Let us look at what is an acceptable level of violence in media entertainment, by examining its purpose and extent.
I believe that some forms of violence are legitimate in entertainment, such as those which create: the excitement of battle; admiration of strength; hatred of the villain; and satisfaction of desire to see revenge upon the villain.
A cowboys and Indians film would be pretty boring if instead of shooting and firing arrows they played chasings. A certain level of violence is necessary to create the excitement of battle, although the violence does not need to be graphic.
There is also nothing wrong with admiring the strength of Tarzan as he saves Jane from a hundred cannibals. Strength can best be shown by contrast in a scenario with some violence.
The audience should identify with the side of good rather than evil. Some violence toward the innocent can create hatred for the villain and a desire to see him defeated. Whilst theoretically there is nothing wrong with some violence for this purpose, the level in many modern films is excessive. It would be better to focus on the grief to the relatives of the victim, to engender sympathy, rather than to horrify by focussing too explicitly on the crime itself.
The desire for revenge upon the perpetrators of evil is a legitimate part of our nature. David says: The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance. (Psalm 58:10) Therefore some violence in the media for this purpose is acceptable, such as when the villain is shot. But it is not acceptable to enjoy violence for violence’s sake in any context. God says: I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked. (Ezek 33:11)
Even violence, which may theoretically be for an acceptable purpose, may be evil in its effect, if the level of violence is too high or if it is too explicit. The argument that the depiction of violence must be explicit to be realistic cannot be sustained. Policemen investigating crimes of violence often need counselling, and no one can argue that the purpose of entertainment should be to cause such distress.
Unfortunately many have become callous to human suffering and can now view excessive violence without distress. People today can view violence which forty years ago would have caused much distress. This is obviously due to repeated exposure to violence in the media, and is not good.
No one should think that censorship is as simple as black and white. But no one should be so dishonest as to say that because grey exists, black is as good as white. The majority believe in a good God, and in good and evil.
So we should not listen to those who say that before censorship is exercised every evil in the media must be proved beyond reasonable doubt to result in crime. Callousness and lack of emotional love due to evils in the media are difficult to measure, and society has the right to prevent itself from degenerating.
Censorship is in line with the Christian philosophy that although righteousness should not be enforced upon earth in all respects, positive values should be promoted.
But although Christians may not always be able to control censorship, as they would like, they can control their viewing. After listing other virtues, Isaiah says he: that stoppeth his ears from hearing of blood, and shutteth his eyes from seeing evil; he shall dwell on high: his place of defence shall be the munitions of rocks: bread shall be given him; his waters shall be sure. Thine eyes shall see the king in his beauty; they shall behold the land that is very far off. (Isaiah 33:15,16)