Australian media censorship, and why it's bullshit.

[moonvoice]

Censorship cannot be effective or fair unless it has clearly defined laws and represents all facets of society and the public interest. Australia’s screen censorship laws are conservative, poorly defined, regulated and represent small – often elitist – pockets of Australian society. Australian censorship laws are, in short, ineffective and unfair.

As Jane Mills states, The Australian Office of Film and Literature Classification (OFLC) does not even publish what has been censored so that it is accessible to the public (2001). She states that the OFLC’s decisions were ‘largely inaccessible to the nation that actually paid for [them]’ (p. 56). The wording of the laws are open to interpretation, with ambiguous terms like ‘disturbing’, ‘graphic’ and ‘perverted’ used to define what is safe for society and what isn’t. Disturbing to whom? Perverted according to what facet of society? Who after all, deserves to be censored? It is difficult to find a small group of people who represent a diverse society and public interest, more difficult still to define a ‘diverse society’ and ‘public interest’ (Bertrand, 1981). The OFLC has defined none of these terms and continues to monopolise the film industry through its conservative, biased censorship (Mills, 2001).

Censorship of film (particularly when represented on television), places the power of raising children with the conservative, biased state, and takes it away from parents and carers. The OFLC decides when/what should be shown at certain times, which shows the nation’s distrust of the very citizens it is supposed to respect and protect (Mills, 2001). Mills further believes that censorship means the ‘task of introducing children to the unpleasant realities of [screen] violence…was no longer to be left to parents and carers’ (2001, p. 58). Film censorship founded on distrust (as it is here) reflects a fear. Director Andrzej Wajda sees it as a ‘fear about going beyond the prevailing ideas of decency, taste and even social or moral prejudices’ (1997, p. 35).

Film censorship represses the darker parts of our psyche. This repression can be dangerous. The fiction of film allows us to safely ‘explore and indulge’ in fantasies and therefore sublimate them (O’Shaughnessy, 1999, p. 46). Films that show any number of themes that are considered disturbing; rape, graphic murder, gratuitous violence, torture etc., often satiate the desires of those who would seek such representations out in the first place. Censoring such films would, according to Mills, ‘lead to a passive, infantile condition in which we lack the ability to make sense of our inhumanity’ (2001, p. 93).

The non-representation of these films in the public sphere removes the provocation needed to ‘protest and demand an end to the conditions that produce [such themes] in the first place’ (2001, p. 95). Mills goes on to stress that society is so busy asking whether screen violence causes harm, that they forget to ask a very important question: ‘Can the censorship of screen violence cause harm?’ (2001, p. 95).

Media studies lecturer and author, Michael O’Shaughnessy, states that in an ‘ideal world we would spend time understanding what people are feeling…rather than resorting to censorship’ (1999, p. 49). He, and other censorship experts such as Mills, Bertrand and Wolmar firmly believe that disturbing portrayals of sex/violence in the media are merely the symptoms of a deeper sickness in Western society.

With our attention constantly on what is ‘safe’ to watch and what is not, the Australian (and indeed Western) society recklessly ignore the fundamental social sicknesses and taboos which generated such depictions (O’Shaughnessy, 1999). Filmic representations of violence and sexuality/sexual fetishism address the reality of society and try to explain, portray and provoke thought regarding taboos. These issues will not simply vanish once edited or removed from the cinema screen, it is foolish and ignorant to assume that they will.

One of the greatest myths suggested by pro-censors is the belief in a link between the disturbing scenes in film and violence and disturbing activities in ‘real life.’ This link has never been proven, despite funding from government and private agencies worldwide (Bertrand, 1981; Wolmar, 1990, & Mills, 2001). When violent films are cited as a major contributing cause of violence, such as the Bulger murder and the Port Arthur Massacre, censorship laws are tightened despite reports that both murderers had never seen nor owned the movies that were alleged to have been responsible for their behaviour.

Time and time again we see the courts, journalists, authorities, etc. blame screen violence for violence in real life. Why? Because it is ‘convenient to blame the cinema’ Mills asserts (2001, p. 74). Studies have shown that people pre-disposed to aggression will seek out aggressive films, suggesting that people don’t become violent because of the media, they are drawn to violence because they enjoy it (Wolmar, 1990). The violence and perversions of society are not minimised just because censorship has minimised these themes in the Australian media. According to O’Shaughnessy, violence and perversion increase the more an individual’s freedom are curbed (2001).

Some of the opposing views of censorship will still maintain that the majority of the public believes in the link between screen and real-life violence, therefore it must exist. Pro-censors will continue to argue that censorship protects and safeguards a society from that which impedes or denies what it assumes to be 'absolute values' (Bertrand, 1981, p. 12). They see the community as being in need of protection and wish to uphold the cultural standards of Australia by banning or editing that which is 'clearly' un-Australian.

Pro-censors will finally argue that there are simply some groups who by nature of their desires (pedophiles, pederasts, serial killers, rapists etc.,) should not have access to provocative material, and do not need to be fairly represented in a society that has no tolerance for such amoral behaviour. These arguments are valid, but have been carefully deconstructed and shown to be less true than an anti-censorship stance which shows that no matter how censored Australian standards of film are, the problems will not disappear until the more fundamental problems of Western society are treated.

I believe Australian film censorship is wrong in principle, that laws/regulations relating to it are neither effective nor fair. Censorship takes responsibility from parents and their autonomy, dangerously represses our subconscious self, prevents us from understanding the deeper sicknesses of society and firmly stating that there is no proven link between screen violence/sexual fetishism, and violence/fetishism in real life. Censorship does not do what it sets out to, and deeply conflicts with an idea of today’s allegedly democratic Western society. It is time to pay attention to the large proportions of the public and media that are in outcry against Australia’s conservative and unnecessary censorship (Mills, 2001., & Bertrand, 1981), and treat the cause and not the symptoms of our taboo-ridden society. Otherwise we may as well confront the alternative that Mills’ predicts; ‘unreality, no involvement, no responsibility: time out from the democratic process’ (p. 99).

* * *

Bibliography

Almodovar, P. (1997). Industry and Hypocrisy. In R. Petrie (Ed.), Film and Censorship (pp. 117-119). London: Cassel.

Bertrand, I. (1981). Film Censorship in Australia. North Ryde: Australian Film and Television School.

French, P. (1997). No End in Sight. In R. Petrie (Ed.), Film and Censorship (pp. 144-150). London: Cassel.

Mills, J. (1997). Screening Rape. In R. Petrie (Ed.), Film and Censorship (pp. 150-152). London: Cassel.

Mills, J. (2001). The Money Shot: Cinema, Sin and Censorship. New South Wales: Pluto Press.

O’Shaughnessy, M. (1999). Media and Society. Victoria: Oxford University Press.

O’Sullivan, T., Hartley, J., Saunders, D., Montgomery, M., & Fiske, J. (1994). Key Concepts in Communication and Cultural Studies (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.

Paterson, K., & Hellmers, R. (1993). Classification Issues: Film, Video and Television. North Sydney: The Office of Film and Literature & Australian Broadcasting Authority.

Phelps, G. (1997). Britain: Out of Fear and Ignorance. In R. Petrie (Ed.), Film and Censorship (pp. 66-69). London: Cassel.

Sather, T. (1999). Censorship by the State. In T. Sather (Ed.), Pros and Cons; a debaters handbook. London: Routledge, 16-18.

Wajda, A. (1997). Two Types of Censorship. In R. Petrie (Ed.), Film and Censorship (pp. 107-109). London: Cassel.

Wolmar, C. (1990). Censorship. East Sussex: Wayland Limited.

Comments

[darakat-ewr.livejournal.com]

Michael O’Shaughnessy, ah what a great guy, good lecturer too (yes I have been in his classes)! I uphold all of your claims and applaud your efforts!

[moonvoice.livejournal.com]

:) We were a great fan of O'shags, shame he burnt himself out so many times though. :/

[moonvoice.livejournal.com]

He was actually a member of several trance drumming groups while he lived in Perth, I remember joining him on a few. He also had the most radically appalling dress sense! Lol. Now ECU has a new film lecturer (for some of the units) and he has the most appalling hair. Must be a media thing.

[darakat-ewr.livejournal.com]

If only I had know that when I was being lectured by him! And the hair is a media thing!

[mirrorred-star.livejournal.com]

Damn good essay.

In year 12 media we did a little bit on whether there's a link between seeing violence in the media and acting it out. I think you make a good point in that violent people seek out violent media.

The equating of 'supernatural themes' with 'horror' pissed me off. Yeah, in movies one usually causes the other, but its really stupid to just equate them out of hand.

[moonvoice.livejournal.com]

Damn good essay.

Thank you. I was consistently top of the Media Communications course at university while there, and I'm a trained media analysis. Now if only there were some jobs going in Perth! Lol. My skills are wasting, actually, so I'd like to get back into the swing of things. My particular interest was cinema censorship in Australia, we're the harshest Western continent in the world.

The equating of 'supernatural themes' with 'horror' pissed me off. Yeah, in movies one usually causes the other, but its really stupid to just equate them out of hand.

I buy into the theory sometimes or the superstition that media violence can cause or instigate violence in real life, BUT I would still like to see the studies for it! I really believe that we watch what we're drawn to, so some people watch Disney, some people watch anime, some people watch soaps, and some people even watch violence and pornography. But even the last people don't go out and make pornography or seek out violence just because they watched it, unless they have the predisposition to go out seeking it.

[mirrorred-star.livejournal.com]

It ate my reply :(

I think you're right about people who watch certain things not necesarily wanting to go out and reacreate them in real life. Me, I love martial arts and moderately violent movies, and I go so far as to take martial arts classes (and have been to a medieval rec group a few times- swords and spears = drool!), but if I was ever in a situation where I had to hurt someone to stop them from hurting me or someone else, I'm not sure that I would. But if I wasn't a nice person and was brought up in a rougher family, I might go around looking for fights, because damn, grappling is fun.

Media in high school was very interesting. Analysing films and the symbols they use can be very revealing. I like seeing how movies and things are made, and checking what the director and actors saw in their vision against what I saw when I watched the movie. Stuff like that. Its just fascinating. I like seeing how stuff was made, just to see the process that went into it as well.