This was more of a copyright claim than censorship.
They could literarily have broadcast the same thing with muppets instead of the official footage and that would’ve been ok and a large part of wishes they had done just that.
“We wanted to show you footage from the House of Commons but due to a 1743 law we can’t so here it is reenacted with sock puppets...”
This would’ve been even better in my book.
Copyright claims that result in reduced access to media are censorship.
But censorship is censorship, and when we refuse to call it by its name, we allow ourselves to forget that there is a powerful force controlling what we can see and consume. That kind of power must be checked, and checked always, and we must constantly re-affirm our consent to that power just as often.
This is HBO likely not being familiar with obscure British legislation as some others have pointed out they had to use dogs instead of actual
SCTOUS footage as there is a US law that forbids footage of the Supreme Court from being used.
The fact that you even consider this censorship only proves you likely never experienced what true censorship means.
There’s no law enforcing this except those which give the judges full control over their proceedings. They could let CNN in tomorrow if they so decided.
The speech isn't being restricted. The background footage is.
Even if it is a stupid law.
Why should taxpayer-funded creations be copyrighted? They should be in the public domain by default, like in the U.S.
This stuff is just generally odd.
HBO just didn’t realized it when making this programme, they have had to avoid other similar limitations by using dogs instead of supreme justices due to similar restrictions in the US.
I wish we would adopt this, not that I watch live television anymore though but plenty of people still do.
"Joe Smith once let his dog crap on a lawn, Joe did not pick it up, do you want Joe in office? Paid for by the committee to help the group to help the council to elect Jane Doe"
Next commercial break
"Jane Doe uses 3 cans of hairspray a week yet claims to care about the environment. Jane only cares about her hair. Paid for the by the cabal to support the organization of the committee of electing Joe Smith'.
> In 1738 the Commons fought back, declaring that it was a "high indignity and a notorious breach of privilege" to report what was said in the Chamber, even when it was in recess. 
“The chapters currently valid are c.1, c.4, and c.15 (often referred to as the Distress Act 1267), which seek to govern the recovery of damages ("distresses") and make it illegal to obtain recompense for damages other than through the courts, and c.23 (the Waste Act 1267), which seeks to prevent tenant farmers from "making waste" to land they are in tenancy of.”