Introduction –
Censorship is defined as the alteration, suppression, or ban of speech or writing that is considered subversive to the general good. Censorship, as a term in English, dates back to the censorship office in Rome, which was created in 443 BCE. The census officer was in charge of the morality of the residents who were counted and categorised. However, regardless of its honourable origins, censorship is now often considered as a vestige of a less enlightened and oppressive era. For millennia, media censorship has been a global phenomena that has foreshadowed information channels. The maintenance of an orderly state is a frequent pretext for censorship, but the underlying aim is to keep the people ignorant of knowledge that could undermine authorities. In today’s world, global Internet access allows information to travel quickly within and beyond borders; as a result, an increasing number of media consumers rely on the Internet for a wide range of information. To counteract the information coup, tech-savvy journalists and independent reporters use social media, blogs, and the news websites online to disseminate information. The role of the media in a society is not confined to disseminating information; therefore, it is critical that the media does not profit from sensationalism that may harm people, sects, races, and religions.
Media filtering affects our news on a regular basis, even if we aren’t aware of it. While news reports are frequently trimmed for length, in many situations, subjective decisions are made regarding whether or not certain details should be made public. These choices are made for a variety of reasons: to preserve a person’s privacy, to protect media outlets from corporate or political ramifications, and to protect national security. Information that is deemed obscene, pornographic, politically objectionable, or a threat to national security may be suppressed by censorship. Governments, businesses, and academic institutions can all engage in censorship. Some forms of censorship are not controversial, such as preserving the identities of crime victims or preventing libel. While most countries have anti-censorship legislation, it is riddled with loopholes and frequently challenged in court. It is not illegal for authors, publishers, or other information creators to censor their own work. In India, Prasoon Joshi is the chairman of central board of film certification (censor board). The headquarters for CBFC is in Mumbai, Maharashtra. There are primarily 4 certificates that are issued by the censor board, namely, U – unrestricted public exhibition, UA – parental guidance for children below age 12, A – adult, S – viewing by specialised groups. There is a procedure to follow while granting a certificate. When it comes to granting a certificate, there is a protocol to follow. After assessing the work of art, the CBFC usually provides a list of “recommended revisions.” If the filmmaker who requested for certification is unsatisfied with the certification he or she received for the picture, or if he or she has a disagreement with the suggested list of revisions, he or she can appeal to the Revising Committee. The Revising Committee consists of the Chairperson and up to nine committee members, including members of the board and the advisory panel (with the exception of those who have already seen the film). The chairperson makes the final decision.
If you’re still not pleased, you can take your case to the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal is an autonomous organisation whose members are appointed for three-year periods by the government. A court can be used to resolve disputes that are not resolved by this body.
History
After multiple occurrences of nitrate film catching fire in theatres between the first movie screening in 1897 and 1909, the British created rules to ensure the safety of the film before it was licenced. Since the 1909 Act mandated that public screenings require a licence, local governments have utilised it to regulate not just the conditions under which the film would be played, but also the substance of the picture. In 1912, the British Board of Film Censors was established after a few perplexing years of everyone making up their own laws.
Indians were not just viewing but also making films by this period. The first full-length feature, D.G. Phalke’s Raja Harishchandra, was released in 1913 after scores of home-grown newsreels and shorts. A bill introduced in the imperial legislative council in 1917 acknowledged the “rapid development in the popularity of cinematograph and the increasing number of such presentations in India.” It suggested enacting legislation to safeguard public safety as well as the “protection of the public against indecent or otherwise unpleasant representations.” The Cinematograph Act of 1918, and with it, Indian cinema censorship, was born.
The district magistrate (or, in Rangoon, the commissioner of police) was given the ability to grant exhibitor licences, and the government was given the power to designate inspectors to review and certify films as “fit for public showing.” However, it did not specify what the inspectors should be on the lookout for. When censor boards were established in Bombay, Madras, Calcutta, and Rangoon in 1920, it became evident what a suitable film was—or, at the very least, what it wasn’t (a fifth was established in Lahore in 1927). These boards established a set of guidelines to determine the suitability of films for release, both domestic and international.
“No generally and rigidly applicable rules of censorship can be laid down.” The Bombay Board of Film Censors’ general principles began with these encouraging remarks, then went on to identify 43 unacceptable issues (the majority of which were lifted directly from a famous list made by politician T.P. O’Connor for the British censors in 1917). “Scenes holding up the King’s uniform to contempt or ridicule” and “Subjects dealing with India, in which British or Indian officers are regarded in an unpleasant light” were the most important rules. “Gruesome killings and strangled scenes” were also suggested to be avoided by filmmakers “, “Indecent dancing” and “Unnecessary showing of feminine underwear.” “Confinements” (no. 40) “—must have struck Indian directors as bleakly ironic, given that the non-cooperation movement began in 1920, and jails across the subcontinent were overflowing.
In 1959, the film Neel Akasher Neechey (Under the Blue Sky) became the first to be banned in independent India. The film was banned for two years in Independent India due to its blatant political overtones.
All about OTT & censorship:
OTT platforms clocked in extraordinary viewing during the global pandemic of Covid-19, when no other source of entertainment was available. The possibility of seeing new releases from the comfort of their own homes enticed the public, as did the premium material made just for the digital domain. The webspace was churning out superb stuff by the minute, from chick films to romance dramas and crime thrillers, and entertainment-starved people were devouring it. However, as the nature of material transformed from a communal experience on a 70mm screen to a personalised affair on 5-inch mobile devices, the nature of the content shifted as well. With no limits and the overwhelming success of some series, creators felt free to use explicit scenes and language that they would ordinarily avoid for fear of being rejected by the Censor Board and the audience. Every other web programme was soon engulfed in controversy, if not for the use of profanity, then for offending religious sensibilities or being too provocative. Tandav, starring Saif Ali Khan, and A Suitable Boy, starring Tabu, are two examples of this. Pankaja Thakur, the former CEO of the CBFC, believes that the term censor has a negative connotation and that the term regulatory should be used instead. A similar agency that governs film and television programming may be created by the industry itself for OTT. She went on to say that the most essential thing is to keep the government out of it since people don’t trust government authorities with creative entities in general. On OTT platforms, there is a lot of speculation about censorship. There are differing viewpoints on the internet, with the following rationale:
- The content over OTT should be censored because it is consumed by youth and it might have a negative impact considering the abusive language, obscene and explicit scenes, sensitive topics, anti-religious content, etc.
- There should not be a censorship but a certification for the content which will help the audience to segregate and consume the content.
- There is a need for self-censorship and film makers should inherently not include scenes and language that might hurt the sentiments of any group.
- The viewers should be given a discretion in choosing what they want to see. If the youth can make important enough decisions for the contribution of the country, they can surely make a decision of watching a particular film.
The Cinematograph (Amendment) Bill 2021 has been introduced. The proposed new regulations would grant the federal government “revisionary powers.” This means that, based on audience complaints, the government can cancel a film’s certification, even if the censor board sees no problem with its content.
The draught bill also includes clauses that would make piracy punishable by a jail sentence and a fine. It also aims to create age-based film classification.
A group of prominent actors and filmmakers wrote to the administration to express their opposition to the restrictions.
The letter was signed by 140 people, including Nandita Das, Shabana Azmi, and Farhan Akhtar, as well as filmmaker Anurag Kashyap. They said that the revisions will create an extra layer of censorship on top of the current system. “This will also put filmmakers powerless in the hands of the state, making them more exposed to threats, destruction, and mob censorship,” the signatories continued. New guidelines have also been implemented by the government, requiring technology and social media companies to remove content if requested by law enforcement or judicial officials.
If passed, the amendments will allow the government to “re-examine” a film that has already been cleared by the censor board. The measures, according to filmmakers, are an affront to their right to free expression. Films cannot be publicly screened in India unless they have been certified by the board, which is headquartered in Mumbai and has regional offices throughout the country. Films have been barred from theatres and festivals, requiring directors to make required cuts and adjustments. Reasons have included reportedly disparaging song lyrics, intimate or sexually graphic scenes, and contentious depictions of historical or legendary figures. Filmmakers fear that the Narendra Modi-led BJP government’s planned new laws will suffocate the process even more.
Digital media rules and its impact on OTT –
The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2021 intended to regulate and hold OTT video streaming services, social media outlets, and digital content providers more accountable within the Indian legal framework. It also encourages the use of new rating categories such as U/A 13+ and U/A 16+ to depart from the established ones. This is the coming of age of Indian society, as it strives to break free from the confines of being branded as a conservative country. Finally, the suggestions reflect the understanding and maturity of Indian youths and adults.
Level 1 contains self-regulation, Level 2 includes self-regulation via an independent self-regulating body, and Level 3 includes a supervisory system overseen by an Inter-Ministerial Committee. One of the key reasons for monitoring these platforms is to ensure that parental controls for content that is inappropriate for minors are in place. But the question on everyone’s mind is how far the restrictions on entertainment forms are justified, and whether they are even required.
Because customer contact is so important to the OTT model, strict regulation might stifle the industry’s growth by interfering with the kind of content that end users want to consume. Controlled OTT content might imply missed opportunities for filmmakers and performers who are lured to the technology for its creative freedom.
Conclusion –
I personally believe there is a need for regulation on the content available on the OTT platforms. A certification will surely help with the filter process for the viewers. However, it will be unfair to put stringent restrictions on the content as various real-life issues can get censored due to explicit content. The role of media and films is not limited to entertainment but also as a medium to highlight the problems and issues felt by the oppressed groups of the society. If blanket restrictions are imposed, then the awareness on such issues will never reach the audience.
