Censorship: should the viewing public have access to violent and sexually explicit material?
Echo Issue Outline: copyright © Echo Education Services
First published in The Echo news digest and newspaper sources index.
Issue outline by J M McInerney
What they said ...
`All citizens have both a right and a responsibility for interpreting information for themselves and for dependents in their care'
McKenzie Wark, lecturer in Media Studies at Macquarie University
`[Australia needs to ask] questions about the impact of video games on children, the impact of excessively violent films on particular members of the community, the broad question of whether many things in modern-day life are possibly contributing to the development of a culture of violence in our community'
Mr John Howard, Australian Prime Minister
Review committees set up by the Coalition Government have recently proposed a new classification system for violent and sexually explicit films which might deny some commercial release. New classification systems have also been proposed for films and other programs shown on television and for X-rated videos available for rental in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory.
The introduction of community assessment panels to review the decisions of the current censorship boards has also been recommended, as have a review process and fines for television stations which breach proposed guidelines.
It is also likely that R-rated films will be removed from pay-TV and that the adult channel, Nightmoves, run by Galaxy, will be closed.
At the same time the Federation of Australian Commercial Television Stations has proposed an extended classification system for violent programs and has also proposed restrictions on the coverage of violent incidents by news media
These moves have meet with criticism from those who maintain that what is needed is a stricter censorship regime which would have a wider range of material banned. Critics have also maintained that if a reformed classification system is necessary, then it needs to include more material than films, videos and some television programs.
There are also those who have maintained that some of the new proposals are an unreasonable restriction on people's freedom of choice.
Background
During the last election campaign the Coalition parties pledged that if elected they would ban X-rated videos in the Australian Capital Territory.
Then on April 28, 1996, (only a month after the election of a Coalition government, in March ) the Port Arthur massacre occurred. The Prime Minister, Mr John Howard, claimed that Australia now needed to face `questions about the impact of video games on children, the impact of excessively violent films on particular members of the community, the broad question of whether many things in modern-day life are possibly contributing to the development of a culture of violence in our community.'
Mr Howard established a ministerial committee to look at the general question of tighter restrictions on violent films and videos. The committee was headed by the Communications Minister, Senator Richard Alston.
The Committee made a number of recommendations, including that there be a new film classification system which would deny a classification to many films currently distributed under an R classification. It also recommended that a number of community assessment panels be set up to review the classifications currently being given by Australia's censorship boards.
In February, 1997, also, in part, in response to the Port Arthur massacre, the Federation of Television Commercial Television Stations announced a new system for classifying violent programs on television.
A new classification, AV (Adult Violence), is being considered for material considered unsuitable for the current highest rating, MA (Mature Audiences).
Films or programs would receive an AV classification `because of the intensity and/or frequency of violence, or because violence is central to the theme'.
Films and other material given an AV rating would not be able to be shown before 9.30pm, while material with an MA rating, would, as now, not be able to be shown before 9pm. Programs with an M rating (for viewers 15 and above) would, also as now, not be able to be shown before 8.30pm.
In the G (General) and M categories the definition of allowable violence would be reworded to make it more specific.
The new recommendations for the depiction of violence on television also require that news programs show ` appropriate regard to the feelings of relatives and viewers when including images of dead or seriously wounded people'.
Only days after the report of the Federation of Commercial Television Stations, a Senate Committee investigating possible further restrictions on the media made a somewhat different proposal. It, too, suggested a revamped classification system.
The Senate Committee also recommended that news broadcasts containing violent material be shown only in late-evening time-slots.
The Senate Committee further suggested that the Australian Broadcasting Authority and the Office of Film and Literature Classification regularly sample films and check that the guidelines had been followed when assigning classifications and releasing news broadcasts.
The Committee has also recommended that stations be given on-the-spot fines of up to $100,000 for breaches of the new guidelines.
The new classification system does not appear to be markedly different from that proposed by the Federation of Commercial Television Stations. However, rather than classifying violent films under two headings, MA and AV, it would introduce a three category system - V, VV or VVV, according to the severity of the violence.
The major difference between the recommendations of the Senate Committee and the proposals of the Federation of Commercial Television Stations is that the Senate Committee recommendations would reduce self-regulation within the television industry.
In 1993, the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal was replaced by the Australian Broadcasting Authority. The new Authority did not oversee the content of television programs. From 1993 to the present the television industry has been self-regulating. This means it has been responsible for setting, monitoring and enforcing its own standards.
Finally, in April, 1997, the Attorney-General, Mr Williams, put before Federal Cabinet, a proposal that a new classification system be introduced covering currently X-rated videos. It seems likely that this new classification would cover `non-violent erotica'. Mr Williams has made this recommendation as a way of regulating the industry without having to implement the Government's pre-election promise to ban such videos.
As part of Mr Williams proposal videos containing simulated sexual violence, sexual activity between participants who appeared to be under-age and material dealing with fetishes would be banned.
Also presented to Federal Cabinet in April was a separate proposal from the Minister for Communications, Mr Alston, to ban R-rated material on pay TV and close the Nightmoves adult channel run by Galaxy.
These sets of proposals do not present a single, unified approach to the question of how best to regulate the type of material to which the community is exposed.
Some of the proposals, for example, that dealing with R-rated material on pay TV would have the material banned. Other proposals, for example those dealing with films scheduled for cinema release or television broadcast call for some material to be banned but put a stronger emphasis on reclassification.
Apart from this there are the calls that have been made to have the Office of Film and Literature Classification monitored by community review panels and to have the current self-regulatory system governing television broadcasting replaced by one involving the Australian Broadcasting Authority and the Office of Film and Literature Classification.
This multi-faceted approach has meant that there tend to be few critics who totally endorse or totally oppose most proposals. Instead, depending on the critic's perspective, s/he will approve of some features and disapprove of others.
In outlining the arguments for and against the various sets of proposals we will emphasise the debate between those favouring classification and those supporting the outright banning of certain materials.
Arguments in favour allowing audiences to chose to view certain violent or sexually explicit material
The various proposals to revamp classification systems have been praised because they will inform viewers of the content of films, allowing them to make a considered choice without banning films that are offensive to some people.
Those who argue for freedom of choice generally maintain that there is no evidence to demonstrate that exposure to violent or sexually explicit material leads to anti-social behaviour in those who view it.
Mr McKenzie Wark, who lectures in media studies at Macquarie University, has argued that there is nothing to indicate that exposure to certain types of film or literature leads to socially undesirable behaviour.
Mr Wark has stressed that the vast majority of those who view material generally considered pornographic do not then commit sexual assaults or other sorts of crime.
Mr Wark states, `If one were to prove a causal connection, one would have to explain why the millions of people who consumed pornography without committing such crimes were not effected by their viewing and reading tastes.'
Opponents of banning films and other material have also noted that some of the claims made about a possible connection between crime and exposure to sexually explicit or violent material are false. An example of this is apparently the original suggestion that Martin Bryant, the man who committed the Port Arthur murders, had a preference for violent videos. It has since been claimed that most of the videos found in his house were old fashioned romances belonging to the former owner and that the family film, Babe, figured among Bryant's personal video preferences.
Mr Wark has also noted that even where those who commit certain sorts of crime appear to have a preference for violent or sexually explicit material there is no evidence to prove that the inclination toward violence or sexual assault is not the cause of these people's viewing tastes, rather than their viewing tastes being responsible for their criminal inclinations.
Mr Wark has argued, `Even if one wants to argue that only some consumers of porn and violence turn nasty, one has to show that the causal link runs from the porn to the state of mind involved in committing the act, rather than the other way around.
`It seems at least as plausible, if not more so, that people in a state of mind to do violent and ugly things would have some pretty odd tastes in entertainment as a consequence of that psychological predisposition.'
Those who favour a system of classifications for film, videos and television programs also frequently maintain that there is the possibility that violent or sexually explicit material may frighten or adversely influence the young and impressionable.
According to this line of argument, a system of classifications has the advantage of giving responsible adult viewers reasonably detailed advance information about the content of particular films and other programs so that they can then decide both if they wish to view them themselves or allow children in their charge to do so.
Thus, those who support a strengthened and clarified classification system and the presentation of more violent television material later in the evening (after most children are likely to be in bed) claim that this helps parents control what their children are exposed to.
The Age, in its editorial of February 13, 1997, referring to the Federation of Commercial television Stations' proposal, has stated, `The introduction of a new classification for adult violence [on television] is an admirable example of good sense. Not only will it provide more detailed information about the contents of movies, but the restriction of AV-rated films to late-evening time-slots will limit the risks of them being accidentally seen by children.
`This process, taken with the imminent introduction of the V-chip, will also mean that viewers will be able to apply a blanket restriction to such films.'
The classification system operating for films released commercially is said to function in the same way, ensuring that those adults who view films with an advanced classification are aware of the type of material to which they will be exposed, while children, who are generally not considered sufficiently mature to deal with such material, can be prevented from viewing it.
Thus, there have been criticisms of the Alston Committee proposal that would deny a classification to some films which would currently receive an R-classification and so be available for commercial release.
Mr Wark, in another context, has stressed that `all citizens have both a right and a responsibility for interpreting information for themselves and for dependents in their care.'
According to this line of argument, neither the State nor any other interested party has the right to decide what individuals should be able to view.
Mr Wark concludes, `While parents are free to choose what [they] and their children see, those children may yet grow up to assume responsibility for what they and their children, in turn, will see. Once that right is given up to government and pseudo-experts, the open society is diminished and the therapeutic society starts to do genuine harm.'
It is on this basis that critics have condemned the proposal to pay-TV `narrowcast' transmission that makes Galaxy's Nightmoves subscription channel available.
The program's supporters argue that as it is only accessible through a decoder activated by a personal identification number and as it operates between 11pm and 4am it represents no threat to children and is the clear viewing choice of those who subscribe to it.
Finally, there are those who argue that censorship can have a damaging effect on certain sections of the economy and cut across the political rights of territories which have legalised the viewing of certain sorts of material.
This point has been made with regard to the Coalition Government's pre-election pledge to close the X-rated video industry in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory.
Currently the two Territories are the only areas in Australia where X-rated videos can be legally obtained.
The industry is said to be worth between $40 million and $50 million and to contribute significantly to the economies of both the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory.
It supporters also claim that it already abides by the guidelines which have been suggested by the Attorney-General, Mr Williams, prohibiting the depiction of sexual violence and sexual relations between apparent minors.
Its supporters further argue that to close the X-rated video industry would be to disregard the political autonomy of the two Territories which currently allow it.
Arguments against allowing audiences to chose to view certain violent or sexually explicit material
The primary argument offered against allowing audiences to chose to view certain violent or sexually explicit material is that such material is believed to damage those who view it and in extreme cases is said to lead to socially aberrant behaviour.
Mr Robert Manne, the editor of Quadrant and associate professor of politics at La Trobe University, has stated, `According to one study conducted by Chicago police, virtually everyone convicted of paedophile sexual acts was a consumer of pornography.
`According to another study conducted by the FBI, pornography played a major part in the lives and the crimes of 29 of the 36 serial killers they studied.'
Robert Manne claims that a similar connection between extremely violent and/or pornographic material and the commission of crime can be made in Australia.
Manne has noted that `In 1991, Wade Frankum went on a murder spree in Sydney killing seven.'
Manne cites and paraphrases the psychiatrist who assisted the coroner and who judged, `that Frankum's exposure to "detailed descriptions of sexual murders and tortures" in American Psycho and elsewhere may have "tipped the balance" in his case.'
According to this line of argument there are a number of ways in which violent and sexually explicit material may contribute to anti-social behaviour. It may help to form a predisposition toward such behaviour, it may encourage someone already inclined toward such behaviour or it may simply provide a range of modus operandi or methods for committing such crimes.
Supporters of censorship argue that whatever the nature of the connection between pornography and representations of violence and the commission of crimes, the material should not be available to the general public.
Robert Manne has also suggested that even in our current society, which, he claims, censors very little, it is not possible to claim that the independent adult viewer has the right to chose whatever s/he wishes.
Mr Manne states, `In Australia one can, within the law, acquire films that are sexually explicit and films that are astonishingly violent. One cannot yet procure films legally that combine explicit sexuality with extreme violence.'
According to Robert Manne's line of argument, if his anti-censorship critics concede that there is a need to prohibit films that link sexuality and violence, including "snuff" movies `showing the real, non-simulated rape, mutilation and murder of women' or `films showing children being sexually abused by adults', then Mr Manne maintains they have demonstrated the `intellectual incoherence of their anti-censorship absolutism.'
Those who favour of some form of censorship often also claim that it is one of the more reliable means of ensuring that children are not exposed to material that may either distress them or damage their development.
Barbara Biggins, president of Young Media Australia, has claimed that many of the measures being proposed to restrict access to media violence are `window-dressing' or `fantasy'.
Mr Biggins includes in this category the Federation of Commercial Television Stations' proposal that a new AV (Adult Violence) classification be introduced and that films thus classified not be shown before 9pm..
According to Ms Biggins, the commercial stations are under a financial imperative to screen their most popular film offerings in prime viewing time, at 8.30pm. This is said to be so they can use these films to attract advertisers.
Ms Biggins claims that the result of this is that very few films will be classified AV, instead they will have their most graphic violence removed so that they can be classified MA and shown in an earlier, more profitable, time-slot.
According to this line of argument, the removal of three or four minutes of highly offensive material may still leave a film that is potentially either distressing or damaging to children.
It has also been argued that the belief that the offensive material has been removed may in fact confuse some parents and lead them to allow their children to view material that is inappropriate.
Ms Biggins has further maintained that there are other inadequacies in our present classification system.
`There is, at present,' Ms Biggins maintains, `an emphasis on content that will harm or disturb, and on blood and gore. Not enough account is taken of content and context that increases the risk of socialising our children into the acceptance of violence.'
Ms Biggins points to recent research findings which have been said to indicate that `content that features heroes whose violence is justified, applauded and rewarded, put in a humorous context and where the consequences are not really shown, increases the risks [of children] learning that violence wins and violence works.'
The US National Television Violence study has stressed the impact of cartoon characters whose violence is attractively presented and seems endorsed or justified. The Australian Broadcasting Authority (ABA) has been reported as being concerned about the implications of such research.
The assistant manager of research at the ABA, Ms Margaret Cupitt, has said, `We will certainly look at it (the American report) in relation to our own findings and work out whether it applies here.'
Responding to the American research, Ms Biggins has argued that the total message of a film or cartoon is significant not simply the degree of violence depicted
Ms Biggins goes on to claim that this research suggests that material such as Home Alone and Mighty Morphin Power rangers may be much more harmful than had previously been suggested.
(Please note, Ms Biggins is not a particular advocate of adult censorship. Rather she has stressed the limitations of our current and proposed classification systems.
Ms Biggins does advocate the censorship of material presented to children. Her preferred method of protecting the young from potentially harmful material is parent education.
According to this line of argument, informed parents would then censor their children's viewing and may well pressure television channels to ensure that certain sorts of material were not broadcast for children.)
There are those who would argue that the need to protect children from potentially harmful material justifies the censoring of the material available to adults. One of the arguments offered in favour of totally banning X-rated videos is that it is not possible to guarantee that they will not come into the hands of children.
It has also been argued that the subscriber-accessed Nightmoves program offered by Galaxy should be banned because again it is not possible to guarantee that the adult, sexually explicit material it presents will not be viewed by children.
Further implications
The situation is currently sufficiently confused to make it difficult to predict exactly what will happen with regard to the control of media violence and sexually explicit material.
It now seems that the Galaxy Nightmoves subscriber channel will be closed. This may be in part because it has only been recently established does and not have the support of a large special interest group.
On the other hand it seems unlikely that the X-rated video industry in the Act and the Northern Territory will be legislated out of existence. This is a financially significant industry and the whole question of the Federal Government overriding Territory or State laws has become particularly sensitive since the passing of the Andrews private members Bill saw the Northern Territory's Rights of the Terminally Ill Act overturned.
The other question of significance is whether we will move away from self-regulation in television broadcasting. At this stage it is hard to predict whether the Australian Broadcasting Authority and the Office of Film and Literature Classification will be given a regulatory role in regard to television programming.
Given that some degree of distrust has been indicated in the Office of Film and Literature Classification as indicated by the proposal that it be overseen by community review panels, all that seems certain is that some influential sections of the community are not satisfied either with current standards or the way they
are applied.
There is even less certainty over moves to control either video games or access to the Internet. The question is not simply one of what is ethically appropriate. So far as the Internet is concerned it is also a question of what is technically possible.
Sources
The Age
20/1/97 page 11 comment by Michael Gawenda, `Pornography all around and yet the censors don't see it'
12/2/97 page 1 news item by Wendy Tuohy, `Networks act on TV violence'
13/2/97 page 18 editorial, `TV code deserves good reception'
14/2/97 page 1 news item by Wendy Tuohy, `Stations face huge TV-violence fines'
17/2/97 page 15 comment by Barbara Biggins, `Protecting the young from a diet of violence'
15/3/97 page 6 news item by Gervase Greene, `Community panels to monitor censors'
17/3/97 page 3 news item by Gervase Greene and Rachel Gibson, `Move for ban on pay-TV programs'
2/4/97 page 2 news item by Gervase Greene, `Coalition defers closure of X-rated video industry'
The Australian
4/1/97 page 16 editorial, `Watchdog decision serves no use'
6/1/97 page 11 comment by Robert Manne, `Liberals deny the video link'
8/1/97 page 11 comment by McKenzie Wark, `Video link is a distorted view'
13/1/97 page 8 letter from Barbara Biggins, `Diet of media violence feeds unhealthy attitude in our young'
13/1/97 page 11 comment by Robert Manne, `Evidence demands a tenacious stand on censorship'
17/1/97 page 11 letters from Sophie Mason and Tony Branigan, `Adolescents sold the myth of a mostly violent world'
27/1/97 page 8 letter from Barbara Biggins, `When it comes to film classification, independence is vital'
30/1/97 page 3 news item by Janet Fife-Yeomans, `Public its own censor with less violence and more sex'
30/1/97 page 3 comment by Lynden Barber, `Appetite reflects quality of fare'
17/3/97 page 11 comment by McKenzie Wark, `Media freedom versus the nanny State'
1/4/97 page 1 news item by Michael Gordon, `Violence to go in X-rated clean-up'
2/4/97 page 3 news item by Michael Gordon and Maria Ceresa, `Cabinet delays porn ban decision'
3/4/97 page 5 news item by Jennifer Foreshew, `Cartoon heroes a lesson in violence'
The Herald Sun
2/4/97 page 9 news item by Clinton Porteous, `New rating plan for porn movies'
3/4/97 page 13 news item by Kim Sweetman, `Loopholes allow teen sex videos'