Radar Systems

Different countries have different behaviours when it comes to censorship of media. Beating them is the goal of every "edgy" TV and film producer and writer. Here's a look at what things tend to "ping" the radar the most, depending on the country.

USA
The U.S.A used to have no censorship of films at all. Then the U.S. Supreme Court in 1918 ruled that states could impose censorship on films in Mutual Film Corporation v. Industrial Commission of Ohio, 236 U.S. 230, because motion pictures did not have First Amendment protection. A number of states (and cities) implemented censorship boards; if your film was rejected by the board you could not show it in theatres in the area where the board had jurisdiction. To try and combat government censorship, in the 1930s the motion picture industry instituted the Hays Code, an industry-based voluntary censorship system that lasted until about 1968 when the MPAA realized the code was now too strict and too many films were being released by major studios without Hays Code approval, so they started the motion picture rating system, which is still in operation today.

The state and city censorship boards began to die off starting in 1952, when the U.S. Supreme Court reversed itself in the Mutual Film case mentioned above, when it decided in Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U.S. 495, that motion pictures do have First Amendment protection. The more or less nail-in-the coffin of censorship boards having power over films occurred in 1965 when the Supreme Court decided in Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U.S. 51, that a censorship board couldn't ban a film outright any more. When a censorship board receives a film for review, it must do so promptly, then either issue approval of the film or file suit in a court against the distributor to stop a film from being exhibited. Also, since the censorship board was suing in court, the board now had the burden of proof to argue a film was unsuitable for licensing rather than the distributor having to prove the film was acceptable.

With the further development of the movie rating system in 1968, most jurisdictions dropped their censorship boards, mostly as a way to save money. The City of Dallas, Texas' board more-or-less closed down when the city stopped providing funding for the board to publish the list of films approved each week in the newspaper.

Also, a city or state board has no jurisdiction over a motion picture broadcast on a television station because they are federally licensed. In 1980, the State of Maryland became the final state to eliminate its censorship board. The only restrictions on films now are what the producers are willing to accept to get a particular rating from the MPAA.

Broadcast radio and television in the United States is caught in a strange conflict between the First Amendment (which guarantees free speech) and the government's desire to protect its citizens from unwanted material being broadcast into their home. Over-the-air broadcasting is governed by the Federal Communications Commission, which licenses portions of the electromagnetic spectrum to each broadcaster (television, radio, etc.) The Supreme Court has built of a body of case law that grants the FCC the authority to regular content being broadcast over the licensed spectrum. The Court distinguishes obscene content from indecent; the latter enjoys First Amendment free-speech protections, subject to FCC regulation, while the former is not protected speech at all. (The bar is pretty high to qualify as obscene, effectively limited to hardcore pornography.)

The FCC has historically been more concerned about sex and language than violence. Witness the reaction to Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" at the Super Bowl and the large fine the FCC gave for a naked backside in NYPD Blue. NYPD Blue also got into some trouble for the airing word "shit", and the FCC often tries to fine for fleeting, unplanned uses of "fuck" at live events (though lately, those have been getting overturned). Violence is only really a concern in video games and children's programming.

The Court ruling that establish the FCC's authority to regulate content limited it to broadcasts made "between the hours of 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., local time. - when children are more likely to be in the audience." In addition, the FCC's regulation authority stems solely from their role in licensing the broadcast spectrum. Thus, cable or satellite stations, or shows airing in the "safe harbor" period from 10pm to 6am, fall outside of its scope. (See: http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/regulation-obscenity-indecency-and-profanity)

For cable and satellite providers, there is no legal authority regulating the content they air. Instead, each network typically has its own internal standards and practices committee that restricts what is allowed to air. This is done mostly for advertising and public relations purposes: while the FCC has no authority to fine, for example, Comedy Central for airing an uncensored roast, if enough viewers complain they would lose advertisers. Frequently the network S&P boards enforce far stricter regulations than the FCC would if they had such authority; for example, mocking religion or portraying it as the bad guy is not considered indecent, but rather than create a great big fuss with religious groups, most studios don't risk it.

Premium channels (HBO, Showtime, etc.) and pay-per-view channels, which have neither broadcast regulators nor advertisers to deal with, can basically get away with whatever they want, up to and including obscene content such as hardcore pornography (mostly on PPV).

UK
The United Kingdom is more concerned with the violence, particularly scenes of violence, self-harm, and criminal, disgusting, or antisocial behavior that impressionable audience members might see as fun or easy to imitate in real life. The sex gets through easily (Bikini Bar, post-watershed, is mostly non-existent in the UK, thus resulting in a number of gratuitous pole dancers in many movies) and the language is much stronger after what is known as the nine o'clock watershed. The continuity announcer usually gives a warning before a film or show that contains swearing, violence, or sex.

Russia
The Soviet Union banned pornography, a restriction now lifted in the modern Russia. Because of this, it became a habit of NATO pilots intercepting Soviet bomber probes to bring copies of Playboy with them... The definition of pornography was unusually stretched, things that could be considered merely erotic in other countries were classified as pornography in the USSR.

More than that, a system of tenets called Socialist Realism was in place. The radar was pinged if the heroes in a movie weren't working-class, the setting wasn't factory, kolkhoz or army, the film didn't contain any respect towards Communism, etc. It was pinged only slightly by light-hearted comedies, historical dramas and science fiction movies that did include references to future perfected communism, but genres like action, erotic and horror were very difficult to smuggle past the radar. Violence was okay if the targets were Nazis, White Guards, American spies and other enemies of the state and if the perpetrator was a serviceman or a Communist guerrilla, but verboten otherwise. Genres like Ostern, war movie, detective, spy movie were a kind of violence ghetto, though in the latter two genres violent scenes were usually only in the climax. Of course, bashing religion was perfectly cromulently okay.

All this fell after The Great Politics Mess-Up (actually, it started to crumble during 1980s). Films produced in The New Russia don't have any radar. We mean ANY. Anything goes: splatter-brain Mafiya action, lewd talk shows, sex, product placement of tobacco and vodka, you name it (with one notable exception of Nazi propaganda, which is still forbidden).

Japan
Japan, notably, bans the actual display of naked genitals in a sexual context. It should be noted that this is the reason we have Naughty Tentacles. The Japanese also have a clever little loophole of putting (very) small black censoring bars just over the clitoris and the tip of the penis, while everything else is on show.

Mexico
Mexican censors are known for their leniency toward violence and profanity, and for being only a little ticked off at sex and nudity. However, if you take any jabs at Christianity (especially the Catholic Church), be prepared to duck and cover. As soon as a film pops up that questions the purity of the Church or even spends more time talking about a religion other than Christianity, the Moral Guardians cause quite a huge uproar all over the country, going as far as handing out pamphlets against offending films and series, and many a state's Media Watchdogs step in to ban these films.

However, as piracy in Mexico is an entire social institution, this censorship is almost pointless, as anyone with a DVD player can buy a bootlegged DVD from a tianguis - a street market - and watch the film anyway to find out what the fuss is about.

Interesting fact: when Televisa entertainer Adal Ramones found out the word "güey" (meaning "dude" or "fool", depending on context) was not profanity and could be said in public broadcasts, he began throwing it liberally in his weekly show, and although this word was already part of everyday Mexican slang, Adal Ramones is nowadays credited as the one who elevated its status from simple interjection to Verbal Tic.

Malaysia
Malaysian censorship systems are renown for having two in place - both a ratings system as well as an actual censorship board (FINAS). FINAS film censors get paid for reviewing every piece of imported film/TV material and cutting out every obscenity, overt violence, almost any non-laudatory mention of Islamic 'stuff', sex, and horror - resulting sometimes in a movie that is a third shorter - if not outright banned.

A similar system exists for printed literature; however, the Malaysian government has strongly committed to not extend these censorship systems to the Internet.

Canada
Censorship in Canada is inconsistent because censorship is for the most part a provincial matter, not a federal matter, so each province has its own rules. (The exceptions are things like hate speech and child pornography, because owning or distributing them are offenses under the Criminal Code of Canada, which is federal.) In non-criminal situations, though, Canadians these days tend to be less tolerant of censorship than Americans. Adult language was heard on Canadian TV as early as the 80s, and it's unusual for movies to be broadcast censored after 9 PM unless the version sanitized for American TV is the only version available. Nudity likewise is usually not much of an issue after 9 PM.

Note that there was a requirement not to cover news about the contents of an famous current criminal trials. Local newspapers wouldn't carry the details because the courts would have issued restrictive orders against reporting on them. Newspapers from the United States would often be confiscated if they're noticed as having feature stories about any big criminal trial. I'm not sure if these rules are still in effect.

One difference between Canada and other countries is that news and current events programs are rarely if ever subject to censorship for language, nudity, or violence. The noon news in Montreal once broadcast a live gynecological examination - complete with closeups of the vaginal area and including the insertion of the speculum - in the interest of promoting women's health. The station received over a hundred calls, but only two were complaints: the others were from people congratulating the station for being brave enough to show a medical procedure. News programs also won't hesitate to broadcast incidents where alleged criminals unleash obscenities at police or news crews.

Things have changed in the recent past: it wasn't that many years ago that the RCMP stopped a shipment of books from entering the country simply because they were gay-themed. Nowadays that would be seen as extremely ridiculous.

Australia
Australia had fairly restrictive censorship right into the 1980's. These days the mainstream media follows the UK: there is more concern over violence than sex. Quite explicit material is broadcast with relatively little interest or comment, particularly non-pornographic material.

New Media, however, is treated quite differently to conventional media. Despite public calls for change, there is no R18+ classification for videogames, which means that games intended for adult audiences suffer significant censorship. There is also a highly controversial program to introduce internet censorship, allegedly aimed at reducing access to pornography.

People's Republic Of China
This content has been found to be slanderous of our glorious republic and has been removed for your protection.

Germany
No Swastikas (by law), obviously, though depictions of Those Wacky Nazis are usually allowed. Deserves special mention for having Video Games legally be children's toys and therefore having a more strict rating system. Banned media go onto the "Index", having been "indiziert" and may only be sold under the counter (and thus aren't technically banned, as that would be unconstitutional. It can be hard to tell the difference though). Ratings go in a series of steps from "Age 0 and up", over ages 6+, 12+, 16+ and 18+ (video games not submitted for rating, instead of getting banned, are 'merely' immediately slapped with the 18+ logo), each with a different brightly-colored and (as of 2008ish) super-sized logo, because parents are morons. The two main Bureaus for censorship are the Freiwillige Selbstkontrolle der Filmwirtschaft, FSK (Voluntary Self-Control of the Movie Industry) and the Unterhaltungssoftware Selbstkontrolle, USK (Entertainmentsoftware Self-control).

Netherlands
NICAM (the Dutch institute for classification of audiovisual media) is the the big dog when it comes to classification, they cover: movies, tv-shows, games (they do this for most of the EU under the PEGI banner) and music videos (if aired on the TV). The ratings haven't really changed the past few years, but the strict enforcement of art.240a Wv S ("you shall give minors no access to harmful material") is back after years of neglect by the Department of Justice. The system classifies media according to the content with the most "harmful" visual depictions (with the exception of (obviously): curses/swears), which had lead to some mistakes when the harmful content was not visual in nature (for instance: anklaget is rated for all ages). The NICAM has future plans to classify mobile and internet content, which will be an entirely different kettle of fish.

Ireland
For a long time, Ireland had some of the most notoriously strict censorship in Europe due to the dominance of the Catholic Church. Famously, priests would go through foreign magazines and cut out any lingerie ads which showed women modelling the underwear in question.

Films were rated an edited by the Irish Film Censor's Office (IFCO); similar bodies were in place to approve books. IFCO routinely ordered the removal of scenes of people kissing and any criticism of the Catholic Church.

Things changed in the late 80s and early 90s, and there is much more freedom today. No films are banned nowadays, and while IFCO is still around, the C now stands for classification, and they just assign age ratings. For the most part, IFCO and other watchdogs are similar to the UK authorities, being more concerned with violence than sex or cursing. In fact, while fuck is right out, popular Irish-language Soap Opera Ros na Rúngets away with shit before watershed (though amusingly, despite most of the swearing being in English anyway, the subtitles do tend to Bowdlerise it).

Most DVDs sold in Ireland are actually the excess stock left over from what companies shift to the UK, meaning that DVDs sold in Ireland routinely bear a rating from both IFCO and the British Board of Film Classification. These are mostly the same, but IFCO tends to be slightly stricter, which occasionally results in a movie rated 15 in Britain getting an 18 rating right next to it in Ireland.

Video games are not rated by IFCO; instead, Ireland submits to PEGI classification.

South Korea
From the late sixties to the early 90's, censorship was very strict in South Korea due to political turmoil and a mixture of Confucian, Shamanistic, Buddhist, and Christian values. In the past 20+ years, censors have relaxed somewhat.

South Korean network television not only censors profanity, nudity, and violence, but also smoking. People can hold lit cigarettes but as soon as they bring it up to their lips, it is blurred out. Knives are also blurred out, including simply showing knives on cooking shows. Their cable television is more lenient, much like the US, except that genitals and sometimes even buttocks are still blurred out (naked breasts and softcore sex is still on display). Many cable networks will also censor any damage done to the head or showing close ups of cuts being made but not cuts that are already open. For instance, when Dexter is broadcast on cable, the cheek cutting scenes are edited once the scalpel touches the cheek but the open cut itself is left uncensored once the scalpel is removed. There is a call from Moral Guardians to have Daytime TV censored for allowing scenes of divorce and adultary but no actions have been made.

Movies might also be censored for gentialia, depending on visibility and the length of the shot. You can expect a quick glimpse in a dark scene but if it's a more prolonged shot or the genitals are clearly visible, expect it to be blurred out. Otherwise, they seem to follow the guidelines of any other countries. Bootleg porn and movies are quite common for purchase, completely uncensored. Piracy laws are very relaxed. Also, some art house theatres get away with it.

Oddly enough, despite their strict censorship practices against smoking, alcohol commercials are freely displayed and feature popular young actors and pop stars. These are not simple beer commercials but are commercials for traditional spirits such as soju.