Should governments criminalize speech or clothing to promote religious or racial tolerance? Is it OK in the workplace? And when does censorship cross the line into repression? Jantzen Gregory. Subscribe to our Podcasts. Sign up for our Newsletter. Serial killer Theodore Bundy collected cheerleading magazines. And the work most often cited by psychopaths as justification for their acts of violence is the Bible.
But what about the rest of us? Does exposure to media violence actually lead to criminal or anti-social conduct by otherwise stable people, including children, who spend an average of 28 hours watching television each week? These are important questions. If there really were a clear cause-and-effect relationship between what normal children see on TV and harmful actions, then limits on such expression might arguably be warranted.
Children have been shown TV programs with violent episodes in a laboratory setting and then tested for "aggressive" behavior. Some of these studies suggest that watching TV violence may temporarily induce "object aggression" in some children such as popping balloons or hitting dolls or playing sports more aggressively but not actual criminal violence against another person.
There is no definitive answer. But all scientists agree that statistical correlations between two phenomena do not mean that one causes the other. Japanese TV and movies are famous for their extreme, graphic violence, but Japan has a very low crime rate -- much lower than many societies in which television watching is relatively rare.
What the sudies reveal on the issue of fictional violence and real world aggression is -- not much. The only clear assertion that can be made is that the relationship between art and human behavior is a very complex one. Violent and sexually explicit art and entertainment have been a staple of human cultures from time immemorial.
Many human behavioralists believe that these themes have a useful and constructive societal role, serving as a vicarious outlet for individual aggression.
Whatever influence fictional violence has on behavior, most expert believe its effects are marginal compared to other factors. Even small children know the difference between fiction and reality, and their attitudes and behavior are shaped more by their life circumstances than by the books they read or the TV they watch.
And thus a separate body for certification of films is currently in function. Strangely, no written content has to undergo any scrutiny - since it was observed that visuals along with audio ought to create a greater impact on humans when watched in dark rooms theatres , and the same impact was not created by content that was written.
Thus the body which was formed for certification of films, exercised the right whether or not to certify the content that was shown, which means to certify something as good or bad for public consumption. Thus it becomes quite a onerous job for someone when they have discretion in deciding what is good and what is bad. Hence every action that is taken, be it granting certification or otherwise should serve in the interest of the public, then and then only the efficacy of the framework that was built is manifested.
Now the real question lies here is, how is one supposed to judge what could be good or bad for everyone? Why I say this because, even if you choose to censor something or not, it doesn't bring satisfaction to everyone, and which is quite inevitable.
For eg, we see many at times item numbers in movies as a catalyst, as they tend to attract many people, though the lyrics or the number for that matter has no relevance to the movie, even then people tend to enjoy it. At the same time if the authority thinks of at as it objectifies women and tends to censor it, the people who enjoy watching it might not be very amused, and apparently may not show up to watch the movie.
And the dancers, whos livelihood depends on it might go berserk as well. And if it chooses not to censor, it alienates social activists and culture fanatics. Julia Pascal: This is really fascinating territory because I find Christianity does have a homo-erotic undercurrent in it and it is in major works of art, so if you criticise James Kirkham you are criticising the whole homo-erotic culture which is in Renaissance art.
I don't know why we have blasphemy laws at all: get rid of them. Don Horrocks: We are verging on the bounds of blasphemy here. I do believe there is a double standard here by people in the arts, who are claiming it is sacrosanct to be able to insult anybody under the guise of artistic expression.
Wherever there is artistic licence there has to be artistic restraint and artistic responsibility. Antony Julius: I haven't seen it but I think it is unfortunate when a play is taken off because of violent protests. Julian Baggini: Since there is clearly no intent to stir hatred of Sikhs by this play, there is no reason to ban it, even if it profoundly upsets some people. I am deeply offended by religious people who claim the godless are evil, but as long as they don't incite discrimination or violence against atheists I have to put up with that.
It is the protests, not the play, which have harmed the image of Sikhs. Dr Kanwaljit Kaur Singh: This should be banned, it is insulting the religion by portraying murder and sexual abuse in a Gurdwara. If it was in a community centre, with Sikh people carrying out murder and sexual abuse, I would have been offended but I would not have called for its banning.
Julia Pascal: I applaud anybody who examines their own cultural background and I would stand by the author; I think it is very important that this play should be seen and Birmingham Rep should have continued to show it.
We cannot suppress our voices just to please fundamentalists. Don Horrocks: The Sikhs feel the sacred in society is something that is worth protecting and for that to be violated is really provocative. This play is very provocative to Sikhs and I sympathise really with their feeling of outrage.
Having said that I would certainly not endorse the response of violent coercive censorship. Antony Julius: If freedom of speech is a value we believe in then we should be prepared to pay for it, however much it takes.
Julian Baggini: Yes. This precedent cannot be allowed to stand, for the sake of everyone, including religious minorities. Already people are using it as evidence to show where an incitement to religious hatred bill may lead us, when this play would never be banned under such legislation.
The backlash against respect for cultural difference which has begun is in danger of gathering pace. Dr Kanwaljit Kaur Singh: If the play went ahead and the police said there's a danger of disorder, money should be spent on policing, but then charged to the theatre for being irresponsible.
What about the public money spent on staging the play? It's heavily subsidised. Julia Pascal: Of course.
0コメント