Censorship, what

[Kenso]

Ah, censorship...It will never fail to amaze me how something that so very many people have relatively similar opinions on can cause so many issues. As for my views, the simple answer is that censorship is bad, period. I do not agree with it in any way. Now I'll move on to the lengthy answer.

EDIT: Note that the rest of this is written on the assumption that ratings are NOT censorship, but merely means of warning people that they may find something they don't want to deal with inside.


The ultimate pursuit of mankind has been, and always will be, greater knowledge, for no advancements can be made without the knowledge to work with. Censorship, at its most basic use, is a way to restrict access to knowledge. This is inherently opposed to human nature (that is, to pursue knowledge), and it is nearly always decided upon by a small group that has no real right to interfere with the majority's right to gain knowledge (i.e., a government agency that is supposed to represent the majority of people, not protect themselves).

Some things are censored to avoid 'offending' people. Even offensive material is knowledge. The very fact that it is potent enough to offend means you have something to learn from it. If you did not, you would simply blow it off as inconsequential (sp?) and move on.

As an example, not long after the 9/11 attacks, a decision was made to stop showing footage of the towers because it made people angry, etc. In my mind, there is no better reason to continue to show it. Such knowledge, and such reminders of said knowledge, are exactly what spur humankind to action. Perhaps not always intelligent action, but humans are prone to mistakes. If enough people are spurred, something WILL be done, because you can't really ignore the demands of a loud enough voice. It is offensive because it must be responded to, and to hide that knowledge is to plug its response.

Other censorship takes place because someone, somewhere, feels that some sort of problems would arise were it to get to the general public, that media of some sort could generate issues that weren't there before.

I'll use Fahrenheit 9/11 as an example, as I know instances where they would not show it. Though I have not seen it, I do have an idea of what it is. The problem with Fahrenheit 9/11 is that it was something with a very strong political message, that presented data in an admittedly biased, but still technically accurate manner. People felt it shouldn't be shown because it would somehow detract from America's 'sense of unity' after the 9/11 attacks. But therein lies the problem of censorship to begin with. Assuming it could have that effect, it merely means that the potential was there, and people were merely lacking the knowledge. Media does not create strife (unless with outright lies), it merely brings it to a head. If people starting doubting, it was only because they had new data to work with, data that people were attempting to hide from them.

Even censorship on a less extreme basis, such as the Americanization of anime and other intercontinental media (including Monty Python and the Holy Grail), detracts from knowledge on a more basic level. Many anime that people believe are for kids were not designed that way. But somehow, in someone's mind I do not know, a decision was made that animation is supposed to be for kids. Therefore, all swearing is removed, and when someone is cut or shot, they do not bleed. Because such general principles of life that even children are familiar with (if I'm cut, I bleed), are somehow bad influences for children. Now I won't get into exactly how I think that's effecting (affecting? - I can never keep them straight) the world, but if you want to hide something from kids, leave that to the parents to decide.

So, yes, I think censorship is a very large problem, and I believe censorship should be straight-up gotten rid of.

[Retribution]

[quote name='MoyakuKeramushe']Some things are censored to avoid 'offending' people. Even offensive material is knowledge. The very fact that it is potent enough to offend means you have something to learn from it. If you did not, you would simply blow it off as inconsequential (sp?) and move on.[/quote]
[font=Arial]This is untrue. Take, for example, a picture of a black person being lynched with the caption "LOL PWN". Such a picture would be extremely racist and offensive to a broad range of people, [i]but what do they have to learn from it[/i]? Offensive material is, in and of itself, not necessarily "knowledge" or intended to convey a meaningful message. In the aforementioned example, the offended parties would already have knowledge of these events occurring in the past, and thus their reaction would be based off of that legacy.

Please understand that censorship, while not bulletproof or without its own pitfalls, should certainly be used in select instances where the content is not suitable for the environment (and yes, I'm aware this is a relativistic judgment).[/font]

[Kenso]

[quote name='Retribution'][FONT=Arial]Please understand that censorship, while not bulletproof or without its own pitfalls, should certainly be used in select instances where the content is not suitable for the environment (and yes, I'm aware this is a relativistic judgment).[/FONT][/quote]

The very fact that it is a relativistic judgment is what makes censorship such a problem. Who gets to determine who should see what? What gives any one person or any one group of people the right to decide what any other responsible adult should be able to view? Yes, kids need things blocked, but that's what parents are supposed to be for (which is a whole other argument, that I simply won't bother with).


And the very offense that those people feel is a knowledge in and of itself. I have met people who denied such things have ever occurred, that people still think in that matter, and I've seen pictures along those lines change their minds rather quickly. It is all relative to who is seeing it, and that very relativity is what causes problems with censorship to begin with.

[MaskedRider]

[QUOTE]Mutha Mutha ****, mutha mutha **** ****, mutha **** mutha **** noinch noinch noinch, one, two, one two three four noinch noinch noinch, shmokin weed, shmokin whiz, doin coke, drinkin beers, drinkin beers beers beers, rollin fatties, smokin blunts, who smokes blunts?, we smoke the blunts, rollin blunts and smokin....[/QUOTE]

In the middle ages, the church often censored art, and it seems like they're still trying to do it today. Anyone remember "Pokemans is the devil"? And now it's "let's take movies out of context". People need to lighten the hell up, seriously. I can't stand censored artwork. My favorite artist has the vast majority of his work censored. I remember when my parents bought me the edited Eminem CD's when I was a kid. I could easily understand what he was talking about, it's not like it made the song less immoral really. If a man is talking about killing his ex-wife, that's what he's going to be talking about, regardless of whether you can here him say ***** or not. My problem is that these censored versions not only tend to mutilate the songs (on certain tracks it's common to use random sound effects to bleep stuff out, like burps and quacks), but it also makes the product available to kids. If a kid tries to buy a Parental Advisory CD, he can't without a parent, but if it's edited then he can buy it. Either way, he has a CD about killing women and doing drugs. Ratings are awesome. These days most DVD players come with a parental control setting, and all next gen consoles come with content advisors too. This is 2008 people. Free your mind.

[Silicium]

it's funny I found this thread, seing as how I just finished Farenheit 451 yesterday.

I'm totally against censorship, and so is the rest of my family.

[chibi-master]

I think censorship is kind of annoying. I mean, many people are mature enough to pick what they watch and control how they're influenced. So censorship is like treating the general public like children. I believe that censorship is tolerable to a point. That is, it should be used for little kids. I don't think that a decent parent would let their child see an R rated movie with language, violence, etc.

[Sabrina]

[FONT="Tahoma"][quote name='James;799984][font=franklin gothic medium]I'm fundamentally opposed to censorship (I prefer ratings than outright censorship), but as per usual there are many shades of grey.[/font][/QUOTE]I'm rather fond of ratings myself. >_> But then I'm squeamish and horror flicks tend to make my skin crawl. But seriously, outright taking things out is something I don't agree with.[QUOTE=James'][font=franklin gothic medium]With OB, my feeling is that we can censor swearing while still allowing people to say whatever they want. After all, you can still express any idea without using swearing.

So although specific words are censored, ideas themselves are not. I think that's the main point.[/font][/QUOTE]My English teacher has always been rather fond of telling us that if you're relying on swearing to express things... your paper needs serious work. XP And yes, I know it's a form of expression in itself, I think he was just trying to get us to think harder and be more creative. :catgirl:[quote name='James'][font=franklin gothic medium]In terms of films and religion, I'm just tired of the whole debate honestly. Religious groups really need to get a better hobby than frequently going after films.[/font][/QUOTE]Oh so very true. XD I'm religious myself, but honestly, I never did get that drive some have to attempt to censor others based on their own vision of what's acceptable or not. So silly really. [/FONT]