I am glad to speak to the House on a topic which has been the subject of much public debate over the past few decades and which has generated deeply held feelings about the relationship between individual rights and the State's duty to balance the expression of those rights and the public interest. In few areas has this process been more evident or challenging than in censorship and the laws providing for such censorship.
Our legislative attempts to address this difficult area stretch from the early part of the century with the Censorship of Films Act, 1923, up to the Child Trafficking and Pornography Act enacted last year. These two extremities represent the greatest illustration of the changes which have taken place in society throughout the century.
Speaking in the debate on the Censorship of Films Act, Professor William Magennis, who was to become the first chairman of the Film Appeals Board, proposed that film censorship was essential because people, especially the rising generations, required to be protected from an environment which was not conducive to good morals and that they required to be saved from themselves. While the general tone and tenor of that statement may not have weathered too well over the decades, part of it rings sharply and accurately true concerning the issue of the protection of young people. In 1923, no one would have anticipated the challenges posed by the prevalence of child pornography and the ease of distribution represented by the Internet. Who would have foreseen the emergence of the home video and the proliferation of satellite channels which defy the physical boundaries of national jurisdictions?
These changes have not simply been technological. The past 20 years in particular, have seen fundamental changes in the social, cultural and religious values of Irish society and pose serious challenges to the appropriateness and effectiveness of current censorship legislation. I am aware that the growth of indecent and obscene material, coupled with phenomenal changes in media technology, has put great strains on those parts of the legislation which have their roots in other times. Changes in public attitudes and the area of censorship have served to compound these strains.
Before discussing my response to these issues, I would like to outline briefly the overall content and thrust of the present censorship laws. The legislation is quite detailed and I propose only to touch briefly on its main aspects. There are three main censor statutes, each relating to a particular medium. The Censorship of Publications Acts cover books and magazines, the Video Recordings Act covers videos and computer games and the Censorship of Films Acts govern films. The Child Trafficking and Pornography Act, 1998, addressed the issue of child pornography, an item not dealt with specifically in the older legislation.
The mechanism of censorship for the different media works in different ways. For publications, the first step in censorship is to get the publication banned. Once it is banned, it is then a criminal offence to sell, advertise or distribute any such publication. An important feature of the system is that the initiative for getting a particular book or periodical banned lies with the general public. Complaints may be made by any person to an independent Censorship of Publications Board whose decision can be appealed through an appeals board. A complaint must be accompanied by a copy of the book, or in the case of a periodical magazine, by three recent copies.
There has been no significant review of this legislation since the main Act of 1946. Accordingly, at present, this is not without flaws. I am aware, for example, that arising from modern publication and distribution methods for magazines, particularly those involving dubious conduct, there are logistical problems in using the system for getting such publications back. Problems also exist with the definition of obscenity and indecency. Despite some attempts to legislate in this area, interpretation difficulties have arisen as public attitudes and values changed over time.
The enforcement of the Act lies with the Garda, although the Customs and Excise service also has certain powers to search and seize indecent or obscene printed material, including pictures or magazines. There has been a significant number of seizures by the customs in recent years. From 1995 to date, almost 50,000 magazines have been confiscated.
The censorship of films is carried out by means of a system of certification by a film censor. No film may be shown in public without a certificate. Persons aggrieved by the censor's decision can go to an appeals board. The issue of defining obscenity and indecency also arises in this context and in practice, in the absence of a legal definition of the terms, the interpretation of the censor prevails.
The wording of the 1923 Act best reflects the points I have been making about the problems of definition in terms of the criteria for refusing a certificate. It refers to the film being " . . . indecent, obscene or blasphemous . . . " or because the exhibition of it would " . . . tend to inculcate principles contrary to public morality or would be otherwise subversive of public morality". This is a difficult interpretation task. As with the censorship of publication legislation, there has been no significant examination of the adequacy of the film censorship legislation to modern times. I am aware that a number of practical difficulties have emerged which will require some amendments to existing legislation. However, I believe that the film censor has used the existing legislation to good effect. He has in practice moved from a censorship environment to a content regulation approach, thus reflecting a more modern view geared to the protection of children rather than the protection of adults, an approach which, it might be argued, dominated the early years of censorship.
The emergence of home video technology has set new challenges for censorship legislation. The Video Recordings Act, 1989, has wide-ranging provisions which focus on the supply and importation of video recordings. The film censor has a pivotal role in the Act. Three levels of control are applied. First, the Act contains provisions for the licensing of wholesale and retail video outlets. Second, it provides that the film censor may, on grounds specified in the Act, prohibit the supply of video films which he considers unsuitable for viewing. Third, it provides for the classification of videos in terms of their suitability for viewing by different age groups. The censor's decision on prohibition and classification can be appealed to an independent appeals board. The licensing of wholesalers and retailers, including video renters, is an important part of the overall control under the Act. Licences can be forfeited by order of the courts for breaches of the Acts, such as renting prohibited videos.
I have been concerned for some time about the increasing levels of violence depicted in some video games. Under the provisions of the 1989 Act, video games are exempt from classification and certification by the film censor unless the game in question would be likely to cause persons to commit crimes, incite hatred against groups, deprave or corrupt by the inclusion of indecent or obscene material or depict acts of gross violence or cruelty. Until recently video games on release here did not pose such problems but this situation is changing. My Department has been in contact with the film censor and the major distributors of video games about this matter. Procedures to deal with video games submitted to the film censor are being worked out at present and I expect he will shortly be in a position to process any such games submitted for certification and classification.
There is also the issue of the proliferation of telephone sex lines and related services, many of a highly dubious content. The regulation of premium rate telephone services supplied by service providers based in this country is handled by Regtel, the body established for that purpose in 1995. Where such services originate outside the State – it is the case that many originate in far flung locations outside the European Union – the question of their regulation and control becomes extremely complex.
I made a brief reference in the beginning of my statement to child pornography. I remind the House that the possession of child pornography in any form is in itself now a criminal offence under the Child Trafficking and Pornography Act, 1998, which is designed to address the holding of such material on a wide variety of media, including the Internet.
Reference to the Internet brings me to a final general point which I wish to make regarding the issues involved in any review of censorship legislation. Major changes in technology have forced us to examine and re-assess almost every aspect of the administration of Government. This re-assessment and adjustment is now a universal requirement and extends from issues relating to electronic commerce to our potential for delivering State services through new and more efficient electronic-based systems. The need for adjustment is equally felt in the area of censorship. Whereas our approach to regulating the traditional media was based on the very physical existence of books, magazines, film reels and video cassettes, the new borderless world of multimedia technologies such as the Internet, together with the emergence of specialised and satellite-based entertainment channels, pose special challenges to older regulation systems. Already the relationship between the film censor's office and new emerging regulatory authorities, such as the Independent Radio and Television Commission, are the subject of discussions and negotiations between my Department and the Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands.
We are in a time of enormous change to which we must respond. The traditional and easily policed outlets represented by cinemas and video shops are now giving way to the unpatrolled highways of the Internet and satellite dishes. This is shaping our attitudes to censorship. In the new millennium we may have to move from censorship to content assessment and guidance. Our efforts will increasingly focus on the protection of children rather than on media censoring for the adult population and from State intervention to increasing parental responsibility. This point has already been made in the report of the working group on the illegal and harmful use of the Internet which stressed the need for sensible and practical involvement by both parents and educators.
However, delicate balances must be struck in what is a sensitive and complex area. The issues must be carefully analysed. There are and always have been debates about what constitutes acceptable material with an erotic as opposed to a pornographic content and the boundary line shifts in this regard over time. It is against the background of everything I have said so far that I decided to carry out a review of the censorship area in line with my Department's strategy statement covering the period 1998-2000. This contains a commitment to review the legal and structural arrangements which apply to the censorship and public order aspects of books, films, videos and on-line services. This is taking place in the context of an organisational review of the Film Censor's office. The organisational review has now been completed and its recommendations are being implemented.
The report of the working group on the illegal and harmful use of the Internet contains a number of recommendations and my Department is finalising extended discussions with the Internet service provider industry on these recommendations. Work is well advanced on the preliminary examination of the framework for this review. While I do not wish to anticipate the recommendations, I am aware that a number of urgent, practical issues in some cases arising simply from the age of the existing legislation fall to be addressed in the short term. I expect that proposals for change in this area will be available for consideration by Government by the end of the year.
As we move into the new millennium there are huge challenges facing us in this important and sensitive area of censorship. As I have already indicated, these challenges must be faced. I believe that the current review is a significant step in that direction.
