Thread by @bobyandika

So all these discussions about KPI reminds me of a debate round I had in 2008. It was Quarterfinals of ALSA UI, vs. SMAN 8 Yogyakarta (I was representing Kolese Kanisius). The motion was "This House prefers ratings over censorship" & my team was Proposition in that round.

First argument we launched was moral relativism: people have different standards of what "morality" is. Some would consider sex scenes to be obscene, others find it completely natural. The state shouldn't favor one moral standard over the other, which is what censorship does.

The harm of censorship is you automatically presume certain things are bad by using someone else's standards that might not be what others subscribe to. For instance, Call Me By Your Name is a queer movie. By religious standards, they are not moral content to be consumed.

However, the state should not enact religious standards as a universally accepted benchmark as they aren't the only source of morality existing. The dangers of censorship is that it's susceptible to majoritarian standards, which can be very restrictive and oppressive.

The key point made was on people's ability to opt in and out. If there are morally objectionable content you find distressing to consume, then you should be informed/warned so you have the choice to opt in or out, which is what ratings do by classifying movies based on content.

The second argument we launched was on importance of Parental Control. A lot of pro-censorship stances derive from the need to protect minors from bad content. The problem is, why are we delegating an important parental role towards the government? Why are we being a nanny state?

Parents should be actively involved in the child's construction of morality and the best way to do that is to have honest discussions. Censorship doesn't educate children, it only labels things as taboo-- and that is actually counterproductive to their understanding of the world.

Remember Sandy the Squirrel wearing a bikini & her chestal area were blurred out on TV? Kids don't actually get the message behind that. Is having female body parts taboo? Shameful that you must cover it up? There is nothing sexual about the depiction but censorship makes it so.

If you want to talk about dressing modestly, not showing off skin etc., then have that conversation with your child. Afraid that your child might be venturing out on the sexual path? Sit down and have a chat about sex ed with them. Censorship makes you complacent as a parent.

Comparatively, rating helps to encourage parent-child talks. This is why some movies are rated PG and PG-13, where parents are expected to watch together with the child and provide guidance to them. Honestly, movies help unpack heavy topics in a light manner, e.g.: Zootopia!

You as a parent should have the ability to decide if your child is mentally ready to consume something or not. That's why sometimes we allow 15-16yo to drive a vehicle because we trust them to make good decisions. If you don't think they're ready, then restrict their access.

The third argument we made was about artists' freedom of expression. Movies/TV shows are a medium of conveying thoughts, emotions, social commentaries, of artists. Hence, completeness of scenes are important in telling the full story and censorship limits the ability to do so.

For instance, The Deuce (TV show) discussed prostitution, requiring explicit scenes on sex, substance abuse and violence, because that's the reality they want to tell the world.

Precious (movie) deals with domestic abuse and teen pregnancy and had to use many curse words.

Censorship downplays their ability to deliver a compelling story. Ratings preserve it, but filters people who can process the content in a way that is rational and mature.

Censorship shapes the market, making it very saturated. I mean, look at the shitty sinetrons these days!

I remember the 2000s where Indo cinema was diverse & high quality. We had chickflicks (Dealova, 30 Hari Mencari Cinta), horror (Tusuk Jelangkung), queer comedy (Arisan!), history (Gie, Marsinah), & drama (Pasir Berbisik).

Sinetrons like Bunda, "P", Pernikahan Dini were awesome.

But now, most cinemas are focused on two things: sharia-inspired flix to pander to the conservative audience & romantic stories set abroad just so they can focus on the nature's beauty.

Sinetrons are azab-ridden and full of shit, the toilet is legit jealous. Thanks, censorship.

Rating allows artists & producers to create diverse content because they know market segmentations that will enjoy their work of art exist. They don't have to compromise between artistic vision & integrity in exchange for relevance in the industry, which is sadly the case now.

While I do acknowledge that freedom of expression isn't absolute, it should only be limited in instances where a direct, active, and substantial harm exist.

Given the harms are relative & parents have room to take preemptive action, there is little reason to support censorship.