Martin Pool's blog

Mail me RSS Bazaar distcc Canonical is hiring! flickr

Special category: the bloody obvious

Ed replies to Stephane's excellent essay about censorship in Australia:

I'm not sure what alternatives or consequences Steph has in mind were the OFLC's power to completely censor removed. At the moment all I can think of is the snuff film at the centre of 8MM and its brethren. Do we trust the general public to sensibly view those films? Where should we draw the line?

The difference seems be so obvious that it escaped Ed completely, but let me spell it out.

8mm concerns a snuff film, which is by definition made by filming an actual murder. Fairly obviously, since murder is illegal, murdering somebody to make a film ought to be illegal too, as should be profiting from selling the film, etc.

Films which depict fictional murders are not illegal. (Surely over a third of the movies showing at a major chain theatre involve some kind of fatality or violence, whether in action, drama, fantasy or other genres.) Indeed, 8mm is not illegal, because although it is about a snuff film it is not in fact a snuff film. Ed: it's done with stage blood, dummies, CGI, etc. Nobody was killed in making it. I have to say I laughed out loud that anyone could be confused about this.

Similarly, although Ken Park is concerned with various illegal or unsavory activities, it is *not* in fact a film of an actual rape. All of the actors were of appropriate age, consenting, etc etc.

I despair for my country that most Australians arguing for or against the film are trying to weigh up whether it has "enough" artistic merit or not. That should not be the point. It is a matter of free speech, which should be protected unless there is an absolutely compelling reason to be restricted. Certainly there are some such cases, but they should be the exception.

It turns out that this whole teacup-storm occurred because of a mistake by the importer: had they applied for a classification just to show the movie for a film festival as was originally intended, it would have been granted [The Law Report, Radio National]. Hysterical comparisons to a snuff film are clearly bogus, and without shrill TV interviews it's likely prurient teenagers would never have bothered to download and watch it.

The other thing that enormously irritates me is the Orwellian name of the Office of Film and Literature Classification. In fact, they do more than "classify": if they refuse to classify a film or a book then it is effectively banned. They are censors; they should honestly be restored to their original title of the Censorship Board. Then we can have a proper discussion about whether we want censors or not.

posted Tue 15 Jul 2003 in /issues/censorship | link

Copyright (C) 1999-2007 Martin Pool.