There is a very fine line between Censorship and social responsibility. As a matter of fact, I would suggest there is no line, the two are one in the same. You can dress it up however you want and make up fake distinctions… but the fact of the matter is that any act of socially responsible rules of restraint are indeed censorship. That doesn’t mean it’s all bad… sometime censorship can be a good thing. Sorry, but it’s true. Radio hosts should NOT be allowed to get on air and call all black people “niggers”. Italians should not be constantly referred to as “all dirty mob scum”. Mexicans should not be referred to a “all thieves”. Whenever we socially enforce these common sense “rules” we are engaging in censorship, and that’s a GOOD thing.
Censorship in and of itself is not BAD. It is a case by case situation where many shades of grey exist and has to be navigated with caution. Some things are clear, some things are not so clear. But behind all censorship, good or bad, is the notion, right or wrong, of the greater good of society. Thus, since we all engage in censorship that we believe is for the greater good, we have to be very careful when judging other people’s interpretation of that. Take Thailand for example.
Variety gives us this:
The rating system is made up of “P” (films that are of educational value and should be promoted for Thai auds), “G” (fit for all age groups), “under 13 not admitted,” “under 15 not admitted,” “under 18 not admitted” and “under 20 not admitted.” However, it does not include an “under 24” category which had been discussed in some media circles.
Notably, the Film Act authorizes the state to forbid the release of movies that “undermine or disrupt social order and moral decency, or that might impact national security or the pride of the nation”. Another point set to enrage film bizzers is the article that sees the country’s chief of police join the National Film and Video Committee.
I honestly don’t know how I feel about that. I hate the idea of a government deciding what I can and can not watch… but on the other hand we have that in our own culture too, just in different ways. Personally, I still take the position that this Thai law sucks… HOWEVER… I can understand a society deciding it’s own values and ideas of what is right or wrong for itself and it’s culture. It’s a tricky topic that deserves a lot more discussion around here I think
Living in Thailand, I have to say that I am really against this law. They already censor guns, alcohol, and smoking on tv, and to censor it in movies which I have to pay is the last straw.
I just saw American Gangster and most of the scenes with guns and drugs were blurred out. What was interesting was they show naked women prepping heroin, people putting heroin in the syringe, but when it came to actually using the needle they blurred it out. Same thing with guns, they blur out people pointing a gun at someone, but the next scene they show a guys head with a huge hole in his head. It doesn’t take a genius to know what killed him.
If I have to pay to see a movie, I deserve to see the original version, not a version Thailand thinks is appropriate. What the point of a rating system if they are still going to censor it, I’m old enough to watch what want.
I won’t be watch anymore movies in the theaters, instead I’ll buy the pirated DVD that hasn’t been censored.
“People sometimes need to be limited in what they say and do.Would you have people be allowed to make death threats,commit perjury,sexually assult,lie,blackmail,or verbally abuse children.”
I’m with you Seth. Someone out there tell me that it’s ok for someone to publicly verbally abuse and/or threaten children because the 1st amendment protects our right to do so.
I’m not buying it. Laws, in this case censorship, are there for the greater good – to protect society, even it at times that interferes with some minor conveniences of the individual.
I agree there is a fine line and it is difficult to decide who makes these decisions, but if it were really THAT important to me or you, we’d be politicians.
i live in japan and here official censorship is normal.
im being a gayjin and comming from a free censor country thought that any way of censorship was a bad thing and even that anybody living here would say it sucks.
but for my surprise all the japanese collegues i work with say its a good thing have someone above you regulating what is good to be seen and what is not!
funny its that even whith the internet mading possible to easy overcome the censorship system they avoid doing so!
Free Speech should be protected when it doesn’t endanger the lives of people(a.k.a. death threats), or intrude on the individual rights of others. Then it borders on criminality. Like John said, it’s a very grey area, especially when it comes to Hate Speech, Libel, and Slander. I think it’s a case-by-case basis.
I am just kind of intrigued by the number of categories…
Under 13
Under 15
Under 18
Under 20
Under 24
Thats kinda wacky. With the US G, PG, PG-13, and R you basically get “Everyone” (G), Grade schoolers and Up” (PG), “Teens and Up” (PG-13), and “Adults” (R).
So if you’re a Thai 19 year old you can see “PG-18” but not “PG-20” or “PG-24”. WHat happens to the Thai people in those magical mystical years between 18-20?
I mean imagine if in the US they had “R-17”, “R-25”, and “R-30″… What can a 30 year old see that a 25 year old cant?
Interesting and odd.
im glad i dont live in india.
(Oh, and I understand that broadcast radio and tv are very different animals when it comes to free speech, and I understand why. But my above post was referencing public free speech in general.)
I agree with the first post by Jeff. “Hate Speech” is still free speech. It’s protected. I should be able to call Italians, Hispanics, Asians, Caucasians, Indians, Antarcticans whatever the hell I want.
@Vic aka screenrant, I disagree about the movie poster.
You’re right in the sense that our 1st amendment does not protect against that sort of thing in its guarantee of free speech.
But the fact is the six largest studios formed a conglomerate (MPAA) where they dictate to their competition what they are and aren’t allowed to say. And their competitors pay for the privilage or else submit to economic sanctions. This is what I was referring to above as “soft censorship”.
A good example is the film Whale Rider (never saw it). Where the MPAA legally prevented the foreign import from advertising itself as a family film. The distributors could’ve gone around the MPAA.. in which case they would’ve been legally prevented from advertising as a family film. It’s disgracefully.
“sometime censorship can be a good thing.”
and then this one’s even worse
“Censorship in and of itself is not BAD”
I’ve always thought that Canadians have a more receptive attitude in regards to censorship. Of course the US has embraced our own form of soft censorship so maybe we’re no better. At least we haven’t passed hate speech legislation yet.
@Seth – I think you’ve engaged in recuctio ad absurdum. Threats of violence are the antithesis of open discourse.
“the fact of the matter is that any act of socially responsible rules of restraint are indeed censorship”
Wow, that’s the most twisted and wrong definition of censorship I’ve seen yet, and you misuse the word a LOT here.
On the other hand, you finally list an example of true censorship, which is the government stepping in and banning something. The MPAA denying the use of a poster at movie theaters is a very far reach of the term.
Vic
You can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theater. You cannot commit an act of libel or slander. You may not threaten to kill the President. The FCC says that porn may not be shown on over-the-air broadcast TV. These are all acts of censorship that any rational person can support. To suggest that ALL censorship is automatically bad is a knee-jerk reaction with no basis in practical reality. While I agree that Thailand’s position is smotheringly draconic, I believe the US is (in general) doing a pretty good job balancing the rights of the individual vs. the needs of society.
That’s nothing. If you really want to drop your jaw, check out the regulations in India, which is also the worlds largest producer of films. It is illegal to kiss in India, be it a foreign or domestic film…
Hank
How can you say that”all censorship is bad”.Censorship can be good,even neccesary(when used in the right curcumstances).People sometimes need to be limited in what they say and do.Would you have people be allowed to make death threats,commit perjury,sexually assult,lie,blackmail,or verbally abuse children.Well by YOUR logic it would be tyrrany to censor this type of”free speech”.
Im sorry but”tyrrany”just isnt the right term.Placing restrictions isnt neccesarily tyrrany because if you follow that line of thought,you might simply say that ALL LAWS are a form of tyrrany.You said that”ANY cenorship opens the door to tyrrany”.Does this type of reasoning go beyond what people say and also apply to peoples actions.Because if it does,we have a real problem cause then just about ANY action should be allowed.
I agree with you that censorship does pose a rather uncomfortable question of:who holds the right to censor another?.Hmmmmmmm thats a tough one,however it is neccesary for reasonable restrictions to be in place.Restrctions that hold people responsible for what they say.
Wow… gotta disagree, all censorship is bad. ALL OF IT. You don’t like something someone says, you voice your opinion… of course, unless you can’t because it too has been censored. Who defines what should be censored? You? Me? A government? When you open the door to any censorship, you are accepting the first step of tyranny.
I know it doesn’t necessarily apply since it’s Thailand and they don’t have the same laws and protections… but your first paragraph about censorship not being all bad…
I respectfully disagree.
It’s the unpopular speech that needs to be protected, and should be under the First Amendment in the U.S. The examples you gave are incredibly racist and hateful, but shouldn’t be censored. In the case of radio or even film, they’re public works. If people don’t want to hear or see that kind of material, they shouldn’t watch or shouldn’t listen. The general public will ultimately decide whether the radio host or the film is successful enough to keep spouting hateful things, and their forum for doing so will go away.
Which is why the rejection of the poster for Taxi to the Dark Side is wrong. It’s a perfect example of censorship by a similar organization in the States.
Thailand’s system isn’t that far off from the MPAA.