[IMC Bombay] on censorship of films

[shammi nanda]

Dear Vickram,
Thanks for your response to my mail, I found the comparison between live 
theater and films interesting. I would like to make some points about your 
other statements.
>"The Censor Board is not charged with preventing people to access such 
>stuff on the Net (and please don't even raise the possibility).
Secondly, (once this point gets raised in public consciousness) the
access of the Internet today (both in width and depth) is hugely
different from that of cinema. The Internet is almost totally an
individual experience, unlike cinema. The two simply aren't
comparable, and the former is not a valid example for the latter.”

When I had mentioned about the pornography that is available on the net, I 
was not assuming that censor board is supposed to check it. It was in the 
context that censor board is a part of the government which is keen on 
censoring any form of explicit sexuality on screen. Besides we should know 
that government is not so ignorant and its not so simple that by our 
discussing pornography on the Internet, the government will think of 
censoring it. Also, it does not make much of a distinction in the fact that 
internet is an individual experience and has laws for internet too, however 
it may harder to implement it due to the nature of the medium.
According to the Indian Information Technology Act 2000 , Chapter XI Para 
67, the Government of India clearly considers online pornography as a 
punishable offence. The Para states the following -
Para 67 – “Publishing of information which is obscene in electronic form.
Whoever publishes or transmits or causes to be published in the electronic 
form, any material which is lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest 
or if its effect is such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are 
likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear 
the matter contained or embodied in it, shall be punished on first 
conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may 
extend to five years and with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees and 
in the event of a second or subsequent conviction with imprisonment of 
either description for a term which may extend to ten years and also with 
fine which may extend to two lakh rupees”.

My point was that just because the government can’t check pornography on net 
it is silent about it. I was just pointing to the hypocrisy that we are 
living in. Imagine the absurdity of the scenario in which Censor board has a 
meeting about whether a kissing scene should be cut out, and on the other 
hand a young school kid goes to the internet and types three letters- 
‘S-E-X’ and is exposed to all kinds of sexuality. Well, why even talk if 
minors being exposed to sex when the censor board is taking decisions about 
what adults should see.

However, I am myself uncomfortable with the comparison between internet and 
films in terms of pornography but for different reasons. I am myself not 
sure whether pornography should be banned as I don’t think it is dangerous 
per se; it is not sex but sexism and exploitation which is dangerous. The 
issue of pornography is a very complex one.

Regards
Shammi




>From: Vickram Crishna <vvcrishna@softhome.net>
>To: imc-mumbai@lists.indymedia.org
>Subject: Re: [IMC Bombay] on censorship of films
>Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 06:51:07 +0530
>
>Very nicely put. Just one point, inserted below.
>At 7:21 PM +0000 21/08/2002, shammi nanda wrote:
>>I had written a note on censorship as a reaction to the cuts imposed
>>by the censor board on Anand... ...If the Censor Board’s job is to
>>check the ‘corruption of mind’ and to check pornographic films, in
>>today’s times where anyone with access to the internet can see
>>infinite amount of pornography, one wonders how much use is the
>>Censor Board  in stopping it.
>
>The Censor Board is not charged with preventing people to access such
>stuff on the Net (and please don't even raise the possibility).
>
>Secondly, (once this point gets raised in public consciousness) the
>access of the Internet today (both in width and depth) is hugely
>different from that of cinema. The Internet is almost totally an
>individual experience, unlike cinema. The two simply aren't
>comparable, and the former is not a valid example for the latter.
>
>Perhaps some modification to your note that comments on the business
>side of this: how a hugely expensive and complex infrastructure like
>film-making and displaying gets support (due to the revenue it
>generates for the government?) whereas live theater gets almost none
>(almost impossible to censor individual shows of street theatre).
>--
>Vickram
>
>_______________________________________________
>IMC-Mumbai mailing list
>IMC-Mumbai@lists.indymedia.org
>http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-mumbai




_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com