N.z. Censorship Compared With Ancient Rome (Press, 25 August 1988)
This is a Generative AI summary of this newspaper article. It may contain errors or omissions. Please note that the language in the summary is reflective of the original article and the societal attitudes of the time in which it was written.
Summary: N.z. Censorship Compared With Ancient Rome (Press, 25 August 1988)
On 25 August 1988, the Society for Promotion of Community Standards (S.P.C.S.) expressed serious concerns about New Zealand's censors' standards for film and video, particularly in relation to sex and violence, claiming that these standards were more lenient than those in countries like Britain and Australia. The director of the S.P.C.S., Miss Patricia Bartlett, highlighted a disparity with the British Board of Film Classification, stating that New Zealand's legislation allowed for content that she deemed decadent and corrupt. During a presentation to a committee investigating pornography, she referenced an annual report from the British Board that mentioned a 1979 ruling by the House of Lords, which defined blasphemy as any contemptuous or reviling material related to religious figures or texts. Bartlett pointed out the lack of laws in New Zealand to prohibit child pornography, contrasting it unfavourably with legislation enacted in Australia and Britain. Miss Bartlett was particularly critical of the Video Authority in New Zealand, accusing it of allowing vulgar material, including a heterosexual video that depicted sodomy, to be passed for public consumption. She expressed her dismay at the fact that women censors were involved in approving such degrading content, describing it as sexual exploitation. She noted that the S.P.C.S. had invested significant funds—$900 to submit nine videos for classification and $700 to review one approved video—indicating a proactive stance in challenging the standards set by the Video Authority. As of 1 January 1989, the revised wording of the Video Recordings Act would complicate the process for consumers seeking to appeal the authority’s decisions, as only commercial importers had easy access to review channels. To address issues of fairness and accessibility, the S.P.C.S. proposed the introduction of submission fees for video classification and review, placing a fee of $25 for the former and $50 for the latter. The S.P.C.S. aimed to reform the classification system, ensuring that community standards more closely aligned with their views on decency and morality in video content.
Important Information
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