Non-Coercive or Voluntary Societies

The Hindustan Times reports that director Ketan Mehta could face treason charges for showing Indian Independence hero Mangal Pandey in a poor light. While this is not the first or the last time that a ruckus has been created in the media about movies made in poor taste, what has changed this time is my reaction to it.

Previously, I recall being quite upset at ventures that targeted commercialization through titillation and sensationalism. My reaction was the standard line, the censor board is not doing enough. Upon applying a non-coercive framework, I am finding my previous reaction impossible.

First, we have the freedom of choice. If the movie Mangal Pandey is that awful (I did find it mediocre), then what is stopping us from criticizing it and not taking our business to the movie. What stops us from telling our friends how bad it is. Why must we force the govt to ban the movie?

Second, I have come to the conclusion that the censor board is a redundant body. Their classification criteria often defies logic and is mysterious. It is a good idea to have a censor board. However, a censor board works on a set of values that can be different for different people. Therefore, if a group of people find a need for a different censor board, they should be allowed to exercise their freedom.

This is actually quite a big business opportunity. In India, we are deluged with hundreds of TV channels and there is very little going on in terms of censorship. Government run departments have no incentive to respond to market demand. However, private companies may sprout up that can use technology and values to cater to an individual's censorship requirements.

So, suppose I am deeply offended by pornographic channels, or by Fashion TV. Instead of banning them, I could find a lot of value in purchasing a customizable censor that takes in my preferences and only allows channels that are suited to my tastes.

This idea can be extended to movies as well. Instead of banning a third-class movie and creating more publicity for it, we can subscribe to censor companies that tell us in advance what the movie will be like. So, in my preferences, I might indicate that I like historicals that are well-researched and show signs of scholarship. I could pay the censor company to tell me if its worth my time to watch a movie based on this criteria. A smart company can have a good value proposition by charging me far less than what I would spend on a couple of terrible movies.

Further, if a movie shows ignorance of research, like Mangal Pandey is claimed to be, I can factor that in from people's opinions and keep away from it.

While our sensitivities are in common, our traditional response needs to be re-evaluated. There is a huge scope for a non-coercive response.