AF7430 Chap.10 Film Censorship and Broadcast Regulation
Film Censorship and Broadcast Regulation
Why censorship followed the mass audience
Art was traditionally for the elite; film subverted that, being at once an art form and a commodity for mass consumption. Governments noticed first how far a film could travel, and then what it might do to what a whole population believed, and censorship followed. Two moves in that argument belong in an essay.
The typical targets, pornography, violence and coarse language, are all justified by an appeal to the common good, and the question the lecture presses is who decides what the common good is. The concept itself concedes something: that film shapes minds, for good as well as ill, and can therefore threaten the security of a state.
Official censorship may not make propaganda itself, but by deciding what may be shown it contributes to the state's message by removing opposing views.
Beyond the official kind there are unofficial censorships, including groups that object to films they have not seen, and works that passed official censorship and were then denounced as breaching social or religious norms.
The route from submission to exhibition
A film intended for exhibition is submitted for review.
The censor considers six matters: does the work show or handle cruelty, torture, violence, crime, horror, disability or sexuality, or indecent or offensive language or conduct; does it denigrate or insult any class of the public by reference to colour, race, religious belief, ethnic or national origin, or sex; would screening it cut against the interests of national security; taken as a whole, what effect does the work have, and what effect is it likely to have on the people who will watch it; what artistic, educational, literary or scientific merit does it carry and what does it matter culturally or socially; and in what circumstances is it to be shown.
The censor must consult an advisor before deciding, and may then approve with a classification, refuse with reasons recorded, or require modification with reasons recorded.
Three tiers, and three routes back
Films are classified into three categories: suitable for any age; a middle category subdivided into not suitable for children and not suitable for young persons and children; and one for persons who have attained eighteen.
The two middle tiers are advisory; the age restriction on the third is legally enforced, and advertising material and packaging for that category also require approval. Three separate routes lead to a Board of Review. An aggrieved filmmaker may write to the responsible Secretary setting out why, and ask for the decision to be reconsidered. The Authority may seek review of its own censor's decision.
And anybody who objects on moral, religious, educational or other grounds to a film being shown, or to its title, may ask for a review of the decision that let it be shown. The Board views the film, hears representations and either gives directions the censor must comply with or refuses to give any.
A provision added in 2021 disapplies the review mechanism for all three routes where the decision rests on an opinion that screening the film would cut against the interests of national security.
A history that explains the statute
The ordinance dates from 1988, and the reason is documented.
A 1987 newspaper article revealed a classified document showing that censorship had been practised since 1953 without legal foundation, and that the government's own senior legal adviser had noted in 1972 that the rules then in force, which named no grounds at all for cutting or banning a film, were invalid and that the standards applied were internal administrative guidance.
The government did not address the illegality directly; it announced a three-tier system, and the ordinance establishing it passed the following year.
The political record runs in both directions: a 1959 film was banned for anti-imperialist sentiment, and from the 1970s films expressing dissatisfaction with the mainland political system were banned as potentially affecting relations with neighbouring territories, one of them after a single public screening.
Three comparative systems, distinguished by the source of the power
A British board began in 1913 as industry self-regulation after a 1909 statute had required cinemas to be licensed for fire safety; it remains non-governmental with no legal authority to censor, and local authorities may permit a film it refused to certify or forbid one it certified.
It renamed itself a board of classification in 1984. An American trade association rates films so parents know what may be unsuitable, and the government plays no role in film censorship, although the defence department works with studios and may obtain script approval in exchange for support.
Two American decisions dismantled state censorship: expression by motion picture falls within the free speech guarantee, and a board with excessive licensing discretion and no judicial participation is invalid. The mainland regime is different in kind, being a permit system requiring self-review, application, committee viewing, modification within thirty days if required, and a public exhibition permit.
What this chapter covers
- 01
Why film attracted censorship in a way other arts did not
- 02
The six matters a censor must consider
- 03
Approve, refuse or require modification, and the duty to consult an advisor
- 04
Three classification tiers, and which one the law enforces
- 05
Three routes to the Board of Review, and what it can direct
- 06
The 2021 provision that closes all three routes on one ground
- 07
Offence, fines and the inspector's powers
- 08
The 1987 disclosure that produced the 1988 ordinance
- 09
Three comparative systems, distinguished by where the power comes from
Two objections to one decision, and what national security does to both
- 3Set out the filmmaker's route and what the Board may do.
- 3Set out the citizen's route and the third route that also exists.
- 3State the effect of the 2021 provision on all three.
Key terms
- Film Censorship Authority
- The body established by the ordinance to review films submitted for exhibition, alongside a panel of censors and a panel of advisors.
- Panel Of Advisors
- The body the censor is required to consult before making a decision, which makes the consultation a procedural obligation rather than a formality.
- Board Of Review
- The body that may view a film, hear representations and either give directions the Authority or censor must comply with, or refuse to give any.
- Advisory Classification
- A classification tier that carries information rather than legal force, so that admitting a child breaks no law.
- Enforced Classification
- The adult tier, whose age restriction is legally enforced and whose advertising material and packaging also require approval.
- Inspector
- A public officer authorised by the Authority to enter places where a film is or may be exhibited, seize evidence, and require proof of identity.
- Permit Regime
- A system requiring approval before a film may be made or shown at all, contrasted with a classification system that sorts films by audience.
- Prior Restraint
- Control exercised before publication or exhibition, which an overseas court limited by requiring the censor to bear the burden of proof and a prompt judicial determination.
Film Censorship and Broadcast Regulation FAQ
Who can ask for a censorship decision to be reviewed?
Three different parties, by materially the same procedure. An aggrieved filmmaker may write to the responsible Secretary setting out why, and ask the Board of Review to reconsider. The Authority itself may seek review of its own censor's decision. And anybody who objects on moral, religious, educational or other grounds to a film being shown, or to its title, may ask for a review of the decision that let it be shown.
Since 2021 none of the three applies where the decision rests on an opinion about national security.
Are all three film classifications legally binding?
No. The two middle tiers are advisory in nature, so a parent who takes a child to a film in that band breaks no law and neither does the cinema that admits them.
The adult category is different in kind: its age restriction is legally enforced, exhibiting such a film to a person under eighteen is an offence, and the advertising material and the packaging of the physical copy also require the Authority's approval, which closes the routes by which the restricted content would otherwise reach a restricted audience.
Do countries without a statutory censor have no film censorship?
Not quite. Neither the British board nor the American trade association is governmental and neither can ban a film, and in one system the local authority may permit a film the board refused to certify or forbid one it certified, while in the other a court has held that a rating board may only approve or rate.
But the absence of a statutory censor is not the absence of control: a refusal to certify can make a film commercially unreleasable, and support given to productions in exchange for script approval shapes content before anyone classifies it.
Assessment move
Draw the route from submission to exhibition on one sheet, then add the three review entrances and mark where the 2021 provision closes them. Then write two sentences on each comparative system answering one question only: where does the power come from, and what constrains its exercise. That pair of exercises gives you both halves of any essay question on this chapter, and the second half is the one most answers leave out.
Working through Film Censorship and Broadcast Regulation in AF7430? Sia is AskSia’s AI Law tutor — ask any AF7430 Film Censorship and Broadcast Regulation question and get a clear, step-by-step explanation grounded in how AF7430 is taught and assessed. Read this chapter free, then take your hardest questions to Sia.
