Censor's Power 'outrageous' (Press, 10 July 1972)

At a seminar on obscenity and censorship held on 9 July 1972 in Christchurch, lawyer D. M. Palmer expressed strong concerns regarding the extensive and loosely defined powers granted to film censors under the Cinematographic Act of 1961. He remarked that these powers were "far too wide and far too ill-defined," highlighting that the act allowed censors the authority to approve, deny, modify, or impose age restrictions on films based on whether they were "contrary to public order or decency." Palmer illustrated his point by suggesting that a censor could prohibit a film documenting protests against the Springbok tour, claiming it could incite further demonstrations. Palmer emphasised the problematic nature of the censor’s role, noting that the act does not stipulate the qualifications or appointment process for censors, which could lead to unqualified individuals being selected arbitrarily. He also pointed out that the censor is not required to provide rationale for cuts or decisions, which undermines transparency, particularly concerning legal accountability. Among the other speakers was Rev. D. Glenny from St Stephen's Presbyterian Church, who argued that education, rather than legislation, should be the foundation for addressing issues of obscenity and censorship. He contended that the law cannot improve human behaviour and should instead support educational initiatives, rather than serve as mere prohibition. Rev. C. A. Mitchell from the Campbell Centre for Counselling shared his perspective, stating that unnecessary censorship only heightens curiosity and anxiety among youth. He suggested that while obscenity is often linked to sexual content, it also encompasses broader issues such as racism and violence. Drawing from research, he argued that sexual offences tend to arise from repressive backgrounds, and that liberalising pornography laws in Denmark had not led to increases in sexual crimes, supporting the idea that access to such material could fulfil a societal need. Senior lecturer at the University of Canterbury, Dr. D. C. Gunby, resonated with Palmer’s apprehensions regarding censorship powers. He acknowledged progress in relaxing censorship over the previous five years but warned against complacency due to the influence of pressure groups that advocate for stricter standards. Gunby asserted that censorship infringes on individual rights to access information and assumes a kind of superiority over personal judgement. He viewed censorship as rooted in a fundamental mistrust of individuals, arguing that taboos are often irrational and present greater dangers than the issues they aim to suppress. Collectively, the seminar participants sought a thoughtful evaluation of censorship in New Zealand. They advocated for a more rationalised approach, potentially centralising censorship authority, to support educational initiatives while protecting individual freedoms.

The text on this page is created, in the most part, using Generative AI and so may contain errors or omissions. It is supplied to you without guarantee or warranty of correctness. If you find an error or would like to make a content suggestion please get in contact

The text on this page is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 New Zealand