TSS#3 - Popular Practice 3
For this month's popular practice issue, I will include an article I wrote in school concerning censorship. Enjoy.
A study conducted by the Censorship Review Committee in 2003 revealed that 42% of those surveyed found “violent games like Counterstrike unacceptable” but “acceptance increased as age of respondents decreased”. 74% of respondents felt censorship was necessary for youths and up to 67% of respondents thought censorship laws should remain the same.
(cited from Report of Censorship Review Committee 2003, available at http://www.mica.gov.sg/pressroom/press_030904.html)
Since censorship laws in Singapore are shaped by public demands, the ethical dilemma here is whether older and more conservative Singaporeans should demand that censorship laws be in place to protect youths from sex, violence and coarse language in films / television, or mind their own business.
First, let me compare the issue of film censorship to what I wrote about smoking in Written Reflection 1, so as to maintain consistency in my arguments. Smokers have the right to smoke, but this right infringes on non-smokers’ right to clean air. Therefore, the restrictions on smoking in Singapore are justified because there is a need to balance the conflicting rights of both the smokers and the non-smokers. However, in the case of film censorship, the viewers’ right to uncensored footage does not affect or harm others. Therefore, there is no conflict of rights here.
Skeptics would argue that there is conflicting interest because sexual and violent television content is perceived to have a detrimental effect on viewers, and therefore censorship is needed to protect their right to a safe and cohesive society. However, the theory that sexual and violent television content has a detrimental effect on viewers and society in general is merely a perception. Where the harmful effects of smoking have been scientifically proven, the perceived harmful effects of exposing viewers to sex and violence on television have not.
Besides, there is a theory which I came across in one of my first year modules, and it suggests that sexual and violent movie scenes do not perpetuate violence. In fact, the viewers, after understanding the consequences of violent and criminal behaviour through violent movie scenes, refrain from doing the same in real life. Has this theory been ignored just because it does not fit into the values of conservative Singaporeans, and if it is, would it then not be unfair to impose their personal beliefs on others and deprive youths of their right to uncensored media content?
I am not encouraging the inclusion of sex, violence and coarse language in every programme that we air and I fully support banning films which undermine a particular race or religion in our culturally diverse society. I feel though, that having a little sex and violence in films is okay and there is certainly no need to censor such scenes to “protect the young”.
We should not make a scapegoat out of sexual and violent content in films. Who can prove there is a definite, direct correlation between violent media content and violent behaviour in youths? There are more direct influences on violent behaviour in youths such as family background and method of upbringing that we will do well to consider, rather than attribute all violent behaviour to violent media content.
I also feel it is quite a double standard that Singaporeans aged 18 or above are considered mature enough to know right from wrong and can be charged in court if they violated laws of the country, but yet are not deemed mature enough to be exposed to R(A) content.
The older, more conservative Singaporeans just have to quit being self-righteous and think that their conservative values should be applied across the board. The fact they do not appreciate sex, violence and coarse language does not mean we must do the same.
As conservative Singaporeans have the right to choose not to watch films with sexual and violent content, others also have the right to choose to watch films with sexual and violent content. Neither choice is better than the other; it is just a matter of preference. Therefore, censorship should not be in place to make it seem like the choice of not being exposed to sex, violence and coarse language in films is better.
A study conducted by the Censorship Review Committee in 2003 revealed that 42% of those surveyed found “violent games like Counterstrike unacceptable” but “acceptance increased as age of respondents decreased”. 74% of respondents felt censorship was necessary for youths and up to 67% of respondents thought censorship laws should remain the same.
(cited from Report of Censorship Review Committee 2003, available at http://www.mica.gov.sg/pressroom/press_030904.html)
Since censorship laws in Singapore are shaped by public demands, the ethical dilemma here is whether older and more conservative Singaporeans should demand that censorship laws be in place to protect youths from sex, violence and coarse language in films / television, or mind their own business.
First, let me compare the issue of film censorship to what I wrote about smoking in Written Reflection 1, so as to maintain consistency in my arguments. Smokers have the right to smoke, but this right infringes on non-smokers’ right to clean air. Therefore, the restrictions on smoking in Singapore are justified because there is a need to balance the conflicting rights of both the smokers and the non-smokers. However, in the case of film censorship, the viewers’ right to uncensored footage does not affect or harm others. Therefore, there is no conflict of rights here.
Skeptics would argue that there is conflicting interest because sexual and violent television content is perceived to have a detrimental effect on viewers, and therefore censorship is needed to protect their right to a safe and cohesive society. However, the theory that sexual and violent television content has a detrimental effect on viewers and society in general is merely a perception. Where the harmful effects of smoking have been scientifically proven, the perceived harmful effects of exposing viewers to sex and violence on television have not.
Besides, there is a theory which I came across in one of my first year modules, and it suggests that sexual and violent movie scenes do not perpetuate violence. In fact, the viewers, after understanding the consequences of violent and criminal behaviour through violent movie scenes, refrain from doing the same in real life. Has this theory been ignored just because it does not fit into the values of conservative Singaporeans, and if it is, would it then not be unfair to impose their personal beliefs on others and deprive youths of their right to uncensored media content?
I am not encouraging the inclusion of sex, violence and coarse language in every programme that we air and I fully support banning films which undermine a particular race or religion in our culturally diverse society. I feel though, that having a little sex and violence in films is okay and there is certainly no need to censor such scenes to “protect the young”.
We should not make a scapegoat out of sexual and violent content in films. Who can prove there is a definite, direct correlation between violent media content and violent behaviour in youths? There are more direct influences on violent behaviour in youths such as family background and method of upbringing that we will do well to consider, rather than attribute all violent behaviour to violent media content.
I also feel it is quite a double standard that Singaporeans aged 18 or above are considered mature enough to know right from wrong and can be charged in court if they violated laws of the country, but yet are not deemed mature enough to be exposed to R(A) content.
The older, more conservative Singaporeans just have to quit being self-righteous and think that their conservative values should be applied across the board. The fact they do not appreciate sex, violence and coarse language does not mean we must do the same.
As conservative Singaporeans have the right to choose not to watch films with sexual and violent content, others also have the right to choose to watch films with sexual and violent content. Neither choice is better than the other; it is just a matter of preference. Therefore, censorship should not be in place to make it seem like the choice of not being exposed to sex, violence and coarse language in films is better.
posted by dlauposer | 2:59 PM
|
0 comments
