|
The desire to protect children remains intact but what
constitutes ‘acceptable standards’ is debated anew by every generation
Film and video game guidelines are under review and the debate on the
limits that should be placed on erotic and violent material is being opened up to public comment. The problem is pornographers seem to find ever more sophisticated ways to push their product. Chris Hook
reports
Our censorship guidelines have not been touched since 1996 and much has changed.
Different options for titillation have evolved rapidly, and the convergence of new
technologies – digital videodiscs (DVD) and video games – has seen the medium steal the message and run with it right away from the regulators.
The guidelines for films and video games are currently under
review and before new guidelines are devised the review will be made available to the public for comment once Australia’s Attorney Generals cast their eye over it.
But there are issues.
“New media
has overtaken us,” says Des Clark, who heads the Office of Film and Literature Classification. “The reason (for the review) is not to change but to incorporate two sets of guidelines.”
Mr Clark said he and
his team would welcome contributions from the public once the review is completed and it is thrown into the public arena for comment.
Which brings us back to an age-old debate – what limits should be placed
on the material we have access to?
Australian Catholic University Vice-Chancellor Peter Sheehan used last year’s Victor Couch Lecture to try and answer this question.
“Clearly, if censorship can be
justified as tenable, and I believe it can be in certain circumstances, one must find the right balance between freedom and responsibility,” said Prof Sheehan.
Drawing upon the work of St Thomas Aquinas, Prof
Sheehan said: “Balance comes from acting responsibly according to moral virtue in a reasonable way.”
This is not too far off the definition offered in the Classification Act 1995, where “contentious material”
– that is material likely to be refused classification – is defined as material “that a reasonable adult would consider as unsuitable for viewing”.
“People have a right to see things unless a reasonable
adult finds them offensive,” Prof Sheehan said.
Still, the tension remains. What is reasonable?
“We’ve got to draw a line with respect to what most people find tolerable,” Prof Sheehan told The
Catholic Weekly. He nominated sexual activity involving children, animals, sexual violence, snuff films and instructions as to how to make a bomb as obvious cases of material any reasonable adult would find
offensive.
But these are cases of material that is difficult to classify. Late last year the porn industry won a reprieve for several films banned under new restrictions on fetish material.
Another
famously overturned ban involves Romance, an art-house film said to include penetrative sex.
It is the material that falls short of the aforementioned extremes that causes heated debate.
“What you’re
really balancing is the prize of freedom and the potential to harm people ... It will always be a vexed issue because it’s about two competing issues, freedom and protection,” Fr Andrew Murray commented.
Fr
Murray, who teaches political philosophy at the Catholic Institute of Sydney, said many studies failed in their attempt to find a causal link between what material people were exposed to and their subsequent actions.
But, Fr Murray said, many such studies attempted to find “efficient” causes when the damage lay in the way such material “expands the imaginations” of people who may be inclined towards antisocial activity
anyway.
There is also the issue of the damage to the person consuming ultra-violent or pornographic material as well.
“Pornography can deform an adult mind to the detriment of all society,” said Fr
Murray.
However, he said the current censorship regime, with its various standards – for children, teenagers and so on – was effective.
“It tries to establish standards across society. I think that’s
a good thing. The more complex (standards) are, often the more effective (they are),” Fr Murray said. But, he said, acceptable standards became a matter for debate every generation.
Prof Sheehan believes
there is another element in the mix in that sometimes standards are challenged for commercial gain.
“They (commercial media interests) are fanning demand,” Prof Sheehan said.
Over the past few years,
Prof Sheehan has examined the public’s perception of censorship for the Office of Film and Literature Classification and, he says, people want tighter controls.
But regulation becomes difficult with new forms
of media like the Internet. In addition, many of us are less willing to accept censorship on simple moral grounds than we once were.
Director of Catholic Communications, Marita Franklin, believes the answer
lies in education because “in so many areas of our life we’re taught to think and reason”.
But, said Ms Franklin, this does not mean there should be open slather, rather education is one way to equip people
to make the right choices.
“I think there is a case for someone saying, ‘for the good of society this is not acceptable’,” said Ms Franklin.
She added that the dignity of the human should be the
principle underlining all censorship decisions.
Catholic Communications is the communications arm of the Sydney Archdiocese.
Prof Sheehan agrees on the importance of education. “Part of learning to
be a person is learning how to be a moral agent working within a moral community,” he said.
“Facilitation of a critical capacity is an essential ingredient of the learning process … and critical capacity
must be associated with values.”
“Censorship is linked integrally to ethical responsibility and the practice of moral virtue,” he added.
A sentiment echoed by Pope John Paul II’s statement: “The
demands of truth and morality neither degrade nor abolish our freedom, but on the contrary enable freedom to exist and liberate it from its own inherent threat.”
Therein lies the balance.
|
