Win Sky+HD for a year and a trip to Barcelona
There have been many changes in our censorship laws over the years that are to be welcomed. Allowing directors’ greater freedom, whether with sexual imagery and language, has hardly been shown to have damaged society, despite some of the fierce battles fought at the time and which rumble on today. Out of this liberalism has emerged a more creative environment and a more realistic depiction of modern life. What is challenging the boundaries now is the scale and reach of pornography on the internet. Just by the sheer ease with which it can be accessed, it is beginning to enter the cultural mainstream and impinge on the lives of children. This is clearly a development that should be abhorred and stopped as far as possible, but in the end it may simply come down to parents being evermore vigilant.
Whether this has influenced the attitudes of censors remains unclear. Asked about the film SS Experiment Camp, which is on sale in the high street alongide U classified movies, the British Board of Film Classification said “there is nothing in this film that anybody should have any concerns about”. The film depicts women being raped, electrocuted, hung upside down, having their ovaries cut out and burnt alive in incineration chambers by guards dressed in Nazi uniforms. That does sound “concerning”.
While censorship should have to make its case, there must be a sensitivity towards survivors of the death camps and their relatives. Depicting the Holocaust as a Jewish invention rightly causes vilification. Why should depicting concentration camps as movie backdrops for sexual violence suddenly be acceptable? This film was banned 20 years ago and there seems no strong argument to have it lifted. Gordon Brown will meet a delegation of MPs to discuss toughening the laws on video nasties amid worries about the influence they have on young people. These arguments may be inconclusive but Mr Brown would be wise to restrict the market in violent pornography.
Explore your passion for food with the delights of Thai, Indian & Chinese cooking
In our new series, Tony Hawks takes a dry, wry look at modern life - junk mail, interminable meetings and snooty sales assistants
Read the training tips and advice that helped our London Triathletes
Read our exclusive 100 Years of Fleming and Bond interactive timeline, packed with original Times articles and reviews
The latest travel news plus the best hotels and gadgets for business travellers
Shortcuts to help you find sections and articles
2007
£30,000
2006
£14,337
2008
£39,937
Great car insurance deals online
c.£75,000
GlosFirstmeansbusiness
Gloucestershire
£32,795 - £41,545
Universitry of Southampton
Southampton
£
£32,795 - £41,545
Universitry of Southampton
Southampton
Competitive Package
Npower
West Midlands
1 & 2 Bed apartments
From £249,995
Great Investment, River Views
Great Dubai Investment Opportunities
from £89,950
low-cost ownership homes in London
Las Vegas SALE!
£POA
With Ramblers Worldwide Holidays!
£POA
List your property with two leading travel websites
£POA
Great travel insurance deals online
Contact our advertising team for advertising and sponsorship in Times Online, The Times and The Sunday Times. Globrix Property Search - find property for sale and rent in the UK. Milkround Job Search - for graduate careers in the UK. Visit our classified services and find jobs, used cars, property or holidays. Use our dating service, read our births, marriages and deaths announcements, or place your advertisement.
Copyright 2008 Times Newspapers Ltd.
This service is provided on Times Newspapers' standard Terms and Conditions. Please read our Privacy Policy.To inquire about a licence to reproduce material from Times Online, The Times or The Sunday Times, click here.This website is published by a member of the News International Group. News International Limited, 1 Virginia St, London E98 1XY, is the holding company for the News International group and is registered in England No 81701. VAT number GB 243 8054 69.
So it's only violence against women that is "pornography" then?!
The attitude in this opinion piece is plain sexist bigotry.
If the fear is of encouraging violence, then given that 'random' violence against men is one or two orders of magnitude higher
than it is against women, since when was it OK to encourage violence against men -- when, it seems, the trigger is set to go off much more easily, as it were -- but not to encourage violence against women?
Why are journalists always so ignorant of their own prejudices, when they are supposed to be arbiters of bias, and in such a good position to disseminate whatever prejudices they have?
steve moxon, sheffield,
This seems to conflate two issues. If 'SS Experiment Camp' is violent or anti-Jewish, ban it for that. It is clearly not pornographic; the BBFC would not have passed it for open sale.
Pornography covers adult sexual pleasure on a consensual basis. It seems that relationships involving BDSM (Bondage Domination Sadism and Masochism) rely on consent, however abhorrent whatever these people get up to is regarded by others, using of a modicum of agreed, 'acted out, force', even in pornographic material associated with it.
Even if some find this film sexually stimulating, if wet ban everything that did that, then there would be no more cream, custard, high heels or, apparantly, balloons etc.
This type of film has been on the Continent for 30 years or so. In that time there has been no directly related exodus. Is British moral character more suspect?
As existing laws already cover bad people who do 'real' bad things, why is who raising this issue right now?
Avana Beach, London, UK
There's a HUGE amount of self-censorship going on and the media mostly conspires in this.
You know that nobody wants to offer a critique of the Prophet or basic tenets of Islam.
Christianity of course is fair game. The BBC suppresses all manner of polemic. For example I've never seen any expression of an anti-evolutionary philosophy, or an answer to Richard Dawkins (you could start with Alistair Mcgrath) or indeeds any affirmative depiction of a Christian or his faith in a soap or drama.
Oh and by the way - the spirit of Mary Whitehouse is coming back. There is all manner of censoriousness around and nanny-statism. What about all this child-protection stuff? Don't you see how immigrant communities are continually pressing (rightly in my view) for the cleaning up morally of their environment, whether it's what they see or where they live.
Colin Donington, Newcastle,
I lived through the Lady Chaterley" trial "as a youngster ,and so encouraged it became one of the first books i read of my own volition, followed soonest by the Kama Sutra and the Perfumed Garden.
The producers of this movie will be much encouraged by the free publicity and sequels are,I am sure,soon to follow.
Censorship is the only evil in a free society.
robert everitt, wolverhampton,
I am patently sick of newspapers trying to dictate the type of video material the rest of us are free to see.
Perhaps if their own freedom to publish what they wish was at stake, they might take a different view.
I strongly agree with Dr. Flaks. In a free country people should be allowed to see what they wish, within the limits of the CRIMINAL law, not to have their right to freely purchase video material dictated to by uninformed, hysterical newspapers.
The film referred to, has been around now for many years. If it was as harmful as the writer of the article seems to think, then the evidence of that HARM would be plain for all to see. That however is not the case. But only such evidence is enough to BEGIN to consider censorship. To restrict people freedom in this way, surely requires the STRICTEST of justification.
In this country we don't seem to have any rights at all. Only the views of Mary Whitehouse types seem to matter.
It is about time that changed
Shaun Hollingworth, Rotherham,
In a free and civilized country there should be no need for any argument to stop the kind of censorship that we endured twenty years ago. I lived through the despicable "Mary Whitehouse" period and have no wish to see that repeated. In order to watch such films people have to make the effort to go out and buy them - they will not see them by accident. If anyone does watch it and is disturbed by it, that says more about the viewer than the film.
The protection we do need is from venal and stupid politicians and from activists who would like to dictate to their compatriots what they can see or read.
Dr B. Flaks, Bristol, UK