NationStates Jolt Archive

Should film censorship exist when there is a classification system?

I don't agree with censorship because adults should be allowed to watch whatever (legitimate) films they desire to. Pornography's a bit different, particularly if it involves violence or abuses to women/animals/men.

You could argue that a rating system is a form of censorship-an R-rated movie will open often in a third less theaters than a comprable film, which makes getting the 'magic' numbers harder. That means that a certain kind of film (expensive) can only be rated R if it's really got something goin.

However, is there censorship you're talking about specificly? What are we not able to get away with? The closest we have is the rating system.

And I think a lot of people would argue that it's a good trade.

Well, in previous years, there have been controversial foreign films banned from showing in Australia (much to the annoyance of some movie critics). I personally wouldn't see them, but i don't see why other people shouldn't be allowed

Absolutely not.

Just read from today's newspaper about some new censorship laws (not signed yet, but it looks like they will be) in USA. Pretty scary.

Well, in previous years, there have been controversial foreign films banned from showing in Australia (much to the annoyance of some movie critics). I personally wouldn't see them, but i don't see why other people shouldn't be allowed
Ah, right. When I'm up this late I have to remember I'm talking to Australians.

I don't know what your censorship laws are. Here in the States pretty much anything goes, except underage nudity. But the rating system determines who and how many people are going to see something.

We came to the rating system because of a blocked foriegn film. The Bicycle Thief couldn't be shown under the Hayes Code because a kid peed on a wall. The film community flipping out because they wanted to see it and earlier challenges like Man with the Golden Arm (Frank Sinatra as a herion addict...how cool is that?) they transitioned to the rating system. Whats the code in Australia?

Just read from today's newspaper about some new censorship laws (not signed yet, but it looks like they will be) in USA. Pretty scary.
You take away the ability to say 'fuck' you take away the ability to say 'fuck the government'

Ah, Lenny....

Is it like with videogames in Australia?

They have no "M Rating" there, so everything that would be "M" isn't allowed at all.

Here in Germany it's similarily ridiculous, but not as bad - it has become better in fact. Still there have been quite a few movies that have been cut so that they could be shown.

Ban censorship, I say. I'm grown-up, I can decide for myself what I want to watch or play or read.

Well, in previous years, there have been controversial foreign films banned from showing in Australia (much to the annoyance of some movie critics). I personally wouldn't see them, but i don't see why other people shouldn't be allowed
Can you remember the names of those films? I think I've seen a film which was banned in Australia. Nothing unusual in that one.

edit. It was Ken Park
second edit. Baise moi banned!?!
third edit. I should have guessed that Salo is one of the banned ones. Disturbing or not, it's still an important part of film history.

Nah, it's not as bad as videogames. It's a bit ridiculous that GTA3 had to be changed for the Australian markets.

There's M and R ratings in Australia for films.

Can you remember the names of those films? I think I've seen a film which was banned in Australia. Nothing unusual in that one.

edit. It was Ken Park
second edit. Baise moi banned!?!
third edit. I should have guessed that Salo is one of the banned ones. Disturbing or not, it's still an important part of film history.

both ken park and baise moi were banned in australia

both ken park and baise moi were banned in australia
yes, I found those 3 films after googling.

Don't really understand why. Ok, there are teenagers having sex in Ken Park ->teenage nudity. Well teenagers have sex. Is that so disturbing?

Baise-Moi makes no sense. There are about 10 other newish French films which are quite similar to Baise-Moi. Shouldn't all of those be banned? IMO Baise-Moi was boring.

I don't agree with censorship because adults should be allowed to watch whatever (legitimate) films they desire to. Pornography's a bit different, particularly if it involves violence or abuses to women/animals/men.

How about films that harm animals?

Should anyone be allowed to watch them, or should they be disallowed out of principle?

(NB: I'm not being a smart arse, this is a real issue. Any film that the BBFC sees and suspects animals were harmed during the making of can be banned, unless the director can prove that no animals were harmed. Such as with the dog fight in Amores Perros, which was all faked, but the BBFC waited for proof of this).

Movies that are illegal to produce, like real violence, rape, harm of animals, for instance, should not be produced. Movies that are produced by legal means should not be censored.

How about films that harm animals?

Should anyone be allowed to watch them, or should they be disallowed out of principle?

(NB: I'm not being a smart arse, this is a real issue. Any film that the BBFC sees and suspects animals were harmed during the making of can be banned, unless the director can prove that no animals were harmed. Such as with the dog fight in Amores Perros, which was all faked, but the BBFC waited for proof of this).
Generally no (shouldn't be banned from anyone over 18). But it could go under snuff-category and then it should be banned. And the film makers should of course be charged if they have organised it.* A smartass could say animals where harmed during Tarzan shootings...

*I've seen films where animals have been harmed, but the film crew has not done it. They have either filmed some rituals which take place anyway (bull fights, cock fights, dog fights etc) or they've used some old material mixed with new material. If showing crimes committed by other people should be banned all those 911, Cops and similar shows should be banned.

On a related note, does anyone know how much (in terms of time) had to be cut from Star Wars II to lower its rating from a 12 to a PG in Britain?

(The answer is rather odd to say the least)

I clicked yes because snuff etc do not fall in the category of porn

I clicked yes because snuff etc do not fall in the category of porn
smartass :p
No, of course you got a point there. But I don't think that Optunia had that in her mind when he made the poll. i voted no, but I agree with Parduan; if it's illegal to do it, it should be illegal to show it.

or...hmm...no. Not good enough. In that case e.g. The Yes Men should be banned.
I try to think a better discription.

On a related note, does anyone know how much (in terms of time) had to be cut from Star Wars II to lower its rating from a 12 to a PG in Britain?

(The answer is rather odd to say the least)

i havent seen the movie since it came out but what was in it that needed to be cut? wasnt it rated PG in the US?

i havent seen the movie since it came out but what was in it that needed to be cut? wasnt it rated PG in the US?

The cut out one second.

When Fett headbutts Obi Wan. Apparently it wasn't the headbutt in and itself, but because Fett wears a helmet and they were anxious children would copy it.

Yes.
For instance, movies that espouse Nazi-style doctrines, anything that incites racial hatred (which does not include films like Passion of the Christ or any other films that show people of a certain race behaving in a certain way- if you want to say their racist, you're over-sensitive).
Additionally, films that support terrorism, ro any other form of political/religious violence.

Films are my favorite form of artistic expression. I hate it when I'm watching one of my favorite movies on TV and they censor it by removing entire scenes or by altering dialogue to remove "objectionable" material. It's not the same movie.

As for banning a movie outright, I'm very much against that. Unless it's something like child pornography, which harms children in it's production, there's no reason to censor someone's political, social, or aesthetic point of view. Nobody's being forced to watch the film, but those who choose to should have the opportunity.

Yes.
For instance, movies that espouse Nazi-style doctrines,

How about films that are a ambiguous such as Romper Stomper or American History X, especially the former, which have been commonly charged with being pro-Nazi or have become favorites for neo-Nazis?

Would you allow American History X if it kept the original ending, Derek (Norton) shaving his head in mirror after what happens to Danny?


Additionally, films that support terrorism, ro any other form of political/religious violence.

Battle Royale II was a fantastic film, and it would be a shame to lose it to censors. Not just that one, there are lots of films that could be contrued as falling into this category.

(Actually, I don't see it as supporting terrorism, but browsing over various sites it appears like I am in the minority and a censorship board would probably go alone with the majority type opinion.)

Films are my favorite form of artistic expression. I hate it when I'm watching one of my favorite movies on TV and they censor it by removing entire scenes or by altering dialogue to remove "objectionable" material. It's not the same movie.

As for banning a movie outright, I'm very much against that. Unless it's something like child pornography, which harms children in it's production, there's no reason to censor someone's political, social, or aesthetic point of view. Nobody's being forced to watch the film, but those who choose to should have the opportunity.

The TV thing can be really annoying. Sometimes, they'll show a movie on tv, and when someone says a swear word, they'll just take that out and so you can see the lips saying it, but there's no sound. It's just dumb

The TV thing can be really annoying. Sometimes, they'll show a movie on tv, and when someone says a swear word, they'll just take that out and so you can see the lips saying it, but there's no sound. It's just dumb
One time I was watching Repo Man on regular TV and every time someone said Mother Fucker it was altered to Mellon Farmer. I thought that was kind of funny.

How about films that are a ambiguous such as Romper Stomper or American History X, especially the former, which have been commonly charged with being pro-Nazi or have become favorites for neo-Nazis?

Would you allow American History X if it kept the original ending, Derek (Norton) shaving his head in mirror after what happens to Danny?



Battle Royale II was a fantastic film, and it would be a shame to lose it to censors. Not just that one, there are lots of films that could be contrued as falling into this category.

(Actually, I don't see it as supporting terrorism, but browsing over various sites it appears like I am in the minority and a censorship board would probably go alone with the majority type opinion.)

Not having seen any of those films (although I am familiar with the plot of American History X, I can't comment. However, I should clarify that unless the movie itself is geared towards propogating hatred and violence as a solution to societal problems, I don't think it should be censored.

On a seperate note, I agree whole-heartedly with TV censorship. Anyone can watch TV, and the channels have a certain obligation to screen out objectionable (to some) material. If you're bothered by it, rent the movie.

Battle Royale II was a fantastic film, and it would be a shame to lose it to censors. Not just that one, there are lots of films that could be contrued as falling into this category.

(Actually, I don't see it as supporting terrorism, but browsing over various sites it appears like I am in the minority and a censorship board would probably go alone with the majority type opinion.)

I've seen Battle Royale I, and that was REALLY disturbing :S
What's the sequel like?

One time I was watching Repo Man on regular TV and every time someone said Mother Fucker it was altered to Mellon Farmer. I thought that was kind of funny.

In the the Big Lebowski they changed the famous line to "You see what happens when you feed a stranger scrambled eggs!"

Now thats just weird.

Not having seen any of those films (although I am familiar with the plot of American History X, I can't comment. However, I should clarify that unless the movie itself is geared towards propogating hatred and violence as a solution to societal problems, I don't think it should be censored.

On a seperate note, I agree whole-heartedly with TV censorship. Anyone can watch TV, and the channels have a certain obligation to screen out objectionable (to some) material. If you're bothered by it, rent the movie.
If you're bothered by it change the channel.

If you're bothered by it change the channel.

I'm not bothered by it. My five-year old cousin, however, watches TV quite a bit, and frankly, I think it isn't a bad idea to restrain the amount of profanity and nudity and violence that he's exposed too.
If that makes me a right-wing loonie, so be it. I think adults don't need TV censorship. Small children do.

Not having seen any of those films (although I am familiar with the plot of American History X, I can't comment. However, I should clarify that unless the movie itself is geared towards propogating hatred and violence as a solution to societal problems, I don't think it should be censored.

My point was, who decides what propagates violence?

There are films out there that have been heavily denounced for similar reasons, yet when you watch it, you realise that wasn't the point of the movie and anyone who saw it must have missed the point.

Romper Stomper is a good example of that, where all the protagonists are neo-Nazi skinheads, who take a 'direct' approach to getting rid of local Vietnamese immigrants. A lot of viewers were of the opinion that the film glamorised this sort of violence and even gave it a certain justification. Yet watching the film makes it obvious (to me at least) that it did no such thing. I am reluctant to say more since it could spoil the film for anyone here who might see the film in the future,


On a seperate note, I agree whole-heartedly with TV censorship. Anyone can watch TV, and the channels have a certain obligation to screen out objectionable (to some) material. If you're bothered by it, rent the movie.

This is all well and good during the day/evening. But what about late night films?

I've seen Battle Royale I, and that was REALLY disturbing :S
What's the sequel like?

A lot of people saw it thinking it would be the same as the first one and went away dissapointed since it isn't. So if you watch it, don't expect the same thing repeated.

There are some similar things, the necklaces, randomly chosen class, danger zones. But the premise is different, instead of "What would it take to kill your own class mates" thing, it is more focused on how states work. Also the original director died during filming and it was finished by his son, so the style is different too.

I'm not bothered by it. My five-year old cousin, however, watches TV quite a bit, and frankly, I think it isn't a bad idea to restrain the amount of profanity and nudity and violence that he's exposed too.
If that makes me a right-wing loonie, so be it. I think adults don't need TV censorship. Small children do.
Thats why he has parents. If they don't want him to see that, they shouldn't allow him to see it. The fact the someone doesn't want to see it, doesn't allow them to take away someone else's right to see it. Thats especially true with cable.

I'm not bothered by it. My five-year old cousin, however, watches TV quite a bit, and frankly, I think it isn't a bad idea to restrain the amount of profanity and nudity and violence that he's exposed too.
If that makes me a right-wing loonie, so be it. I think adults don't need TV censorship. Small children do.
What is you 5 year old cousin doing watching late night films?

In the the Big Lebowski they changed the famous line to "You see what happens when you feed a stranger scrambled eggs!"

Now thats just weird.
What was the original line? I don't remember the movie that well. Also, what did they do in the scene where that Hispanic bowler named Jesus walked up to Lebowski and told him "Jesus will fuck you in your ass"?

Thats why he has parents. If they don't want him to see that, they shouldn't allow him to see it. The fact the someone doesn't want to see it, doesn't allow them to take away someone else's right to see it. Thats especially true with cable.

It doesn't take away your right to see it. Rent the movie, don't be so cheap.
You want to hold me responsible for the lack of parenting in his household? They don't want him to see it either, but it comes on all the time, so without supervision (constant supervision), he gets to see it.

What was the original line? I don't remember the movie that well. Also, what did they do in the scene where that Hispanic bowler named Jesus walked up to Lebowski and told him "Jesus will fuck you in your ass"?
"You see what happens when you fuck a stranger in the ass!", as said by Walter as he smashes the Corvette.

I forget what Jesus says, but the censorship is pretty crazy. Comedy Central is pretty weird, they let South Park say shit 162 times in a single episode but edit every movie they play to hell and back.

It doesn't take away your right to see it. Rent the movie, don't be so cheap.
You want to hold me responsible for the lack of parenting in his household? They don't want him to see it either, but it comes on all the time, so without supervision (constant supervision), he gets to see it.
Do you not have a watershed where you are?

What is you 5 year old cousin doing watching late night films?

Have you watched Tv lately? Do you think proffanity and violence only occur in late night films?
As I said earlier, I am not bothered by them, and find them comical (e.g. in The Matrix, when Neo is imprisoned, he tells Agent Smith that he'll give him the flipper and his hand is edited out so you can't see it). But that movie doesn't just come on late at night, nor should it have to.

Do you not have a watershed where you are?

watershed? I'm afraid I don't know that term.

It doesn't take away your right to see it. Rent the movie, don't be so cheap.
You want to hold me responsible for the lack of parenting in his household? They don't want him to see it either, but it comes on all the time, so without supervision (constant supervision), he gets to see it.
I didn't say anything about holding you responsible. First of all, yes it does take away from my rights. I have the right to watch what I want on TV, and not be told what is appropriate by you. Also: 5 year olds need constant supervision anyway, I don't think I see your point. Besides that, you act like there are no channels you can just leave on and let him watch. Turn on Nickelodeon or something, the most objectional thing they have is SpongeBob.

Have you watched Tv lately? Do you think proffanity and violence only occur in late night films?

I have to say no. I don't watch TV unless there is something I know is on that I want to watch (usually a film, usually late at night)

watershed? I'm afraid I don't know that term.

Must only be a British thing then.

The Watershed is at 9pm iirc after which stuff can be shown wild mild swearing and violence (ie stuff that would be rated 12), after about 10-11 (not sure which) more adult stuff can be shown.

(NB: on sky the watershed is 8pm for things rated 12 & 15 since the channels can be locked)

watershed? I'm afraid I don't know that term.
Watershed is why you only see Girls Gone Wild commercials come on after 10pm. Before a certain time is considered family viewing, basically its why prime time network TV is so bland and uninteresting.

I didn't say anything about holding you responsible. First of all, yes it does take away from my rights. I have the right to watch what I want on TV, and not be told what is appropriate by you. Also: 5 year olds need constant supervision anyway, I don't think I see your point. Besides that, you act like there are no channels you can just leave on and let him watch. Turn on Nickelodeon or something, the most objectional thing they have is SpongeBob.

No you have the right to watch what you pay for- the TV channel. That channel has the right to air what it wants to (and is allowed to by the FCC). For the record, I'm not discussing late night TV, where the standards are (and should be) more lenient. However, a certain amount of TV censorship happens, and it happens for a reason.

I remember seeing a poster about 20 years ago. showed photos of Hitler, Stalin, Ayatollah Khomeini, and I believe a KKK leader. The caption read, "The experts all agree: CENSORSHIP WORKS." One of the best ways to make the point I've ever seen.

Another two great anti-censorship statements are a pair of songs I really like. "Hook In Mouth" by Megadeth (A response to the PMRC in the states.), and "What Should I See" by Frozen Ghost. If you haven't heard these songs, go find 'em!

How about films that harm animals?

Should anyone be allowed to watch them, or should they be disallowed out of principle?

(NB: I'm not being a smart arse, this is a real issue. Any film that the BBFC sees and suspects animals were harmed during the making of can be banned, unless the director can prove that no animals were harmed. Such as with the dog fight in Amores Perros, which was all faked, but the BBFC waited for proof of this).

I recall hearing that an early video by The Fixx was banned in the UK. "Stand and Fall" depicted a horse falling over sideways. The horse was trained to do this on command, but the censors were of the opinion that the horse had been shot, and therefore banned the video on the grounds that it depicted druelty to animals. Struck me as utterly ridiculous.

I remember seeing a poster about 20 years ago. showed photos of Hitler, Stalin, Ayatollah Khomeini, and I believe a KKK leader. The caption read, "The experts all agree: CENSORSHIP WORKS." One of the best ways to make the point I've ever seen.

Another two great anti-censorship statements are a pair of songs I really like. "Hook In Mouth" by Megadeth (A response to the PMRC in the states.), and "What Should I See" by Frozen Ghost. If you haven't heard these songs, go find 'em!

I've seen similar posters against gun-control- all that they point out is that bad people happen to agree with the idea. It's like saying (after showing pictures of Bin Laden) Bin Laden agrees: Americans are responsible for their government.
That said, here's a really good quote on censorship:
"Beware he who whould deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master"

I recall hearing that an early video by The Fixx was banned in the UK. "Stand and Fall" depicted a horse falling over sideways. The horse was trained to do this on command, but the censors were of the opinion that the horse had been shot, and therefore banned the video on the grounds that it depicted druelty to animals. Struck me as utterly ridiculous.

Generally the BBFC are OK if you can provide proof (Like I said before 'Amores Perros' could do this,) but stike to their guns if you cannot. There was case recently, I'll try and find it.

Also, using archived footage (eg the footage of a suffragette running under the kings horse at a race) or footage that wasn't set up by the makers (eg a for a documentary on underground cock fighting) though context is taken into concideation. Though they get very tetchy if it just appears an animal has been harmed and is intended for prime time viewing (a view commercials have fallen foul of this).

Generally the BBFC are OK if you can provide proof (Like I said before 'Amores Perros' could do this,) but stike to their guns if you cannot. There was case recently, I'll try and find it.

http://www.channel4.com/film/reviews/feature.jsp?V=3&SV=3&id=143314

It doesn't take away your right to see it. Rent the movie, don't be so cheap.
You want to hold me responsible for the lack of parenting in his household? They don't want him to see it either, but it comes on all the time, so without supervision (constant supervision), he gets to see it.
or they could stop using the tv as a baby sitter. TURN IT OFF and only let him watch shows that are suitable for a 5 year old when they are able to supervise him.

or they could stop using the tv as a baby sitter. TURN IT OFF and only let him watch shows that are suitable for a 5 year old when they are able to supervise him.

I'll repeat the passage you quoted but didn't read: you want to hold me responsible for the lack of parenting. If you don't like having daytime TV censored, go rent the movie and stop your whining.

I'll repeat the passage you quoted but didn't read: you want to hold me responsible for the lack of parenting. If you don't like having daytime TV censored, go rent the movie and stop your whining.
Well since you're using their lack of parenting as an excuse for censorship I think we should be able to call you on that. By censoring it you're holding television responsible for their lack of parenting.

I'll repeat the passage you quoted but didn't read: you want to hold me responsible for the lack of parenting. If you don't like having daytime TV censored, go rent the movie and stop your whining.
no i want to have THEM and all parents of small children responsible for parenting their kids.

im not fond of filth on tv. i much prefer some standard of decency be followed. but there is no need for tv to be child appropriate at all hours of the night and day. there is almost no good amount of time for a child under 5 to be watching tv, between 5 and 10 maybe an hour a day of carefully chosen content and older than that parents should be sensitive to their childs maturity level when deciding what should be allowed into their homes. it is the PARENTS job to raise their children not tv executives.

I'll repeat the passage you quoted but didn't read: you want to hold me responsible for the lack of parenting. If you don't like having daytime TV censored, go rent the movie and stop your whining.

I don't watch day time TV. Anyway, that arguement is bunk. You can condone totalitarian state censorship provided you don't live in the country with that logic

I don't watch day time TV. Anyway, that arguement is bunk. You can condone totalitarian state censorship provided you don't live in the country with that logic

With all due respect, we aren't arguing totalitarian state censorship, which is moronic. We aren't even arguing that explicit, offensive material should be censored. We're arguing that TV networks should be allowed to censor violent or otherwise offennsive movies that they air- and they should be allowed to.

With all due respect, we aren't arguing totalitarian state censorship, which is moronic. We aren't even arguing that explicit, offensive material should be censored. We're arguing that TV networks should be allowed to censor violent or otherwise offennsive movies that they air- and they should be allowed to.

If you want to take that stand, do so on a free market/property platform.

But the reason I made the remark was because you seemed to be saying, If you want to watch censored stuff during daytime get a video. Implying that if you don't watch it you cannot complain.

With all due respect, we aren't arguing totalitarian state censorship, which is moronic. We aren't even arguing that explicit, offensive material should be censored. We're arguing that TV networks should be allowed to censor violent or otherwise offennsive movies that they air- and they should be allowed to.
oh i thought we were talking about whether or not they should be allowed to show the unaltered versions

artistically speaking, films should be shown AS IS.

economically speaking, if the owners of the films allow altering for showing in different countries or on TV, its up to them to decide. sometimes they prefer to make the extra money over maintaining artistic integrity.

it should never be up to the country, the tv station or the stores (wal-mart) to take it upon themselves to alter anyone else's copyrighted work. their choice is to show what the owners sell them or to refuse to do so.

If you want to take that stand, do so on a free market/property platform.

But the reason I made the remark was because you seemed to be saying, If you want to watch censored stuff during daytime get a video. Implying that if you don't watch it you cannot complain.

I'm sorry if I gave you that impression. I was attempting to argue that TV stations were right to censor films during daytime, not that they had the right, which I now realize is the tack I should have taken in the first place. My apologies.