"The key difference there is that murder in films, unlike nudity, is simulated; in any case, most films graphically depicting murder would be given a higher classification." - davidgoesboating
Film certification is not concerned with whether or not what is shown on the screen is real, merely the depiction of certain events, be they real or simulated. Your point about films
graphically depicting murder is irrelevant when considering changing laws to fall in step with what is shown in films. There is a clearly defined difference between public nudity and nudity contained within a regulated media.
"If non-sexual nudity could be accommodated within a G-rating, then it would mean that such content could be screened to children of any age, shown on TV at any time of day and played in shop windows."
No. It couldn't be played in shop windows because the regulations governing public displays of visual media are not dependant on film board certification but public decency laws. The difference being that films shown in cinemas or on TV involve a level of consent on the part of the viewer (or parents of, when considering children). They choose to see, or not see, in advance, whereas random shops displaying visual media removes the decision from the accidental viewer. Also, DVD or BluRays are not licensed for public display.
As for media containing non sexual nudity being shown to children of any age ... I don't see a problem with that. I also don't see a problem with naked swimming and feel that the laws restricting the practice need to be relaxed and eventually removed, but it is wrong to try to link public nudity and film certification.
.
- - - - - - - - - - -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0e3tGxnFKfEhttp://tinyurl.com/LTROI-story
reply
share
davidgoesboating
9 years ago
OK, I see your point re: the difference between media content and public behaviour, although I sort of feel like they tend to follow the same principle. Having worked at a department store, I remember being told that we could put anything on the shop TVs so long as it was G, PG or M rated (no content with restricted ratings, i.e. MA or R). There was a general understanding that, even within those parameters, we still wouldn't put anything on with nudity or sex in it, but I think that was more an unwritten policy aimed at warding off complaints rather than any legal restriction.
Also, laws on these matters may differ from country to country, so we need to keep that in mind too.
We seem to be in agreement on the issue of how non-sexual nudity should be treated, though I think what I'm interested in is why this double standard exists and what the underlying principle is – i.e. that nudity is only offensive after puberty? Again, that doesn't seem to be reflected in public decency laws, as I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be considered acceptable for a 10-year-old to be naked in public.
reply
share
Jameron
9 years ago
Hmmm. I'm not sure if there is a legal difference between TVs inside the shop and those in the windows facing the street. People can choose to enter a shop but have rights of free passage on the street and shouldn't be inconvenienced going about their normal business.
Absolutely true, laws differ from country to country.
I don't think it is a deliberate double standard, I think the two branches involved have had pressure from different lobby groups. It is far easier to complain to the visual media classification body (a non Governmental organisation) and get slight incremental changes to codes of practice than it is to change the law of the land. The law of the land is not supposed to reflect the majority opinion of the populace, film board certification is, to a point.
.
- - - - - - - - - - -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0e3tGxnFKfE
http://tinyurl.com/LTROI-story
reply
share
davidgoesboating
9 years ago
Just to clarify, do you think there should be any laws regarding public nudity?
reply
share
Jameron
9 years ago
I don't think there should be many restrictions on public nudity, but there are a few obvious caveats.
No deliberate lewd or lascivious behaviour. There are already public decency laws in the UK governing this but they would have to be beefed up and enforced. If certain people use the relaxed public nudity laws to intimidate or offend others (you just know this will happen) and are allowed to continue, there will be a puritan backlash and we'll all end up having to wear burkaesque clothing .
No forced nudity. To force, coerce, or in any way manipulate another to appear naked, or semi naked, in public against their will would be an offence.
The owners, or tenants, of buildings (or land) will have the power to enforce a "no nudity" policy. Think of it as similar to an optional smoking ban in restaurants.
I don't want to enforce nudity on people but I want them to have the choice, within limits. The problem with the UK is that the weather is against outdoor nudity for most of the year.
.
[edit] Typo corrected.
.
- - - - - - - - - - -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0e3tGxnFKfE
http://tinyurl.com/LTROI-story
reply
share
davidgoesboating
9 years ago
No disagreements with any of that. Now, which party do we have to vote for in order to make this a reality? :)
reply
share