Features Censorship — Where To Draw The Line And... (Press, 12 July 1984)

The discussion on censorship, articulated by Ken Strongman, a professor of psychology appointed to the Films Censorship Board of Review, highlights the complexities surrounding the practice and the challenges of determining where to draw the line. Strongman argues that censorship is an intrinsic part of everyday life; everyone, regardless of their views on freedom, applies some form of censorship based on their perceptions of what is harmful or inappropriate for others, particularly children. This instinct to censor arises from a desire to protect others and, indirectly, oneself from influences deemed detrimental. Strongman notes that most censorship decisions, whether made by individuals or institutions like film censors or newspaper editors, are often based on personal opinion rather than empirical evidence. For example, parents might prohibit certain films or books for their children based purely on their subjective belief that the material is inappropriate. This raises the question of whether opinion alone should suffice in making censorship judgments, especially when compelling evidence exists that indicates particular types of content, such as violent imagery, can have real negative effects on viewers. Despite some evidence supporting the potential harm of violent content in media, Strongman highlights a lack of clear evidence regarding the harmfulness of sexual content. He wonders why there is a societal tendency to censor sexual expression when many people seem to believe it poses no real harm. This leads to a reflection on the nature of societal embarrassment and the paradox of individual comfort versus collective unease regarding such portrayals. The article further critiques the prevalence of crass and materialistic content that is frequently accepted in media but goes largely unchallenged by censors. Strongman indicates that such content could be argued to have a more insidious influence on social values compared to violence or sexuality, as it subtly shapes attitudes and beliefs about materialism and consumerism. Ultimately, the central dilemma remains: who gets to decide what constitutes “the public good” when opinions diverge so widely? Strongman suggests that formal censors should represent a breadth of perspectives to facilitate balanced decision-making through debate. He acknowledges that despite efforts, consensus is unlikely, and not all public members will be satisfied with censorship outcomes. The ambiguity over defining "public good" and determining the composition of the "public" complicates these judgments. Despite the challenges, Strongman advocates for establishing clear criteria for censorship in order to navigate these murky waters rather than relying on subjective interpretations of potential harm.

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