 |
 |
 |
Mass media: sex and violence
|
|||
|
Mass media: sex and violence
|
My son has a T-shirt bearing the message 'Nazi punks fuck off!' Though empathising with the sentiment, I don't think I would wear the shirt because I would not wish to offend people who object to the public display or expression of the word 'fuck' (not to mention offending any Nazi punks I might happen to meet!).
In Great Britain it is recognized that pornography may be found offensive by some people. Consequently, the display of pornography is limited, as recommended by the Williams Report (Report of the Committee on Obscenity and Film Censorship) of 1979, which took a generally liberal view of pornography. Thus, we find the newsagents' girlie mags. on the top shelf well out of the range of children, half-hidden behind Exchange and Mart with not a pubic hair in sight.
This liberal view recognizes that some people may find pornography offensive and therefore should not have to be exposed to it. That's a similar attitude to mine where my son's T-shirt is concerned and to that which underlies, say, the ASA code and the ITC programme code. It's a fairly typical attitude in a liberal democracy - you can do what you like as long as you
don't upset other people by doing it. The touchstone tends to be some such ideally average citizen such as 'the man on the Clapham omnibus', 'the man in the street' or, as Justice Burger expressed it, 'prevailing community standards' or, as in Lord Denning's 1979 definition of indecency, which 'an ordinary decent man or woman would find to be shocking, disgusting or revolting'. (For more detailed comment on Miller and Burger, see 
this page at University of Leeds Department of Law)
Of course, our individual notions of what is offensive will vary, but if you're offended by something that doesn't bother anyone else, that's just tough. I find television appearances by Conservative Party front-benchers offensive, but even I recognize that banning them from the news would be unreasonable. Similarly Clare Short MP may be offended by page 3 portraits of naked women, but, as long as they appear to be acceptable by 'prevailing community standards', then it seems reasonable to say that she'll just have to put up with them, even if it's the case that her view is shared by many other women (and men). What is interesting, though, about Britain's laws on the portrayal of sex is that soft-porn is much more widely available than hardcore. Soft porn necessarily excludes any portrayal of mutuality since lovers cannot be shown together and portrayal of the male erection is outlawed in Britain. The women in soft core porn are necessarily portrayed as sex objects. Assiter and Carol (1993) make the point that there is a general assumption that women find pornography offensive and that, in Britain, where the kind of pornography most women get to see is soft-core, then it is hardly surprising. One-handed soft-core porn mags in which a woman alone spreads her legs for the male gaze are indubitably sexist; it is not immediately clear that hardcore porn in which women are active and may often play a dominant role is necessarily sexist. In the USA 40% of the porn video market is female and in Scandinavia 40% of the sex mag Cupido is female.
It's one thing to be offended. We could hardly live among other people without being offended by somebody at some time. Causing harm, though, is quite another matter.
'It does me no injury' wrote Thomas Jefferson, 'for my neighbour to say that there are twenty Gods or no God.' This sets the tone for the religious tolerance of American democracy. Jefferson might find his neighbour's opinions offensive, but he can live with them. But when his neighbour beats him up for not joining his religion, then Jefferson is entitled to turn to the state for protection.
One of the duties of the state is certainly to protect its citizens from harm. That duty is given expression in our laws penalizing not only those who cause physical harm, but those who cause financial harm as well, those who cause mental harm, those who cause harm to another's reputation (defamation) and so on. This applies not only to those who actually perpetrate the injury, but also to those who attempt to do so and those who, perhaps with no intention of causing harm themselves, call upon others to cause harm. Thus, for example, the law explicitly forbids incitement to racial hatred (Race Relations and Public Order Acts) and a suit for libel may be brought against one who disseminates the libel (e.g. a newspaper distributor).
The principle of harm is stated by John Stuart Mill in his essay On Liberty, in which he argues for the principle of 'no prior restraint', which in essence has guided the freedom of the press in Britain ever since the Act of Parliament imposing censorship expired in 1695. According to this principle you can publish what you like, but should be prepared to answer for it in a court of law if it is considered blasphemous, defamatory, seditious etc. However, according to Mill's principle of harm, individuals' actions can be sanctioned by the state if they cause harm to others. Thus, for example, the prior restraint on matters pertaining to national security falls under this principle. The problem is that, whilst Mill's principle may be seen as an argument for minimal state intervention, it could just as well be understood as a justification for massive prior restraint. Indeed, Mill himself considered that, whilst offences against decency may not in themselves be illegal, they can be a 'violation of good manners' if carried out in public. They thereby constitute offences against others and may therefore be prohibited. Which puts him squarely in the Mary Whitehouse camp.
It is this question of harm which is the very crux of the debate over pornography and censorship - does it cause harm, either directly to the individuals exposed to it or indirectly, through their actions, to other individuals? Is page 3 simply 'harmless fun'? If it is not, then we need to listen carefully to what Ms Short and others have to say.
This is what we will examine in the next section.
Regulation of the media in the UK
Bulletin Board on Film
Censorship - bulletin boards on a variety of film censorship topics; mailing
lists; numerous articles on film and other censorship in the UK
|