Censorship

[dposse]

What do you think about censorship? I think that censorship is wrong. I don't like censorship because I believe that if you don't like something on TV or on the radio, all you have to do is not watch or listen to it. Also, I've been reading in my local newspaper that some parents are thinking about censoring books in librarys. I think that this is completely stupid! The librarys already don't allow books that might be harmful, but they don't censor books. A few years ago some people didn't want Harry Potter books in librarys because the magic spells could be "religious", which is dumb because Harry Potter is a childrens book. So, what do you think about censorship?

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

Well there's a certain limit to everything, and I feel that although often censorship is stupid, there are times when it's necessary. I don't like censors "kiddifying" things like Batman cartoons and anime, if that's what you're concerned about. But they can censor "Timecop" all they want, because the less of that movie is on TV the better.

Seriously though, it really depends what you're censoring. Swearing on something like South Park doesn't have to be censored in my opinion, because it's no secret what they're saying anyway. Hentai on afterschool daytime TV, well that might have to be censored if it ever gets to that. (Though personally I wouldn't give a damn.)

But you're concerned with the conservative and religiously-influenced censorship that often happens, and I agree that it's really stupid, ignorant, and unfair. Unfortunately, many people really feel morally righteous, and see it as their responsibility to make sure nothing "questionable" is out there. I hate those people, because in the end all they do is impede progress.

[Godelsensei]

[COLOR=Gray][FONT=Courier New]You have to realize that some people are just, well, stupid, to be blunt. As far as wanting to censor Harry Potter goes, wouldn't you have to believe in the stuff to try and involve yourself with it? *sigh*

In my opinion, material that contains swearing, sex and violence is fine, when it comes to literature. What is [I]not[/I] fine, is if some one tried to publish a book that was racist, sexist or a fine example of any other -ism.
Hate material is different from bold self-expression.

Remember that entire business with Catcher in the Rye? How a student in grade seven found it on her teacher's desk, and then he told her that she would enjoy it? So, she brings it home, and leaves it on the counter. Mom comes along, flips through, and WITHOUT READING IT, decides it is disgusting, because it contains the words "piss" and "snot".
She tried to get it banned across the country, but the judge said it held great literary value. Go figure.

*laughs *** off*

As long as material is not extremely racist or sexist, it's pretty much fine by me. *shrug*

EDIT: There was once a guy who petitioned for the word "Green" to be censored out of all written and spoken media. Why? Because it's "the colour of the Devil" or some bloody thing. All you can do is pity [I]that[/I] poor soul. *rolls eyes*

[/FONT][/COLOR]

[DeathBug]

[QUOTE=Godelsensei][COLOR=Gray][FONT=Courier New]
In my opinion, material that contains swearing, sex and violence is fine, when it comes to literature. What is [I]not[/I] fine, is if some one tried to publish a book that was racist, sexist or a fine example of any other -ism.
Hate material is different from bold self-expression.
[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]

[color=indigo][size=1][font=comic sans ms]I'm not trying to call Godelsensi out in particular, but the way of thinking that statement represents is a bit flawed in the least, and dangerous at the most.

If I'm Amish, profanity, sex and violence are just as offensive to me as sexist jokes are to a woman, or racist jokes are to a minority.

If I'm a rascist, what I'm saying wouldn't be hate material; it would be bold self-expression, because I would believe in the message.

Do you get the problem? What is hateful or offensive is relative. The general society must reach a consensus on what is acceptable to be out in the public. To view swearing, sex and violence as "fine" while "-isms" aren't is hypocritical. Yes, the "-isms" listed are incredibly offensive, and most educated people would find them pointless. And I wouldn't mind, personally, if the people who espout hate material collectivly decided to shut the hell up.

But the fact remnains that censorship and freedom of speech are two-way streets. You must take the bad with the good.

The problem with censorship is that most people view it in "All or nothing" terms; as in, either there can be any and all sorts of sex and violence everywhere, or you're trying to strip away our freedom of expression.

Like I said before, though, the society must agree on a set of boundaries. Porn, for example, is produced. As a society, the majority of us decided that it wasn't appropriate for the public eye. You can still get it, but you have to get it through different channels. (Figurativly and literally.)

Do I think things should be censored willy-nilly on the chance that some might find it offensive? No. However, do I think that any forms of expression should be paraded about in the public eye? Also, no. [b]Balance[/b] is needed. The problem today is that it seems the political and social scenes are becoming increasingly polarized, with little room for compromise.

Oh, and even if you disagree with conservative or religiously-minded folks who try to censor things on grounds you don't agree with, you must still remember thatt heir political voie is just as valid as yours is, even if you think differently from them. Like I said, two-way street. :D [/color][/size][/font]

[Godelsensei]

[COLOR=Gray][FONT=Courier New]I'm not talking about books like Huck Finn, where they reffer to black people in a derogatory manner. You probably knew that, though.^^""

I'm suggesting that if a virtual reincarnate of hitler (who's name will not be capitalized) came about spewing nonsense about how all Jewish people disserve to die, and tried to rally people against said group, then there is every reason to censor them.

I'm talking about extremist messages here. If some one published a book strongly encouraging the mistreating of women, or the discrimination of a certain ethnicity, it becomes more than self-expression.
It's a different kind of taking of offense when some one is offended by swearing, than if some one goes and writes a book about why all people who fit into a certain physical discription should be slaughtered in the streets.

Allowing such directly offensive material to be published and distributed is akin to allowing people to spray-paint Anti-semenic messages and swasticas on Richmond Hill homes, sidewalks and cars (Hypothetically, of course--it's entirely unlike the law condones said actions. People who do such things disgust me.).[/FONT][/COLOR]

[DeathBug]

[color=indigo][size=1][font=comic sans ms]I'd love to tell the KKK that they can't publish materials, butt he fact is, that's still censorship. It's unconstitutional. It sucks, but if someone can create andd istribute such materials legally, then noo ne has the right to censor them, no matter how disgsating they are. It's one of the prices one pays for living in a free society.

However, we as a whole society can say that we don't want such materials to be part of the public eye, and supress them, forcing them to be distributed privatly. [/color][/size][/font]

[Godelsensei]

[COLOR=Gray][FONT=Courier New]Which is why our society is a wonderful thing.

As my English teacher would say, [I]"You can stand up at speakers corner and say the Prime Minister's a crook, but if you can't prove it, you're going to be sued for slander."[/I] What a wonderful world we live in. :)

Freedom of speach is a right we are all given (throughout most of the world, anyway), but hate material is still hate material. We are allowed to say whatever we want about the government, and our society, as long as we don't say absurd and negative things about people specifically. And, in that case, it's either up to them to sue us, or we'll be charged with harassment.[/FONT]
[/COLOR]

[Mnemolth]

[QUOTE=Godelsensei][COLOR=Gray][FONT=Courier New]Which is why our society is a wonderful thing.

As my English teacher would say, [I]"You can stand up at speakers corner and say the Prime Minister's a crook, but if you can't prove it, you're going to be sued for slander."[/I] What a wonderful world we live in. :)

Freedom of speach is a right we are all given (throughout most of the world, anyway), but hate material is still hate material. We are allowed to say whatever we want about the government, and our society, as long as we don't say absurd and negative things about people specifically. And, in that case, it's either up to them to sue us, or we'll be charged with harassment.[/FONT]
[/COLOR][/QUOTE]

Actually, as far as I understand, that's not quite true. I might wanna have a word with that teacher of yours. :)

It's not slander if I got up in a park and denounce the Prime Minister as a crook. Just as it isn't slander if I was in the US and called George Bush a liar. It's my opinion and opinion doesn't fall into material that can be 'slander'. If you're asserting it as a 'fact' then you've got more of a problem. But even so, with the examples given, it's not too big a deal, since these are extremely public and political figures and the courts are very VERY wary of curtailing political debate.

But a well known newspaper can't print complete untruths, although that's more called libel rather than slander. This is because by definition, a newspaper is asserting facts.

Another thing to know is that 'truth' isn't always a defense. Depends on the place and the law in that place. In some places, even if what you say is true, it will still be slander if they can prove that you said those things primarily out of malice, and that you wanted only to harm the reputation of the person, and you didn't have other objectives in mind, like for example, the public interest to know.

[EDIT]
As for hate material, in most western countries, esp the US, hate material is allowed as long as you don't incite people to do illegal things, like murder other people for example. So while you can say all blacks are lazy and stupid, you can't tell people to shoot every black person they see. Just like while you can say George Bush is an idiot and shouldn't be President, you can't then go on to tell people to kill him.[/EDIT]

[Godelsensei]

[COLOR=Gray][FONT=Courier New]They point the teacher made was more about freedom of speach, actually (ACK. Goneral, I'm going insane!! The rest of you, just...don't ask..._ _U). Also, it was far from an explicit or realistic example, because it's supposed to merely demonstrate the idea.

A close friend of my mother's is wanted in Etheopia because he said or wrote something that was against the government. You'd never guess it knowing the man, though.

For the record, [I]slander[/I] is spoken, and [I]libel[/I] is written. So, a newspaper would be printing libel. Unless the paper got up and started talking, which would just be borderline disturbing.

o_o""[/FONT][/COLOR]

[IceWolfEyes]

If you ban one subject, you open the doors needed to ban a hundred others. Personally, I don't care about censorship. If I really felt the need to see something in an uncut form, then I would simply buy it from the manufacturers.



On the topic of hate material: meh. Freedom of Speech, folks. All things are two sided. You like bashing the president/prime minister/whatever the hell? Then be prepared to have other people bash YOU. I should be slightly biased on this, but I really don't care. The KKK can print out all the pamphlets they want; it's still not going to bother me. Reason being, my Jewish buddies and I expect to take over the world soon, so we need those ninnies in the white sheets for target practice. The more people who join KKK, the better. We're going to need a lot of targets.

[future girl]

My problem with censorship is mostly that what bothers one person doesn't bother another. I don't think it's the government's place to say what can or cannot be published or put on television. I believe we are very capable of not watching what we do not want to watch and just because I'm offended by the word **** does not mean I'd try to force everyone to be offended by it. Different minds are ready for different things and thus different minds should be exposed to different things. I believe it's a parent's place to censor their child, leaving that to the governemt is just lazy.

As far as hate material goes, I'd hope that no matter how much of it was put out there, a person's better judgement would not stop him from [i]knowing[/i] certain truths. I see ppl degrade other ppl everyday, I hardly believe it. I think it's just a matter of fighting that back with opposite views and materials, counter attacking if you will. ::nods::

[Winter]

There's a saying I picked up during high school [I]"Censorship causes blindness; lack thereof is mindless."[/I]

There is a problem with telling others what they can and cant see, it restricts growth, and realization of what reality is. But when you dont set up boundries, people can lose their sense of compassion, and gain a stronger apathetic sense of the world around them.

Basically its the "damned if you do, and damned if you dont" philosophy.

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[QUOTE=Yisan]Censorship is a bunch of ****. It is just a bunch of soccor moms trying to protect their little kiddies from the real world. Censorship was created to basically stop those soccor moms from whining. If parents took a more active role in their childrens life, there would be no need censorship. Parents park their kids infront of the TV, then leave to kid to watch whatever he wants. Then they get shocked when the kid views something not meant for his age group, and blame TV, and not their crappy parenting on what the kid saw.
[/QUOTE]

[color=darkviolet]Ok, first it's not S-O-C-C-O-R it's S-O-C-C-E-R. If you're going to insult someone do it right. (Monsters Inc rocks!)

Print that reply out and read it again when you have children. If that the case then as it is now-I'll eat my cd case. the big one with the 250 CDs. Nobody can watch their children 24/7 or put them in plastic bubbles. even if one parent or both keep an eye on what their child or children watch at home there's always the chance that other parents or the relatives who are watching them aren't as careful. My brother and I had a babysitter once who would fall alseep on the couch and we'd watch whatever we felt like. Are you saying that it would be my parent's fault that the babysitter was negligent?

A parent of a child who saw something inappropriate at another house shouldn't be held responsible for what the child did.

That said, I feel that censorship is a somewhat necessary evil since no parent no matter how involved can resonably police their child's veiwing at all times.

There are certain things that need censoring. I sure don't want my kids watching something with so much blood it looks like the person exploded. For that matter I don't want to watch that myself. Violence, profanity, sexual situations. There are reasons that movies have ratings.

I want to be the one to screw my children up and I'll be damned if the media takes that away from me. :laugh: And you people better not take me seriously. The parents who want to blame media for their children's actions shouldn't have been using the television as a babysitter.

As for the freedom of speech that everyone keeps talking about. Yes, the first ammendment gives the americans that right, but I think that it's within reason. And it can be susupended. President Lincoln suspended the freedom of speech during the American Civil war with the Rite of Habeus Corpus.

I think my US history teacher said it best when he said-Yes you have the right to say what you want, but I think that stops when you yell fire in a crowded movie theater and there isn't a fire. So you've made me spend $7.50 for a movie I didn't finish watching and created chaos and got soem people injured. Do you still think you were within your rights and shouldn't be prosecuted.

If you want to take the freedom of speech literaly ,. that would mean I would have a right to publicaly berate you and harass you without someone saying that such a thing was harassment. Do you feel such would be fair to you?

Well, that's all from me for now. Hey, maybe I'll become even more inspired.[/color]

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[quote name='Yisan']who died and made you the grammar police?[/quote]

[color=darkviolet]I think it was your spelling book.[/color]


[quote name='Yisan']All I am saying is that real life isn't censored. The earlier you expose kids to "real life", the better it will be for them. Sheltering kids is not a good thing. Censoring things just shelters them from reality.[/quote]

[color=darkviolet]Who said anything about keeping kids completely sheltered, or did you completely disreguard the entire post and look at what you could understand? This real life that you speak of-I hope you don't mean that aliens who eat people and evil robots and crap like that is part of reality. So, what you're saying is it's okay to take a five year old to Dawn of the Dead? Okay, well, I hope you enjoy having children in therapy. In other words, let them watch the news-hey if I actually had the kid two years ago, she could be watching daddy risk getting shot at in Iraq.

In some ways sheltering you kid is a good thing. If a child is constantly shown violence, they become desensitized and begin to feel that such things are the norm. Maybe next reply you give me can involve some actual thinking.[/color]

[quote name='Yisan']Also, my mom died in giving birth to my younger brother. With my dad being at work all the time to support us, I have basically had to raise the kid for 7 years. So I am basically a parent. I love my brother as if he were my son. I do anything for him that a normal parent would do. Nothing against our dad though, if he wasn't here, we would all be screwed. He works so hard and hardly has any time to spend with us. We all love him though.[/quote]

[color=darkviolet]While that is a tradgedy, I fail to see how that has anything to do with what I said. Unless of course you're going back to what you said and blaming your father for your upbringing.

You want some hardship stories? I don't know my real parents. I don't have any actual blood relatives and my adoptive father once said the infamous: You aren't our real children but... line

My husband was hardly raised by his mother and became a good person despite that. He was raised by his aunts, his brother who is 12 years his senior, some pastor, and some people in Virginia. His mom almost had him live on the street and he saw his dad and his stepdad beat the crap out of his mom. Oh, and his mom ended up abandoning him in Virginia for a while because she had to go to a psych ward so the VA people kicked him out. That's how he ended up with his brother. His brother kicked him out and he moved in with some other family. When my husband lived with his mom they were so poor instead of an allowance he got food stamps.

Everybody has problems.[/color]

[quote name='Yisan']If that qualifies as a "parent" for you, I expect pics of you eating your CDs.[/quote]

[color=darkviolet]Okay, I meant for you to look back on what you wrote when you were an actual parent, not helping to raise your brother along with your fatehr.

Also, you need a lesson in sarcasm.

You didn't really understand my post at all, did you? I meant that parents can't continuously watch their children second by second. When a child goes over to a friend's house, there is only so much control that parent has. You have no idea what your child could be doing over at the friend's house. Besides the fact that you can't dictate over the rules of other people's houses. That's why we need censurship. Grow up and get over yourself. Welcome to the real world[/color]

[cinnamon]

Ahhhh, well, here we go. Sorry in advance. Feel free to argue about this once I've finished.
Honestly, it shocks me to see 5 year olds walking around swearing. I mean, they don't know what it means, and here they are, calling you a ******* b**** just because you told them to to bed, and they heard it on tv. I have heard that some people teach their kids to swear when they are babies, just because it's funny. Like with parrots, only they aren't birds. Theyre babies. And if anyone here thinks that it's funny that their little sisters first word was ****, shame on you!
Censoring doesn't really make a difference does it? All it does is make you curious as to what was behind the bleep. I don't think that TV or Radio is doing a bad job...I mean, it's the material that they play that has the problems. Oh, it's only comedy. Oh, it sells stuff. Oh, it sounded good. Good excuse. So now, to sell easter eggs, what we need is ladies dressed up in bunny ears, g-strings and tiny bikinis saying buy a ******* easter egg, and we'll **** you! Kids will love that. Ok, so it's not that extreme. but would any of you agree with that ad if it came on tv??? And you had 5 year old kids who were watching a family movie at the exact time they screened it? Not really. At least I hope not.
Then again, it's not only TV and Radio that is to blame. It's the world for accepting this kind of stuff. It's not necessary! I'm sure people can tjhink of more creative things than sex to sell easter eggs!
This is how it goes: Kids hear the people that they look up to in life (I'm not going to say role model, cause I don't think thats quite correct nowadays) Like older kids, family, people on TV; the people who they are supposed to grow up to be, swearing, killing themselves, getting drunk, having sex; and subconciously think "Thats how I'm supposed to be!" Well, if the world ends up thinkin that, then the human race is screwed! Just think about it...
So censoring is a good idea...not just in the media, but in our lives as well. We have to take a different view on this, or we will end up finished. I'm not saying this just because I think it's a good idea either, but also because I dont want this world to end up messed up for our future generations.
Shocking wasn't it? Well, that's your 14-year old's view...flame away. And sorry about the numerous stars...I had to make a point...

[Brasil]

[quote name='Yisan']All I am saying is that real life isn't censored. The earlier you expose kids to "real life", the better it will be for them. Sheltering kids is not a good thing. Censoring things just shelters them from reality.[/quote]
I hardly think the majority of violence and misbehavior on TV is directly representational of what real life is. If anything, it's an exaggeration of what real life is. Your point is very weak, if you feel that TV violence is "real life." It is far from real. The very fact that it is written for TV, performed for TV, and shown on TV should tell you something. What you see on TV--the programs that are being censored--is not a window into the real world. Howard Stern is not an accurate representation of reality. Eminem music videos are not an accurate representation of reality.

Reality TV is not reality in the least. They know they're being filmed, they know there are cameras everywhere. They know they are getting paid for being on recorded on said cameras in said house, mansion, ranch, beach, farm, hotel, etc.

If you want children to be exposed to real life, take them outside. That's as real as you can get. Hell, if you depend on the TV, give them The History Channel or The Discovery Channel.

Don't think for a second that children will benefit from watching Paris Hilton shove her arm up a cow's rectum, and don't think for a second that Howard Stern pitting two airhead supermodels against each other in a trivia game is based in reality at all.

Yisan, I really don't see how you're able to say that censorship limits reality. What is being censored is far from reality.

Think about that.

[Winter]

*claps* This is me giving Chibihorsewoman all the applause I can. Brilliant posts. *claps s'more*

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[QUOTE=cinnamon]
Honestly, it shocks me to see 5 year olds walking around swearing. I mean, they don't know what it means, and here they are, calling you a ******* b**** just because you told them to to bed, and they heard it on tv. I have heard that some people teach their kids to swear when they are babies, just because it's funny. Like with parrots, only they aren't birds. Theyre babies. And if anyone here thinks that it's funny that their little sisters first word was ****, shame on you![/QUOTE]

[color=darkviolet]I worked with a girl who thought it was so funny that her 2 yr old daughter called her dumb *****. You have no idea how disturbing that is when you're pregant and you've got parents laughing at their children's bad behavior.

That's why I'm probably going to wash my husband's mouth out with soap whenever he swears just to give an example. I'm going to use the pine soap too. Parents should be setting some good examples for their children. They shouldn't be teaching that swearing is funny and acceptable they should be trying to teach them manners and socially acceptable behavior.

Now that I've went and said all that, let's see if I can follow through. :laugh: [/color]


[quote name='cinnamon']Shocking wasn't it? Well, that's your 14-year old's view...flame away. And sorry about the numerous stars...I had to make a point...[/quote]

[color=darkviolet]It's kind of hard to flame a 14 year old who actually has a mature outlook on some of life's aspects unlike other people. Besides, wouldn't it be silly of me to flame someone who has some of teh same ideas as me?[/color]

[Guest Linsaran]

While I'm 100% against censorship in any way shape or from I have to largely disagree with a lot of the sentement being posted here. Just because I think it's wrong to censor anything, doesn't mean that I think we should forcibly expose people to content. Theres a difference between having your voice heard and shoving it down other people's throats.