Though on principle I'm against government interference
in art, we have to look at things in perspective. What's happened in America?
Network TV and Hollywood self-censored into absolute blandness contrasting
with a hardcore porn industry concerned only with being as 'extreme' as
possible and debasing women beyond belief. Compare this to Britain; television
and films which are progressive, intelligent and often controversial and
no hardcore porn.
On balance, what would I rather have? Porn or art? Well,
no, you're wrong! I'd choose art. It seems to me that that's the choice
between Britain and much of the rest of the world. Art just doesn't thrive
in an environment of total freedom.
But of course there are problems with a certain kind of
censorship. The issue becomes not what we want to see, but what we're allowed
to see. Surely complete freedom of choice is better? In theory, sure. But
in practice if you have total freedom then you create an opposite force
of total conservative; in other words, Network TV.
While it's all very well to say that artists should self-censor
their work, in reality that's already happening. Because the UK board of
censors is actually very liberal, its rare that a piece of art comes along
which needs to be censored; the levels of censorship are no fixed forever,
but change with the attitudes of society.
But while I do think a sensible level of censorship is
not a bad thing, the kind of repressive regime advocated by newspapers
like the Daily Mail in the UK or the PMRC organization in the US is completely
wrong. These people would like TV, music and films to be under total censorship,
without any sexual (particularly homosexual) images, any bad language or
any radical politics; all things which make TV, music and films good in
the first place!
In reality people who want censorship do so because they
want to repress other modes of thought, or anything which will challenge
their beliefs or authority. That's why anything revolutionary or different
is always the target of 'outrage'. I once heard the situation in America
described as 'total freedom moderated only by displays of moral outrage'.
That's no way to run anything; the ideal situation is total artistic freedom
coupled with a kind of censorship which is designed to protect people from
abuse, not from new ideas.
I don't like the idea of censorship, and I think art should
never be censored, but if freedom means turning out like America, then
I'll keep the status quo.
I
don't agree that art should be censored, but art is not what gets censored.
It's pornography which gets censored. And with the advent of the internet,
people can see what they want to see. In many ways, what exists in Britain
is a kinda of anti-censorship; the censors only really censor pornography,
but as uncensored pornography is readily available in fact they do little
or nothing. But if we were to remove the censors then I've no doubt we'd
see a downturn in television and film in the UK. Imagine Channel 5 in a
country without censors!
Because
of the classification of films, self-censorship is already in existence,
with studios cutting to make the classification target. The films are not
being censored, because if they wanted to they could always go for an 18
or an unrated certificate. The censorship comes from the studios trying
to meet their target audience. While it's true this attitude has often
driven many films into the depths of extreme dullness, this is still a
form of self-censorship.
The facts is that you as an individual have the choice
to see what the hell you like, regardless of where you live. Extreme censorship
takes away this right, and takes away freedom. Most advocates of increased
censorship ignore the fact that no one forces you to watch what you don't
watch. This isn't 'A Clockwork Orange'; we aren't strapped into chairs
with our glazzies pulled open in front of the malenky vidscreens. You can
always use the 'off' button.
Bookmark this page