The Censorship Poll

People immediately equate censorship with the removal of freedom of speech. In some cases, that's so, but censorship as most people would define it (removing or changing sections of a work because it is deemed to be offensive or objectionable) is less black-and-white than people would seem to believe.

__________________
You cannot have it both ways. A dancer who relies upon the doubtful comforts of human love can never be a great dancer. Never. (The Red Shoes, 1948)

Censorship is the worst director of all time.

__________________
"Loves them? They need them, like they need the air."

I probably shouldn't be encouraging you, PN, but that made me laugh.

I have seen countless penises (including children's), breasts, guts, etc., not to mention all the pubic hair I've seen. Indeed, in Antichrist, there is a graphic and unsettling depiction of a woman's clitoris being cut off. Du Er Ikke Alene - a favorite of mine as a Scandinavian film, an LGBT film, and a coming of age film - has a scene in which two nude pubescent boys hug; their penises are visible. Boys' penises are also visible in the original Lord of the Flies and the film The Genesis Children. I watch a fair amount of arthouse films, so I'm no stranger to nudity, including nudity from a child.

Okay, to deviate from my rather pedophilic sounding opening paragraph, I also have no problem with violence. Movies like Saw and Hostel and Antichrist, or even the older ones like Nightmare on Elm Street and Cutting Moments, are rather bloody. Under no condition should the government have the power to tell me that I cannot watch such films. If I'm opposed to them, I won't watch them, but I shouldn't force others either to or not to view something, especially if their opinion is different than mine.

To conclude what is perhaps the most awkward forum post I've ever made (and I've made thousands), I am absolutely, 100% opposed to censorship of any kind. I have long considered it the most heinous crime that can be committed, akin to murder (ie. the murder of an idea/image as opposed to a human).

The government (well, the film certification offices) isn't saying that you can't watch them. If there is a film that you want to watch that isn't getting a cinema release, there are other means of watching it. All the offices are saying is "We don't feel comfortable giving this a cinema release". You can't demand that they release it because you want to watch it.

Agreed. The issue is almost never about actual censorship, which nearly all freedom-loving people despise. The argument is always about someone being upset about some ratings system, or a studio deciding something is not financially defensible. Which is most emphatically not censorship. It is nothing more than people exercising control over their own property.

And when a country like China bans Back to the Future and Star Trek because they are opposed to time travel, I'm supposed to go around the government known for killing some 70 million people because of differences in ideologies? What about the video nasties in Britain, in which many a video store owner was brought to court for renting such movies.

Censorship - real censorship - happens all the time, and I'm opposed to it in its entirety.

You are confusing self-imposed censorship (ie. the MPAA) with government intervention.

The question of whether government censorship is wrong or not is a no-brainer. However there are people who would consider asking a filmmaker to make cuts so that their work gets passed at a lower rating as 'censorship'.

Is it a no-brainer? I know quite a few people who support government censorship, and others - myself most vehemently by far - who are opposed to it.

I can see that, but I would not call it censorship. That is, depending on who is making the request; if the people who financially supported the movie have a qualm or two over certain aspects, then they are within their right to have it altered, regardless of what the director thinks. The MPAA can't force the filmmakers to cut anything from the film, whereas the government - when they intervene - can.

The entire concept of the MPAA is stupid, but what is more stupid is the way that people follow the ratings by the letter. So what if a film is NC-17. I've seen plenty, and I haven't killed too many people yet (hey, that guy was just asking for it when he spoke to me in that tone of voice!) - the films people should stay away from are the ones rated G. Real life is never G-rated, therefore it gives a false impression of reality which can really be confusing to a child (ie. think of the town in Italy that banned the keeping of fish in bowls for fear of giving them, the fish, a "false sense of reality; likewise, so does G-rated movies). I'd sooner a child sees Requiem For a Dream than Shark-boy and Molten-girl, or whatever her name is.

As I understand it, an 'R' rating means that people under the age of 17 can see the film if they are accompanied by an adult. In Britain, you cannot see a 15 if you're younger than 15, with or without an adult.

That's really interesting about Britain. I didn't know that before! I learned something new today

__________________

I would have voted for it being wrong always!

Though I believe that's the way it's supposed to be, so long as an adult buys the ticket the child will/can go in alone.