The Kerala High Court stressed that while violent content in media can have adverse effects, any action taken in this regard must respect the fundamental right to free speech.

Background

• This ruling came during the consideration of petitions related to the K. Hema Committee report, which examined the working conditions of women in the film industry.
  • It orally questioned the extent of State interference when the Kerala Women’s Commission raised concerns about increasing depictions of violence in films.

Violence In Cinema

• Violence in cinema serves multiple purposes, from enhancing drama and engaging audiences to reflecting real-world conflicts etc. 
• It is often a core element in action and thriller genres, used for storytelling impact and character development.

Societal Impact of Cinematic Violence

• Desensitization: Repeated exposure can reduce sensitivity to real-life violence.
• Imitation of Violence: Some individuals, particularly children and teenagers, might imitate violent acts seen in films, leading to real-world aggression. 
  • Example: Money Heist series reportedly inspired real-life attempted bank heists in a similar fashion.
• Reinforcement of Harmful Stereotypes: Violence associated with specific groups can perpetuate biases.
• Normalization of Violence: The glamorization of violence in cinema may shape public perception, leading to greater tolerance for violent behavior.
• Gendered Violence: Some films depict violence against women in a way that reinforces misogyny and toxic masculinity.
• Fear and Anxiety: Graphic violence in movies, OTT (Over-The-Top) shows can induce fear, anxiety, or trauma, particularly in children and individuals with heightened emotional sensitivity. 
  • Example: Horror films like The Conjuring can induce long-term fear and psychological distress, especially in children.

Ethical Dimensions Involved In Depictions Of Cinematic Violence

• Freedom of Expression vs. Suppression of Creativity: The Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression and Reasonable Restrictions (Article 19(2)) allow limitations on grounds like public order and morality.
  • Filmmakers argue that violence is a legitimate artistic tool, essential for realism, storytelling, and restricting violent content can lead to suppression of creativity.
• Principle of Non-Maleficence Vs Filmmakers Autonomy: Filmmakers should ensure their work does not cause societal harm at the same time they should have the freedom to depict violence as part of creative expression.
• Harm vs. Offense: The discourse should distinguish between genuine harm (inciting violence) and mere offense to subjective sentiments.
• Filmmakers’ Social Responsibility Vs Creativity : Ethical storytelling requires contextual sensitivity, avoiding gratuitous violence, acknowledging its influence, and ensuring diverse perspectives. However, Restrictions in the name of social responsibility risk undermining creative integrity.

Key Judgments on Film Censorship and Freedom of Speech

• K.A. Abbas v. Union of India (1971): The Supreme Court Of India has recognized cinema as an important medium of artistic expression. It upheld pre-censorship but stated that restrictions must be reasonable.
• Bobby Art International v. Om Pal Singh Hoon (1996): The Supreme Court held that the film’s realistic portrayal of societal evils was essential to its message and should not be censored merely because it was disturbing.
• Prakash Jha Productions v. Union of India (2011): The Supreme Court ruled that state governments cannot ban a film solely based on anticipated protests, as that would violate free speech.
• Justice for Rights Foundation v. Union of India (2018): The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition, stating that viewers have the choice to watch or avoid such content, unlike cinema where exposure is more public.

Challenges in Balancing Freedom of Expression and Censorship

• Defining Acceptable Limits: The subjective nature of offensive or harmful content makes it difficult to set universally acceptable boundaries. What is offensive to one group may be considered artistic expression by another.
• Risk of Moral Policing: Excessive censorship can lead to moral policing.
• Ambiguity: Article 19(2) of the Constitution allows “reasonable restrictions,” but the interpretation of “reasonable” varies, leading to inconsistent censorship decisions.
• Vested Motives: Governments or political groups may use censorship as a tool to suppress dissenting voices or promote specific narratives.
• Restriction In Creativity: Fear of legal trouble or backlash often forces filmmakers and writers to self-censor, limiting creative freedom. It affects the ability of cinema to act as a medium for critique and reflection.
• Globalization: With OTT platforms and online content, enforcing local censorship laws becomes harder. Audiences can access uncensored versions of content globally, making strict regulation less effective.

Way Forward

• Principle of Proportionality: Restrictions on violence in cinema should be reasonable and serve a legitimate purpose, such as protecting minors or preventing hate speech, rather than outright censorship.
  • There is a need to ensure that state interference in creative expression is minimal and only exercised when absolutely necessary to prevent harm.
• Responsible Creativity: Encouraging ethical decision-making among filmmakers and viewers alike.
• Promote Inclusivity: Ensure that diverse voices, including women and marginalized groups, are represented in these discussions to address systemic issues like gender-based violence.
• Leverage Public Campaigns: Use social media, schools, and community programs to raise awareness about the effects of glorified violence in media.
• Uphold Constitutional Morality: Align legal frameworks with evolving societal values while safeguarding the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression.
• Age-Based Rating Systems: Classifications (e.g., PG, R, A-rated) help shield children from harmful content while allowing adult audiences access.

Conclusion

Ethical storytelling should be encouraged, not enforced through censorship. Public and constitutional morality should guide regulations, but not dictate artistic expression.

DOWNLOAD PDF