BACKGROUND As the world is progressing towards a society without boundaries, the opponents of media censorship feel that censorship in general is a great hindrance to this progression. But then again, as these various communication media dabble with topics that need not be promoted or talked about at all, the question of censorship arises.
CENSORSHIP IN THE MEDIA While most countries have given the freedom of speech and expression of thought to its citizens, some countries try to counter the abuse of this right by some people, by restricting the freedom in reception of this speech and expression. Basically, while you're allowed to say anything you want and do whatever your heart desires (although subject to legal framework), you may not be free enough to listen or appreciate others' freedom of speech or action. This is the whole crux of censorship. Doing what you want is fine, as long as the others don't see it. While each country and each culture censors the media in one way or the other, the amount of censorship or the cut-off level which defines what to show and what not to show, differs. There are also different types of censorship. One of the most common criteria behind censorship is the age limits for viewing different media. Sometimes the censorship can be a blanket ban on a certain taboo topics and the definition of a taboo topic would be defined according to the governing authority in the country.1 Censorship and the debate surrounding it has never been so much in circulation as in present times. Censorship can be simply defined as a control exercised over the ideas and information circulated among people. Some common ways in which censorship is enforced include bleeping of words, blocking of images displayed etc. Censorship in media has been seen in almost every country and has been the stand out feature of many dictators. History has been replete with examples of individuals with power exercising their power to affect mass media censorship. This is because media has always had a massive following and reader base.2 Dissemination of information is immediate through the media and can therefore have far reaching effects. While the debate on censorship in the media is a never ending one there are some definite advantages of media censorship. Freedom of speech is one of the most basic of human rights and yet there are some boundaries that need to be drawn with particular respect to sensitive issues. Censorship has become a serious issue, and not only in the media. As a community, we are heavily influenced by the media and other sources of information- however, we tend to overlook the fact that there is not only much bias but also skewed perceptions of events and reports in the
news today. The media does a poor job portraying things as they really are in order to follow a sort of convention and to keep their show on air or their papers in stores. As a result, most of the time we are being fed information that may not be entirely true and sometimes even very far from the truth. This sad fact is how we've been living and understanding the world around us. The media has the ability to manipulate its viewers in ways that are often unseen. Driven by money, greed and popularity, most media outlets are fighting to report what they believe we want to hear not what we really should hear.
DEFINITION OF MEDIA Media can be defined as “Communication channels through which news, entertainment, education, data or promotional messages are disseminated. Media includes every broadcasting and narrowcasting medium such as newspapers, magazines, T.V, radio, billboards, direct mail, telephone, fax and internet. Media is a plural of medium and can take a plural or singular verb, depending on the sense intended.3 As per Oxford Dictionary, “Media is the main means of mass communication(television, radio and newspapers) regarded collectively.”4
MEANING OF CENSORSHIP Censorship means the official licensing or suppressing on certain grounds authorized by the law, of books, plays, letters, news or military intelligence and ‘to censor’ means “to exercise such control over, make excisions of changes in.” “Censorship is when a work of art expressing an idea which does not fall under current convention is seized, cut up, withdrawn, impounded, ignored, maligned, or otherwise mad e inaccessible to its audience.” 5
According to Harold D. Laswell, censorship is the “policy of restricting the public expression of ideas, opinions, conceptions and impulses which have or believed to have the capacity to undermine the governing authority or the social and the moral order which that authority considers itself bound to protect.” Censorship thus, affects vitally the freedom of speech and expression since its essence consists in the exercise of control or imposition of restraint. The suppression or control of ideas, public communication and information circulated within a society is termed as censorship. The freedom of speech guaranteed by the Constitution of India can be suppressed if it is considered objectionable, harmful, or necessary to maintain communal
harmony. Governments across the globe have used religious arguments as well as other powerful techniques and arguments to support for their censorship efforts. Offensive communication in the eyes of the government varies from country to country, religion to religion, even sect to sect. Many governments provide for certain limited protection against censorship. It is always necessary to balance conflicting rights in order to determine what can and cannot be censored. A classic example of censorship in India is the Central Board of Film Certification or Censor Board, which comes under the purview of Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. The Board regularly orders, directors to remove anything it deems offensive or subjects considered to be politically subversive. The censorship of films is governed by the Cinematograph Act, 1952. It assigns certification as Universal, Adults, and Parental Guidance to films in India before public exhibition. The era of censor restriction began in British India when the film Bhakta Vidura (1921) was banned because its protagonist bore a strong resemblance to Mahatama Gandhi. In 1978, the Central Board Of Film Censor (renamed Central Board Of Film Certification in 1982) referred to the political film Kissa Kursi Ka (The Tale of a Chair), an innuendo about the politicians to the Information & Broadcasting Ministry for further clearance. This was eventually destroyed only to be remade and released latter. In 1981, the film Meri Awaaz Suno, about a policeman who infiltrates an underworld gang to discover its nexus with politicians, was first granted an ‘A’ certificate, but subsequently suspended under the Cinematograph Act, 1952 citing that the film depicted excessive violence.
MEDIA CENSORSHIP Media censorship is the process wherein particular things said by media personalities that may harm other people’s privacy or may affect anyone’s stand with specific topics are prohibited to be shown or said publicly.
REASONS FOR MEDIA CENSORSHIP Censorship in Media can obstruct transfer of crucial information but sometimes a problematic situation may require such a censorship. There are a number of reasons for Media Censorship:
Barring or controlling content that is obscene or sexual, language that is obscene, content that displays violence, use of drugs and other questionable content. The requirement to bar or limit the content is to ensure that the interests of children and family are protected and the religious beliefs are respected. Pornography censorship is widely seen around the world and it may seem correct that such a censorship is enforced particularly with the ease with which such material can be obtained and accessed through the internet. Other morally questionable material is also often subject to censorship.
Religion and religious beliefs are also used as a rationale for media censorship or suppression. Sometimes it is important to control the information particularly where the situation pertains to religious problems and information wrongly distributed in a tense situation can cause explosive results. However religion has been wrongly used to clamp down on media, particularly in some eastern parts of the world. The developing world has also in the past used their culture and customs as a reason while enforcing media censorship using the argument that media and the western culture are responsible for harming its people and their long standing traditions. Security of the nation and defense is also another reason why censorship of media widely occurs. Military censorship has been used to guard military intelligence and other security aspects. Since time immemorial governments have been known to exercise their powers and influence to clamp down on media outlets so as to turn around a situation to their advantage or at least as a way to reduce the public disapproval towards its wrong functioning. At times historical events and considerations were also used to implement censorship in media. E.g.: In Germany it is illegal to glorify in any way the Nazis or their activities and symbols. Many eastern countries have had histories of dictators enforcing media censorship to cover up for the atrocities and wide spread problems created by their governments.Political censorship has been used as a tool to curb free expression. In present times internet is one medium that has allowed faster transfer of information and has been used by governments and other agencies to restrict the transfer of information in some cases. Companies have also at times resorted to media censorship whereby information pertaining to their business activities is controlled or restricted. This is particularly practiced where companies have had to face adverse publicity because of some problems in its business operations.6 In F.A Picture International v. Central Board of Film Certification 7, the Bombay High Court held that “Censorship in a free society can be tolerated within narrowest possible confines and strictly within the limits which are contemplated in a constitutional order.” Moreover, the Supreme Court of India in the case S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan8 observed as follows while upholding the censorship of films by prior restraint: “ The movie cannot function in a free market place like the newspaper, magazine or advertisement. Movie motivates thoughts and actions and assures a high degree of attention and retention. It makes its impact simultaneously arousing the visual and aural senses. The focusing of an intensive light on screen with the dramatizing of facts and opinions makes the idea more effective. The combination of act and speech, sight and sound, in semidarkness of the theatre with elimination of all distracting ideas, will have an impact in the minds of the spectators….It has as much potential for evil as it has for good. It has an equal
potential to instill or cultivate violent or good behavior. With these qualities, and since it caters for mass audience who are generally not selective about what they watch the movie cannot be equated with other modes of communication. Censorship by prior restraint is, therefore, not only desirable but also necessary.”
PROS OF MEDIA CENSORSHIP
Firstly, it is important that we reduce the violence that is on TV, at least for our children. We don’t want our children thinking that it is cool to be all heartless and go on picking off people on the streets. On the contrary, emphasis needs to be made on the fact that killing people is illegal and immoral. Hence the amount of violence the media broadcasts ought to be censored at least for the kids.
Sex is another topic which creates a great hullabaloo amongst the people. Why should sex be shown on TV? Sex, especially porn, sometimes illustrates a lot of unnatural and at times disturbing videos. It is quite likely that it may again have a negative impact on children who might think it to be true. Hence, these two topics, sex and violence, ought to be restricted to people in the age group who understand and appreciate that all this is fictional. One more area where media censorship is heavily applied is in the advertisements of alcohol and cigarettes. Some countries believe that both smoking and consuming alcohol have a negative effect on the human body and ought not to be advertised anyway. Which I feel is a fair point. No tobacco or alcohol company in its right mind would ever air the ill effect of the products they are producing. And there are few health benefits that these companies boast of. As it is, these companies already enjoy substantial word-of-mouth advertising. Hence, the media censorship for these companies sounds justifiable to me. Censorship helps preserve the secrets of a nation being revealed. The act of censorship helps protects individual privacy. The act of censorship helps prevent terrorist group from learning about dangerous technological advances. Censorship can help hide sensitive military information. It helps avoid plagiarism.9 Sometimes dirty laundry ought not to be aired in public. A lot of people are given to violent speeches and derogatory and unfounded comments on a particular religion or race. Some people may try to spread nonsensical propaganda through an unsuspecting media. While it may take a bit to argue with their freedom of speech, perhaps it is best ignored. Another interesting argument in favor of media censorship is the security of secrets. Ignorance is bliss, they say and it is in the best interest of a country and its people that the
plans of our armies are kept under wraps. Sometimes we need to blindly trust them. One interesting example of where media censorship could have been used was when the terrorists attacked Mumbai in 2008. The news reporters explained the counter-terrorist operation in fine detail on TV and perhaps some terrorists in the hotel, in which they were hiding, could have just flicked on his TV and could have been pre-warned of the upcoming actions of the counter-terrorists. Hence, some things are best not known. To conclude the media censorship I would like to say that the media is an extremely powerful force, which can reap great benefits if used positively and can be very damaging if not. It is like nuclear energy, which if used well, has great benefits for humanity, but there may be some, who might want to use it for the wrong reasons.
MEDIA CENSORSHIP CONS
Sometimes, media censorship may be done to serve the vested interests of the governing authorities. Let's say that a foreign news channel is running an unbiased documentary on the leadership of your country, the governing bodies of your country cannot do much about what that person or channel is saying, except stop the people of your country from tuning into such shows. Hence here, censorship is used to keep the ignorant, ignorant. I had previously made a point about how taboo topics like sex are best censored, but just because they are taboo topics, doesn't mean that they ought not to be dealt with maturely. Sex education and awareness of STDs and AIDS needs to be spread in many countries and you cannot brush these pressing topics under the carpet as taboo topics. The question is what to show and what not to show. Is ignorance really bliss? About some things, maybe. But the knowledge about the emerging technological trends and innovations needs to be spread among the people of the world. If knowledge doesn't spread, then it leads to intellectual stagnation. The search for knowledge is what has brought humanity to where it is today, and suppression of knowledge would be a step backwards rather than forwards. Sugar coats real situations. Just because there are things that people don’t want to see doesn’t mean they don’t happen in real life. If they want television censored, are they going to censor the news too? It goes against the First Amendment that states that as Americans we have freedom of speech and freedom of press. It prevents the free flow of ideas. It may intrude on the privacy of a person. “Withholding of information only leads to ignorance in the society.” Leads people to see everything different. Just puts a facade on life.Censoring of information may lead to a wrong image perceived by the public. How much freedom is good? Censorship they say negates the freedom of speech. What's the point of your right to speak if there is no one to listen to what you are speaking? Then why speak at all? Doesn't the very concept of censorship clash with the idea of
democracy? Then if we are going to cover the ears of our listeners, then what is the difference between democracy and dictatorship?10 To conclude, the cons I would like to say that censorship is all about degree. About how much to show and how much to hide. has its pros, but if the content in the media is manipulated by some people with vested interests, then the whole point of democracy and freedom of thought goes out of the window anyway.
LAW
REGARDING
MEDIA
CENSORSHIP
CINEMATOGRAPH ACT: The 1909 Cinematograph Act was introduced in response to concerns regarding the safety
of the buildings in which films were shown following a number of incidents involving highly unstable nitrate film stock setting fire to number of cinemas. The 1909 Cinematograph Act brought cinemas under local authority control and required them to be licensed. The Cinematograph Act became enforceable on 1st January 1910. CINEMATOGRAPH ACT, 1952: An act to make provision for the certification of cinematograph films for exhibition and for regulating exhibitions by means of cinematographs. The Act created the Censor Board or the Board of Film Certification. Any film intended for public exhibition was required to get a certificate from the Board sanctioning the film for restricted or unrestricted viewing. The guiding principles for certification of films under the Act are an echo of the restrictions under Article 19(2).
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS OF THE CINEMATOGRAPH ACT, 1952 Section 2(c) of the Act provides for the definition of cinematograph. It says that “cinematograph includes any apparatus for the representation of moving pictures or series of pictures.” Board of Film Censors (Section 3) The Central Government constitutes a Board to be called the Board of Film Certification for the purpose of sanctioning films for public exhibition. The Board consists of a Chairman and twelve to twenty five members appointed by the Central Government. Examination of Films (Section 4)
Any person desiring to exhibit any film shall in the prescribed manner make an application to the Board for certificate in respect thereof, and the Board may, after examining or having the film examined in the prescribed manner: 1. Sanction the film for unrestricted public exhibition.
2. Sanction the film for public exhibition restricted to adults, or 3. Sanction the film for public exhibition restricted to members of any profession or any class of persons, having regard to the nature , content and theme of the film; or; 4. Direct the applicant to carry out such modifications in the film as it thinks necessary before sanctioning the film for public exhibition under any of the foregoing clauses; or; 5. Refuse to sanction the film for public exhibition. Certification of Films (Section 5-A) After examination of films , the Board grants certificate to the person applying for. The film suitable for unrestricted public exhibition is granted “U” certificate. The film suitable for unrestricted public exhibition with the endorsement of the nature is granted “UA” certificate. The film is not suitable for unrestricted public exhibition, but is suitable for public exhibition restricted to adults or, as the case may be, is suitable for public exhibition restricted to members of any profession or any class of persons, it shall grant to the person applying for a certificate in respect of the film an “A” certificate or as the case may be, a “S” certificate. A certificate granted or an order refusing to grant a certificate in respect of any film shall be published in the Gazette of India. A certificate granted by the Board under this section shall be valid throughout India for a period of ten years. Principles for Guidance in the Cinematograph Act (Section-5B) 1. A film shall not be certified for public exhibition if, in the opinion of the authority competent to grant the certificate, the film or any part of it is against the interests of [the sovereignty and integrity of India] the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or involves defamation or contempt of court or is likely to incite the commission of any offence. 2. Subject to the provisions contained in sub-section (1), the Central Government may issue such directions as it may think fit setting out the principles which shall guide the authority competent to grant certificates under this Act in sanctioning films for public exhibition.] Appeals (Section 5-C) Any person applying for a certificate in respect of a film who is aggrieved by an order of the Boarda) Refusing to grant a certificate ; or b) Granting only an “A” certificate; or c) Granting only a “S” certificate; or d) Granting only an “UA” certificate; or
e) Directing the applicant to carry out any excisions or modifications, may, within thirty days from the date of such order, Prefer an appeal to the Tribunal by a petition in writing and shall be accompanied by a brief statement of the reasons for the order appealed against where such statement has been furnished to the appellant and by such fees, not exceeding one thousand. Constitution of Appellate Tribunal (Section 5-D) The Central Government shall, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute an Appellate tribunal for hearing appeals against any order of the Board under Section 5C. The Head Office of the Tribunal shall be at New Delhi or at such other place as the Central Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, specify. Such Tribunal shall consist of a Chairman and not more than four other members appointed by the Central Government. Suspension and Revocation of certificate (Section 5E) The Central Government may suspend a certificate granted for a period as it thinks fit or may revoke such certificate if it is satisfied that” i. The film in respect of which the certificate was granted, was being exhibited in a form other than the one in which it was certified, or ii. The film or any part thereof, it being exhibited in contravention of the provisions of this part rules made thereunder. The Central Government may require the applicant for certificate or any other person to whom the rights in the film have passed, or both, to deliver up the certificate and all duplicate certificates, if any, granted in respect of the film to the Board or to any person or authority specified in the sam id notification. During the period in which a certificate remains suspended, the film shall be deemed to be an uncertified film. Review of Orders by Central Government (Section 5F) An application for a certificate or any other person to whom the rights in the film have passed who is aggrieved by any order of the Central Government may, within sixty days of the date of publication of the notification in the Official Gazette, make an application to the Central Government for review of the order. Penalties (Section 7) If any person exhibits or permits to be exhibited in any place any film other than a film which has been certified by the Board shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both, and in the case of a continuing offence with a further fine which may extend to twenty thousand rupees for each day during which the offence continues. Power of Seizure (Section-7A)
Where a film in respect of which no certificate has been granted under this Act is exhibited, or a film certified as suitable for public exhibition restricted to adults is exhibited to any person who is not an adult or a film is exhibited in contravention of any of the other provisions contained in this Act any public officer may enter any place in which he has reason to believe that the film has been or is being or is likely to be exhibited, search it and seize the film. Cinematograph exhibitions to be licensed (Section-10) No person shall give an exhibition by means of a cinematograph elsewhere that in a place licensed under this Part or otherwise than in compliance with any conditions and restrictions imposed by such licenses. The authority having power to grant licenses shall be the District Magistrate. Power of Central Government or Local Authority to suspend exhibition of films in certain cases (Section-13) The Lieutenant-Governor or, as the case may be , the Chief commissioner , in respect of whole or any part of a Union Territory, and the District Magistrate in respect of the District within his jurisdiction, any, if he is of opinion that any film which is being publicly exhibited is likely to cause a breach of the peace, by order, suspend the exhibition of the film by an order for a period of two months and during such suspension the film shall be deemed to be an uncertified film in the State, part or district, as the case may be. Proposed Bill Three broad features that are being proposed in the new bill Cinematograph Act 2010 of India are: an emphasis to contemporize issues, incorporation of technological changes which have vastly changed since 1952 when the Cinematograph Act was enacted and much harsher penalties in cases of copyright violations.
CASES OF CENSORSHIP In Brij Bhushan & Anr, vs. The State of Delhi, 11 the Chief Commissioner of Delhi issued an order against the printer, publisher and editor of the English Weekly of Delhi called the ‘Organiser’. The Court held that there can be no doubt that to impose pre censorship on a journal, such as has been ordered by the Chief Commissioner in this case, it is a restriction on the liberty of the press which is included in the right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1) (a) of the constitution.
In K.A. Abbas case,12 the petitioner for the first time challenged the validity of censorship as violative of his fundamental right of speech and expression. The Supreme Court however observed that, pre-censorship of films under the Cinematograph Act was justified under Article 19(2) on the ground that films have to be treated separately from
other forms of art and expression because a motion picture was able to stir up emotion more deeply and thus, classification of films between two categories ‘A’ (for adults only) and ‘U’ (for all) was brought about. With regard to the power of pre-censorship, Hidayatullah C.J. observed therein as follows: “The task of the censor is extremely delicate….The standards that we set out for our censors must make a substantial allowance in favour of freedom thus leaving a vast area for creative art to interpret life and society with some of its foibles along with what is good. We must not look upon such human relationship as banned and forever from human thought and must give scope for talent to put them before society.”
Furthermore, in Bobby Art International v. Om Pal Singh Hoon 13, the Supreme Court re-affirmed the afore-mentioned view and upheld the order of the Appellate Tribunal (under the Cinematograph Act) which had followed the Guidelines under the Cinematograph Act and granted an ‘A’ certificate to a film. In S. Rangarajan v. P Jagjivan Ram, 14 a division bench of Madras High Court revoked the U-Certificate (“suitable for all ages”) granted to a Tamil film called Ore Oru Gramathile (“In one village”) , that dealt with the controversy surrounding affirmative action and the problems of the caste. This was challenged before a three judge bench of the Court. The State made two arguments: First, that the depiction of the government’s reservation policy was ‘biased’; and secondly, that the reaction in the state of Tamil Nadu was bound to be “volatile”.
PRONOUNCEMENTS UNDER THE CINEMATOGRAPH ACT 1952 It is a settled law that a film maker of a film has a fundamental right under Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution of India. In this case the film had been sent by the Examination Committee in Madras in February 1993, however no order had been passed till October 1993, when the petitioner approached the Court. The Court held that the power of the Respondent in connection with grant of censorship certificate is coupled with the duty and they are expected to pass orders expeditiously on any application made for censorship of film. Further it was held that the Court cannot take the role of the Censor Board and state whether the picture can be released for public exhibition or not in the absence of any order passed on the application of the Petitioner by the Respondents under the provisions of Cinematograph Act 1952.15 In B.K Adarsh v. Union of India,16 the Court held that mere grant of certification to other films which have more or similar obscene or pornographic scenes or events or sequences does not automatically entitle a producer like petitioner of a motion picture to certification under section
5A of the Act. It is the particular film that needs certification has to be viewed and if it is found to be in conformity with the law then alone it is entitled to a certification under section 5A of the Act. The petitioner is entitled to avail protection or Article 14 of the Constitution of India on this ground if it is found to have violated the law. In Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Manubhai D. Shah, 17 it was held that the onus of proving that the film did not confirm with the requirements of law lies on the party which claims that it was entitled to refuse enforcement of this right. In Ramanlai v. Central Board of Film Certification,18 it was held that refusal to grant a certificate for public exhibition because of its being based on and depicting superstitious practices cannot be sustained. It is in violation of the guidelines as also sub section (1) of Section 5B of the Act. To the extent the refusal to give a certificate of public exhibition be based on this ground, the refusal is liable to be quashed.
IMPACT OF FILM AND T.V ON CRIME IN MODERN SOCIETY In Moorthy v. State of Tamil Nadu,18 the Supreme Court converted the death sentence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code into imprisonment for life by making the following observation: “His mental agitation was further fuelled by the movie, showing murder after murder. The vicious effect of films picturizing violence in detail on impressionable minds has been subject of serious concern for some time now, but unfortunately no effective step has been taken so far to curb the growing tendency of the section of the film industry to cash on human weakness. And when this upsets a young man, already vulnerable disturbed, the society cannot be completely absolved from sharing the responsibility of the resulting tragedy.”
Ban on screening of motion picture ‘Ganga-Jal’: In the case of Anirudh Prasad Yadav v. Union of India, 19 the petitioner filed a writ petition alleging that the name of the petitioner, elected leader ‘Sadhu Yadav’ as name of villain in film had been used to malign and demolish image of petitioner. The Court held that the Petitioner failed to show that any fundamental right had been infringed by naming villain of film as ‘Sadhu Yadav’. Any resemblance with any character of film, could not be said to be intentionally filmed on the life of the Petitioner.Except the similarity in the name no other similarities had been shown that exhibition of film will prima facie damage his reputation and sabotage his political and social image. In M/S Prakash Jha Productions & Anr. V. Union of India & Ors, 20 the Supreme Court held that once the Central Board for film certification has cleared the film for public viewing, the screening cannot be prohibited in a manner as has been done by the U.P Government. The Bench
while clearing decks for release of Prakash Jha’s film “Aarakshan” in U.P, said it was state’s duty to maintain law and order and quashed an order banning the film’s screening for two months.
CONCLUSION To conclude the media censorship, I would like to say that media is an extremely powerful force, which can reap great benefits if used positively and can be very damaging if not. It is like nuclear energy, which if used well, has great benefits for humanity, but there may be some, who might use it for the wrong reasons. Censorship is all about degree. About how much to show and how much to hide. It has its pros, but if the content in the media is manipulated by some people with vested interests, then the whole point of democracy and freedom of thought goes out of the window anyway. The questions that the censor boards need to ask themselves are what is the rationale behind the censorship? And are we censoring the media as per that rationale? Is the media being allowed to display what it ought to display? Are they showing things that people want to or need to know about?
