‘If they are already effectively performing this function, we do not see why the government has to step in.’
EARLIER this month, the Senate approved Senate Bill No. 2805 and passed it to the House of Representatives — where House Bill No. 7496 is pending — for concurrence. It is one bill that we hope will not pass, at least not during this 19th Congress which adjourns tomorrow.
The proposed Motion Pictures and Television Review and Classification Board Act, introduced nine months ago, needs further consultation — from the film industry that it seeks to promote, from children’s-rights advocates, as well as providers of what we commonly call streaming services but are more known as OTT or “over-the-top” services.
The bill seeks to broaden the scope of MTRCB’s authority which comes from a 41-year-old Presidential Decree No. 1986 and its 2004 implementing rules and regulations. A lot of things have happened since then that, while not necessarily threatening to render motion pictures and television as the potent cultural and political forces they once were as obsolete, have bumped them off the pedestal of preferred media entertainment and news and information, as well as a vehicle for commercial advertisement.
SB 2805, it seems, comes as a belated attempt to make a government agency — founded at least 10 years before the Internet began disrupting our existing concept of the media of mass communication — appear relevant.
We recognize, support and appreciate the desire of lawmakers to promote and protect the “physical, moral, spiritual, intellectual and social well-being” of the youth. They can find parallel goals in the Swedish Media Council, for instance, whose mandate is to “promote the empowering of minors as conscious media users and to protect them from harmful media influences.”
One key feature of the Swedish council, which is distinct from the Swedish Press Council under the Media Ombudsman, is that only films screened for children aged 15 years and below need to be submitted for classification. If the purpose of the Philippine bill is to protect the youth, then the Nordic model makes absolute sense. In short, movies and TV shows meant for grown-ups need not be classified.
We have strong reason to believe that the leading streaming services already classify their content. Netflix, the leading service in the country according to a company that provides streaming ratings worldwide, already considers the “violence, sex, adult language, nudity” in a TV show or movie, and posts the maturity rating on the show’s profile page.
If they are already effectively performing this function, we do not see why the government has to step in. Further regulation not only duplicates the function but also involves additional administrative costs. MTRCB charges fees of up to P5,000 to review movies for theatrical exhibition.
A more substantial challenge to the MTRCB Act would be the power to order an applicant to delete portions of a film or a show. While the original 1985 presidential decree allowed the Board to actually delete objectionable content, the subsequent IRR leaves the responsibility to “delete scenes, shots or dialogue” to the applicant. Ordering deletion just does not make sense. It merely smacks of censorship. Review and classification themselves already constitute prior restraint but they can be tolerated considering the special interest of children is involved.
Finally, we must consider that cinema and TV as we knew them before the Internet, social media and streaming have changed significantly. Someday soon there will be fewer movie houses because content will be streaming directly to consumers’ devices. Television broadcasting that depends on expensive transmission towers and radio frequencies faces serious challenges from the digital option.
