Censorship

[The13thMan]

[QUOTE=ri0t][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][/QUOTE]
[COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]What goals qualify as socially destructive?? Can you not answer that question on your own? Different people have different opinions on such a manner, what's your opinion? What do you think is socially destructive? It's not vague, in my eyes, it's simply something that he left for interpretation on the reader's part. And isn't that a bit harsh to call it worthless dribble? In my opinion your post was a little pointless and insulting.

And try your best not to defend such hate groups as the KKK in the future, it never looks good on your part. Though you didn't directly defend them, you did indirectly and you know some people will percieve it as such.

Now on to the main subject of censorship.

Ah, well if you know anything about my own personal philosophies, then you'll know i believe most things are subjective and situational. In other words, censorship is good in some cases and bad in others. I even prefer censorship in some cases. One argument for censorship is that it strengthens the power of the words that are being censored. If everybody said the f word left and right nobody would take it that seriously. Now thanx to censorship the word still has power and meaning. On the other hand, censorship can be wrong. My highschool used to block websites on their computers to ridiculous levels. Many educational sites would even be blocked and many times it hindered education. And of course i don't think art or any other form of expression should really be censored, unless it's main goal is to simply be explicit. It also highly depends on the audience.

So, it all depends.

Later.
[/FONT][/COLOR]

[Gavin]

[quote name='Papa Smurf']We need smart censorship. Not non-existent censorship. Not total absolute censorship. Smart censorship.[/quote]

[SIZE=1]Thank you Papa Smurf to have been the first person to make a reply based on the concept of censorship rather than the concept of Freedom of Speech. As I've said before, I really do admire the liberty Americans enjoy of freedom of speech, but as PS pointed out, with this liberty comes a responsibility to use it without abusing it, and allowing extremist groups who will abuse the liberty to continue spouting their hate or ignorance will undermine the whole system.

I don't suggest that anything anyone might find offensive be censored, what I'm saying it that we need to reach a point where people can enjoy that liberty without having to see the work of people who abuse it just to push boundries.

In answer to Morpheus' question, I'm not sure of the exact nature of Ireland's laws on speech, however I do know that they do not extent nearly as far as America's do.

[2500][/SIZE]

[John]

[quote name='Papa Smurf']We need smart censorship. Not non-existent censorship. Not total absolute censorship. Smart censorship.[/quote] Well, sure. But we also need a button that'll fix the environment and a cure for AIDS that propagates through the air at a thousand square miles per hour, scenting everything with lemon as it goes.

No matter how much we need smart censorship, it's not plausible. Eventually, those in charge of the censoring will start making decisions with selfish, human motives, and that can't be helped. So no censorship at all has to suffice, unfortunately, and solve what problems it can.

[Retribution]

[quote name='John']No matter how much we need smart censorship, it's not plausible. Eventually, those in charge of the censoring will start making decisions with selfish, human motives, and that can't be helped. So no censorship at all has to suffice, unfortunately, and solve what problems it can.[/quote]
[size=1]That's not entirely true. We have censorship right now. ****, there it is. That's what the FCC is, when you think about it. They exist so that radio stations don't all turn into Howard Stern without the funny. So far, things have been working out relatively well. I don't think it's quite all or nothing; there's certainly some middle ground, and that has benefits that should be considered.

That is, unless you were talking more about Big Brother dictating things rather than our current system.[/size]

[ri0t]

[quote name='The13thMan][COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]What goals qualify as socially destructive?? Can you not answer that question on your own? Different people have different opinions on such a manner, what's your opinion? What do you think is socially destructive? It's not vague, in my eyes, it's simply something that he left for interpretation on the reader's part.[/FONT'][/COLOR][/quote]

[color=maroon]This is [i]exactly[/i] what I'm talking about. When everyone has a different opinion of what is socially destructive you end up censoring just about everything that anyone thinks fits that definition. What will be left?

So why don't you give me your definiton.[/color]

[quote name='The13thMan][COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]And try your best not to defend such hate groups as the KKK in the future, it never looks good on your part. Though you didn't directly defend them, you did indirectly and you know some people will [b]percieve[/b] it as such.[/FONT'][/COLOR][/quote]

[color=maroon]Is there something criminal about defending someone's right to express their opinions? When you answer yes to that question, consider what kind of society you'd wish to live in.

Some have said the right to swing your fist stops at my nose. The should apply to your speech, with common sense exceptions like the oft quoted example of yelling fire in a crowded theater.[/color]

[John]

[quote name='Retribution][size=1']That's not entirely true. We have censorship right now. ****, there it is. That's what the FCC is, when you think about it. They exist so that radio stations don't all turn into Howard Stern without the funny. So far, things have been working out relatively well. I don't think it's quite all or nothing; there's certainly some middle ground, and that has benefits that should be considered.[/size][/quote] The swear filter only stifles words, not ideas. That's generally harmless, as long as it stays at that, and can actually be useful pretty often (hell, even Jewish scripts censor the true name of God by misspelling it since it's such a sacred word).

The FCC is along the same lines, generally. The only censorship worth arguing about (unless someone can come up with another type) is the censoring of ideas, and that's what I was talking about in my post.

[The13thMan]

[QUOTE=ri0t][color=maroon]This is [i]exactly[/i] what I'm talking about. When everyone has a different opinion of what is socially destructive you end up censoring just about everything that anyone thinks fits that definition. What will be left?

So why don't you give me your definiton.[/color]



[color=maroon]Is there something criminal about defending someone's right to express their opinions? When you answer yes to that question, consider what kind of society you'd wish to live in.

Some have said the right to swing your fist stops at my nose. The should apply to your speech, with common sense exceptions like the oft quoted example of yelling fire in a crowded theater.[/color][/QUOTE]
[COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]I have no problem with giving you my own definition of socially destructive. When a group causes physical harm to another individual, especially an innocent one, then it becomes socially destructive. As in the case of the KKK, they are a terrorist group. They kill people and create hate towards people. I don't have any problem with censorship when a group like that gets the ******* censored out of them. Pardon the language.

Now, if the KKK had never actually caused harm towards any individuals, directly or indirectly, i wouldn't agree with censoring them. Even though i highly disagree with their views. Of course i would voice my opinion that they are a hate group and should be destroyed, but neither would i go as far to cause any physical harm to any of them.

It only becomes criminal when the opinions become harmful to others. If someone got up and said, "Kill all people with brown hair!" Then i would agree with censorship. If they said, "I don't particularly care for people who have brown hair," then i would not have a problem at all, besides disagreeing with them.

I don't see how you can possibly disagree with this.
[/FONT][/COLOR]

[DarkFactor]

Hey! what do you have against people with brown hair The13thMan!??!?!? HUH!?!??! (Just kidding of course)

When is it okay to censor? never.

Why do they censor? For ratings, the less people are offended the more will watch/listen.

What can we do about it? Keep being originaly and uncensored to every degree possible, as it suits us.

Freedom of speech is a protected and special thing. I'm lucky to live in a place where it is maintained to some degree. It is ultimately okay to say or display ANYTHING and it should be, however, it is not permissable. People's varrying degrees of irresponsabilty brings on stricter cenorship. It is the job of the person expressing themselves to consider their audiance and deal with the consequences accordingly... It is not the job of wealthy private orginazations to monitor espression, or enforce and develop new laws and special interest groups to promote cencorship. That is why I say screw you clear channel and FCC! lol but essentialy most of us are not under some sick gustapo. So we should mostly just be thankful. :D

[Kitchen Sink]

[QUOTE=DarkFactor]
Freedom of speech is a protected and special thing. I'm lucky to live in a place where it is maintained to some degree. It is ultimately okay to say or display ANYTHING and it should be, however, it is not permissable. People's varrying degrees of irresponsabilty brings on stricter cenorship. It is the job of the person expressing themselves to consider their audiance and deal with the consequences accordingly... It is not the job of wealthy private orginazations to monitor espression, or enforce and develop new laws and special interest groups to promote cencorship. That is why I say screw you clear channel and FCC! lol but essentialy most of us are not under some sick gustapo. So we should mostly just be thankful. :D[/QUOTE]

Am I misunderstood? Are you comparing the FCC to the Gestapo?
Because if you are, man, there is no comparison. Check the Wiki's below...

[URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC]FCC[/URL]
[URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestapo]Gestapo[/URL]

Now, I'm all for censorship and I don't see it as the curtailing of civil liberties at all. Censorship restricts the material for good reason. If you like vulgarity in your music, then go out and get the uncensored album. It's not like this right has been removed from you entirely.

Censorship, like many things, can be taken too far, and I'll say that going too far in this respect is actually editing the material and restricting the unaltered versions from the public that want, and consent to viewing/hearing it.

Restricting the material and placing labels on it can hel you make a more informed choice on the material you want to see/hear and can act as a guideline in some regards, as pointed out by James in a similar thread.

[DarkFactor]

[QUOTE]Am I misunderstood? Are you comparing the FCC to the Gestapo?[/QUOTE]

For-God-Sakes, No!! lol ^_^

I'm saying that most of us here don't live under oppression and we should be thankful for that. But it is important to be ever vigilant in making sure that freedoms are retained. Tyranny still exists. Depite freedoms here in this country we are censored. The government is best which governs least, and that inludes beuracracy. People owe nothing to their government. "ask not what your country can do for you" I say do ask, and ask frequently. If we have gotten to the point where we no longer care about how limited our freedoms are in the public forum, then we should at least protect our right to speak in private. Our government has gone to far with monitoring our everyday lives.

And you're right, Gavin. SOME of the things people say can be very stupid, unworthy of conversation, grotesque or appauling. They can be merderous and threatening. But where does the line fade between them being able to say what they want, and you being able to criticize them for it?

The positive thing about having the right to freedom of speech is that you have the freedom to do what we ought, not what you want. People are not disgusting animals, they are quite capable of reason. And when guided by truth, and well instructed they can function quite well with out the extreme controls put on them.

It is the system that corrupts, and at the same time, it is the system that saves us from the corrupted. When we feel like our abillity to express ourselves and be represented in our government ceases. That is when it deserves to be over thrown.

I understand that in America this issue is centrally fiscal and that is why it does not matter so much to me. It has to do with television and entertainment and news and what is okay and not okay to say out of respect for fellow human beings. That is a reasonable amount of control. But no law should be passed or commitee formed to infringe on what people think or believe, or say to others out of respect. No law should be made concerning anyones mode of expression or existence. And from time to time in America and numerous countries around the world that has happened. It's our "CIVIC DUTY" not to tolerate it.

[Aaryanna]

[COLOR=DarkOrchid]I?m all for censorship. Why? Because if you stop and think about it, if there were people who weren?t irresponsible in that they deliberately force their views and opinions on you, then we wouldn?t need censorship. It?s one thing to have an opinion on something and another to attempt to force that on others. Especially when the person doing the forcing would be upset if someone was trying to force their views on them.

All I have to do is turn off the filter on my internet browser and then my searches are littered with all sorts of porn and garbage. And even with the filter some of it still gets through. So obviously censorship is needed. I know it?s my responsibility to have the filter on to keep it out, but if we didn?t believe in censorship in some form then my browser wouldn?t even have that option because it would infringe on others right to put whatever they want up on the net.

Obviously there is going to be the question of too much censorship and keeping it from getting out of control. But the day I see censorship being removed from society is the day I will see as humanity taking a huge step backwards into the dark ages. Where instead of everyone being able to on some level choose for them selves what they want to read and see, they will be flooded with stuff whether or not they want to hear it or see it. And if you think censorship is an invasion, just imagine anyone being able to broadcast what ever they want into your homes, or even come to your home and put banners on your lawn saying whatever they want. I can pretty much guarantee that it would get ugly real fast. [/COLOR]

[DeadSeraphim]

[COLOR=Indigo][SIZE=1][FONT=Arial]I'm mixed on the issue. On the one hand, censorship and ratings keeps kids from seeing **** they shouldn't be (or are supposed to), but on the other, if we censor minority groups who have a potentially volatile opinion, that is taking away the right to free speech, and it sets a precedent. It's all well and good to say "Yeah, but we'll just censor the Neo Nazis and God Hates Fags, it's cool," but humans are stupid and it [i]would[/i] get abused. A politician listens to music with aggressive lyrics toward the government? He's offended, he assumes others are, he lobbies to get it removed, bam, the music is gone. They've already tried it before, but only managed to get stickers slapped on the CDs. If they were given the actual right to remove and silence things that they 'believe' is volatile, then we'd be in a whole world of trouble, and not just for music and special interest groups.[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR]

[DarkFactor]

[QUOTE=Aaryanna][COLOR=DarkOrchid]I?m all for censorship. Why? Because if you stop and think about it, if there were people who weren?t irresponsible in that they deliberately force their views and opinions on you, then we wouldn?t need censorship. It?s one thing to have an opinion on something and another to attempt to force that on others. Especially when the person doing the forcing would be upset if someone was trying to force their views on them.

Obviously there is going to be the question of too much censorship and keeping it from getting out of control. But the day I see censorship being removed from society is the day I will see as humanity taking a huge step backwards into the dark ages. Where instead of everyone being able to on some level choose for them selves what they want to read and see, they will be flooded with stuff whether or not they want to hear it or see it. And if you think censorship is an invasion, just imagine anyone being able to broadcast what ever they want into your homes, or even come to your home and put banners on your lawn saying whatever they want. I can pretty much guarantee that it would get ugly real fast. [/COLOR][/QUOTE]

It is possible to delligate censorship carefully. But as you stated yourself, Aaryanna, it's your duty to block it out.

In the U.S. we're very protected. You can be fined or arrested just for inciting someone to violence. That means if you say something so hateful that it made me want to do bodily harm to you, then you could be arrested just for upsetting me that much. You can get introuble for disturbing my right to peace. In that case the law almost unequivically sides with the accuser, how ever it is hard to establish that you were wronged verbally in our civil couts. You would have to prove that the person intedended to incite you or knew that that might, and that you were infact that upset. If that were the case you may even get some compesation for the trama. Our system is one of penalties, not prevention.

Obviously software companies not having the right to put safe gaurds in their browsers because it limits freedom of sppech would be the other extreme. But that wont happen so long as we maintain the abbility to not accept what people say or print or publish. Which is in itself a freedom that could be defined as pusuing hapiness, or finding your mode and function.

The amount of smut on the web does repoulse me, but believe me, its not the gov't wealthy internet owners, or the people choice to have it there. Its there because sex sells, and the criminals selling it don't care who they hurt. Clearly that could be discounted by the fact there are those who desire to expose and exploiit themselves as form of self expression. And for them they can have their perverse good time and the more perverse amongs us can revel with them. But they comprice about 1% of all the people in the sex industry. It may be good money, but alot of women are in a very negative cycle. Some porn is just prostitution with a camera... The internet is a very hard things to govern. especially by a government who doesn't understand it.

The dark ages were a result of censorship not a lack of it. People were forced to swear oaths to generational land owners who did not care about their well-being. People's lives were severly controlled by their government and by the church. What destroyed the tryanny of the dark ages was expression, art, and culture.

[Aaryanna]

[COLOR=DarkOrchid][quote name='DarkFactor']It is possible to delligate censorship carefully. But as you stated yourself, Aaryanna, it's your duty to block it out.[/quote]Yes, but I was also attempting to say that if we did away with censorship I could get in trouble for censoring things. So in a sense it is my right to choose to censor things. [QUOTE=DarkFactor]In the U.S. we're very protected. You can be fined or arrested just for inciting someone to violence. That means if you say something so hateful that it made me want to do bodily harm to you, then you could be arrested just for upsetting me that much. You can get introuble for disturbing my right to peace. In that case the law almost unequivically sides with the accuser, how ever it is hard to establish that you were wronged verbally in our civil couts. You would have to prove that the person intedended to incite you or knew that that might, and that you were infact that upset. If that were the case you may even get some compesation for the trama. Our system is one of penalties, not prevention.
[/QUOTE]That?s not entirely correct either. In any case a person is considered innocent and it must be proven that they deliberately said things to cause others to be violent. Even if you accused me of doing such a thing, the law would not instantly side with you as I would be given the chance to prove that such was not my intent.

Our society is also a case of blaming others for their own actions and saying I did this because this person said this doesn?t necessarily mean the person will get out of trouble or will be compensated for what they did. Such things are considered influence and even then ultimately the person who does the violence made the choice to do so. Those cases aren?t as easy to do as you are implying. Just watch some of those TV judge shows like Judy to see that people trying to blame others for their actions often do not get away with it.[quote name='DarkFactor]The amount of smut on the web does repoulse me, but believe me, its not the gov't wealthy internet owners, or the people choice to have it there. Its there because sex sells, and the criminals selling it don't care who they hurt. Clearly that could be discounted by the fact there are those who desire to expose and exploiit themselves as form of self expression. And for them they can have their perverse good time and the more perverse amongs us can revel with them. But they comprice about 1% of all the people in the sex industry. It may be good money, but alot of women are in a very negative cycle. Some porn is just prostitution with a camera... The internet is a very hard things to govern. especially by a government who doesn't understand it.[/QUOTE]I was only using porn as an example of why having censorship choices was good as it gives me the power to decide what I want to see and what I don?t want to see. [QUOTE=DarkFactor']The dark ages were a result of censorship not a lack of it. People were forced to swear oaths to generational land owners who did not care about their well-being. People's lives were severly controlled by their government and by the church. What destroyed the tryanny of the dark ages was expression, art, and culture.[/quote]The dark ages were a result of [I]uncontrolled[/I] censorship. I was also trying to say that by doing away with it we would be just as guilty as those who went overboard by censoring nearly everything. I could have been clearer on this, but it would still amount to the same thing, chaos and suppression of the innocent. On this time it would be one of forcing things on people instead of denying them the right to choose altogether. Still a form of tyranny, only flipped.

Also? and I?m putting on my moderator cap here. You need to do something about your poor spelling in your posts as they are littered with misspelled words. Please use something like Word to double check your spelling or if you don?t have word, get a hotmail account as it?s free and it has a spellchecker. I always type up my posts in word and then simply copy and paste them. I?m not trying to be mean, but a quick look at the rules will explain why.
[INDENT]
[b]Incoherent/Sloppy Posts:[/b] At OtakuBoards, we greatly emphasize the concept of having clear, easy to read posts. This includes correct use of spelling, grammar and punctuation. If a member is posting with very poor quality, they will be asked to clean up their future posts. If the member persists in posting poorly, they will be banned from the site.[/INDENT]

So please work on that as it?s required for all members to put more effort into their posts. [/COLOR]

[Horendithas]

[COLOR=DeepSkyBlue][quote name='Aaryanna][COLOR=DarkOrchid] And if you think censorship is an invasion, just imagine anyone being able to broadcast what ever they want into your homes, or even come to your home and put banners on your lawn saying whatever they want. I can pretty much guarantee that it would get ugly real fast. [/COLOR][/QUOTE]Quoted for truth. It?s easy to think of censorship only in the light that it takes away freedom. After all as DarkFactor pointed out, at one time it was heavily abused. But as DeadSeraphim also pointed out: [QUOTE=DeadSeraphim][COLOR=Indigo][SIZE=1][FONT=Arial]A politician listens to music with aggressive lyrics toward the government? He's offended, he assumes others are, he lobbies to get it removed, bam, the music is gone. They've already tried it before, but only managed to get stickers slapped on the CDs. If they were given the actual right to remove and silence things that they 'believe' is volatile, then we'd be in a whole world of trouble, and not just for music and special interest groups.[/FONT][/SIZE'][/COLOR][/quote] It would be all to easy for people in power to turn around and put us back on the level of censoring things that don?t need to be removed. Though I do agree with the decision to put labels on the CD?s.

I also agree with Papa Smurf: [quote name='Papa Smurf'] We need smart censorship. Not non-existent censorship. Not total absolute censorship. Smart censorship.[/quote] Getting rid of censorship would in my opinion be a mistake and yet at the same time there needs to be a system of checks and balances to ensure that it doesn?t get out of hand. So that we don't have the problem of CD?s with either offensive or explicit material being banned altogether or being put on the shelves without a warning label on them. That just makes sense to me as it makes it easier for customers to make informed purchases.

It?s the responsibility of the artist to make sure the appropriate label is on their work and at that point if someone buys it and complains, it?s their fault for failing to read the label when they purchased it. [/COLOR]

[kumi-chanmi]

there is two ways to look at this one its bull, amd the other its okay if you have a three year old and you don't want to hear him cussin. Now censoring does take away freedom of expression, but rememver when you have little kids runnin about you don't want them to hear a curse and then they'll repeat it. So for this I just have two opposing views on it

[Aaryanna_Mom]

[quote name='DarkFactor']When is it okay to censor? never.[/quote]Actually I would have said it was wrong to not have the right to censor things. Censorship doesn't mean you can't have something, only that there are limits on who can see it or buy it. Like Rated R movies. You have to be 18 to see them. I think people confuse the word censor with banning. Censor can simply mean it?s limited like I just mentioned with movies, where banned means you can?t see or listen to the show or music at all. Definitely not the same thing. Anyway?

As a parent I?m 100% for censorship. I think things would be utter chaos without it. But at the same time I can see where it needs to be a matter of choosing what level of censorship you actually need. So in that respect I think it?s good that movies, and other things are labeled to help consumers make smart choices.

The thing that cracks me up is to hear kids these days complain about what they cut out in shows and on the radio and such. But only because a lot of the violence, profanity and outright shock tactics that you see these days for the most part didn?t exist in shows when I was a kid.

Just go and take a look at some of the older stuff like the original Bewitched, the Dick Van Dyke show Gilligan?s Island and others. I just find it supremely ironic to hear complaints about censorship when what is allowed in shows and music has expanded greatly.

[Chiyo Chan Fan]

[QUOTE=Bláse][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][/QUOTE]

I totally agree with you! I really don't understand myself. Censorship always varies on where it is.