Film censorship
A motion picture rating system is designated to classify films with regard to suitability for audiences in terms of issues such as sex, violence, substance abuse, profanity, impudence or other types of obscene content.
In practice, films still get a short cinematic run before they are reviewed and prevented from being shown at cinemas or released on DVD.
Also not included are the numerous pornographic films deemed too excessive to release under an X18+ category, which are refused classification by the ACB.
The project "Memory of Censorship in Brazilian Cinema" released in 2005 six thousand documents about 175 banned films during the dictatorship.
[2] "On August 20, 2009, the newspaper Folha de S. Paulo reported that Rede Record bought the broadcasting rights of the documentary from Ellis for less than US$ 20,000.
"[3][4] "On February 14, 2011, the newspaper Jornal do Brasil (quoting the network's spokesperson) reported that Rede Record would be broadcasting the documentary in 2011, on a date yet to be specified.
Since 1979 it can not be shown, at the request of his daughter Elizabeth through preliminary injunction granted by Justice, confirmed in 1983, for sentimental reasons tied with religious ideas.
In 1985, the lawyer Felipe Falcon moved an action to reform the judgment, by proposing the dispossession of the film by the state on cultural grounds, to the detriment of the heirs of Di and Glauber.
2004: In spite of everything, João Rocha ( director of Thuth Profane), nephew of the Glauber Rocha, has placed a copy on video on providers outside of Brazil: the internet users can make free downloads of the movie, proving that censor the cinema in digital age is useless.
The exception is Rio de Janeiro estate, where the film was forbidden due a lawsuit filed by the Democrats political party, who claim that the pedophilia scenes infringe the part of the Brazilian Constitution that protects children (Estatuto da Criança e do Adolescente).
[10][11] At present, only films containing prohibited material (such as child pornography) or under court order (such as libel or copyright infringement) are banned in Canadian provinces.
However, an ultra-conservative religious group filed an injunction to reverse the decision and in June 1997 the Supreme Court banned the film.
Similarly, BBFC cuts are often left in DVD releases, due to the difficulties in separating the two film supplies.
[20] In recent years, sexual scenes have been a major issue that pits filmmakers against the Media Rating Board.
[22] Some are instances of films being judicially found to be of an obscene nature and subject to specific laws against such material (i.e., child pornography).
The established film industry in the United States began a form of self-censorship in the late 1920s called the Motion Picture Production Code to forestall any possible formation of a federal censoring agency.
[26] The activists of current society continue to broaden the First Amendment rights for the film industry allowing the art to be restricted to a certain limit.
