The world has a love/hate-relationship to age ratings. In my country – Sweden – cinema age ratings came about in the early 20th Century following mainly aesthetic criticism from what appears to be a loud minority. “Ugly hats” was one objection that may have contributed to instituting the Cinema Bureau – Statens Biografbyrå – which not only age-rated cinema films, but also banned and edited them. Yes, that’s right, the Swedish government removed parts of films as late as 1994. The last film to be cut by censors in Sweden was Martin Scorsese’s Casino. (The torture scene with the head in the vice was considered to graphic for Swedish movie-goers).
Walter Hill’s New York street gang interpretation of the Odyssey – The Warriors – was in 1979 considered so harmful that anyone who showed it to an audience could be sentenced to jail. Fast forward to 2015 when my eldest child participated in a theatre adaptation of this work organised by the municipality. I borrowed the dvd from the public library where it was found under “Children and Youth”. So times changes and so do the horrors that threaten our children. But this is not a post about folk devils and moral panics. It is about self-regulation.
The Swedish Cinema Bureau ended in 2010, some years after its director general Gunnel Arrbäck had resigned in protest that the government censored art. It was replaced by a voluntary system, where film distributors can submit films to get a formal age recommendation. No more bans or edits.
We all recognize rating labels like PG-13 from film trailers and end credits, and this rating system administered by CARA, is meant to help parents determine whether a particular movie is appropriate for their children to watch. No need for the government to step in, the independent Ratings Board formed by current parents who are making viewing decisions for their children. No tax money, no lengthy legal processes, no bans or edits. Freedom of expression intact, parental guidance provided.
In Europe, there was a similar development for video games in 2003 when PEGI, the Pan-European Game Information was installed. This came after pressure from then-Commissioner Viviane Reding in response to concerns about violent content. Resisting temptation to intervene, Reding said the industry should first get a chance to fix its own problem. Self-regulation “with teeth”, as Reding famously put it. PEGI has been in place for more than two decades and expanded far outside of Europe.
CARA and PEGI share some important functions: the ratings are to be clearly displayed in ads and trailers as well as the actual work. The ratings are decided not by the companies but through independent process: for CARA a panel of parents, for PEGI a questionnaire with corresponding scrutiny from independent experts. And: there is legal certainty – through proper procedure complaints can be made and heard. CARA is self-regulation but PEGI can rather be labelled as co-regulation as the ultimate decisions lie with the PEGI council, a body of experts appointed by the member states.
Of note – both CARA and PEGI are specific to their form of expression. It evolved from similar needs but with tailored structures and processes relevant for the specifics of games and film, respectively. It would make no sense to switch them! It would make no sense to slap them onto some other media. They were not copied willy-nilly from somewhere else in some act of desperation.
Self- and co-regulation has advantages over legislation: it is flexible to changes in the market, it is paid for by the industry (not tax-payers), it is stricter than legislation (a court must assume innocence). It needs to be solid and credible, with all the features described above.
I have often thought of something similar as an answer to Big Tech’s problems with its content. What if there was a standard for age ratings of online video? Maybe also other issues could be addressed with the same method: privacy, fake news. In advertising, press standards and many other places, self-regulation is the norm. In fact, I once had this conversation with a former Big Tech employee – why had they not considered self-regulation? The answer was depressing: there was no trust between the companies, they expected the others to stab them in the back at first opportunity.
But earlier this autumn, one Big Tech company actually tried. Hamfistedly. Meta simply copied the PG-13 rating and slapped it onto Instagram. It appears Meta did zero homework. No council of parents. No appeals process. No independent oversight. And of course no checking with the owner of the trademark – did anyone say move fast and break things?
How did it go? Not so well. But nice try Meta. If at first you don’t succeed, dust yourself of and do it right this time. Try not to think of it as damage control. Try to think of it as something that actually brings long-term value to your service. Perhaps even work together with your neighbours? With some effort, you could avoid both lawsuits and regulation. What’s not to like?
Full transparency: this writer has worked with PEGI, testified on PEGI in court in Sweden, advised the Swedish film-industry on the post-censorship age-recommendations, served on the board of the Swedish advertising standards organisation and posted on the topic of self-regulation more than anyone should do in a lifetime.
