsible associates, constantly portraying through films certain populations of our varied society in stereotypical and negative manner. 2.2 Censorship on Films and Videos in Britain Regimes for the purpose of regulations of films surfaced after silent moving image was invented. Preliminary arrangements were mostly based on licensing of display venues, revealing the long convention of licensing theatres and different other public performance places. Demands for broader regulation were also based on perception that venue for exhibiting films, mostly cinemas, were exclusively potent, as compared to print and it was specifically attractive and striking for lower orders children and women- assumed to be less reasonable and with less self-control. (Jackson, Allan Stuart. 1993) Technology today has made it almost impossible to impose censor on non-verbal form of communication. Video and film releases throughout Britain are the most authoritatively-regulated in the entire Western world. With some exceptions, most of the commercially-released videos and films have been vetted and scrutinized by British Board of Film Classification that applies classification of age restrictions and suggests cutting or otherwise, in some of the cases, changing film for confirming to these principles and guidelines. (Auerbach, Nina. 1990) Such guidelines are formed on two main elements: policies of British Board of Film classifications and legal requirements like unsuitable images of children, un-pretended animal cruelty. Policies of BBFC have altered significantly in the twentieth century. These changes comprise strictly implemented lists of forbidden subjects to the present situation-based system in which artistic merit is a prime element in evaluating individual firms. Although this concept has certainly led to a variety of significant films that are passed either with a milder age limitation or uncut that is expected and are also terms as controversial because of inevitable inconsistency. Some of the videos and films are treated with more leniency than others having almost similar content due to largely subjective assessments by a small group of people. 2.3 British Board of Film Classification and Its Role British Board of Film Classification is not a government organization. Central Government is not directly involved in the affairs of film and videos censorship beyond legislation passing that affects activities of BBFC. Local authorities exercise more power, including participation in final opinion if a particular film can be shown or not. Although in most of the cases they are contend to acknowledge verdict of British Board of Film Classification. As such this is the prime reason of creating BBFC by film industry. Film censorship in Britain has a long history as social and cultural. BBFC is stricter on certain areas including sexual violence than it was in the past. With the rapid development of technology, role of British Board Film Classification is predicted to be less significant. (Auerbach, Nina. 1990) Side-effect of its narrated commitment to larger openness is that it is much simpler to order unclassified, uncut videos and DVDs from anywhere else for instance material that is not permitted to be sold legally in Britain. In case such practice spreads widely enough to affect film industry of Britain, it is most likely that more pressure will be exerted on BBFC to reveal this. Film censorship in Britain is based on the Act known as “Obscene Publications Act 1964” and related regulation like “Video Recording Act 1984” with considerable responsibility being assigned to British Board of Film Classification a representative of industry. The primary act disallows material that seems to corrupt or deprave persons, who are likely see, read or hears it. Local governments under “Cinematograph Act 1909” have the power to permit any cinema for prohibiting or exhibiting any film. For example in the year 1973 a license was granted for ‘Thorsen’s Quiet Days in clichy’ by the greater London Council and Camden Council granted license in the year 1998 to ‘Hooper’s Texas Chain Saw Massacre’. In practice the local and national governments have acknowledged ratings allotted by British Board of Film Classification. (Auerbach, Nina. 1990) The 1952 enactment, combined with other film legislation in the year 1985, ascertains that no film can be shown if licensing authority serves written notice for banning exhibition, children are banned from unsuitable films, films cannot be showed without certification. This certification should be revealed in advertising, not only at the time of cinema entrance but immediately on screen also before showing film. ‘Video Recordings Act 1994” signifies the need for British Board of Film Classification to consider damage to prospective viewers and also harm to community through viewer’s attitude in association to works that is concerned with illegal drugs, criminal behavior, violent incidents and behavior and individual sexual activities. This particular Act amended subsequently, established different age bands for retailing/viewing videos: U: Universal: appropriate for all viewers Uc Universal: specifically appropriate for children PG: Parental guidance: parents are advised about some particular scenes that may not be suitable for young children. 12: passed for such audiences that are in the age group of twelve and over 15: Appropriate only for those in the age group of fifteen and ply 18: Appropriate for those in the age group of eighteen and over R18: Can be sold only in the case licensed sex shops to persons in the age group of eighteen and plus. (Gale, Maggie B. 1997) Stress under Act by distributors and producers was revealed in establishment in the year 1989 of a council named as ‘Video Standards Council’. It is a non-profit body set up with the purpose of developing and observing Code of Practice for encouraging and promoting higher standards among video industry. The code and ratings was expanded subsequently to video games and computer industry. Site of British Board of Film Classification recognizes cuts to films mostly at the exhibitors’ requests that peaked at about thirty four percent in the year 1974 and are presently running at around three percent. Films without being assigned a rating or refused for being allotted a rating are not exhibited and present no or little interest to the segment of commercial distributors as only few financiers exhibit their interests in works that are not able to transfer to screen from can. 2.4 Policies and Activities of the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) The British Board of Film Classification was established in 1912 as an independent and non-governmental body. It is a non-profit organization and source of funds are fees received for its services. It present structure consist of council of management. The council comprises ten members that are drawn from servicing and manufacturing sectors of industry. Producers, distributors and directors cannot become a part of this council as they can influence decisions made by board. (Balzer, Richard. 1998) Council of management is responsible for appointing principal officers. Approval of local authorities, home secretary and industry trade associations is required to appoint directors and president of the council. Examiners are mostly chosen from a wide spectrum of backgrounds and age with a variety of ethnic communities. BBFC has given an undertaking to Parliament to provide for a frequent turnover of examiners. BBFC is primarily responsible for the classification of video, film and digital media. Power of BBFC are differs slightly for each of these media. Role of BBFC covers a broader spectrum and assumed by different sub-committees and sub-councils. Video Standards Council: A trade entity monitors and advises the industry of video and manages the new system. Video Appeals Committee: An autonomous body that hears appeals from distributors of video considers that the British Board of Film Classification has been severe than warranted. However, appeals are quite a few in numbers. Video Consultative Council: comprises teachers, magistrates, psychologists, domestic authority counselors, two doctors, a criminologist and an ex-Director of NSPCC. Video tapes are shown to them in order to extract their opinions of most likely impact, particularly on young people. Film Education: An organization formed by a group comprising teachers of film studies with the objective to supply materials on films to schools considered specifically relevant for some specific age groups. Test screenings are used by BBFC with young audiences but prefer to restrain if advised against it by Film Education. Consumer Advice Scheme: Consumer suggestion and advice box that is particularly printed on video tape provides information on intensity or frequency of sex/nudity, bad language and violence; short description supplied by BBFC of content or theme of video and hint of any controversial element like suicide, drug use, domestic violence or ghosts etc. 2.5 Disparity in Handling Affairs of Video and Film Common standards are applied to video, more strictly, than to film. The reason is that audience of cinema can be regulated more easily by age while entering cinema. Video Recordings Act 1984 makes it compulsory for BBFC to undertake particular account of realities that a video tape is envisaged in home. A Video can be seen by such people not choosing video and can also be seen by under-age group. It is also possible that people willing to watch particular images in external environment not willing to have taken into their family home. Film is mostly projected from start to end, while video can be played and rewound repeatedly and also can be played in slow, super slow motion and paused. As such a film that may be eligible ‘15’ for cinema can be certificated in case of video for ‘18’ without any additional cuts that are required if film distributors desires the video version to accomplish a ‘15’ classification. (Balzer, Richard. 1998) While discussing film and video censorship, the most common examples are related with violent and sexual content that has directed to outrage and tends to claim that the fabric of community has broken down. However there are many great films, not banned, but either through some cuts on behalf of censor or through a procedure of self-regulation and more generally through classifications, either are released to be watched by some persons or released in such a format that is different from original. (Baldwin, Peter. 1992) Chapter-3 Factors Required to Explain Film and Video Censorship in Britain 3.1Violence There are certain concerns about video and film censorship that need to be discussed in order to explain the nature and issues of censorship in Britain. Policies and activities of BBFC are not considered enough to explain the role and significance of censorship in Britain. Some of the vital issues prevailing in the current scenario, highlighting the importance of censorship are Sexual violence; significance on process of sadism and violence; fascination of weapons that are specifically dangerous and not famous in Britain; ill-treatment of child actors and animals; detail of dangerous, imitable or criminal techniques; and blasphemous dialogue or images. The above mentioned factors should be taken into account to explain the film and video censorship in Britain. One of the most critical issues is to ascertain who is eligible for making decisions for the resolving these issues. In order to execute such decisions the debatable areas that require articulation are to understand the nature of censorship and the why it happens; the kinds of self-censorship; why censorship is required; and what types of materials are required to be censored to particular groups of people and what kind of material should be banned altogether. 3.2 Ethical Values Censorship protects ethical values present in community thus it reveals our values. Argument against it is that censorship inflicts the values of particular people who do not respect others, assuming that people are mostly not mature. Different kinds of views prevail on censorship. At one end is the view that all of the media, including of course cinema, impact people and educate behavior. While at the other end, anti-censorship opinion prevails that advocates the capability of people to understand content as works of art or fiction. If a person commits and act that is termed as violence in response to experience of media, then the problem is the psychological state of perpetrator and not film. In between these two views are people who think that a requirement of classification is necessary. A famous supporter of censorship was late Mary Whitehouse who lobbied for many years in favor of banning TV and film program. She was of the view that media is partly accountable for decline in ethical standards in society as it exhibits images of violence and sex. (Powell, Kerry. 1997) She claimed that young people are mostly exposed to harmful screen scenes. Whitehouse used accounts from researchers and psychologists to prove the connection among exposure to violent scenes and violent acts. She particularly criticized such films that depicted violence without ethical context. As such those people who are concerned about the impact of film images distinguish among background for such images for instance justification or rationale for violence. A burning issue of censorship is protection as film makers should acknowledge their responsibility towards welfare and health of the entire society, particularly for the welfare of children. (Baldwin, Peter. 1992) 3.3 Psychological Aspects The relationship between viewer and film is narrated in ‘behaviorist’ psychology that scrutinizes stimulus response and taught behavior. In this structure, spectators of violent images participate in different tests. These tests determine the level of response by people to particular scenarios violently is increased being outcome of exposure to those violent images. Although such approach has not been accepted by some critics who are of the view that this method for investigating media violence is chaotic or watching a violence in film in the first instance and then at the societal problem of violence as an impact is not much useful than to view societal problem first and study violent behavior, psychological profiles and experiences of violent people. (Foulkes, Richard. 1994) Theoretically county and local councils mostly have the power to permit any cinema for showing any kind of film. Practically, these councils follow the guidelines and classifications given by BBFC to films. Although there have been some exceptions as in 1996 , a license to David Cronenberg’s Crash was not allotted by Westminster Council even though it played in the rest of Britain. In the year 1998 a license was granted to ‘Texas Chain Saw Massacre’ by Camden Council that was subsequently classified by BBFC as 18. In the current years there has been a gigantic development of sex establishments, licensed and unlicensed, along with sex exhibitions at main venues in Britain. Nature of such material has also altered from naked ladies being shown playing volleyball in the decade of 1950s to rigid core, sado masochistic defacement and obsessive material showing the infliction of real injury and pain. The guidelines for classification are drawn by British Board of Film Classification concerns mainly the well-being of film industry. (Collins, L.J. 1998) 3.4 Issue of Pornography Pornography is widely available which reinforces the behavior that people are just more than sex objects and it had created a destructive effect on relationships between males and females evidenced by the persistent increase in sex crime in the last fifty years. Some of the critics are of the view that pornography should be considered independently from ‘political censorship’ as its harmful effects are significantly different from other matters that are under consideration. (Foulkes, Richard. 1994) The police corruption in the decade of 1970 and reluctance of Crown Prosecution service to allow prosecutions against their consent has given a message to pornographers to conduct most of their activities unhindered. In May 2000 a judgment was given by Mr. Justice Hooper permitting pornographic video substance to be classified as ‘R18’ has directed BBFC, unilaterally as per its self-guidelines in order to classify material that is even worse in nature than presented before Justice Hooper for avoiding extra legal action from pornographers. (Powell, Kerry. 1997) Some of the critics are in favor of more censorship on pornography in films, as in their opinion it has given rise to a variety of moral, social, behavior and psychological problems. They reject the idea of ‘ethical pornography. Although sex establishments are termed as lawful business as criminal law has been served ineffective by consecutive law cases since 1959. . Classification of video and film is necessary as decisions of BBFC on them have effects and consequences that are broader than purview. Film has become as significant ingredient element for television and presently premium subscription channels are only showing films. Standards that have been approved by the British Board of Film Classifications are specifically designed for cinema audiences but have swiftly become acceptable for viewers of television also although different kinds of standards apply. (Collins, L.J. 1998) The policy of BBFC, since 1960s, has been to gradually relax restrictions on sexual conduct, violence, drug abuse and bad language as per filmmakers demand. Video and film classification serves a significant function but the present latitude enjoyed particularly by film industry is immense. (Rees, Terence and David Wilmore. 1996) 3.5 Censorship on Broadcasting As far as censorship of broadcasting is concerned, there has never been any kind of censorship of broadcasting in Britain. Only few programs in the history of broadcasting have been denied transmission. In Britain, broadcasting is regulated by the BBC Governors along with Independent Television Commission. None of the regulators are powered to preview any program. They can act only after transmission of programs as per their supervising activities and public reaction if any. (Baldwin, Peter. 1992) 3.6 Types of Censorship Censorship has seemed to operate around the under-mentioned key types of examples: Violence: In the year 1992 two films, Natural Born Killers and Reservoir were banned/completely censored at the stage of video release. Sexual Content: In 1919 ‘DAMAGED Goods’ was not allotted a certificate because the plot was built on a soldier having a sexual disease that was transmittable. Politics: It is a controversial field. Certification was not given to films on such fears that political matter could result in public unrest. In 1926 ‘Battleship Potemkin’ was banned due to the fear of revolution because of pro-communist views Taste: It is comparatively a hard category to define. Most of the films have been cut due to this particular reason. For example in 1959 Night and Fog contained a documentary footage of dead bodies in Nazi camps that was regarded unacceptable. Blasphemy: Local councils in Britain used their powers to completely ban ‘Monty Python’s Life of Brian’ as it treated story of Jesus comically. Moral Panic: It is defined as the hysterical response that mainstream community sometimes signals to groups of people who confronts conventions and act in ways that can intimidate status quo. Films presenting such kinds of approach are often edited or completely banned unless they serve to motivate people to participate. For example in 1954 ‘Wild One’ was banned being a bad example to young although Marlon Brando was starring in that film. Fears of social unrest, moral decay and the intensification of class consciousness have necessitated demands for censorship. There are two popular approaches of censorship. A group of people are of the opinion to remove scenes from films Another group wants to transform films into other forms of ethical movies. 3.7 Role of Government There is an on-going debate whether governments should assume an active role or not in censorship or it is up to the film industry to exercise censorship in films and videos. Supporters of government censorship want to remove words and scenes that might coach audiences about the methods of committing crimes, requiring them in contributing in some types of social disturbances, participate in immorality or encourage sexual promiscuity. (Collins, L.J. 1998) Supporters of self-censorship want to teach ethical lessons through films. They are of the view that film scripts to be changed on production so that overt ethical lessons could be given to audiences. Film censorship is considered necessary to preserve social order. Without proper code of ethics for censorship films will be showing more arson, murder and malicious mischief as to establish evil effects among youthful spectators. (Allen, Shirley S.1971) Most of the government-controlled censorship boards around the world review films and then make decision whether to allot license for distribution. Apparently film industry resents censorship process of governments as it results in delaying of distribution and creating the probability that every region would need a different standard. Constant editing and delays result in increased costs. (Foulkes, Richard. 1994) Contrary to government censorship, supporters of self-regulations desire that films should teach and train the audiences about social and moral lessons. This group criticize government censorship as it only delete negative scenes without exercising control over general premise of a film. Through self-regulations, films could prove another type of public education. Chapter-4 Conclusion The censorship code of BBFC should stress the significance of continuous teaching ethics by showing high-quality winning out evil. The crime result should be disastrous to criminal in the long run so an overall impression could be created that crime will ultimately loose. Censorship code should ensure that film should show result of crime is always punishment and take a reasonable percentage of the film. The film and video censorship in Britain can be explained in a better way if BBFC should stress the significance of teaching in films as their primary role for protecting public morality. The censorship should aim to show that films are a form of public education. Censorship should apply absolute standards. Video and film censorship can be explained better in the context of freedom of expression. As the factor of ‘freedom of expression’ plays a significant role in construing required standards of censorship. The utilization of freedom of expression by the influential has to be balanced against the ambitions, objections and common welfare of people without influence and power. (Allen, Shirley S.1971) References Allen, Shirley S. Samuel Phelps & Sadler's Wells Theatre. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan UP, 1971. Auerbach, Nina. Private Theaticals: The Lives of the Victorians. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1990 Baldwin, Peter. Toy Theatres of the World. London: A.Zwemmer, 1992. Balzer, Richard. Peepshows: A Visual History. NY: Abrams, 1998. Collins, L.J. Theatre at War, 1914-18. NY: St. Martin's Press, 1998. Foulkes, Richard, Scenes from Provincial Stages. London: STR, 1994. Gale, Maggie B. West End Women: Women and the London Stage 1918-1962. NY/London: Routledge, 1997. Jackson, Allan Stuart. The Standard Theatre of Victorian England. Madison, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson, 1993 . Powell, Kerry. Women and Victorian Theatre. Cambridge: CUP, 1997. Rees, Terence and David Wilmore. British Theatrical Patents 1801-1900. London: STR, 1996. Read More