Johannessen1

AutumnJohannessen
Ms.Meyers
English4P.5
05December2014
ShouldCensorshipbeAllowed?
InBritainfrom1737to1968,noperformancecouldtakeplaceonstagewithoutthe
permissionfromaroyalofficial(Aldgate).Censorshiphaschangedthroughouthistory,andis
oftenputonbooks,films,theaterproductionsandtheinternet.Ithastheabilitytoaffectthe
viewsofsocietybychangingwhatpeopleareexposedto.Whileitcanbearguedthatcensorship
protectsthemoralityofsociety,censoringtheaterandfilmbasedonquestionablecontent
violatestherighttofreedomofspeechandexpression,placesadefinitiononwhatisconsidered
offensivematerialand,mostimportantly,itdeniespeopleaccesstoinformation.
Itcanbearguedthatcensorshipprotectsmoralityinsociety.InanarticlebyKevin
McHugh,ajournalist,hewritesabouttheeffectoftheatreonpeople.Thearticlearguesthat
censorshipisnecessarytoprotectpeoplefrommimickingactionsandeventsintheatreandfilm
productions.AnexampleofthisisAClockworkOrangeThefilmportraysmanyinstancesof
violenceandAClockworkOrangewaswithdrawnfromtheatresbydi
rectorStanleyKubrick
afterthefilminspiredseveralcrimesthatimitatedscenesfromthefilmandKubrickhimselfwas
threatened(McHugh1).Censorshipisoftenusedtopreventviolenceand,inthiscase,crimes
beingcommitted.Itisbelievesthatcensoringviolenceinfilmsandtheatrewillpreventmembers
oftheaudiencefromimitatingtheviolentscenes.Whilecensorshipmayseemrightinthese
cases,itisnot.Censorshipshouldnotbeplacedonaworkbecauseofviolenceorothervarious

Johannessen2

subjectmattersbecauseitdoesnotkeeptheviewersfromcommittingactsofviolence.Whena
filmortheatreproductioniscreated,thewritercannotknowtheiraudience.Itisntnecessaryto
putcensorshiponsomethingbecauseofhowonebelievesitwilleffecttheaudience,becausea
filmoftheatreproductiondoesnotpurelycausetheactsofviolence.
Thenegativeeffectthatis
believedtooccurafteranuncensoredfilmisreleaseddoesnotaffecteveryoneintheaudience.
Likeinsuchcasesasthefilminspiredcrimesthatwerecommitted,theactswerecommitted
byindividualsintheaudienceandnotalloftheviewers.Thenegativeoutcomesoffilmsarestill
rarelypresent,anditisonlyafewindividualswhoareaffectedinsuchamannerwhileitis
oversimplistictosolelyattributetheseincidentstofilms(especiallyasthemediamakesapoint
ofdemonisinganymovieconnectedtoanactofviolence),theevidenceshowsthatacertain
levelofcontrolisnecessary(McHugh1).Althoughcertainthingsshouldbecensoredin
incidentsinvolvingimpressionablechildren,filmsandtheatreproductionsarenotthesourceof
actsofviolence.Tocensortheseworksbecausetheblameisputonthemisnotright.
Theactis
theresponsibilityoftheindividualwhocommitsit,andnotonwhattheyview.
Applyingcensorshiptotheaterproductionsandfilmsviolatestherighttofreedomof
speechandexpression.InthecourtcaseofJosephBurstynIncvWilson,itwasarguedwhether
ornotfilmsshouldbecensored.Thecourtcametotheconclusionthatfilmproducersshouldbe
givenrightsbecause,Evenifitbeassumedthatmotionpicturespossessagreatercapacityfor
evil,particularlyamongtheyouthofacommunity,thanothermodesofexpression,itdoesnot
followthattheyarenotentitledtotheprotectionoftheFirstAmendmentormaybesubjectedto
substantiallyunbridledcensorship

(1).Eventhoughthispointsoutthatfilmshavethepotential
toproducenegativeresultsamongstyouth,thiscaseprovidedanewoutlookonhowfilmswere

Johannessen3

perceivedbyprovidingmoreprotectiontofilmmakers.Thiscasenotonlygaveprotectionto
films,butittookawaytherighttocensorfromstates.Itgaverightsundertheconstitutionto
filmmakersbasedupontheFirstAmendment,protectingunderfreedomofspeechrights.It
madefilmsmoreavailableforthepublicwithoutchangingthecontent.Thisallowedformore
original,artisticcontenttobeviewedbythepublic.Becauseoftheprotectionunderthelaw,
filmsshouldnotbecensored,although,itstilldoesoccur.Astatelegallycannotcensora
productionbecause,UndertheFirstandFourteenthAmendments,astatemaynotplaceaprior
restraintontheshowingofamotionpicturefilmonthebasisofacensor'sconclusionthatitis
sacrilegious(2).Takingawayastatesabilitytocensorproductionshadapositiveimpactby
limitingcensorship.Althoughthisallowsforcensorshipbasedonotherideals,suchasthose
presentinextremistgroups,itgivesfreedomfromcensorshipduetoreligiousgroups.Becauseof
thiscase,religiousgroupsdonothavetherighttoplacecensorshiponaproduction,becauseitis
violatingafilmmakersrights.Underthefirstamendment,thesegroupsareallowedtovoicetheir
opinionsandhavetheirview,buttheycannothaveaneffectonaproduction,duetothe
amendment.Thisispositivebecauseitallowedawiderrangeofproductionstobeavailableto
thepublic.
Thereshouldnotberegulationsontheaterandfilmbecausethereisnoobjective
definitionofoffensivematerial.Inanarticlewhichexplainstherelationsbetweenlaws,movies,
andpeople,itgivesdetailsofhowafilmhasthepossibilitytobecensored.Thearticlestates,
Filmssubjecttobothmoviecensorshipandmoviebanningareclassifiedinaccordancewiththe
presumptionthattheirrespectivecontentisperceivedtobeobjectionable,incendiary,illicit,or
immoralbythepresidingauthority(WhatYouNeedtoKnowAboutMovieCensorship1).The

Johannessen4

objectionable,incendiary,illicit,orimmoralcontentisjudgedbyagroupofpeople,notbythe
public.Whetherornotthematerialthatisbeingcensoredisimmoralornotcannotbedefined
becauseimmoralityisdeterminedonanindividualbasis.Commoncontroversialthemesinfilm
andtheaterincludedrugs,sexandcrime.Whatapersonshouldorshouldnotseeisbeingjudged
byagroup,ratherthantheindividualthemselves.Whatisviewedbyanindividualistheir
personalchoice,andnotforsomeoneelsetodecide.
Itshouldnotbetoleratedthatviewingrightsarebeingaffectedbygroupswhodefine
offensivematerial,butitisstillacommonoccurrencethatproductionsarecensoredbyreligious
groups.InabookbyMaureenEMadison,shetalksabouttheMotionPictureProductioncode.
ThebooktellsofhowthecodewasputintoactionbytheCatholicLegionofDecencybecause
theyobjectedtothecontentofafilm.Thisgroupbelievedthatfilmswereportraying
inappropriatecontentwhichglamorizedunsavorysubjectmatter,andwouldcensorshipafilm.
OneexampleofthisiswhenThemotionpictureindustryjoinedforces,inasomewhatuneasy
alliance,withthesereligiousgroupsinordertostemthetideofprotestagainsttheimmoral
contentofmotionpicturesandsalvagetheaudienceandcommercialviabilityoftheirproduct
(89).Associationsarecontrollingwhatothersshouldviewbasedupontheirownpersonal
standards.Inthiscase,censorshipwasputintoplacetosalvagetheaudience,showinghow
groupsarecontrollingsocietysviewsbyusingcensorshiptoregulatecontent.Whena
productionincensored,itchangestheworkasawholeitchangeshowtoaudienceviewsa
work.Whilesomeoftheviewersmayappreciatethecensorship,ittakesawayfromtheoriginal
intentoftheartistbyblockingouttheirvisionsandideals.Inanarticlewhichdiscussestheuse
offilmratingsinschools,MichaelO'Neil,thecommunicationscoordinatorfortheNational

Johannessen5

CoalitionAgainstCensorship,doesnotbelieveinusing
MotionPictureAssociationofAmerica
ratingstoregulatefilmsinpublicschoolsandwarnsagainsttheiruse.Inthearticle,hestates,
"Theratingsaredesignedtobedescriptiveofafilm'scontent,notaonesizefits
allguidetothesuitabilityofeveryfilmwithinaratingforeveryindividualinan
agegroup...It'simpossibleforasuperintendentoranyoneelsetoclaimthatall
Rratedfilmsareinappropriateforalltheagesrepresentedwithinahighschool"
(Tang1).
O'Neilmakesapointinstatingthatthesuitabilityofafilmissomethingthatisdefinedonan
individualbasis.Ratingsonfilmsareputonasaguideforviewers,andshouldnotbeusedasa
restrictiononwhocanviewafilm.Certaincontentcanbeconsideredinappropriateforyounger
viewers,butagecannotdeterminematuritylevel,althoughcurrentratingsputonfilmsare
definingmaturitylevelbasedpurelyonage.Agedoesnotregulatewhatapersonismentallyand
emotionallyreadytoview.
TheratingsonmediaandcontentareregulatedbytheFederalCommunications
Commision,butshouldnotbetheresponsibilityofthisindividualgroup.Inacase,theFCCs
rulesweretriedbasedonwhetherornottheyhastherighttocensor.Inanarticleregardingthe
case,itstates,TheUSCourtofAppealsfortheSecondCircuittodaystruckdowntheFCCs
indecencyrules,findingthattherulesweresovagueastonotputbroadcastersonnoticeofwhat
programmingwasprohibitedandwhatwaspermitted(Oxenford1).Thiscaseshowshow
indecencycannotbedefined.Evenifcertaincontentisprohibited,whatispresentedhasthe
possibilitytostillbeoffensive.Thereisnowaytocontrolhowanaudiencewillreacttocertain
content.Contentwillalwaysbepositivetosome,butnegativetoothers.Censorshipisdefining

Johannessen6

whatcontentisconsiderednegative.
Finally,theaterandfilmshouldnotbecensoredbecauseitdeniesaccesstoinformation.
JessicaHwangwroteajournalonfilmcensorshipthroughouthistoryandhowitappliestothe
firstamendment.Inregardstothis,shewrites,FilmmakersandpoliticalleadersinEurope
embracedfilmasapowerfulformofcommunication(406).Filmhasplayedastrongrole
throughouthistory.Withdailyoccurrencessuchaspropaganda,toeventsasimportantasa
presidentialspeech,mediahasbeenawaytoconnectpeopleandprovideinformation.If
censorshipweretobeputinplaceformodernpoliticalcampaignsandevents,thereisahigh
possibilitythatthiswouldcauseanegativepublicreactionbecausetheinformationisimportant
toeverydaylife.Ifthecensoringofpublicinformationwouldcauseanegativeviewinsociety,
thencensoringartshouldhavethiseffecttoo.Inthebook,
MovieCensorshipandAmerican
Culture
,FrancisG.Couvareswritesabouthowcensorshipcanhaveaneffectonculture.
Censorshipcanchangethegeneralmindsetandviewsofsocietyandcensorshipcanbeaform
ofempowerment,ameansthroughwhichhistoricallymarginalizedgroupscangainameasureof
controloverthewaytheyarerepresentedindominantmedia(280).Censorshipwouldbe
providingfalseandunrealisticinformation.Asstated,censorshipcanbeusedtocontrolhowone
isperceived,andthiscouldbeinanegativeorpositiveway.Thechangeofperspectivehasthe
possibilitytopresentfalseinformation.Becausecensorshipalterscontentandchangesviewsof
people,whatisknownandacceptedintopublicopinionchangesbecauseoftheinfluences
peoplehaveintheirdailylives.Becauseofthis,itshouldnotdecidedbycorporationswhatis
acceptable.
Notonlydoescensorshipaffectcorporationsandsocietyasawhole,butitalsoaffectsthe

Johannessen7

dailylivesofindividuals.Inanarticle,parentswereaskedwhetherornotfilmratingsshould
increaseifsmokingordrinkingispresentinthefilm.Manywereinterviewed,includingdoctors.
Whenaskedaboutthesubjectsoffilmcontent,ratingsandchildren,Dr.JonathanPletcher,an
adolescentmedicinespecialistatChildren'sHospitalofPittsburgh,said,"Onuscan'tallbeonthe
parents.Thisgoesbeyondwhataparentisabletocontrolinoursociety.Kidsaregetting
bombardedwiththesemessageseveryday"(Gordon1).Pletchermakesthepointthatwhatis
portrayedinfilmareoccurrencesofeverydaylife.Hebelievesthatitisnotthedutyofaparents
isnottohidetheirchildrenawayfromtheselifeexperiences.Althoughtheremaybeless
exposurewhenthecontentisnotportrayedinfilms,theexperienceswillstillbepresentandwill
occurinlife.So,whilewhatisdeemedasappropriateatacertainageisuptoparents,thereisno
reasontocompletelyblockoutacertainsubjectmatterbecauseindividualswillbeexposedto
thesesituationsthroughoutlife.Theoccurrenceofnegativeexperiencesisprevalentinmodern
society,andcannotbeavoided,whethertheexperienceisinamovieoronthenews.Inan
articlewhichdiscussesaddingfilmlikeratingstotheater,manyparents,audiencemembersand
theaterswereinterviewed.Onetheaterdirectorsaid,Ibelieveouraudienceshouldunderstand
thatcontemporarytheaterreflectslifeasitislived,andthatmeansabroadspectrumofthe
humanexperience...Hopefullyweareallgrownups,andliveandworkina21stcenturyworld.
Idliketothinkgoingtothetheatermeansyouareupfortheride,nomatterwhereitgoes
(Weiss3).Althoughmanyparentsagreedwithapplyingamovielikeratingsystemtotheater
performances,applyingtheratingsystemwouldbeaformofcensorship.Apointismadethat
thosewhoattendtheatershouldbeopentowhattheyareviewing.Whilenotallaudience
memberswillbegrownups,parentsneedtobeawarethattheyareattendingaproductionthat

Johannessen8

mayexposetheirchildtounwantedexperiences.
Althoughcensorshiphasaplaceinsomecases,suchaswithimpressionablechildren,it
producesmoreofanegativeeffectthanitprotectspeople.Censorshiptakesawayfromtheintent
ofanartistbyblockingouttheirviewsandignoringtheirrights.Artists,especiallyfilm
producers,haverightsundertheconstitution.Becauseofthis,filmscannotbecensoredbasedon
theviewsofgroupsandindividuals.Censorshipdefinesoffensivematerialasagroupratherthan
onanindividualbasis,andgroupshouldnotcontrolwhatpeopleareviewing.Censorshipis
unrealistictoeverydaylifebecausenegativeoccurrencesarefrequent.Becauseofthis,an
individualcannotevadetheseoccurrences.Censorshipdoesnothelpsocietyandshouldbe
stopped.

Johannessen9

WorksCited
Aldgate,Anthony.
CensorshipinTheatreandCinema
.Edinburgh:EdinburghUniversityPress,
2005.Web.22August2014.
Couvares,FrancisG.
MovieCensorshipandAmericanCulture
.Amherst:Universityof
MassachusettsPress,1996.Web.06September2014.
Gordon,Serena."Smoking,DrinkingShouldMatterInMovieRatings,ParentSurveyFinds."
HealthDay
3March2009:12.Web.28August2014.
Hwang,Jessica."FromSpectacletoSpeech:TheFirstAmendmentandFilmCensorshipfrom
19151952."
HastingsConstitutionalLawQuarterly
42.1(2014):40.Web.02September
2014.
JosephBurstynIncv.Wilson.343U.S.495.SupremeCourtoftheUnitedStates.1952.
Legal
InformationInstitute.
Web.1September2014.
Madison,MaureenE."FilmandNation:NationalIdentity,CensorshipandthePoliticsof
Genre."WashingtonDC:ProQuest,2008.1228.Web.07September2014.
McHugh,Kevin."ForandAgainstShouldFilmsEverBeCensored?"
MancunianMatters
11
October2014:15.Web.30October2014
Oxenford,David."CourtofAppealsStrikesDownFCCIndecencyRules."
BroadcastLaw
13
July2010:12.Web.07September2014.
Tang,Didi."SchoolsLookatMovies,RestrictionsinClassrooms."
USAToday
19August2011:
12.Web.29August2014.
"ToBeorNotToBe...Censored."
TheSpectator
8October2009:12.Web.30August2014.

Johannessen10

Weiss,Hedy."BeyondPG13:TheatersDividedonApplyingMovieStyleRatingson
Productions."
SunTimes
21April2014:14.Web.22August2014.
WhatYouNeedToKnowAboutMovieCensorship.
Laws.com
.n.p.,n.d.Web.07September
2014