The widespread availability of the video cassette has made the task of censoring what we can and cannot see almost impossible.
Whilst there are many people who believe this is not a problem there are also those who see censorship as both inevitable and desirable.Since 1983 both video cassette and video cassette recorders have been affordable and readily available. This has lead to films of all genres and classification being viewed by people of all ages. It could be said that this recent availability of films has been reflected in the increase of violence in young people. Probably the most famous incident of violence blamed on video nasties was the tragic murder of James Bulger in 1993.
During the investigation following the death of James Bulger it emerged that the two boys that killed him had recently watched one of the Childs play movies about a killer doll named Chucky. It later turned out that the boys who committed the crime had thrown paint over his body in a scene reminiscent of one in a Childs Play film. The fact that the boys had been influence, at least in part, by their exposure to violent videos cannot be disputed.The case of James Bulger could be said to show that television violence undoubtedly has an effect on its viewers.
Eron (1992) says, "There can no longer be any doubt that heavy television is one of the causes of aggressive behavior, crime and violence... Television violence affects youngsters of all ages, of both genders, at all levels of intelligence...
The casual effect of television violence on aggression, even though it is not large, exists."Atkin et al (1979) used a comparative study to investigate to what extent children are affected by watching violence on television and video nasties. They gave nine to thirteen year old boys and girls situations such as the following, 'Suppose you are riding your bicycle down the street and some other child comes up and pushes you off your bicycle. What would you do?' The response options included physical or verbal aggression along with options to reduce or avoid conflict. These investigations found that physical or verbally aggressive responses were selected by forty five percent of heavy television violence viewers compared to only twenty one percent of those who watched little television.
This study is supported by Bandura et al (1963). He found children who viewed an aggressive model on television were more aggressive in play.Looking at the above evidence it could be said that there is a definite link between the material viewed in video nasties and behavior in the people who watch them. Taking this in to account censorship is of course inevitable. There will always be the danger of people trying to force their views and beliefs on others and this is regularly done through forms of film media. This means there will always be people censoring these ideas and material to protect venerable members of society, namely youngsters.
Steps need to be taken to control what youngsters are exposed to in respect to video nasties. We are moving in to a world in which schools will have to teach children how to handle this material and parents will have to teach their children about what they are seeing whilst watching fictional films.There is another side to this argument that cannot be ignored. There are many people who disagree with the censorship of media. These people take on the view point that the censorship of videos and the media in general is helping to sterilize music, television and books.
If censorship is exerted over all entertainment media we might soon be seeing only one kind of entertainment, light, romantic and insubstantial.Just as there is evidence to suggest that video nasties do have an effect on people's actions, there is also evidence to suggest otherwise.Hearold (1986) carried out Meta analysis of over one hundred studies on the effects of violence in films,"Although fewer studied exist on the pro social effects the effect size is so much larger, holds up better under more stringent experimental conditions and is constantly higher for both boys and girls, the potential for pro social overrides the small but persistent effects of antisocial programs."Cumstock (1989) argues the point that pro social messages are designed to have an intended effect on the audience of a video whereas antisocial messages are not. This means, in theory, if a child watches a film containing both pro and antisocial messages it has received.
A different argument that could be put forward for not censoring entertainment media is that children are subjected to violence in the news everyday. Research has shown that almost nine in ten children aged between thirteen and eighteen have seen videos with an eighteen certificate but only one in ten children were upset by the violence contained in them. It has also been said that eighty four percent of children found violence in the news more upsetting than violence in films (Guy Cumber batch, Aston University). Mark Alperton, a researcher at the Institute of Education said,"The more real an image is. The more frightening they find it.
"He believes the efforts to increase regulations of videos puts forward by a number of child psychologists, notably Elizabeth Nelson, are misplaced.David Gauntlet, form Leeds University supports Mark Alperton. He suggests there is no proof that violent scenes on television and video prompt real crime. He has dismissed film censors and television watchdogs such as the Broadcasting Standards Council as "middle class nannies". He believes people can distinguish between real and fictional violence and so will not be as affected by video violence as people suggest. He also believes that children that copy video violence are only play acting.
There are many more arguments to suggest that censorship is not needed in regards to video nasties. Some people believe watching violence in films could act as on outlet for aggression in people so the aggression is not taken out on others, but this idea is questioned by Berkowitz (1984) who suggests that aggressive ideas in violent films may activate aggressive thoughts in viewers through their association in memory pathways. Perhaps the most logical argument suggests that although many, many people watch violent films only a minute percentage of these people actually imitate the violence they see in the crimes they commit. Another point that is closely related to the above is the fact that throughout the history of man there have always been murders committed that could be said to resemble murders in any number of present day films but of course, these film have only recently been available.
On a personal note I believe that the total censorship of violence in films is both unattainable and undesirable but these films will always pose a threat to impressionable members of today's society. To combat the harmful effects children need to be educated to understand the difference between fiction and non fiction. There will always be people looking for something to blame the evil crimes that continue to be committed on and whilst so called 'video nasties' continue to exist they will remain an excuse for many of the violent crimes committed in today's society.
