There comes a moment in the life of a nation when it has to decide whether it is going to be led by fears of alarmists or by the values of its founding fathers, who fought and died for its most prized value — that of free speech. We in India have reached that point today.
The recent censorship order by the Bombay high court blanking out 'A' and 'U/A' content on television is likely to do more harm than good.
I reject this approach and urge public officials to avoid simplistic responses and sound byte solutions to complex social problems such as censorship on television. Governments of 'free societies' should not be allowed to be in the business of deciding the social value of human expression.
The government must maintain a content-neutrality position regarding expression. It cannot limit expression just because any one individual, or even the majority of a community, is offended by its content.
In the context of arts and entertainment this means tole-rating works that we might find offensive or just plain trashy. If we don't do this, it amounts to throwing the baby (of freedom) out with the bathwater.
In any case art that doesn't confront is rarely challenged. Free speech rights are tested only when a particular work hits a raw nerve.
Ideas that don't provoke people have little need for protection in the first place. G D Khosla, a former judge and chairman of an enquiry committee on film censorship, once asked, "In a country where the lingam and the yoni are publicly worshipped and where a book on Kama Sutra has been written, what will happen if a couple is shown kissing as a mark of love and affection?
Surely the Ganga will not be on fire!" On the subject of violence, is there 'good' and 'bad' violence? Who decides what is good and what is bad?
When national news networks beamed mutilated body parts of Mumbai blast victims, they went beyond all the violence that anyone could ever have created on-screen.
The human organism has since time immemorial been gifted with its self-censorship instinct and turns away from gory images or situations.
The television remote is nothing but an extension of this instinct. We can also exercise our free speech rights by objecting to images that we find offensive.
The remedy for messages we disagree with or dislike in art, entertainment or politics is more speech and not enforced silence.
Art censorship is a popular tool across the political spectrum.
Both liberals and conservatives use attacks on art to advance their agendas. But each attack on artistic expression sends a terrible message, particularly to the young. They are being told that the way to address 'disagreeable' speech is to squash it or black it out.
Purists say that allowing children to have unsupervised access to media 'is the moral equivalent of letting them go play on the freeway'.
I reject this claim completely. It is actions by people that kill and injure others, not their thoughts or fantasies. When we teach a child that he can blame his misbehaviour on a TV show or a film, we undermine the idea that we are responsible for our own actions, and open the way to more violence.
Art is humanity's search for truth and self-awareness. The product of that search includes art that confronts pre-conceptions and stimulates the impulse to censor.
But a free society is based on the principle that every individual has the right to decide what art or entertainment he wants or doesn't want to receive or create.
All of us need to put our heads together and face up to the one truth — that there never is only one truth, but there are as many truths as there are minds.
The need of the hour is not to throw up our hands in despair and curse the darkness, but to light some candles. That is exactly what
Bollywood is doing. It has responded to the brave idea suggested by the I&B ministry — of creating a content code based on the principle of self-regulation.
This code is based on acceptable community standards which also seek to protect vulnerable sections from 'harmful' and 'undesirable' content on television.
The broadcasting code sets out principles, guidelines and practices, which will guide the broadcasting service provider in offering its programming services in India, irrespective of the medium/platform used for the programme.
This code has been drafted to introduce greater specificity and detail, in order to facilitate self-regulation by the broadcasting industry and minimise scope for subjective interpretation and intervention by regulatory authorities and the government.
The basic principle of this code is that the responsibility of complying with the provisions of this code vests with the service provider.
The service provider's responsibility for careful scheduling of programmes may reduce the risk of offence to the minimum. For
instance, parents will want to be confident that their minors can watch television unsupervised without the risk of being exposed to unsuitable programmes.
I would like to convey just one thing to the moral-crusader brigade — before you ask what you are fighting against, pause a moment and ask what you are fighting for. And isn't the answer just one thing: Freedom?
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/msid-1948984,curpg-1.cms
The recent censorship order by the Bombay high court blanking out 'A' and 'U/A' content on television is likely to do more harm than good.
I reject this approach and urge public officials to avoid simplistic responses and sound byte solutions to complex social problems such as censorship on television. Governments of 'free societies' should not be allowed to be in the business of deciding the social value of human expression.
The government must maintain a content-neutrality position regarding expression. It cannot limit expression just because any one individual, or even the majority of a community, is offended by its content.
In the context of arts and entertainment this means tole-rating works that we might find offensive or just plain trashy. If we don't do this, it amounts to throwing the baby (of freedom) out with the bathwater.
In any case art that doesn't confront is rarely challenged. Free speech rights are tested only when a particular work hits a raw nerve.
Ideas that don't provoke people have little need for protection in the first place. G D Khosla, a former judge and chairman of an enquiry committee on film censorship, once asked, "In a country where the lingam and the yoni are publicly worshipped and where a book on Kama Sutra has been written, what will happen if a couple is shown kissing as a mark of love and affection?
Surely the Ganga will not be on fire!" On the subject of violence, is there 'good' and 'bad' violence? Who decides what is good and what is bad?
When national news networks beamed mutilated body parts of Mumbai blast victims, they went beyond all the violence that anyone could ever have created on-screen.
The human organism has since time immemorial been gifted with its self-censorship instinct and turns away from gory images or situations.
The television remote is nothing but an extension of this instinct. We can also exercise our free speech rights by objecting to images that we find offensive.
The remedy for messages we disagree with or dislike in art, entertainment or politics is more speech and not enforced silence.
Art censorship is a popular tool across the political spectrum.
Both liberals and conservatives use attacks on art to advance their agendas. But each attack on artistic expression sends a terrible message, particularly to the young. They are being told that the way to address 'disagreeable' speech is to squash it or black it out.
Purists say that allowing children to have unsupervised access to media 'is the moral equivalent of letting them go play on the freeway'.
I reject this claim completely. It is actions by people that kill and injure others, not their thoughts or fantasies. When we teach a child that he can blame his misbehaviour on a TV show or a film, we undermine the idea that we are responsible for our own actions, and open the way to more violence.
Art is humanity's search for truth and self-awareness. The product of that search includes art that confronts pre-conceptions and stimulates the impulse to censor.
But a free society is based on the principle that every individual has the right to decide what art or entertainment he wants or doesn't want to receive or create.
All of us need to put our heads together and face up to the one truth — that there never is only one truth, but there are as many truths as there are minds.
The need of the hour is not to throw up our hands in despair and curse the darkness, but to light some candles. That is exactly what
Bollywood is doing. It has responded to the brave idea suggested by the I&B ministry — of creating a content code based on the principle of self-regulation.
This code is based on acceptable community standards which also seek to protect vulnerable sections from 'harmful' and 'undesirable' content on television.
The broadcasting code sets out principles, guidelines and practices, which will guide the broadcasting service provider in offering its programming services in India, irrespective of the medium/platform used for the programme.
This code has been drafted to introduce greater specificity and detail, in order to facilitate self-regulation by the broadcasting industry and minimise scope for subjective interpretation and intervention by regulatory authorities and the government.
The basic principle of this code is that the responsibility of complying with the provisions of this code vests with the service provider.
The service provider's responsibility for careful scheduling of programmes may reduce the risk of offence to the minimum. For
instance, parents will want to be confident that their minors can watch television unsupervised without the risk of being exposed to unsuitable programmes.
I would like to convey just one thing to the moral-crusader brigade — before you ask what you are fighting against, pause a moment and ask what you are fighting for. And isn't the answer just one thing: Freedom?
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/msid-1948984,curpg-1.cms