Governments are finding it harder and harder to censor information that they deem harmful
or potentially dangerous.
In a time where answers are just a swipe away, how will Governments rise to the challenge
of banning and censoring media that may have devastating consequences to its audience?
In the past, this was not so much of an issue but in the age of social media and streaming,
it remains to be seen how they will cope.
5 - Bare Fist Bare Fist: The Sport That Wouldn’t Die has
been rejected not once but twice by the BBFC (British Board of Film Classification) for
its raw depiction of violence and promotion of bare-knuckle boxing.
Bare-knuckle boxing has remained a controversial topic in the UK, whilst it is not illegal,
it does not fall under any regulating body, making it a lawless sport.
Bare-knuckle boxing clubs do not require a license to operate and the Government does
not usually get involved.
In 1997 Bare Fist was submitted to the BBFC for classification, however, it failed to
gain one after the board feared that it would encourage children and young adults to take
up bare-knuckle boxing with each other.
The documentary follows the life of Lenny McLean aka
“The Guv’nor” who is often described as “the hardest man in Britain.”
McLean was a boxer, criminal, bodyguard and weightlifter and the BBFC were concerned that
portraying his life in a positive light would have lasting effects on British youth.
It wasn’t just McLean’s life that the documentary displayed with the BBFC alleging
that the documentary gave details on how to win fights by lacing bandages with broken
glass and other tactics that could prove fatal.
The documentary was submitted a second time, however, the BBFC stood by their decision
to not give the documentary a classification.
Without a classification, the documentary was not able to be shown in cinema’s or
be released to home video.
4 - Titicut Follies Produced in 1966 Titicut Follies by Frederick
Wiseman has only ever been seen by a select few, after being shown at the 1967 New York
Film Festival, the documentary was banned and taken out of circulation and for good
reason.
The 1966 documentary follows Wiseman as he investigates the horrors of the State Hospital
for the Criminally Insane in Bridgewater, Massachusetts.
This was the first time that many people were confronted with the hard truths of insane
asylums as they got a first-hand look into how some of the most vulnerable in society
were treated with such disdain.
Upon entering the State Hospital for the Criminally Insane, viewers are met with scenes of 900
patients suffering from different levels of mental illnesses, all housed together, regardless
of whether they have committed violent crimes or not.
As one critic put it “we are literally taken into a madhouse.”
It is obvious from the start that patients are not being looked after properly and are
subjected to humiliation and neglect daily.
In the documentary, Wiseman focused on a patient who is simply known as “Jim”.
According to those who have seen the documentary, throughout the film, Jim is constantly taunted
by the guards who bully him and subject him to horrible punishments.
During the exchange, one guard can be heard shouting at him “Why’s your room so filthy
Jim?”
The next shot shows that Jim’s room is nothing more than an empty prison cell, devoid of
bedding, clothing or personal belongings.
Staff at the asylum are seen carrying on as normal, continuing to treat the patients with
indifference and cruelty, as if the film cameras aren’t there at all.
Throughout the documentary, patients are seen heavily medicated and left naked, in rooms
and corridors whilst others are subjected to “treatments” that have long been since
banned.
The controversial documentary also hears of the story of a man who had been involuntarily
committed to the Asylum for 2 years for being drunk in public, when Wiseman dug deeper into
the story he found that this conviction was beyond ridiculous.
According to the patient, he had painted his fruit cart to look like a Zebra, thinking
it would catch the eyes of customers and prompt them to take a further look.
However, Massachusetts Authorities spun the story, saying that the man was drunk in public
and insane.
Disturbingly, a 1968 study found that 30 inmates at the State Hospital for the Criminally Insane
had been admitted illegally, whilst others had been admitted for minor indiscretions.
As a result of the controversial documentary and study, a man named Charles was finally
released in 1967 after he had been arrested and placed in the asylum in 1910.
It was found that Charles was only supposed to be in the asylum for two years, but Massachusetts
Authorities had made it impossible for patients to access legal or financial aid to secure
their release.
This documentary remains extremely controversial and Massachusetts Authorities petitioned for
many years to keep the documentary under wraps over concerns for “patient confidentiality.”
On the surface this appears to be a thoughtful consideration by the authorities, however,
they most likely petitioned to keep the documentary suppressed as they didn’t want the world
to know about the horrors that went on inside the Asylum for the Criminally Insane.
3 - The Cannibal Warlords of Liberia In the early 1990s, Libera was gripped in
a bloody civil war as a result of the rebellion led by Samuel Doe in the 1980s.
Doe had overthrown the Liberian Government in the 1980s and went on to hold elections,
which he of course won, despite backlash from his opposition in the country.
Unhappy with what they saw as fraudulent elections, the NPFL (National Patriotic Front of Liberia)
battled with different rebel groups for control of the country, going up against the INPFL
(Independent National Patriotic Front of Liberia).
The civil war in Liberia is complex and involves many different groups, without going into
too much detail the INPFL won and took control of Liberia’s capital, Monrovia.
By 1997, the two groups, the NPFL and the INPFL had come together and Charles Taylor,
the leader of the NPFL was elected as the President of Liberia.
The Liberian Civil war had a devastating impact on Liberia, leaving much of the country in
ruins and without proper infrastructure and damaged beyond repair.
Families were torn apart and those who had taken part in the conflict had either been
put into prison or were suffering from mental health issues.
In 2012, Shane Smith and the team at Vice went to Liberia to meet up with the warlords
who took part in the civil war and to see what conditions were really like inside Liberia.
Smith and his crew were confronted with the horrific reality of an 80% unemployment rate
and deplorable living conditions.
The 2012 documentary titled “The Cannibal Warlords of Liberia” follows Smith and his
crew as they attempt to track down General Butt Naked (real name Joshua Blahyi).
After bribing prison officers and meeting up with different contacts, Smith and his
crew are finally granted the all-important interview with General Butt Naked who is keen
to show the world that he has reformed and become a better man.
Before the civil war took hold, Blahyi was a member of the Sarpo tribe and was appointed
as a high priest at just 11 years old.
Blayhi was then appointed as Samuel Doe’s spiritual advisor and when the civil war began,
Blayhi was called into action.
He went under the name of “General Butt Naked” a common practice amongst Army Generals
in Liberia.
Two Generals who fought each other were called “General Mosquito” and “General Mosquito
Spray” with the rival opting for that name to mock his enemy.
When asked why he had chosen the name “General Butt Naked” Blayhi explained that he believed
that if he and his troops were completely naked, that they could not be hit by bullets.
After examining the story of how General Butt Naked came to be, Blayhi takes Smith and his
crew to his village and explains how he is now a reformed man.
Following the civil war, Blayhi was pardoned of all crimes after converting to Christianity
and becoming a preacher and an anti-violence advocate.
The documentary remains controversial for its graphic content and honest look into Liberia
society following the civil war.
Many have also deemed it controversial for trying to portray Blahyi in a positive light,
which leaves the question, can someone like Blayhi ever be fully rehabilitated?
2 - Traces of Death In 1993 Damon Fox released the highly controversial
‘shockumentary’ Traces of Death.
Traces of Death styled itself after the film, Faces of Death but with one major difference.
Unlike Faces of Death, Traces of Death contains real footage of death and injury instead of
reenactments.
This documentary includes footage from well-known crimes, leaving family members horrified that
their loved ones' last moments have been allowed to be featured in a film.
It’s not just footage from disasters and murders that are featured, the documentary
also showcases the only video evidence of Isle Koch’s crimes.
Koch was an infamous commandant at the Buchenwald and Majdanek camps between 1937 and 1943.
The documentary also includes footage of animals being harmed and animals harming humans leading
animal rights groups to challenge the film and its home video release.
With such graphic content, it’s no surprise that the documentary came under fire from
critics and censorship boards.
Despite its initial controversy, Fox went on to produce 4 more films in quick succession,
with the content only becoming darker as the films went on.
Copies are available in the U.S, however, for our British viewers, it may be impossible
for you to get your hands on a copy.
In 2005 the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) decided that Traces of Death would
not be provided with an age certification, effectively banning the film, even for those
over the age of 18.
It backed up its decision by saying “The film has no journalistic, educational or other
justifying context for the images shown”.
Meanwhile in Australia, a copy of the box set featuring Traces of Death 1 - 5 was confiscated
in 2003 after their legal system deemed the documentary to “contravene Regulation 4A(1A)a
of the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations.”
1 - Citizenfour
The 2014 film Citzenfour is the third part of a trilogy of films that explore the aftermath
of 9/11 and the many conspiracies and theories that surround that tragic day in American
history.
In 2013, journalist and film director, Laura Poitras, had been working on a piece about
in-depth monitoring systems that had been put in place in the United States as a direct
result of the September 11th attacks in New York City.
These programs were created under the guise of keeping American citizens safer, but Laura
felt that there was more to the story than simple surveillance.
Over the years there had been rumors about illegal wiretapping carried out by the NSA
and other entities within the United States.
It doesn’t take long for Laura to receive an encrypted email from a person who only
refers to themselves as “Citizenfour”.
The man behind this email wanted to speak with her about extremely sensitive information
regarding her research.
So, in June of 2013, Laura decided to take a trip to Hong Kong to meet with “CitizenFour”
in a secluded hotel room, far away from the surveillance of the United States government.
It doesn’t take Laura long to realize that she has scheduled a meeting with the one and
only Edward Snowden.
Edward Snowden had previously worked for companies like Dell, but was eventually hired to work
with both the CIA and NSA.
During his time with these organizations, he was asked to carry out many shady dealings.
He repeatedly spoke with his superiors about the ethical concerns he had about these programs,
but his questions were continually ignored.
This caused him to reveal thousands of secret NSA documents to the public after reaching
out to Laura and taking part in her documentary, simply titled “Citizenfour”.
Edward hoped that, in doing so, it would open the American People’s eyes to the corrupt
dealings that are going on behind closed doors within the U.S. government.
The documentary goes on to claim that many of the illegal surveillance programs that
are being implemented by the U.S. Governments were put in place after 9/11 and that the
government merely used the 9/11 tragedy as a scapegoat for their own malicious deeds.