Censorship. A British Naturism Briefing Paper – Malcolm Boura – December 2010

Censorship A British Naturism Briefing Paper – Malcolm Boura – December 2010 Few people appreciate just how much censorship there is, how many censors there are, and how woefully lacking is transparency and accountability. The right to free speech and the right to be protected from harm are valueless if there is no effective way to protect those rights. It is quite unacceptable that avoiding mild embarrassment to a minority of adults should result in widespread and all too often serious harm to children and young people Reasons and effects There are two commonly provided justifications for censorship; to avoid offence and to avoid harm. There is only one way to distinguish "avoid offence" from prejudice and that is evidence of harm. Much censorship is driven by perceived public opinion, in other words the views of those who shout loudest. It does not matter how popular a prejudice may appear to be, it is still nothing but prejudice. Even when there is evidence to support censorship the implementation may be so simplistic that it quite needlessly exacerbates serious social problems. The evidence is very clear but there is incredible reluctance to face up to the facts. It is not coincidence that the most censorious western societies have body image related outcomes which are vastly worse than those for the least censorious. For example a teenager in the USA is several times more likely to have an abortion, about ten times more likely to become pregnant and several tens of times more likely to catch a sexually transmitted infection than their counterpart in Denmark. It is completely unacceptable that censorship intended to prevent some discomfort to a minority of adults should contribute to such widespread and often serious harm. The censors Self censorship is universal and usually lacks any properly thought through policy. Commercial censorship, eg Facebook, Apple, Fedex, WHSmith, Menzies, internet filtering companies and service providers is arbitrary and unaccountable. Often it is a few managers in a US corporation who determine what we in the UK are allowed to see. They are exporting US attitudes and US problems to the UK and it is our young people who are harmed. Statutory censors are slightly more accountable but many of the same criticisms apply. Policies concerning the human body are founded on perceived popular prejudice, not fact, and the resulting censorship is largely hidden from the public. However the majority of censors, eg , operate without any formal policy.and councilspolice Accountability There are numerous official or semi-official bodies tasked with censorship but there are none with a duty to prevent harmful censorship. Consequently the only way to combat harmful censorship is to identify and argue with every individual, company or statutory body carrying it out. It is completely impracticable and makes a nonsense of the right to freedom of expression. Most censorship is hidden. Indeed the evidence suggests that some organisations deliberately hide their censorship. When the public do know about it, they make it very clear how unacceptable it often is. The Media The published policies of the major broadcasters are largely sensible but where the human body is concerned they are driven by perceived popular prejudice. In practice they are gold plated to the point of effectively a total ban. It is harmful and it makes some programmes misleading. The BBC web site self censors to the point of dishonesty. For example cropping photographs at the waist, even of great works of art, and without any indication what they have done. Complaints can not be made if the misconduct is hidden. When complaints are made then there is either no response or the reply lacks an objective basis. Periodicals are largely denied access to retail outlets if Menzies and WHSmith disapprove. One carrier refused to distribute a magazine “in case they delivered it to a school”. The Internet Filtering is often extreme. Eg police officers have had to request documents from BN because the police internal censorship prevented access to the website. Teachers, social workers and many others carrying out important social and governmental functions are similarly denied access to vital information. It is impracticable for us to contact every public body in the UK to establish which are censoring us and contest it. This does result in harm. Conclusions It is essential that the present censorship regime is reformed. It is characterised by: • A near total lack of transparency • A near total lack of accountability • An overly simplistic approach • Censorship according to perceived popular prejudice instead of harm and benefit. Censorship must be evidence driven and it must be accountable. Neither are true at present and the harm done is widespread and sometimes serious. Freedom of expression is a joke unless the means are protected. There must be no extension of censorship until reform takes place. Saving a few adults from being discomforted is really not worth the consequences. Censors permitting, further information is available on the BN web site. 1 And numerous other indicators. See BN briefing note “Health and Well-being of Young People”. 2 Eg threatening “Indecent Displays Act”. Few people can afford to challenge their decision. 3 Eg North Norfolk DC censoring paintings. 4 Eg “Fairytale of New York”. Dec 2007. At first Radio 1 refused to butback down public pressure forced a change of heart [url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7150693.stm][color=#3b5998]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7150693.stm[/color][/url] 5 Eg travel programmes. No tops free or nudes on beaches. Mention of Naturism so rare as to be remarkable.