I’m going for a XXX, myself
Posted on March 8th, 2007 by Jackie Danicki
So Gordon Brown is proposing - with not many details forthcoming yet - a ratings system for the internet. This is to “protect childhood,” of course. Yeah, good luck with that one, smartypants. I wonder if he, like Tony Blair, thinks it’s cute that he is utterly clueless when it comes to the web.
I know it’s sort of rude to say this when I know there are British people ready my blog, but these pricks sure do make it easy to flee this country.
Filed under: Law, Life, Politics, Technology, The State Is Not Your Friend
Jackie, Be as rude as you like. “Pricks” is too soft a word for these neo-fascists who want to tax, video, and govern us to death.
New Labour, the most illiberal, vile, mendacious government the UK’s had in living memory.
Rant over.
What’s wrong with a ratings system, exactly? BBFC certification has yet to spoil my enjoyment of a single film. I see it as a great way to subdue the calls for outright censorship.
The BBFC have imposed some of the most ridiculous and puritanical rules on what’s ‘decent’ enough to be shown in UK cinemas, and the fact that it’s never made much of a difference to YOU specifically is the worst reason I can think of to shrug one’s shoulders about the same stupid thing being attempted on the internet.
Sorry, are you talking about censorship or ratings systems?
Squander Two, Jackie is right. Having “rules in place” can leads to anything. One local council in the UK once banned “Life of Brian”. I mean how stupid is that?
:razz:
I should add…
> the fact that it’s never made much of a difference to YOU specifically
OK. Could you tell me who has had their enjoyment of a film spoiled by seeing a certificate telling them it’s rated 18 for a few seconds before it starts?
Yep - flee to America where the leaders of the country understand The Google and the pipes of the web ;-)
Squander Two: Erm, me? Also, I don’t know how familiar you are with how the BBFC actually works, but to pretend that the ratings have nothing to do with censorship is disingenuous in the extreme. Or maybe you really don’t know about that, but I’d have credited you with being able to guess.
Antony: Yep, politicians everywhere are dumb. The difference in mindset of the populace makes all the difference, though, I think. The whole “Mustn’t grumble, just get on with it” mindset surely has its uses, but when it comes to letting the state roll right over individual rights, it’s good for absolutely nothing.
SquanderTwo,
“OK. Could you tell me who has had their enjoyment of a film spoiled by seeing a certificate telling them it’s rated 18 for a few seconds before it starts?”
If only that was all they did.
In the early 1990s, I got a friend to bring me back an NTSC videotape of Reservoir Dogs from the USA because the BBFC decided that even though it had been shown in the cinemas, I couldn’t see it on video. The movie True Romance was also delayed in certification for video.
However, you could see the much more nasty Man Bites Dog, a Belgian film with a higher level of violence than Reservoir Dogs or True Romance. This has been frequently observed by movie buffs - movies that are aimed at art house cinemas frequently end up with far less censorship than those which go to the multiplexes.
They set down numerous arbitrary rules. James Ferman, the former chairman had a thing against nunchaku. No film had them in, so one of the scenes from Enter the Dragon was completely censored. Soon after Ferman left, the film was resubmitted and the nunchaku scene was restored. They also frequently remove scenes of headbutts. They sometimes remove films simply because of a news story at the time.
There is also a charge for each submission, creating an artificial barrier to entry for film makers.
The BBFC should be closed down and replaced with simple regulation and self-regulation akin to what exists in the United States.
Thankfully, the internet will put the BBFC out of business. Brown probably knows there’s nothing he can do, but this sort of story plays well with the likes of the Daily Mail.
The article Jackie links to talks of Gordon Brown’s suggestion for a rating system for the Internet but contains no mention of even the suggestion of censorship. I’m against censorship, but all for ratings systems, and I don’t think the two are inextricably linked.
Oh, well the Daily Mail article doesn’t say anything about censorship, so it’s somehow - what, outrageous? Irrational? - to point out the longstanding relationship between ratings systems and censorship? Interesting.
I’d love to know why you’re “all for ratings systems,” though, ST. Can you point to one that exists which does not clearly and demonstrably involve censorship?
Most people want censorship. We live in a democracy. That gives us a choice between governments who give the majority what they want by censoring outright and governments who preserve freedom of expression while doing something to appease the majority who’d see it destroyed. Ratings systems are a pretty good way to appease those demands for censorship. I mean, if British films had no rating certificates, if there was nothing in place even to theoretically stop ten-year-olds going into cinemas to watch films like Hostel or Basic Instinct, how long do you think we’d have before public outcry stopped such films being available to any of us?
The third option, of course, is that a democratic government should completely ignore the electorate. I think that’s a bad thing.
Well, yeah, democracy sucks: Why should majority + 1 get to dictate such things to majority - 1? I honestly don’t think a lack of ratings system for films would result in films being unavailable. I mean, how would that even work? Do you think there is a majority crying out for ratings of TV and the internet? I’m willing to grant that there are lots of people who’d like us to believe there is, but I don’t see much evidence of it myself. (Not to mention the fact that it’s often NOT what the majority wants that gets legislation in place; it’s what lobbyists tied to big business are able to convince politicians to do.)
TV’s already effectively rated, via both the nine-o’clock watershed and the adult-only subscription to porn channels. I think there’s a lot of evidence that ignoring the watershed leads to public outcry.
The Web is still viewed by many to be some weird technical computery nonsense. When it finally becomes completely mainstream — as in, on in everyone’s home every evening, like TV is — I reckon most people will want it censored, yes. That’s people for you.
I’d just like to point out who’s bringing up censorship now…
I’m not conflating it with ratings, though.
Wait a sec - I’m still waiting for you to show me a ratings system which does not employ censorship. Ain’t no conflating about it - that’s like saying it’s unreasonable to consider swallowing a part of drinking.
Channel 5 have a rating system for their films and dramas; they announce the rating and explain what it means before each one. Unlike the BBC and ITV, I’ve never noticed them cut films. I imagine that they may have to do a small amount of cutting to comply with broadcasting laws, but they didn’t write those laws, so it would be wrong to say that the ratings and the censorship are coming from the same people.
There are a whole load of ratings systems here, and none of them has led to any restrictions on what may be placed on the Net.
Anyway, if you think Brown intends to censor the Web, most of whose servers are outside the UK’s jurisdiction, how do you think he’ll do it? Whatever else he may be, he’s a pragmatist. I don’t think he’d waste his time trying to do something impossible, which would make him look like a failure. Which is backed up by the article:
The Chancellor said it was not possible to “turn the clock back on technology”.
Jackie’s absolutely spot on. Any rating system for content that determines whether something gets out there or not is censorship. Pure and simple. It is all the more obvious as ratings are determined by a bunch of anonymous people according to some arbitrary rules! This film make the point very well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_Film_Is_Not_Yet_Rated
The word ‘censor’ dates back to Roman times when an official was supervising public morality. Well, try that now, starting with definition of ‘public morality’. That is why ratings of content is a throwback at best to more totalitarian times (i.e. with one imposed worldview) and at worst censorship designed to benefit players in the industry. For example, the film mentioned in the link, blatantly benefits the studio system and punishes independent film makers.
Ratings for restaurants, for example, are different. Even if the restaurant gets a lower rating, it can continue its trade and I, as a customer, can choose to ignore it. That’s where it is a mere signal of quality, both to the restaurant and to the customer. And even restaurant ratings can get tricky and I am sure there are many tales of corruption from the restaurant rating trade… :)
There is also standards or protocols that people can agree to follow, e.g. in design or coding. Again, this is not censorship unless it gets imposed by a third party.
The point is that it is best is to keep away from interactions between people. Politicians have never accepted that but the internet has proved them wrong. No wonder they are trying to find a way to control it. And as Jackie points out, this is as silly as it’s damaging.
Squander Two, I think Adriana’s addressed the ratings/censorship link quite well. I’m just stunned at the amount of trust you seem to be putting into what both Gordon Brown and the Daily Mail say.
If ratings are inevitably linked to censorship, we’d expect to see some sort of correlation between the two. Here are the BBFC’s stats. Over the years, more ratings and more detailed ratings have been introduced, and films have come to contain far more sex, violence, swearing, and disturbing images, yet the number of cuts has plummetted.
No, that’s not a defense of the cuts that have occurred.
As for trust, well, yeah, I do trust Brown. I can’t bloody stand him and hate most of his policies, but I know what kind of a politician he is and reckon he can be relied on to remain the same. And he is a pragmatist. I don’t doubt that he’d like to censor the Net, and I wouldn’t be at all surprised if he were to introduce laws covering what British subjects may place on British servers (such laws already exist, of course), but there is sod all he can do about foreign servers and the modern comms network, and I’m sure he knows it.