Vice Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 What are your thoughts on censorship, age classification and the recent concerns over the "sexualisation" of children, which saw a call for cinema-style ratings for music videos? This isn't a topic I've explored in any real depth, so I'm interested in getting peoples' views. Â I'm against works of fiction being banned, even A Serbian Film (which caused a lot of debate). Adults should be free to watch such material if they choose to. Â I think the media does have an impact on the socialisation process, through things like stereotypes and ideas of "beauty", "race" and "gender", and on world views (current affairs, geopolitics, etc.). But, obviously, these representations can be and are countered, contested or rejected. And I don't think the media is at all to be held responsible someone's batshit actions, when the person in question was simply and clearly batshit. That's not the fault of violent films, aggressive music or even vitriolic political rhetoric in and of themselves, and such things shouldn't be legislated against. Sane people can watch, say, a Schwarzenegger movie and not go out and kill anyone. A troubled mind is a troubled mind, and you never know what will set it off. Â Classification obviously has its shortcomings. It's subjective and sometimes inconsistent. But I do feel it's better to at least have some guide to help make a decision. I feel some material is just inappropriate for young children, but it's the parents' decision as to what that limit is. So, I don't think something like A Serbian Film should be just openly be sold to anyone who isn't an adult. Â Music video classification is obviously flawed too. Again, it's subjective and it's not really pragmatic (kids can easily view them on YouTube etc). But I'm interested in what people make of this. Do you think at least some attempt should be made and that some music videos push it too far and should be post-watershed (thereby more strictly subject to the same standards as other media), since parents can't be there at all times? Do you think children are being "sexualised" at too young an age, and is it entirely a parental issue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Dead Mike Posted July 6, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted July 6, 2011 All in favour of classification, can be strictly enforced in cinemas. Once material becomes available for home consumption the responsibiity lies with the retailer in the first instance then with the parent/guardian. Completely against censorship. I fail to see how as an adult who can vote, marry, have children, be called up to fight for my country etc some other adult has the right to tell me what I can/can't read/watch or listen to. As long as no laws are being broken it's up to me to use my adult judgement. As for the sexualisation of children, if parents see fit to dress their 9 year old in a top that says 'sexy bitch' or something that's on them, it goes back to the classification issue & parents being responsible for their children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenny McBride Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 All in favour of classification, can be strictly enforced in cinemas. Once material becomes available for home consumption the responsibiity lies with the retailer in the first instance then with the parent/guardian. Completely against censorship. I fail to see how as an adult who can vote, marry, have children, be called up to fight for my country etc some other adult has the right to tell me what I can/can't read/watch or listen to. As long as no laws are being broken it's up to me to use my adult judgement. As for the sexualisation of children, if parents see fit to dress their 9 year old in a top that says 'sexy bitch' or something that's on them, it goes back to the classification issue & parents being responsible for their children. Â Your second paragraph doesn't tally with your first. You say that "in the first instance" classification issues are the responsibility of the retailer. If retailers are routinely marketing inappropriate clothing to children, doesn't that mean they're ignoring their responsibility? I don't exactly know how you would legislate to prevent Primark selling a t-shirt for a 5 year old reading "SLUT", but then I can't understand why anyone ever thinks some of these things are appropriate to sell in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew "the ref" coyne Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Didn't we have this debate not too long ago? Â I will say this (which no doubt I said in the last thread) I can't see how anyone can be against censorship. I predict this thread will have people say things along the lines of "censorship is wrong UNLESS its illegal etc". Ultimately the minute you decide a limit, regardless of reason, that IS censorship. Â If your against censorship, that would mean you would be game for tv companies to have the right to show live rape and graphic documentaries on people planning to (and then actually) murdering their ex wife. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Dead Mike Posted July 6, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted July 6, 2011 Sorry, I should clarify. I was referring to classification in media (films, games, music, books, magazines). The first instance is the person purchasing said item, once that item is out of the shop & in the home it's the parents responsibility. Â As far as I know clothing isn't subject to classification? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Dead Mike Posted July 6, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted July 6, 2011 I will say this (which no doubt I said in the last thread) I can't see how anyone can be against censorship. I predict this thread will have people say things along the lines of "censorship is wrong UNLESS its illegal etc". Ultimately the minute you decide a limit, regardless of reason, that IS censorship. If your against censorship, that would mean you would be game for tv companies to have the right to show live rape and graphic documentaries on people planning to (and then actually) murdering their ex wife.  No it doesn't! What a bizarre argument. Of course legality plays a significant part in it, especially when discussing censorship in the arts. If the BBFC decide to ban 'The Exorcist' because they think it's unsuitable for adults to view it's entirely different to 'TV companies showing live rape'. For starters one is a fictional piece of cinema & the other is a horrific crime. Can you honestly not see the difference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenny McBride Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 I think his point is that it's all a matter of degrees. If you agree with classification, you already agree with a form of censorship. Beyond that, it's all a case of deciding where the line should be. Â As for my point, no, clothing isn't subject to classification. However, where it's actively promoting (or at least suggesting) paedophilic activity, doesn't that suggest that someone needs to take a bit more responsibility for it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew "the ref" coyne Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 I will say this (which no doubt I said in the last thread) I can't see how anyone can be against censorship. I predict this thread will have people say things along the lines of "censorship is wrong UNLESS its illegal etc". Ultimately the minute you decide a limit, regardless of reason, that IS censorship. If your against censorship, that would mean you would be game for tv companies to have the right to show live rape and graphic documentaries on people planning to (and then actually) murdering their ex wife.  No it doesn't! What a bizarre argument. Of course legality plays a significant part in it, especially when discussing censorship in the arts. If the BBFC decide to ban 'The Exorcist' because they think it's unsuitable for adults to view it's entirely different to 'TV companies showing live rape'. For starters one is a fictional piece of cinema & the other is a horrific crime. Can you honestly not see the difference?  Course I see a difference.... but then I wasn't trying to say they were the same either. My point is that not showing something because it is illegal is still censorship and since we had a similar debate not that long ago, I knew where this discussion was going.  I think his point is that it's all a matter of degrees. If you agree with classification, you already agree with a form of censorship. Beyond that, it's all a case of deciding where the line should be.  Kenny gets it and I thank him for elaborating on my behalf.  Like I said we had a huge thread on censorship not too long ago with people outright saying "i am against censorship" but then go on to set limits anyway. Ultimately you can't TRUELY be against censorship and be for classification. Its a contradiction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Dead Mike Posted July 6, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted July 6, 2011 Classification isn't the same as censorship though? You're restricting or giving responsibility to parents/guardians what content their children see/hear. When talking about grown adults 'the line' has been decided, by the law. Â With regards to clothes 'promoting paedophile activity' that's up to the parents. If nobody buys padded bras for 4 year olds they wont range them for long. I personally find those beauty pagents for toddlers, where they're put in full make up & high heel abhorrent but my disgust is aimed purely at the parents entering the contest in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew "the ref" coyne Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Classification isn't the same as censorship though? Â It is. Classification is a form of censorship. In fact the BBFC was originally called the "The British Board of Film Censors." Â That's not to say we can't still debate about the appropriateness of censorship, because their is such varied opinion as to what's right and wrong from person to person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenny McBride Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 With regards to clothes 'promoting paedophile activity' that's up to the parents. If nobody buys padded bras for 4 year olds they wont range them for long. Â Well yes, but it's a chicken and egg thing. If the shops are full of them and they're marketed heavily and everyone's got one, it becomes a lot harder for Responsible Mum to say no. Worse still, it creates an environment where it's seen as normal for an 8 year old girl to set her goals around having bigger boobs and being a glamour model. Mum, who might never have considered it and hasn't previously had very strong opinions on the subject, now finds herself feeling like society as a whole thinks it's OK, so even if she's slightly uncomfortable with it, she goes along with it just to keep the kid happy because that's what all the other kids have got. It becomes more and more normal for kids to be dressed up in unsuitable clothes and eventually no-one bats an eyelid. The bar just gets set lower and lower until no-one cares at all that our kids' lives are packed with sexual imagery and sexual ideas WAAAAY before they're ready to deal with them, because that's what sells and really, what's more important than that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loki Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Kenny is right in that you can't just trust to parents to make the best choices for their kids - have you seen the sort of people who have kids? Bear in mind anyone with an open vagina can have a baby, it's not like you need a licence or a qualification. Â So obviously there is a role for the state in deciding what is and isn't acceptable imagery for children to be subjected to or associated with. However, drawing any kind of direct line between, say, a t-shirt with the slogan "WAG in Training" and actual paedophile behaviour is waaay to simplistic. Let's not forget that paedophilia is as much to do with power as it is sexuality - the sexualisation of children (which hasn't suddenly appeared in the last decade, incidentally) is only a small part of what might go into encouraging that sort of behaviour. Â I should state that I find the sort of clothing we talk about deeply saddening, but for reasons other than encouraging dirty men to wank over kiddy porn - there are much more likely social implications or potential knock-ons from it - the teenage pregnancy rate being a good one to talk about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members ReturnOfTheMack Posted July 6, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted July 6, 2011 Cracked have an interesting article on the children thing. Â http://www.cracked.com/article_19288_8-wei...e-are-kids.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smeg_&_The_Heads Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 I personally find those beauty pagents for toddlers, where they're put in full make up & high heel abhorrent but my disgust is aimed purely at the parents entering the contest in the first place. Â I saw one of these on TV some time ago and there was this mother with her (about) 5 year old daughter and she said to her "Tell them what you want to do when you grow up" to which the 5 year old said " I want to be in Playboy" I'm not sure any 5 year old knows what Playboy is let alone know what it means to pose in it so it was obviously the mother telling her that she wants her to appear in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.