Censorship

[harukofan]

hello this is that really annoying new guy that won't shut up,Harukofan.
I was wondering what you all thought about censorship
I,personally,think it is utter bullcrap,telling us what we can & cannot hear,say or see.
your thoughts,please.

[corpseman]

Censorship for obvious reasons, mainly the fact that it takes away freedom of expression, is bad in my books. although it depends on what kind of censorship, censoring inappropriate content such are curse words, provocative pictures and other content that would be M rated where appropriate is fine in my books. on the other hand censoring people opinions, however extreme they are, is just plain wrong; but then they're are exceptions to that too, for example if someone posted something with the intention to offend others then it should be deleted even though its an opinion.

[harukofan]

I just say have a warning on these things other than censoring.
for one thing,they are censoring things that needn't be censored(they edited the word 'choking'!),
two,they're changing thier rules(you used to be able to say *** in a censored song,now they won't let it through),
& three,they have double standards(on 1 CD,they censor 'sodomy',on the other it's okay).
so I hate censorship.
damn that was a mouthful. :animesigh
& I just got censored.

[Adahn]

[size=2]In my state, an old woman had a license plate that said, "NWTF", which stands for North Wood Tree Farm, a, well, tree farm that she and her husband own and run. On the internet, due to AIMspeak, this means now what the ****. So, they took away her license plate.[/size]
[size=2][/size]
[size=2]She got mad, and ended up getting it back, but it just goes to show you what ridiculous levels censorship can be taken to if unchecked.[/size]

[Fyxe]

[size=1][color=slategray]Publicly, I view censorship as fine. I mean, mature content outside the privacy of one's home can be viewed as vulgar. If a decent amount of things had swear words(etc.) on public places, wouldn't that get... annoying? It's nice to keep some things a little formal and polite.

I don't understand why you are complaining about public censoring. You can always buy uncensored things at the store for your pleasure at home. :P

So, really, I find there is no issue here.[/color][/size]

[Horendithas]

[COLOR=DeepSkyBlue][quote name='harukofan']I,personally,think it is utter bullcrap,telling us what we can & cannot hear,say or see.[/quote]Censorship isn?t just about limiting what you can or cannot hear, say or see. It?s more about what you can do in relation to those things in public where others can also hear, say or see. Now if that censorship was happening on a more personal level like in your home where others are not affected then yeah it shouldn?t be that way.

What?s nonsense is expecting no censorship at all. Just as you feel things shouldn?t be censored there are those who do, like parents, government, schools, etc. So there has to be some sort of middle ground where things in public are censored but you retain that freedom in your own home so long as you are not infringing on someone else. [QUOTE=harukofan]I just say have a warning on these things other than censoring.
for one thing,they are censoring things that needn't be censored(they edited the word 'choking'!),
two,they're changing thier rules(you used to be able to say *** in a censored song,now they won't let it through),
& three,they have double standards(on 1 CD,they censor 'sodomy',on the other it's okay).
so I hate censorship.
damn that was a mouthful. :animesigh
& I just got censored.[/QUOTE]Perhaps you could clarify who ?they? is as it would certainly help to know just who you think is going overboard with censorship.

Anyway as Bláse said I don?t really see an issue here.[/COLOR]

[SunfallE]

[COLOR=RoyalBlue][QUOTE=harukofan]I was wondering what you all thought about censorship
I,personally,think it is utter bullcrap,telling us what we can & cannot hear,say or see.
your thoughts,please.[/QUOTE] Personally I think censorship is wonderful. In a sense it gives you quite a bit of freedom in that you can choose to see hear or say what you want. In private. You can choose to avoid the movies or songs or other media that has more mature content or you can get it and take it home and enjoy it.

So though it may seem annoying since you are limited in public as to what you can do, on the whole I think the positive side outweighs it. Think about this, is there something that you yourself would not want to see at say school or at the park? Censorship on some level means you can go somewhere and not have to worry about it.

On the flip side there are cases where censorship is taken too far. Like when an area tries to prevent a book from being published or a magazine from being sold because they don?t like the story, not because the content is too mature. In those cases the person should have the choice of deciding if they want the book or the magazine. [QUOTE=harukofan]I just say have a warning on these things other than censoring.
for one thing,they are censoring things that needn't be censored(they edited the word 'choking'!),
two,they're changing thier rules(you used to be able to say *** in a censored song,now they won't let it through),
& three,they have double standards(on 1 CD,they censor 'sodomy',on the other it's okay).
so I hate censorship.
damn that was a mouthful. :animesigh
& I just got censored.[/QUOTE]Without telling us who ?they? is I have no idea if your complaint is even valid. So at this point since your rant is on the general side I would have to say that there isn?t a problem. [/COLOR]

[2010DigitalBoy]

As long as people are scared and refuse to be wring, there will be censorship. When the sticks have been removed from society's ***, aaybe we'll be free.

If our generation doesn't get rid of censorship, thatd be one hell of a laugh.

[John]

[Poster found guilty thoughtcrime. Minitrue mark post doubleplusungood. Miniluv make poster goodthink fullwise.]

[Shinmaru]

[quote name='John][[spoiler]Poster found guilty thoughtcrime. Minitrue mark post doubleplusungood. Miniluv make poster goodthink fullwise.[/spoiler']][/quote]

Don't pollute this board with your filth.

[Domon]

[SIZE=1][COLOR=Navy]Personally I think censorship is taken to an extreme now these days. I mean have you recently looked at what books people are wanting to ban from libraries etc? I'll name a few.

-[I]The Adventures of Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn[/I]
-[I]Harry Potter[/I]
-[I]To Kill A Mockingbird[/I]


And countless others. People want a book like Tom Sawyer banned from libraries?! All because it uses the N word in it. Now some people might find it offensive but consider this. The book was written in the 1800s, the N word was used quite commonly then, the author was from Missouri a slave state. People are wanting Harry Potter banned because it talks about Witch Craft and such and yet people go to see magic shows and such in freaking Las Vegas!!

Personally I see things like this, TV, Music, etc in this retrospect. Look into the aforementioned, if it is too vulgar for you or you don't like it. Don't expose your kids or yourself to it but don't take away from the rest of society.[/COLOR][/SIZE]

[harukofan]

yes I agree with you.
some people also want the Bible Banned!
(this may not affect some people,but I am a Catholic,so I won't let it stand)
That's utter bullcrap!
I watch the anime [I]FLCL[/I] & someone wanted it yanked for "inapropriate material".
here's a little info,folks.
(on other forums,I go into a hyper rage quite often due to the stupiditty & hypocrisies of the world)
[SIZE=4]IT'S RATED TV FOUR-FRICKIN'-TEEN!!![/SIZE]
[SIZE=4]THEY COMPLAIN THAT THIER CHILDREN ARE SCARRED FROM THIS,YET THEY GO OUT AFTER SENDING THIS TO THE BOSS OF THE NETWORK & BUY THIER KIDS GTA:SAN ANDREAS!!![/SIZE]
:flaming: woah,that made me tired...
must sleep... :sleepy:

[Rain]

[quote name='Domon][SIZE=1][COLOR=Navy]And countless others. People want a book like Tom Sawyer banned from libraries?! All because it uses the N word in it. Now some people might find it offensive but consider this. The book was written in the 1800s, the N word was used quite commonly then, the author was from Missouri a slave state. [/COLOR'][/SIZE][/quote]

[size=1][color=black]I agree. Well, I haven't read Tom Sawyer, but I feel the same way about To Kill A Mockingbird. I mean, the language in that book is used in context and suits the era in which it's set. It's not as though the author has just gone on some racist free-for-all. Anyone who has actually read the book would know that.

I don't have much of a problem with censorship of movies or music, though. As someone else has said, you can always buy the non-censored version and watch it or listen to it at home. Although censorship does sometimes have amusing results. Such as the censoring of that Kanye West song so the line ended up being "She ain't messin' with no broke broke", which makes no sense at all...[/color][/size]

[Fyxe]

[QUOTE=Domon][SIZE=1][COLOR=Navy]Personally I think censorship is taken to an extreme now these days. I mean have you recently looked at what books people are wanting to ban from libraries etc? I'll name a few.

-[I]The Adventures of Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn[/I]
[B]-[I]Harry Potter[/I][/B]
-[I]To Kill A Mockingbird[/I]
[/COLOR][/SIZE][/QUOTE]

[size=1][color=slategray]Well, you know, that Harry Potter has a pretty big Satanist cult going. People want it banned with rightful fear.
Hell, look at this:
[URL=http://www.capnwacky.com/reviews/harrypotter.html]Harry Potter: The Satanism Steroid[/URL]

Bathes in the Blood of Virgins? Now, is that undenialble evidence, or what?

[spoiler]Death to the unbelievers![/spoiler]

:p[/color][/size]

[harukofan]

that's funny man!
actually,it's kinda creepy.

[Gavin]

[SIZE=1]Interesting, most interesting.

Kudos to harukofan for the most amusing posts from a [strike]likely-to-be-banned[/strike] member since Prick Wizard. While most of the time I approve of censorship, as let's face it a young child should not be allowed buy a game like Manhunt for instance just because he wants to play it. There are times when censorship is taken to the extreme however, I mean to ban "To Kill A Mockingbird" from libraries ought to be a crime, regardless of whether the N-word is there or not, it's in fact a book highly critical of the time period and as such still has a lot of value in modern society.

The main reason censorship is around is because there's always someone who wants to push boundaries of violence, drug abuse, sex etc. just because they can. There are also people out there who's beliefs should be censored, Neo Nazis for instance, which should not be protected by the liberty of Freedom of Speech. After all the United States is one of the few countries with such a firmly rooted liberty.[/SIZE]

[Shinmaru]

My jokey post from earlier probably states well enough how I feel about this, but I'll get serious now. :p

[quote name='Gavin][SIZE=1']The main reason censorship is around is because there's always someone who wants to push boundaries of violence, drug abuse, sex etc. just because they can. There are also people out there who's beliefs should be censored, Neo Nazis for instance, which should not be protected by the liberty of Freedom of Speech.[/SIZE][/quote]

Honestly, that's a total crock. I disagree vehemently with the viewpoint of Neo Nazis, but as far as I'm concerned, they're as welcome to discuss their views as you and I. So are the Ku Klux Klan. So are Al-Qaeda. And so on and so forth.

The main problem with deciding whose beliefs should be censored is this: Who exactly is qualified enough to actually decide for [i]everyone[/i] who has the "right" opinion and who has the "wrong" opinion? There are so many, many different views in the world about everything under the sun, and if someone thinks that he or she can shuffle certain views into one place and declare them absolutely correct and all others absolutely wrong, then I would say that person has a very naïve, self-delusional view of the world. The world does not run on an absolute, black and white basis.

All views should be protected by the liberty of Freedom of Speech, because all views are worthy of discussion. You don't get anyplace by banning everything that you think is bad and pretending that the world is one big, happy place where people with "undesirable" views don't exist; rather, you advance via confronting those views by allowing people to speak their minds, after which you rationally discuss the merits of those views. Getting people to understand the rationale behind Neo-Nazism, and how utterly insane it is, is much more beneficial than censoring their views, which is basically the equivalent of clapping your hands over your eyes and ears and shouting, "LALALA IF I CAN'T HEAR YOU THEN YOU DON'T EXIST!!"

As for pushing the boundaries in regards to violence, drug use, sex, etc., I'll defend that, too, and for the same reason. It gets people talking about those issues. Given the choice between being exposed to something that makes me a bit uncomfortable and being ignorant of something, then I would choose the former every time. My views on those issues have changed so much, and for the better, in my opinion, as I've grown older, because I've been exposed to them and my naïveté regarding them has disappeared.

Children are a whole different ballpark, but even then it's just up to the parent to decide what he or she wishes to have the child exposed to. If you think something is too racy for your child to watch/play/listen to/whatever, then do your best to keep your child from doing so until he or she is ready to, and if the child somehow [i]does[/i] see something of "questionable" content (which is almost inevitable, really lol), then do your best to put it in context. Banning and censoring is a cheap substitute for discourse, since things that we'd rather not see still exist and will continue to exist regardless of whether we ban them or not.

[Gavin]

[QUOTE=Shinmaru]Honestly, that's a total crock. I disagree vehemently with the viewpoint of Neo Nazis, but as far as I'm concerned, they're as welcome to discuss their views as you and I. So are the Ku Klux Klan. So are Al-Qaeda. And so on and so forth.

The main problem with deciding whose beliefs should be censored is this: Who exactly is qualified enough to actually decide for [i]everyone[/i] who has the "right" opinion and who has the "wrong" opinion? There are so many, many different views in the world about everything under the sun, and if someone thinks that he or she can shuffle certain views into one place and declare them absolutely correct and all others absolutely wrong, then I would say that person has a very naïve, self-delusional view of the world. The world does not run on an absolute, black and white basis.

All views should be protected by the liberty of Freedom of Speech, because all views are worthy of discussion. You don't get anyplace by banning everything that you think is bad and pretending that the world is one big, happy place where people with "undesirable" views don't exist; rather, you advance via confronting those views by allowing people to speak their minds, after which you rationally discuss the merits of those views. Getting people to understand the rationale behind Neo-Nazism, and how utterly insane it is, is much more beneficial than censoring their views, which is basically the equivalent of clapping your hands over your eyes and ears and shouting, "LALALA IF I CAN'T HEAR YOU THEN YOU DON'T EXIST!!"

As for pushing the boundaries in regards to violence, drug use, sex, etc., I'll defend that, too, and for the same reason. It gets people talking about those issues. Given the choice between being exposed to something that makes me a bit uncomfortable and being ignorant of something, then I would choose the former every time. My views on those issues have changed so much, and for the better, in my opinion, as I've grown older, because I've been exposed to them and my naïveté regarding them has disappeared.

Children are a whole different ballpark, but even then it's just up to the parent to decide what he or she wishes to have the child exposed to. If you think something is too racy for your child to watch/play/listen to/whatever, then do your best to keep your child from doing so until he or she is ready to, and if the child somehow [i]does[/i] see something of "questionable" content (which is almost inevitable, really lol), then do your best to put it in context. Banning and censoring is a cheap substitute for discourse, since things that we'd rather not see still exist and will continue to exist regardless of whether we ban them or not.[/QUOTE]

[SIZE=1]Mike you have got to be kidding me, anyone who preaches the murder of someone else because they're in some way, shape or form different to the person doing the preaching should not be allowed the right to express themselves. You can defend the idea behind the liberty all you want, but at the end of the day it's a complete crock to say that everyone no matter how extreme or morally objectionable should be allowed to express themselves regardless of how much that would offend someone else. If people can't be mature enough to discuss their beliefs rationally, then they don't deserve to be treated like an adult with the rights and responsibilities that come with it.

As for defending someone who pushes boundaries for the sake of it, that's a crock too and we both know it. If someone has a genuine reason for doing it, in the same way a film like Reservoir Dogs was done then we can talk, because anything that is done for a reason can be explained logically and debated logically. But if someone's only reason for creating a film of gratuitous violence is because they could and wanted to get people talking, then I'm afraid it's simply a pointless form of "Look what I did" expressionism that I expect from retards and four year olds.

I know the whole Freedom of Speech concept is so far ingrained into Americans that most of you don't even think about what it's like to live in a country where you can be punished for what you say. But think logically for even a moment and you have to realise that there are beliefs out there and people willing to express those beliefs which should not be tolerated in any forum of discussion, not because we want to simply pretend they don't exist, but because they're so juvenile they're not worth discussion.[/SIZE]

[DuoMax]

The problem with lmiting one grop's free speech is that this can lead to the limiting of other's free speech. Free speech for one means free speech for all.

"I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
-Voltaire

[Gavin]

[QUOTE=DuoMax]The problem with lmiting one group's free speech is that this can lead to the limiting of other's free speech. Free speech for one means free speech for all.

"I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
-Voltaire[/QUOTE]

[SIZE=1]While I agree with you Duo that limiting one group's, say the KKK for instance, freedom of speech may lead to the curtailing of another, say Neo-Nazis, aren't we all mature enough to admit neither of these groups deserve the right to express themselves and be protected by a liberty ? What I'm talking about is censoring groups who are extreme and hostile in their beliefs, I have no problem with someone calmly debating any issue so long as there's serious thought put behind it, and they're willing to be debated on the issue. But simply screaming "Heil Hitler" and parading around like an idiot is not the same thing.

For instance, as a Catholic I found myself rather disturbed by certain extremists calling for the execution of the Pope for what he said about Islam and Mohammad. There are plenty of people who insult Catholics and the Pope himself, "Does the Pope **** in the woods ?" for instance and I don't go calling for that person to be beheaded. If we all acted like reasonable adults with our beliefs, there'd be no need to censor people, but so long as people are going to be juvenile about it, then I'm afraid I wholehearted support limiting people's right to say anything and everything. [/SIZE]

[DuoMax]

Yes, btoh of these groups ARE immature, hostile, and downright offensive. But what happens if say, Greenpeace is the next group labeled as immature and offensive, or the ACLU or the Young Republicans or any other political group? It is a long and slippery slope.

[Morpheus]

[QUOTE=Gavin][SIZE=1]While I agree with you Duo that limiting one group's, say the KKK for instance, freedom of speech may lead to the curtailing of another, say Neo-Nazis, aren't we all mature enough to admit neither of these groups deserve the right to express themselves and be protected by a liberty ? What I'm talking about is censoring groups who are extreme and hostile in their beliefs, I have no problem with someone calmly debating any issue so long as there's serious thought put behind it, and they're willing to be debated on the issue. But simply screaming "Heil Hitler" and parading around like an idiot is not the same thing.

For instance, as a Catholic I found myself rather disturbed by certain extremists calling for the execution of the Pope for what he said about Islam and Mohammad. There are plenty of people who insult Catholics and the Pope himself, "Does the Pope **** in the woods ?" for instance and I don't go calling for that person to be beheaded. If we all acted like reasonable adults with our beliefs, there'd be no need to censor people, but so long as people are going to be juvenile about it, then I'm afraid I wholehearted support limiting people's right to say anything and everything. [/SIZE][/QUOTE]
I think the problem here is exactly what Shin was talking about. It is not possible to put any sort of limit on it, and no matter how much we don't want to hear about certain views, it would conpromise what the Founding Fathers had intended: for everyone to be free from oppression. We don't want to become the Soviet Union.

Gavin, could you enlighten us as to the basic principles of Irish law? I think that that would help us get further into this.

[Gavin]

[quote name='DuoMax']Yes, both of these groups ARE immature, hostile, and downright offensive. But what happens if say, Greenpeace is the next group labeled as immature and offensive, or the ACLU or the Young Republicans or any other political group? It is a long and slippery slope.[/quote]

[SIZE=1]It's possible, anything is possible, but I think our generation of voters, who either are of age, or will be coming of age soon enough are mature enough to know the difference between preventing hostile racism or other form of hate crime and simply being childish and banning something we don't like. Maybe I'm too optimistic on that point, but I firmly believe that most people are mature enough to be able to judge what truly does need censoring and what doesn't on a realistic basis.[/SIZE]

[Papa Smurf]

People, people, people...come on. What Gavin's saying isn't as absurd as what some are making it out to be. Or at least his fundamental point isn't so outrageous. In fact, the point he's making makes perfect sense when you consider "freedom of speech" from a more critical standpoint.

There are some groups (Neo-Nazis, KKK, et al) who need to be restricted, because what they do and exercise is not freedom of speech; it's hate-speech. It's talk that is designed to inflict harm on another human being. It's talk with one purpose in mind: to incite violence.

That type of goal is completely [i]irresponsible[/i] and doesn't even begin to meet the criteria for being protected under freedom of speech. Why?

To borrow a phrase...Because with great freedom comes great responsibility.

If one isn't responsible, they don't deserve to have the freedom they're exploiting.

I see absolutely no problem at all with actively limiting a group like the KKK or any Neo-Nazi group, because those groups are [i]actively[/i] pursuing CLEARLY socially destructive goals.

I don't think pointing to the ACLU, Young Republicans, or whatever is even appropriate here, because the positives and negatives, and whether or not those groups are socially destructive largely depends on where you stand politically. Although I do think the ACLU takes it way too far sometimes, just like Young Republicans do.

But do we really believe the ACLU can be referenced in a discussion about [i]HATE GROUPS[/i]? Sure, the ACLU is a bunch of morons pretty much, but you don't see them brutally killing gays, dragging them with a pick-up truck. You don't see the ACLU or Young Republicans burning crosses in yards or lynching people. You don't see them exercising dangerous--deadly--social agendas.

And really, I think that's the most important point here:

We need smart censorship. Not non-existent censorship. Not total absolute censorship. Smart censorship.

[ri0t]

[quote name='Papa Smurf]I see absolutely no problem at all with actively limiting a group like the KKK or any Neo-Nazi group, because those groups are [i]actively[/i'] pursuing CLEARLY socially destructive goals.[/quote]

[color=maroon]What goals qualify as socially destructive? The problem with your argument is a vague core concept; until you define "socially destructive," you have essentially spouted a great deal of worthless dribble.

And if I were to borrow a phrase, it'd be "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."[/color]