However, moral panics and hysteria is though to be ridiculous by some. Whilst a quantity of people believe that un-censored films can cause moral panics, a vast majority of others believe that films such as the aforementioned ‘The Wild One’ are incorrectly used as scapegoats to explain society’s troubles. A prime example of this is the Jamie Bulger case. It was believed for some time that the two youths that had murdered Jamie Bulger had previously watched the horror film ‘Child’s Play 3’, and their acts upon the murdered boy had been influenced solely by this film. However, this was found not to be the case. It was discovered later that in fact that there was no evidence to suggest that the two boys had indeed watched the film, yet the media still blamed the film for causing internal disruption among the two boys. The fact that the boys did not watch the film did not matter; the media knew the truth yet continued to use the film as a scapegoat as there was no other explanation as why such an incomprehensible crime was committed by two young children. This in turn gives a strong argument against censorship.
A Further argument in favour of censorship is that experiments have shown that violence in film can consequently cause children to act aggressively. Albert Bandura found that after children had watched a short film displaying adults acting aggressively towards a ‘bobo’ doll, the likelihood of them then acting violently towards that doll increased. This consequently shows that violence does indeed have effects on children in the way that they are likely to replicate the violence they have seen in TV or film. The findings of this experiment raised issues of concern, principally amongst parents who worried that what their children were exposed to may internally damage them. Therefore, people believe that censorship is still necessary to protect audiences, in particular children, from images that could potentially harm them.
An opposing approach is the uses and gratifications theory which implies
that censorship is not needed, as we consume the media as part of an active audience. The theory assumes the audience to be thoughtful, intelligent and capable of distinguishing fact from fiction, thus capable of reading the media in different ways according to their personalities and how they are positioned in the world. People may only be affected by the media if it confirms their beliefs. Wholly, this theory states that media will not change beliefs that have been accumulated from life experience. Ken Loach’s film ‘Sweet Sixteen’ is an example in which the local governments in Scotland believed that the audience could make their own decisions about the film. ‘Sweet Sixteen’ was a film made to portray a realistic take on what life was like for a boy of 15 growing up in Scotland’s Greenloch estate in Glasgow. The film was primarily classified at 18 due to coarse language, yet Ken Loach held the belief that people aged as young as 15 should be legally authorized to view it. Eventually, the local authorities agreed with Loach, going against the BBFC’s decision to rate it 18 and alternatively rated it a 15. This was an obvious reflection on society, as the Scottish government understood that the audience were capable of making their own conclusions from the film.
However, problems have arisen from this theory. It has been accused of underestimating the power of the media, as the theory leads to too much emphasis on audience power. The national TV violence study 1997 aimed to see if violence on TV contributed to society’s ills. The conclusion drawn was that the volume of violence must have an effect on the overall contribution of violence in media to society. It was found that the mass media can reinforce, maintain and strengthen the aggressive disposition of certain individuals. A fitting example of this is the way in which media was used to influence people during World War 2. Hitler used the media to his advantage; using propaganda films to persuade mass audiences to follow his policies. This demonstrates how the media can influence and manipulate audiences, therefore evidently expressing the need for censorship.
Censorship is considered to be very much necessary by influential people such as church leaders and members of the government. These people strongly believe that censorship of film and media is essential to protect religion and races, and fundamentally to prevent massive offence and eventually conflict between religious groups and different races .This is evident in films such as ‘The Life of Brian’. This film delves into racism and caused turmoil amongst Catholics due to blasphemy towards their religion. This only fuelled their attitude that censorship is a must and will be needed for the foreseeable future.
To conclude, I agree with the arguments for censorship. Without censorship there would be a lack of morals and guidelines in society which would undoubtedly
affect the behaviour and morals of children and perceptibly the future.
