Obscenity and Film Censorship: An Abridgement of the Williams Report

234 Pages·2015·0.92 MB·English

by  Bernard Williams

Obscenity and Film Censorship
Members of the committee
B
BernardWilliamsEsq.
B.HoobermanEsq.
HisHonourJudgeJohnLeonardQC
RichardMatthewsEsq.CBEQPM
DavidRobinsonEsq.
MsSheilaRothwell
ProfessorA.W.B.Simpson
DrAnthonyStorr
MrsM.J.Taylor
TheRightReverendJohnTinsley
MissPollyToynbee
ProfessorJ.G.Weightman
V.A.WhiteEsq.MBE
Obscenity and Film Censorship
An Abridgement of the Williams Report
B
Edited by
bernard williams
UniversityPrintingHouse,CambridgeCB28BS,UnitedKingdom
CambridgeUniversityPressispartoftheUniversityofCambridge.
ItfurtherstheUniversity’smissionbydisseminatingknowledgeinthepursuitof
education,learningandresearchatthehighestinternationallevelsofexcellence.
www.cambridge.org
Informationonthistitle:www.cambridge.org/9781107534407
©CrownCopyright1979,1981,2015
Thispublicationisincopyright.Subjecttostatutoryexception
andtotheprovisionsofrelevantcollectivelicensingagreements,
noreproductionofanypartmaytakeplacewithoutthewritten
permissionofCambridgeUniversityPress.
ThisabridgededitionfirstpublishedbyCambridgeUniversityPress1981
Re-issuedin2010
CambridgePhilosophyClassicsedition2015
PrintedintheUnitedKingdombyClays,StIvesplc
AcataloguerecordforthispublicationisavailablefromtheBritishLibrary
LibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationData
GreatBritain.CommitteeonObscenityandFilmCensorship.
[ReportoftheCommitteeonObscenity&FilmCensorship]
Obscenityandfilmcensorship:anabridgementoftheWilliamsReport/editedbyBernard
Williams,ProvostofKing’sCollege,UniversityofCambridge.–CambridgePhilosophy
Classicsedition2015
pages cm.– (CambridgePhilosophyClassics)
Abridgementof:ReportoftheCommitteeonObscenity&FilmCensorship,1979.
“ThisabridgededitionfirstpublishedbyCambridgeUniversityPress1981”–Titlepageverso.
ISBN978-1-107-11377-0(Hardback)–ISBN978-1-107-53440-7(Paperback)
1. Obscenity(Law)–GreatBritain. 2. Motionpictures–Censorship–Great
Britain. I. Williams,Bernard,1929–2003. II. Title.
KD8075.A86722015
344.4205047–dc23 2015017922
ISBN978-1-107-11377-0Hardback
ISBN978-1-107-53440-7Paperback
CambridgeUniversityPresshasnoresponsibilityforthepersistenceoraccuracy
ofURLsforexternalorthird-partyinternetwebsitesreferredtointhispublication,
anddoesnotguaranteethatanycontentonsuchwebsitesis,orwillremain,
accurateorappropriate.
Contents
B
Preface to this edition byonora o’neill ix
Preface xi
Part 1 Background 1
1 The Committee’stask 3
Exploringoursubject 4
Research 6
Publicopinion 7
Foreignexperience 10
Previousreviewsofoursubject 11
2 The present law 14
The“tendencytodepraveandcorrupt” 14
The“indecentorobscene”test 18
Forfeitureproceedingsandtherighttotrial 20
Thepublicgooddefence 22
Restrictionsontherighttoprosecute 24
SeizuresbytheCustomsandPostOffice 25
Indecentpublicdisplays 26
TheProtectionofChildrenAct 27
Thechaosofthepresentlaw 27
Territoriallimitations 28
Internationalobligations 29
3 The censorship offilms 30
Thelegalbasisofthecensorshipsystem 30
Cinemalicensingconditions 31
Exemptionsfromcensorship 34
Thepracticeoffilmcensorship 36
TheBritishBoardofFilmCensors 37
Trendsinrecentyears 39
TheroleoftheBoard 41
Consultativearrangements 44
v
vi tableofcontents
4 The situation 46
Theretreatofthelaw 46
Criticismofthelaw 50
Policecorruption 52
TrendsinBritishpublishing 54
Selfregulationbythetrade 55
Changesinenforcementaction 56
Thesizeofthemarket 58
Controllingpublicdisplays 59
Applyingthelawtotheshowingoffilms 60
Doubtsaboutfilmcensorship 62
Rethinkingthecontroloffilms 63
Theendofcontroversy? 64
Part 2 Principles 67
5 Law, morality and the freedomof expression 69
Lawandmorality 69
Freedomofexpression 73
Harms 78
6 Harms? 83
I: Effectsonsexcrimesandviolence 83
Anecdotalandclinicalevidence 84
Researchstudies 88
Analysisofcrimestatistics 93
EnglandandWales 96
Denmark 106
Othercountries 112
II: Othereffectsonhumanbehaviour 113
7 Offensiveness 126
8 Pornography,obscenity and art 136
Pornography 137
“Obscene”and“erotic” 137
Art 139
Thepublicgooddefence 143
Part 3 Proposals 147
9 The restriction of publications 149
Thebalanceofourevidence 149
Themeansofpreventingoffensiveness 152
tableofcontents vii
Howtoachieverestriction 153
Thenatureofrestriction 156
Mailordertrading 157
Thedefinitionofrestrictedmaterial 158
Theformulawepropose 162
Theagelimitforspecialprotection 167
Apublicgooddefence? 168
Enforcingrestriction 169
Therighttoprosecute 171
10 The prohibition of publications 173
Theneedforprohibition 173
Thedepictionofsexualoffences 173
Identifyingharmfulmaterial 174
Transactionstobeprohibited 178
Apublicgooddefence? 178
Enforcingprohibition 179
11 Live entertainment 183
Howliveentertainmentdiffers 183
Restrictingliveentertainment 185
Liveentertainmenttobeprohibited 185
Enforcingcontrolsonliveentertainment 188
12 Films 190
Theneedforcensorship 190
Localauthoritycontrol 195
Astatutorysystemofcontrol? 198
Thenatureofanewbody 202
Theapplicationof“restriction”tofilms 203
Categoriesofcertificate 207
Theenforcementoffilmcensorship 209
Conclusion 211
13 Summary of our proposals 212

Preface to this edition
onorao’neill
B
Few official reports on public policy become books, still fewer books of
lastingrelevance.TheWilliamsReportonObscenityandFilmCensorshipwas
producedin 1979andfirstpublished as abookin 1981.Itmakes thecase
for a liberal approach to regulating obscene or pornographic printed
material, and for rather more restrictive regulation and prohibition of
obscene and pornographic images, including film. Its conclusions have
been widely accepted in Britain and elsewhere, its criticism of what it
dubbed“thechaosofthepresentlaw”widelyendorsed,anditssparkling
and carefularguments bothenjoyedand travestied.
Since the report was published, the technological and social context in
which we communicate has changed. We no longer live in a world in
whichpublishersandnewsagentscancontrolaccesstoobscenecontent,or
broadcastersandfilm-makersaccesstopornographicimages,orinwhich
governments(orthePostOffice,towhichtheReportoftenrefers!)canuse
traditional methods to control, to regulate or to censor. Regulating or
prohibiting material that some see as obscene or pornographic is harder
in the age of theInternet.
However,worriesaboutsuchmaterial,andparticularlyaboutitseffects
on children and young people, are as acute as they were thirty-five years
ago. Even if we agree with the Williams Report that obscene or porno-
graphiccontentshouldbeavailabletoadultswhochoosetoreceiveit,but
not more widely, it is now unclear how this is to be achieved. How is
freedom of expression for those adults to be combined with protecting
others from intrusive and unwanted content? How robust are arguments
that certain sorts of publication cause harm?
The Williams Report did not find robust evidence of harm caused by
encountering pornographic content, but argued (see Chapter 9) that the
public display or availability of such material was something that people
“reasonably judge offensive” and that providing such material, except to
willing recipients, should therefore be regulated or prohibited. Today we
might wonder whether we can still find consensus about which sorts of
display willbe “reasonablyjudged offensive”.
ix