New MPAA 'Check the Box' Ratings

The American MPAA has announced a modest expansion of their ratings program, in order to provide more information about why a film has received a particular rating. This is a reaction to the NRA suggestion that violence in movies causes violent events such as the Sandy Hook school shootings, and more general desire for improvements in the ratings system.

Reaction has been mixed, with some critics pointing out the limited effectiveness of ratings, and The Atlantic claiming more information will make it easier for children to find inappropriate content. I don't think the latter is a concern. Despite recent improvements to the MPAA ratings website, that organization still provides less information about the ratings and content than almost any other ratings agency. As for the suggestion that there is no relation between media violence and violent behaviour, there is ample evidence to the contrary. 

The relationship between media violence and violent behaviour exists, but it is complex and not well understood. Despite this, as I have pointed out before, contemporary censorship is based almost entirely on the simple explicitness of images, not the ideas behind them. The idea of killing a person to solve a problem is seen as less problematic than how explicit the killing is. In some jurisdictions, including Ontario, historical accuracy can result in violence getting a lower rating than it would otherwise receive. If we are truly concerned about the rating and moderating the effects of film violence, we need to look beyond issues such as "visible tissue damage" and consider instead "was this a good approach to problem solving?" We also need to acknowledge that children are not the only viewers affected by film violence. Meanwhile, more information doesn't hurt.

Won't Somebody Please Think of the Children II

The Vancouver Maritime Museum is currently hosting an exhibit called Tattoos & Scrimshaw: The Art of The Sailor. Scrimshaw can refer to any decorative object made by sailors, but in this case describes engraved and inked whale bone or teeth. Some of the engravings contain what might be considered "mature subject matter," and the museum has taken care with the display and offers a warning on their website: 
***PARENTAL ADVISORY: Some of the objects in the exhibit contain imagery not suited for young audiences. Parents strongly cautioned.*** There are apparently more explicit scrimshaw objects not displayed.

One museum visitor has complained publicly and in multiple venues that the material is not appropriate. The controversy has been covered with varying degrees of humor and patronizing by The National Post, Jezebel, and other sources. I'm doing it too, of course, with the Simpson's clip above. The visitor's children are apparently 2 and 3 years old, and unlikely to have been harmed by the exhibit, so it is difficult to take the complaint seriously. However, the complaint and coverage raise a few issues. 

1. As usual, requesting censorship has resulted in increased publicity.
2. Canada has government censorship of movies and hate speech laws, so we should be comfortable with the notion of censorship. Why do media make fun of people requesting censorship?
3. We generally accept the notion that people under eighteen must be protected from viewing sexual imagery. However, the age of consent is lower than eighteen. So for teens, it's okay to do it, just not view pictures of other people doing it. Or whale bone engravings that show "A Whaler’s Hope of the First Night Ashore."

Crowdsourcing Censorship

Fast Company reports that the Egyptian government is using crowdsourcing as a way to censor the web. This is hardly new. Wikipedia has defacto crowdsourcing censorship, and many websites use crowdsourcing to filter offensive content.

When you submit your photo to a social or dating site, the site does not have full time employees making sure your photo follows the site rules. Instead, your photo and others are collected and end up at a service like Amazon's mechanical turk. Piece work online contractors earn a few cents checking batches of photos, and the same photo will be shown to multiple contractors to try and achieve accurate results. 

The concept of crowdsourcing is older than the internet. Another term for it might be public interaction. For example, the Ontario Film Review Board has open rating sessions once a month, where members of the public propose and discuss a film's rating. The board also considers communication received from the public, and ultimately answers to a democratically elected government. Anyone can contact the board or their elected representative, and request that something be censored.

Egypt has a long way to go to achieve democratic censorship, but crowdsourcing might be a step in the right direction.

Canada's Internet Censorship: Rules and Obligations

A guest blog today...

There were undercurrents of mixed emotions in the United States Congress in January of 2012 when the Stop Piracy Online Act (“SOPA”) was discussed. On the surface SOPA discussions involved the protection of intellectual property rights, pushed mainly by the music and movie industry to protect their copyrighted content from being freely downloaded. However, continued Congressional discussions extended into the free rights of Internet use which was made a possible inclusion of a SOPA enactment. Internet giants soon got wind of SOPA, as did other Internet coalitions and became activists against SOPA.

Procedural actions also extended into the U.S. Senate which was working on possible legislation called the Protect IP Act (“PIPA”) which was also devised to stop illegal online copying of intellectual property such as books, music and movies. With SOPA and PIPA being introduced into the U.S. congressional bodies, opponents went to work to stop it calling it Internet censorship. Major Internet websites were so outraged that their coalitions threatened a “go dark” campaign and a few of the politicians who were also against SOPA and PIPA stated that they would plan a filibuster when these Acts would be introduced onto the floor.

Early January 2012 finally saw a great victory for opponents of SOPA and PIPA anti-piracy legislation which could affect the U.S. and foreign websites. The intense efforts to defeat these two legislations were successful, a vote was postponed, but copyright infringement will remain an on-going discussion. Now we come to the discussion of the U.S. northern neighbours in Canada who were closely following the U.S. discussions and actions. Canada already has in place legislation entitled Bill C-11, a Copyright Act for digital content.

With SOPA and PIPA discussions, Canada also decided to revisit Bill C-11 with the same support from the music and movie industry as the United States. The major search engine giants and their supporters took immediate action by also threatening a “black out” and write-in dissensions. Canada has always been seen as a leader of free speech and if enacted, Bill C-11 is just the opposite. If passed, Bill C-11 would include websites being blocked and illegal users being prosecuted with little or no proof needed.

Opponents of Bill C-11 have caused a delay in future legislation enactment, but because of the nature of the beast, the European Union and its membership have re-energized copyright infringement talks. The European Union re-introduced an agreement called the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement or “ACTA,” which was drawn up in 2007. With the re-introduction of ACTA which was signed originally by Canada and a majority of other countries, opponents took to the streets in protest, but Canada continues to support such an agreement. Canadian eyes and the world are watching the copyrighted infringement movement, where only time will tell what possible Internet censorship will bring.

Author bio: Hi, I’m Lucy. I am a blogger who writes articles varying from health to ppi claims. I like investing in gadgets that ease many things in my day to day schedule.

The Freedom of Government Censorship

Over at filmclassification.ca I periodically note the ratings assigned to films by the different boards in Canada. For some perspective I also include the ratings assigned in a few other countries. In most of the world, ratings are assigned by government agencies, but in the freedom loving United States ratings come from an industry association. Their mantra, also often applied to possibility of Internet censorship, is that industry must censor itself to prevent government censorship. Implicit in this approach is that industry censorship is better, i.e. more liberal, than government censorship.

A look at the ratings suggests this is not necessarily true. Here's my completely non-scientific sample for 2012:

Title	BC	AB	MB	ON	PQ	NS, PE, NB	MPAA (U.S.A)	BBFC (Great Britain)
The Campaign	14A	14A	14A	14A	13+	14A	R	15
The Dark Knight	PG	14A	PG	PG	G		PG-13	12A
Hugo	G	PG	PG	PG	G		PG	U
Hunger Games	PG	14A	14A	14A	G		PG-13	12A
Les Miserables	PG	PG	PG	PG	G	PG	PG-13	12A
Looper	14A	14A	14A	14A	13+	14A	R	15
Mission Impossible - Ghost Protocol	PG	14A	14A	PG	13+		PG-13	12A
Skyfall	PG	14A	14A	PG	13+	14A	PG-13	12A
Snow White and the Huntsman	PG	PG	PG	PG	G	PG	PG-13	12A
Ted	14A	18A	18A	14A	13+	14A	R	15
Tintin	PG	PG	PG	PG	G		PG	PG

In most cases, the MPAA ratings are the same or higher than the ratings from government agencies. There are a few exceptions. For example, Skyfall and Mission Impossible have 13+ ratings in Quebec, which means children under 13 cannot view them, while in the United States the PG-13 rating is advisory only. Similarly, 14A requires adult accompaniment, while PG-13 suggests it.

The notion that industry censorship is more liberal than government censorship should not be accepted without question. In a democracy, government censors are obligated to answer to the people. Industry censors face no such obligation. Keep that in mind next time you hear a suggestion that Internet companies need to censor the net lest government step in. Government censorship might be better.