Crc Key

979 views

Published on

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
979
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Crc Key

    1. 1. 1.INTRODUCTION
    2. 2. 2. PHILOSOPHICAL POSITION A. The need for a fundamental rather than incremental review 1. How the internet changes the game 2. Why we need to trust our citizens to decide
    3. 3. B. Our Position: “Yes to regulation, no to censorship” i. Does not mean that we are asking for a “free for all”. ii. “No to censorship” means content should be allowed unless there are transgressions of universally accepted codes (those against murder, child pornography, incitement to violence)
    4. 4. In other societies, we would say “transgression of laws”, but here, the laws are so restrictive that too many things which are not universally condemned are also deemed illegal.
    5. 5. C. The purpose of regulation (i) To give information so people can decide (ii) To protect two groups: (a) Children, from content they are not ready for or not ready to consume unless guided by adults. (b) Adults, from inadvertent exposure to content which they might find offensive
    6. 6. i.e. to ensure people are not forced to see what they don’t wish to see. (iii) Not to protect people from being offended that material which they don’t approve of should exist and is being consumed by willing and informed adults.
    7. 7. D. The principles of regulation (i) To give information to adults so they can have choice (and be protected), rather than censoring content (ii) Designation of "safe" zones and times where nothing objectionable can be shown (iii) That government allows material doesn't mean it approves of it: But it should take approach of "censure rather than censor”.
    8. 8. E. The Myth that “Censorship is History” (i) Why censorship is as prevalent as ever: cases studies referred to. (ii) Why the myth exists: censorship going becoming procedural, and the use of the incorrect slogan 'From censorship to regulation'.
    9. 9. 4. ADMINISTRATION OF CENSORSHIP & REGULATION (i) How the present rules are not good enough in terms of: a. Lack of clarity of rules and process. b. Lack of transparency of rules and process. c. Lack of transparency in telling public about what is censored and the deliberations which led to it d. Dependence on who the censoring official is. (ii) How the present rules are not even followed. Examples.
    10. 10. 5. REGULATION & FUNDING (i) How ratings and other regulatory measures now has a negative impact on funding for artists. (ii) In principle people who want funding should either abide by rules of funder or should not ask for funding, but in practice this poses a number of difficulties.
    11. 11. 6. Consequences of Censorship (i) Freedom of speech of artists. (ii) Freedom of choice and freedom of access for public/audience. (iii) False sense of security on part of parents who think that government can and is censoring. Better to not pretend that people can be shielded and then to put effort into educating the population about dealing with the content.
    12. 12. (iv) Prevents society from becoming stronger by talking through difficult issues that have been censored. (v) Detrimental to the creativity, and hence development of the arts and creative industries.
    13. 13. 7. CASE STUDIES
    14. 14. 8. COUNTER ARGUMENTS AGAINST ARGUMENTS FOR CENSORSHIP (i) “People have base instincts” aka “society is not ready” (ii) “People will not observe the regulations” (iii) “How does that help society” (iv) “But we are a conservative society” (v) “Artists don’t understand the concerns of concerened parents.”
    15. 15. 9. ANNEXES (i) A review of past censorship reviews (ii) Our reservations about the process of the current review (iii) Arts community proposal 2003 (iv) Weng's column to ST on regulation vs censorship (v) Our consultation process
    16. 16. ARTS ENGAGE CORE Tan Tarn How <tantarnhow@gmail.com>, T. SASITHARAN <sasitharan@mac.com>, Alvin Tan <alvintan@necessary.org>, Paul Rae <paul@spell7.net> Tan Pin Pin <pin@tanpinpin.com>, Jasmine Ng <ngkinkia.jasmine@gmail.com>, Tay Tong <ttong@singnet.com.sg>, Sun Koh <emailsunkoh@gmail.com>, June Yap <yapjun@gmail.com>, Audrey Wong <wyen2@yahoo.com>, Ong Keng Sen <okengs@singnet.com.sg>, Loretta Chen <loretta@zebracrossing.com.sg>, Tien Woon <tien@post-museum.org>, Weng Choy Lee <wengchoy@mac.com>, Lucy Davis <lucydavis77@pacific.net.sg> Audrey Wong < audrey@substation.org>

    ×