"Skins" Wins

The Parents Television Council has called it “harmful, irresponsible, illegal, and adult-themed.” In contrast, Newsweek’s Jessica Bennet calls it “the most realistic show on television.” Since its Jan. 11 premiere, MTV’s latest teen drama, “Skins,” has been surrounded by controversy and allegations that it contains child pornography—several of the actors on the show are under 18. This has prompted advertisers, including General Motors and H & R Block, to withdraw their participation from the series. In response to media attention surrounding the show’s provocative debut, network executives ordered producers to make the show’s content less offensive, before airing upcoming episodes. The only thing more disappointing than the show’s assertion that a significant portion of the teenage demographic lives only for sex and drugs, however, is MTV’s willingness bend to critics’ pressure. Although the show may very well portray teenage sexuality in a questionable manner, MTV should not censor it.

“‘Skins’ is life,” declares the narrator of an extended trailer for the TV-MA rated series about nine friends navigating the world of adolescence. But the meticulous innuendo and single-minded focus on sexuality featured in the pilot episode suggest otherwise. “Skins” is a far cry from the life of an average American high school student, and this could have triggered the exaggerated response to the series, and its implied threat of a scantily clad cultural revolution.

The show is nearly identical to the original, British version of the series, which initially generated a degree of controversy in the United Kingdom but continued to air unedited and is now in its fifth season. A major cause for the distinction between the reception of the show in the U.S. and in the UK may be the lack of a British equivalent to the PTC, an American activist group that has filed letters of complaint with the U.S. Senate and House Judiciary Committees as well as the Department of Justice requesting an investigation of MTV for child pornography and exploitation on the show. Although MTV announced its plans to make edits before the PTC’s letter was released, the PTC is seeking legal action against the network for the mere production of the content.

Journalist Emily Bell, of the British newspaper “The Guardian,” recently condemned the impact of criticism from the Parents Television Council on MTV and the show’s sponsors. “In a country where the first amendment is carefully guarded and often invoked, the PTC represents the unvarnished ‘moral majority’ view which is far removed from free expression,” Bell blogged in a post that featured a still from the show captioned, “No sex, please, we’re American.”

Just as a seemingly innocent kiss in the U.S. may be considered public indecency in Iran, a frivolous albeit raunchy youth soap opera from Europe is currently fueling media uproar in America. A major distinction between the U.S. and non-democratic countries is that free speech—rather than cultural, moral, or religious bias—dictates the media. From “Farenheit 9/11” to “The Glenn Beck Program,” the U.S. permits the distribution of politically charged, religiously diverse, violent, or otherwise controversial content that would be highly censored or banned by state-run media in many conservative countries. Moreover, since the U.S. heavily criticizes nations that ban media content inconsistent with their national values, we have little basis to impose censorship on risqué content here in the U.S.

Granted, the sensationalism of “Skins” raises legitimate concerns about the well-being of its purported target audience. According to David Carr of The New York Times, “MTV leaves it to real-life parents to explain that sometimes, when a car goes underwater, nobody survives and that a quick hookup with a cute boy at the party may deliver a sexually transmitted disease along with a momentary thrill.” Early speculation, however, is not reason enough to cancel the series. The show exhibits no obvious threat to public safety or national security. It merely presents the familiar theme of teenage rebellion in a blunt, explicit manner. As long as other sexually charged shows like “True Blood” and “Gossip Girl” continue to air despite drawing audience members of an impressionable age, “Skins” should not be censored.

Yes, “Skins” is vulgar, unrealistic, and perhaps unsuitable for its target demographic of all-American teens. We must permit its broadcast regardless. At stake are not high school crushes and teenage angst, but censorship and open-mindedness.

Tarina Quraishi ’14, a Crimson editorial writer, lives in Hollis Hall.