Committee urged to consider abolition of film censorship

Press, Volume CXVI, Issue 34123, 8 April 1976, Page 2

Committee urged to consider abolition of film censorship

(N Z. Press Association} WELLINGTON, April 7. The Council for Civil Liberties today asked a Parliamentary Select Committee studying film censorship to draft a bill .based on the most “objective criteria possible in this field” or to abolish censorship of films for adults. In written submissions to the Social Service Committee, which is studying two bills introduced last year dealing mainly with film censorshop, the council asked it to give serious thought to abolishing film censorship altogether. The council objected strongly to a provision in the bill introduced by the former Minister of Internal Affairs (Mr H. L. J. May) which gave the Censor power to excise any material "denigrating, insulting, or offending.”

"We lodge the strongest possible objection to the inclusion of this subclause in the May bill on the ground

that it would give the Censor unjustifiably wide powers to restrict freedom of expression,” the council said. HUMAN NATURE “Our main objection however, is that if enacted it would seriously curtail the freedom of the fiTTn-maker to tell the truth as he saw it about human nature and existence.”

The whole question of censorship of films and books was "bedevilled by the continuing absence of any valid objective proof of any specific influence exercised by any work, good or bad, on anyone of any age.” "For more than 40 years, successive attempts have been made to find out what effects bad books and films have had on their users, in particular, to establish a causal relationship between an individual’s response to erotica and the portrayal of violence and his subsequent behaviour; but little that is conclusive has so far emerged.” The move in almost al! Western societies was towards liberalisation of literary and film censorship Both bills offered a measure of liberalisation and were, therefore, to be welcomed.

■ “In our society, no person, > organisation, or institution • can claim or expect immunity from criticism, however outspoken, even savage, so long as it is within the law,” the ’ council said. "If it is not, it ; should be dealt with in the , ordinary way under the law.” ‘MINOR ROLE’ i "But the evidence indicates that the law itself — as it is

and as it would be under the amendments proposed here — plays a minor role in preventing the» exposure of adults or children to the kind of material it is intended to proscribe. “We thus arrive at the conclusion that the situation would probably remain unaltered if we abolished the censorship of films and books altogether; and we urge serious thought to this alternative . . . “We submit that the choice is either to frame a bill based on the most objective criteria possible in this field or to abolish the censorship of films for adults.” RESTRICTED FILMS A Wellington lawyer, Mr B. Kirkland, told the committee that children should be allowed to view restricted films if accompanied by a

parent. It had long been a source of annoyance to many parents to be turned away Prom cinemas when attempting to view a restricted film and accompanied by a child. “Often my infant’s only intention was to sleep through the film (reflecting perhaps my choice in cinema) but nevertheless the laws were strictly enforced,” Mr Kirkland said. "I am not arguing for the abolition of restrictive classifying per se. Indeed, I acknowledge the State’s right to determine standards for the community in the interests of the community as a whole. “I am, in fact, arguing that a parent should have the right, to question and extend the community standard as it affects his or her own child,” Mr Kirkland said. “Community standards in the area of morals can only be generalised. PARENTAL GUIDANCE “The community itself will not finally determine the character of its children. Rather, the child’s environment, education, relationships. and parental guidance, will shape the early development.”