MobileRead Forums - View Single Post - Should e-Books be Rated (like movies and video games)?

i, Podius · 12-28-2008, 12:13 PM

It's not actually entirely true that books have never been rated - I have a copy of Brett Easton Ellis' American Psycho sitting on my shelf with an R18+ sticker on the front of it. From what I recall, when it's in bookstores, it's shrinkwrapped - just like a pornographic magazine! This is, of course, in Australia, so I can't speak to other countries, however, I also have a 1956 edition of Lady Chatterley's Lover which has, on the title page, the instruction "This book must not be introduced into the British Empire or U.S.A."

Also, in America, the rating system for films is not handled by the publishers or the government, but by the MPAA, which is an independent body. Furthermore, their classification system is actually voluntary - you don't have to get your film rated by them if you don't want to. However, they are such a powerful lobby that no theatre chain will distribute a film without an MPAA rating - effectively making it mandatory. Whilst the idea of a third-party "impartial" censor seems good in theory, it has the flipside that they are not beholden to anybody; they are not held accountable for their decisions, nor is their any oversight of their activities; in fact, they are incredibly secretive about the entire process - these are not qualities you want in a body that can effectively stop a film from being distributed, or, failing that, attach a rating that stops people from seeing it. The MPAA shows how, in practice, 3rd-party censors don't work. The documentary This film has not yet been rated gives an excellent look at this, if you're interested.

Personally, I feel that all forms of censorship are a bad idea - a person who needs someone else to tell them what they can and cannot see, read, or hear, is exactly the sort of vulnerable mind that needs to be protected from censorship. Why should somebody else be allowed to tell you what you can and cannot see? Why can't you make that decision for yourself, and what qualifies these other people to decide for you? And as for the whole "protecting the children" argument; if a parent can't take 5 minutes to read the blurb, or watch the trailer, or read a review of something their child wants to read or watch, and evaluate for themselves whether they feel it is appropriate, then that child has far more serious problems to worry about.

Then, of course, there is the fact that historically, most censorship has been reversed in the course of time - take a look at the Wikipedia List of Banned Books, and tell me if you'd really be happy with someone telling you you can't read Huckleberry Finn, or Ulysses - and that's just in the U.S.A. - how about Alice in Wonderland? And if that's doesn't do it for you, how about this: when it was first introduced, the Waltz was banned in many places. The censorship of the past is almost universally laughable - do we really want to open ourselves up to the ridicule of the future?

12-28-2008, 12:13 PM	#13
i, Podius Enthusiast Posts: 25 Karma: 258 Join Date: Dec 2007 Device: Dell Axim x51v, Bookeen CyBook Gen 3, Sony PRS-T1	It's not actually entirely true that books have never been rated - I have a copy of Brett Easton Ellis' American Psycho sitting on my shelf with an R18+ sticker on the front of it. From what I recall, when it's in bookstores, it's shrinkwrapped - just like a pornographic magazine! This is, of course, in Australia, so I can't speak to other countries, however, I also have a 1956 edition of Lady Chatterley's Lover which has, on the title page, the instruction "This book must not be introduced into the British Empire or U.S.A." Also, in America, the rating system for films is not handled by the publishers or the government, but by the MPAA, which is an independent body. Furthermore, their classification system is actually voluntary - you don't have to get your film rated by them if you don't want to. However, they are such a powerful lobby that no theatre chain will distribute a film without an MPAA rating - effectively making it mandatory. Whilst the idea of a third-party "impartial" censor seems good in theory, it has the flipside that they are not beholden to anybody; they are not held accountable for their decisions, nor is their any oversight of their activities; in fact, they are incredibly secretive about the entire process - these are not qualities you want in a body that can effectively stop a film from being distributed, or, failing that, attach a rating that stops people from seeing it. The MPAA shows how, in practice, 3rd-party censors don't work. The documentary This film has not yet been rated gives an excellent look at this, if you're interested. Personally, I feel that all forms of censorship are a bad idea - a person who needs someone else to tell them what they can and cannot see, read, or hear, is exactly the sort of vulnerable mind that needs to be protected from censorship. Why should somebody else be allowed to tell you what you can and cannot see? Why can't you make that decision for yourself, and what qualifies these other people to decide for you? And as for the whole "protecting the children" argument; if a parent can't take 5 minutes to read the blurb, or watch the trailer, or read a review of something their child wants to read or watch, and evaluate for themselves whether they feel it is appropriate, then that child has far more serious problems to worry about. Then, of course, there is the fact that historically, most censorship has been reversed in the course of time - take a look at the Wikipedia List of Banned Books, and tell me if you'd really be happy with someone telling you you can't read Huckleberry Finn, or Ulysses - and that's just in the U.S.A. - how about Alice in Wonderland? And if that's doesn't do it for you, how about this: when it was first introduced, the Waltz was banned in many places. The censorship of the past is almost universally laughable - do we really want to open ourselves up to the ridicule of the future?