Censorship in the Creative Media - Essay Example

Censorship in the creative media: Religious censorship of films Some individuals cannot comprehend the reason why they live in a free world yet they are restricted to access certain types of materials from the internet as well as certain films. To them, this is undemocratic, as democracy propagates to safeguard the individual’s free will. They can’t see any justification whatsoever in governments and other established authorities denying them their free will of choosing what they would like to view. But is censorship in the creative media justified within democratic institutions? This essay attempts to answer this question. According to Kieran (1997), censorship is the limitation of expression for the sole intention of shielding people from themselves by selectively limiting access to a variety of ideas deemed to be harmful by some authority. Such ideas are perceived harmful, objectionable, or sensitive. Censorship is common in any country – authoritarian, democratic, dictatorial or otherwise. Though political diversity has brought about some freedom, censorship, especially in the creative media is still prevalent in nearly all the countries of the world. Censorship and democracy: Its Justifications The justification of censorship in the creative media is a subject of debate. Some countries, especially the undemocratic countries, are often high-handed in implementing censorship in the creative media to an extent of crushing some basic individual rights. This shall be discussed elsewhere in this essay, but first lets start with the justification debate. First, according to Kieran (1997), censorship in the creative media is a necessity to manage the spectrum of thought, and prevent any kind of dissent against the practice. Some programs may be fit to be viewed by adults, but have long-term negative effects on juniors. In such an instance, censorship of such materials would do more good than harm, thus justifying its practice. In democratic institutions, civil liberties must be rooted in the freedom of speech and expression. Infact, one of the essential foundation stones of a democratic society is freedom of expression. The freedom of information and expression must be entrenched and guaranteed in the constitution. In a democratic society, the media must be let free to publish, and the public must be let free to receive the information and the opinions. This is an individual entitlement. In essence, for individuals to be autonomous and have a sense of self-fulfillment, they must be free to receive and impart ideas and information. Freedom of expression is also beneficial in society in that it promotes debate, deters abuse of powers, and facilitates the exposure of errors (Kieran, 1997) However, Freedom of expression has never been absolute. In some instances, freedom of expression may be good to some, but harmful to others. It follows that freedom of expression must be balanced against an assortment of other interests and rights. This is where the justification of censorship in creative media seems to come in. Previous research reveals that exposing people to violent and sexually explicit material actually contributes to more physical attacks, broken homes and relationships, as well as other forms of harm, whether emotional, religious, cultural, or physical (Kieran 1997). Therefore, democracy should not be a panacea for not censoring the creative media. It should be censored within justifiable limits. Religious Censorship and its justifications In broader terms, religious censorship is the means through which materials objectionable to a certain faith are removed from public accessibility. This often entails a dominant religion forcing its limitations on less dominant religions. For example, it is illegal to view some Christian movies in countries which are predominantly Islamic such as Iran. However, this does not mean that there are no Christians in Iran. To me, such censorship is unjustifiable as it limits individuals’ freedom to one of the democratic tenets – freedom of worship (Kieran 1997). Religious censorship is often unjustifiable as it relies on beliefs that cannot be proven scientifically. In some Islamic countries such as Lebanon, a blanket censorship has been entrenched on all films and books that show sympathy for the Jews and are considered offensive to the Islamic faith. Such kind of censorship is unjustifiable as it is presumably done for other reasons apart from protecting individuals from harm. The Catholic Church banned ‘The Da Vinci Code’, an interesting film starring Tom Hanks and Audrey Tatou, and based on Dan Brown’s bestselling novel. The reason offered by Catholic Media Centre was that the film was blasphemous and went against the Catholic’s faith and doctrines. First, it is incomprehensible to justify the banning of such a beautiful piece of creative work for any other reason apart from religious. Religious beliefs are not universal across the board and thus it is unjustifiable to initiate a blanket censure on such a film (Bilasham 2007). Secondly, according to Bilasham (2007), censorship often brings an opposite effect. It brings more visibility to the censored object. When ‘The Da Vinci Code’ was banned, individuals started downloading it from internet sites and viewed it on satellite T.V. In fact, it was viewed by more people out of curiosity than it could have recorded. Majority of those that viewed it couldn’t find anything wrong with the film other than the fact that it challenged some religious beliefs of the Christian faith. But one can argue that beliefs are neither justifiable nor scientific. We have never heard of instances where people have been harmed for not towing the line of religious beliefs – may they be Christians, Islamic, or otherwise. According to Kieran (1997), censorship should be undertaken for the sole purpose of shielding people from themselves by selectively limiting access to a variety of ideas perceived harmful, objectionable, or sensitive to individuals. In such a scenario, it was unjustifiable to censor the film ‘The Da Vinci Code.’ To chip further into religious censorship, we must understand what the term ‘blasphemy’ means. According to Aldegate and Robertson (2005), blasphemy is the contemptuous use of the name of God and other sacred names without any intention of praying or speaking out some sacred matters. If the film ‘The Da Vinci Code’ and other films were censored basically because they were blasphemous, I would say that such a decision infringed the democratic principles of freedom of religion and free speech. Such a censure inevitably discriminated against the minority religious groupings in favor of the dominant religion – Christianity (Heins 2006). This therefore means that not only is the film’s censure unjustifiable, it also goes against the democratic principles of freedom of worship and freedom of speech. According to Heins (2006), it should not be the work of democratic governments to censor expressions perceived to be offensive to religious groupings. In the film industry, it should be the function of all the stakeholders involved to exercise their own discretion and self-censor. Infact, self-censorship should be encouraged over blanket censorship in that it helps to maintain multi-religious and multi-ethnic societies in the world. Stake holders must self-censor themselves and guard against racist caricatures, ethnic slurs, homophobic stereotypes, and other insults. It is true that ‘The Last Temptation of Christ’ offends some Christians. ‘The Merchant of Venice’ too offends some Jews. But is it justifiable to censure the two pieces of work and move them away from public view? I don’t think we have any moral, legal, or other justification to censure them out of public view as the two films contribute to the knowledge of our history, including the history of religion intolerance (Heins 2006). The best justification is to practice self-censor. According to Kieran (1997), the general attitudes of censorship originated in religion. Religious people believe in a ‘wise’ authority who decides on what individuals should or should not know. Questioning the paradoxes of religion is itself an act against the religion. Most profoundly, the Bible demonizes and forbids knowledge, asserting that it is only God who should possess knowledge. It follows that most religious people take what they are told at face value in order to ensure obedience to established authority. But is it justifiable to use this assumption to censor films that have religious orientations? Again, my answer is no. an individual who seeks and finds knowledge thought to be previously unattainable, like the creator of ‘The Da Vinci Code’, should never be cast out as a traitor of the faith. ‘The Da Vinci Code’ censorship by the Catholic Church can never be justified by this premise. According to Bailey (2008), films such as ‘The Passion of Christ’ are censored by most religious outfits, including the Jews, protestants, and Catholics, because they hold views that are contrary to those of dominant religions. This film is perceived to be obscene, challenging a popular Christian dogma, and violates a Christian taboo. But this should not be enough justification to censor such a film in a predominantly Christian country. The film makers are often not given the opportunity to defend themselves as many religions only permits the clergy to construe the doctrine, often with dogmatic orientations. What the clergy believes in cannot be challenged by any other individual in spite of the logic that such an explanation may offer. Based on this premise, I find it difficult to justify any kind of religious censorship on films. Societal norms cannot also be used to justify censorship in religious circles. Society norms are the values and constructs of what is acceptable to mainstream society. This line of argument is relentlessly defective because it stands in the way of the basic principle of free speech. Religious censorship of films is discriminatory and unjust towards the individuals who hold different or dissenting views on the religious beliefs. Some individuals may wish to hear or see material and films that are very different from the views of the mainstream society. Such material or films may be critical of their own establishments (Kieran 1997). But do these people lose the right to freely express themselves and the right to be informed basically because they don’t agree with the views held by religious groups? The answer should be no. For me, the most justifiable way would be to come up with a system that will guarantee free speech, religious freedom, equality, and free will of expression for all involved. According to Mathews (1994), in censoring a film, the moral orientation of the film should be considered more importantly than its religious convictions. In justifying any type of censorship, pragmatism other than dogma and religious convictions need to be used. All the cities around the world are trying to be global cities, hubs of international finance, and centers for creativity and excellence. Censorship is incompatible with all the above characteristics as it strangulates rational thinking and freedom of speech. When an authority effectively puts out certain ideas, even if it is about religious criticism or sex, it narrows the scope for creativity and new insights (Bread 1999). According to Bread, censorship tries to “defend the status quo and the lordly incumbents of the church and state, thereby effectively freezing out reformers and their fresher ideas.” This is yet another reason why I say that religious censorship of films is not justifiable. The freedom of speech should at all times be enhanced, and individuals must be allowed to view the contents they deem right without any unnecessary religious censorship. However, there should be checks and balances to curtail potentially outrageous or offensive materials and films from the reach of those who do not want to hear or see them. This is a very valid concern. But in my own view, censorship is not the answer to this. For example, before the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, the Taliban forced all the people to view programs and films with Islamic content only. It was doing this to curtail ‘potentially dangerous’ materials from reaching its citizens. But was there enough justification that a Christian movie could be potentially dangerous to the people of Afghanistan? Also, such censorship made it impossible for the Christians living in Afghanistan, no matter how few they were, to enjoy what was inherently theirs. In my own view, it is not possible to justify any type of religious censorship on films within any democratic county. The suitable response should be to zone instead of censuring. According to Bread (1999), the relevant authorities should ensure that there is an appropriate place and time for all things, undoubtedly marked out in a way that cannot confuse or harm others not willing to take part. Nothing should be banned from the audience. A good example of zoning is the film classification. Instead of censoring films like the way ‘The Da Vinci Code’ was censured, films should be rated. We should therefore retain the categories of G, PG, NC16, and 18 that we currently have while working on other categories to fit the changing trends. Other categories such as “Adults – Religious undertones”, “Adults – Potentially offensive”, and “Adult – graphic violence” need to be developed. According to Bread (1999), such labeling will make it clear to adults what they are expected to get instead of offering a blanket censorship. This approach would not only be considerate to those individuals who may find something unpleasant through dutiful segregation, but it would also make sure that adults who would like to see such movies are not denied the chance. Censorship and the freedom of speech Though freedom of speech has been discussed elsewhere in this essay, it is imperative to discuss it further in relation to creative media censorship. According to Kieran (1997), freedom of speech entails the freedom to articulate freely without limitation or censorship. More often, it is used in conjunction with freedom of expression, which denotes acts of seeking, receiving, and imparting ideas, in spite of the medium used. In democratic nations, the freedom of speech and freedom of expression are virtues that are enshrined in the constitution. According to Kieran (1997), the right to freedom of speech is distinguished as a human right under item 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Consequently, the right to freedom of speech is identified as an International human rights law. According to Shawn (2004), democracy depends upon knowledgeable and literate citizens, whose access to crucial information enables them to take part as fully as possible in their nation, and to criticize tyrannical or unwise government policies or officials. It is therefore in public knowledge that democracy must depend upon the widest possible access to uncensored ideas, opinions, and data. People must be free to express themselves publicly, openly, and repeatedly in writing and speech for them to be able to govern themselves. Therefore, it is the function of a democratic constitution to protect the principle of free speech, which should come in handy to prevent any form of censorship imposition from the executive or legislative arms of government. As such, governments must refrain from limiting the use of speech. According to Shawn (2004), majority of democratic nations around the world are uninvolved in the content of the verbal or written speech in the society. The offer the citizens the right to decide what is good and what is wrong for them without unnecessary censor. They have liberalized their airwaves, their film industry, and even the internet. All what they offer is some Zoning, classifications, or parental guidance to direct and inform the viewers. But according to Bailey (2008), this is not so in undemocratic nations around the world. In these countries the right to freedom of speech and freedom of expression is not guaranteed to the individuals by the state. The airwaves are censored to ensure that only the “right” kind penetrates through to the citizens. For example, when Microsoft wanted to tap into the huge markets of the Peoples Republic of China, it had to come up with mechanisms to Censure “unwanted” materials from the internet before it could be granted entry. Befall the fall of the Taliban in Afghanistan, it was against the law to view some western content on the television. It was also a crime, punishable by death, to screen Christian movies. Media censorships by authorities from undemocratic nations have effectively made them to remain backwards, with the exception of China. This therefore suggests that media freedom, which is granted by the right to freedom of speech is essential in ensuring that countries attain the desired social-economic development. However, it should be noted that despite the fact that freedom of speech is a fundamental right, it is not in any way an absolute right. Freedom of speech cannot in anyway be used to justify acts of violence, libel, religious intolerance, slander, obscenity, and subversion (Kieran, 1997). This means that consolidated democracies would generally require a very high degree of threat in order for them to justify censoring or banning any form of speech, T.V. Program, Film, or any other creative media which may despise others, incite violence, overthrow a constitutional government, promote lewd behavior, or untruthfully harm the reputation of others. Speech that incites ethnic or racial violence is also vehemently forbidden by most democratic nations. In conclusion, this essay has established beyond reasonable doubt that censorship curtails the right of individuals to freedom of speech and freedom of expression. Democracies grow healthy if individuals are allowed to have uncensored and undiluted information and ideas. This is a recipe for social-economic growth and development. But it is worth noting that the right to freedom of speech is not an absolute right and should be used in a way that is not harmful or injurious to other citizens. This essay has also established the fact that it is not justifiable to censor films based on religious orientations only. References Aldgate, A., & Robertson, J.C 2005. Censorship in Theatre and Cinema, Edinburgh University Press, Available from < http://books.google.co.ke/books?id=4cEk2p-eEYgC&pg=PA103&lpg=PA103&dq=justification+for+Censorship+in+Theatre+and+Cinema%E2%80%99&source=bl&ots=2iRDILnOZ_&sig=bBGv02EJ6qt2QkDn_U-bBL23Eug&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA3,M1> [30 October 2008] Bailey, T 2008. Censorship and Freedom of Expression. Available from [30 September 2008] Bread, Y 1999. Film Censorship: ‘Eyes wide shut’ banned, Available from [30 October 2008] Bildadsham, S 2007. Lebanon: Sex and Israel; Christians, Muslims Censure films, Zimbio, Available from Heins, M 2006. Of threats, Intimidation, Sensitivity, and free Speech: The Muhammad Cartons, Available from < http://www.fepproject.org/commentaries/muhammadcartoons.html > [30 October 2008] Kieran, M 1997. Media Ethics, Greenwood Publishing Group, Available from [30 October 2008] Shawn, W 2004. Freedom of Speech, U.S. Department of Speech, Available from < http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/principles/speech.htm > [30 October 2008] Read More