After the release of the violent cartoon series Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, teachers all over planet Earth were horrified to observe little children in playgrounds karate kicking each other. When ordered to stop, teachers reported that the children were unaware that they were doing anything wrong. The "Turtles" had taught them that kicking each other was normal, fun behaviour.

Emergency room personnel in the USA coined the term "Evel Kneival Syndrome" to describe the phenomena of emergency rooms being swamped by the smashed, broken bodies of children and adolescents, who had been seriously injured imitating the on screen stunts performed by motorcycle stuntman Evel Kneival.

Emergency rooms were also seeing seriously burned faces of children and adolescents who were imitating the fire eating stunts of the pop group KISS. Worried about lawsuits, TV shows depicting dangerous stunts came with the warning "don't try this at home."

In 1979, a movie about violent youth gangs "The Warriors" was screened in the US. Theatre managers noted that entire youth gangs in full gang regalia trooped into the movies. When the movie was over, they trooped right out again where they often started shooting, bashing, and knifing at each other. Dozens were injured and three young men were killed.

In California, two adolescents were convicted of murdering a disabled man by kicking, beating, stabbing, and finally choking him to death. Before he died, one of the youths poured a container of salt on the man's severe wounds. When asked by detectives why he had done that, he replied "I dunno. I just saw it on TV".

Similar phenomena has been observed for many other movies, including Jackass, Point Break, Heat, Gone in 60 seconds, and Dead Presidents. Connections can easily be discerned where criminals and immature youths have used storylines as scripts for their own behaviour.

Children, adolescents and emotionally immature young adults are extremely impressionable and are great imitators of on screen heroes, but have difficulty understanding what is socially acceptable behaviour. Especially where a culture is tolerated which promotes anti social behaviour as the admirable behaviour of the fashionable and cool.

There are risks in whatever decision you make in regard to free speech and censorship. If a great degree of free speech is allowed there is the risk of extreme behaviour if that behaviour is suggested. Lego stated "Connections can easily be discerned where criminals and immature youths have used storylines as scripts for their own behaviour." This is quite true.

However, there are also risks in censorship. The criminal societies of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia were quite orderly. The ordinary citizen of those societies could walk the streets in safety as antisocial behaviour among the citizenry was not tolerated. Expression of the views of the citizenry was severely limited. Criticism of the government was not allowed. One problem with restriction of speech by government is that it results in speech criticising government as antisocial and therefore not allowed.

In those societies violence and speech were the monopoly of the state. Considerable violence went on out of sight in the concentration camps, but independent violence not sanctioned by the state or expression not sanctioned by the state was severely proscribed.

Australia is not going to have the degree of free speech allowed in the US. One example is the defamation laws which exist in Australia. They are incompatible with the US Constitution. Australia is also not going to have the degree of control that exited in the totalitarian societies.

However, my preference is for a greater degree of free speech as opposed to a greater degree of censorship. I think the US has it almost right. Greater disorder and loathsome expression appears to be an inevitable companion of greater freedom. I don't think Tyler should have been banned or restricted.

Your analysis is in error, David F

To start with, the topic under discussion is whether we should continue to allow our entertainment media to write songs which endorse contempt of women, as well as violent criminal behaviour, and drug abuse. It is about freedom of expression, not freedom of speech.

Equating any discussion on where we should redraw the line (which already exists on freedom of expression) with censorship in Nazi Germany, is a gross exaggeration. Even today, the democratically elected Federal Republic of Germany has very strict censorship of violent movies, because the German government accepts the advice of it's own behavioural scientists, that a causal link exists between violent media and serious violent criminal behaviour.

In addition, it is the USA which is now leading the world on research into the media inspired promotion of criminal attitudes, and its causal effect on crime rates.

The American Medical Association issued a statement in 1996 which read, "The link between media violence and real life violence has been proven by science, over and over again." The American Psychological Association also issued a statement at the same time which read "The scientific debate is over. There is absolutely no doubt that the increased level of TV viewing is correlating to increasing acceptance of aggressive attitudes and increased aggressive behaviour." In 1982, the US Surgeon General released a report which positively proved a link between violent entertainment and sociopathic behaviour.

The real problem that you have with media restrictions, DavidF, is that you have been culturally conditioned (like Pavlov's dog) by the media to think that "smart" people oppose restrictions on the media and "dumb" people support it. If only the tobacco companies had possessed the power of the media to condition people like yourself that "smart" people accepted that smoking did not cause cancer, and "dumb" people said it did, there would still be no restrictions on cigarette advertising today.

Unless you have the courage to examine this issue objectively, you yourself will have become the ignorant social conservative that you now so loudly denigrate.

LEGO as already stated I tend to the anti-censorship side of the debate but recognise that the active promotion of some views can promote genuine harm

The real sticking point is who gets to decide what it's Ok to denigrate/ridicule/attack and what its not Ok to attack and where are the boundaries.

For instance would playing of the movie The First Wives Club be allowed? Does it cross a boundary or would that promotion of male denigration and revenge be Ok? I don't recall off hand any movies that took a similar approach to financially mistreating women but if someone can think of any please feel free to add them to the question. I'm not trying to take a specifically gendered approach to the question.

Clearly the example of promotion of rape is in a different category but I doubt that the censorship lobby will happily stick at the extreme end.

R0ber

Dear Lego,

I had hoped we could continue this discussion without calling names or attacking each other.

You wrote: "Unless you have the courage to examine this issue objectively, you yourself will have become the ignorant social conservative that you now so loudly denigrate."

I feel no need to justify myself by attacking you so will end my part of the discussion.

Hi RObert.

Australia already has the Office of Film and Literature Classification to oversee the entertainment media. Unfortunately, until recently, the board was packed out with David F clones who refuse admit that any movie, video clip, song, or computer game could have any negative social consequences.

It is rather funny when we have a brahmin caste of people like David F who think that they are intellectually and morally superior to everyone else, who can not see the self evident danger of having rap stars singing misogynistic songs to the very sorts of low intelligence and crime prone young men, who have real resentments towards females. The very ones spuriously accusing Tony Abbott of misogyny suddenly acquire acute myopia when confronted by rap artists openly endorsing the idea of "smacking my bitch up."

Do we as a society approve of violence by men towards women?

If the answer is no, then why do we tolerate an entertainment media which promotes, endorses and thereby legitimises the act of committing violence towards women? Especially media directed at the very sort of demographic groups most likely to already harbour such attitudes and who are the primary perpetrators of violence towards women?

Rap music is very popular among young Muslim men who already have culturally conditioned misogynistic attitudes. This "music" simply reinforces those attitudes. Aboriginal women in the NT are 140 times more prone to domestic violence than white women. Surprise, surprise. Young aboriginal males are very enamoured of rap music.

The solution is simple. First, put immigration restrictions on any visiting artist who sings songs endorsing violence towards women. Secondly, ban the importation of any new media endorsing or promoting violence towards women. I know that there are a million ways around that second solution now, but that is not the point.

We are allowing media companies to effortlessly make obscene amounts of money by providing our most problematic male demographic groups with role model heroes who are openly endorsing the idea that contempt for women, and violence towards women, is socially acceptable among their particular peer group.