Broadcasters have to conform to directions of censorship applied by a watching body. For example the nine o’clock watershed exists on our television. Nine o’clock is universally known as the point where more adult explicit material can be shown on television as it is thought that children will not watch television at this time of night. Even so there are still limits to the type of violence, sex scenes and scenes of drug taking that can be shown. Laws restricting swearing and bad taste also exist. However with recent changes in society these rules seem to have changes with the time and material thought as inappropriate 20 years ago is now seen as acceptable.
If these limitations did not exist it would be solely the parents responsibility to censor what their children watch. I feel that this could prove to be a harder task than initially thought especially with the increase in numbers of children that have televisions in their bedrooms and on children that may have parents that work late.
Films are classified in to categories depending on the type of material they contain. Harmless films will be certified universal and suitable for all, these will not contain any material that could be offensive to anyone. The next step is parental guidance, where it is left as the parents decision whether to allow their children to watch the film if it is thought suitable. This may contain a couple of mild swear words, or perhaps references to sex. After this it no longer becomes the parents responsibility to allow a child to view a film at a cinema or take one out of a video store. To enter for a twelve you must appear to be twelve years of age and similarly for fifteens and eighteen’s. Even with parental consent underage people cannot enter these films in this country. A certificate that used to exist was an X rated film, which was thought of totally outrageous and in some cinemas was banned from screening. However some films that were certified X rating twenty years ago have now dropped to eighteen’s, and perhaps fifteens as material has got more and more shocking.
An alternative system to our UK one is used in America, whereabouts the same age restrictions apply but with all films if children are with parents they can enter, whatever their age. This seems to again hand over more responsibility to the parents and whether they think it is suitable, perhaps a system that is more liberal and gives people more freedom of choice. However violence among children in America is much more common than in the United Kingdom so perhaps censorship does serve its purpose.
Other things such as adverts are also censored for the protection of young people, for example alcohol adverts cannot be shown during advertising breaks in CBBC children programme. This is correct censorship as it is possible that this could encourage underage drinking.
I think that there relevance and need for censorship depends on the circumstance. For example where I believe that government information should not be retained form the public when it is of no national security risk I do believe that in the very recent Prince Harry incident censorship is needed. There has been a restriction placed on the press to limit the information they can reveal, and to stop filling hundreds of column inches of tabloid newspapers slating him. Here it is appropriate for his protection that this restriction order was placed. As a conclusion I feel that a lot of television, cinema and some magazines should be censored from children and that allowing the parents to take full responsibility could be disastrous. Censorship is needed but does have a time and place in society in the United Kingdom.
