Censorship

[Sugaree]

So this is a revival of a thread I made a few months back.

Censorship: Right or wrong?

For years, I thought that censorship was a good thing. It keeps back the "bad" or "dirty" things and only gives us the "clean" and "good" things. Upon closer inspection, I find that - in the United States - it violates our rights to free speech. The FCC, which many people know is the department which controls all television programming, is the source of censoring. It is run by the government. The government is supposed to uphold the Constitution. In the Constitution, as I have already stated, we have the rights to free speech. Why, then, does the government preach to us about free speech yet runs a department that prohibits the use of profanity?

The words themselves are just words. They have no added meaning until you GIVE them an added meaning. This just doesn't stay in the televised market, but also other media (ie, newspapers/magazines and music). Why is it all censored? Because people don't want to hear things that they have been taught are "wrong" or "naughty". This, in my opinion, is a huge crock.

So, in conclusion, is censorship right or is it wrong and what is the basis of saying it is right or wrong?

[Bougainvillea]

It's stupid.

With all the things we go through in life, hearing the word fuck on TV is the least of my worries.

[CaliKid24]

I think censorship is completely wrong and that the FCC is against the constitution. But I think that they shood use the rating system and if there's something with profanity then it should say on the rating, like it does now. But don't block anything. Let people decide what they want to see. It's not the governments job.

[Sugaree]

It's stupid.

With all the things we go through in life, hearing the word fuck on TV is the least of my worries.

It may be to you, but just think of the countless TV mothers out there "worrying" that it might bring their children brain damage.

[Obscene Eyedeas]

brain damage? that's not really that possible from television. lol maybe psychological damage. sadly though to censor television is to deny freedom of speech. once again showing the world the u.s. just simply can't avoid becoming a hypocritical place. in the end it is up to parents and tv viewers what they want to see. i think age appropriateness is purely silly many of these things we will discover throughout our lives anyway why delay the inevitable by a few years. if mothers are truly worried about their children get them out of the house and actually spend time with them

[CaliKid24]

brain damage? that's not really that possible from television. lol maybe psychological damage. sadly though to censor television is to deny freedom of speech. once again showing the world the u.s. just simply can't avoid becoming a hypocritical place. in the end it is up to parents and tv viewers what they want to see. i think age appropriateness is purely silly many of these things we will discover throughout our lives anyway why delay the inevitable by a few years. if mothers are truly worried about their children get them out of the house and actually spend time with them

Even then those children will be exposed to whatever the FCC decides to censor. This is why I watch Mexican news. They show everything and yet we are supposed to be the freest country.

[JunkBondTrader]

With the exception of child pornography, I oppose all forms of censorship. I live in a country where they still ban films (see "Grotesque" last year and countless other films that have been cut down to half their length) and it insults me that the government think they can tell me what I can and can't watch.

But I can understand limits with television. I'm really into ultra-violent Yakuza flicks but I accept that others don't want to see these when they switch on the TV at 2 in the afternoon.

The differences between what countries censor amuses me somewhat. America never bans films but in Britain they air porn on terrestrial/broadcast TV.

[Sith Lord 13]

I do not believe in censorship of fiction in any sense. The only censorship I believe in is the protection of government secrets, ie troop movements and locations, past military tactics (while still useful) etc.

Arts and speech should have no limitations, although I do believe in the principal of fighting words (if you say something inflammatory, in someones face, in a deliberate attempt to provoke a response, they have the right to deck you). Television and movies should be rated but not censored except by in home methods such as the V-chip and parental involvement.

[Bougainvillea]

I live in a country where they still ban films

Wasn't "The Texas Chainsaw Massacres" put on the black list there for like 25 years? :P

[JunkBondTrader]

Wasn't "The Texas Chainsaw Massacres" put on the black list there for like 25 years? :P

Uh-huh. :( It's been released uncut now but it took too bloody long if you ask me. Other films my government has butchered include Larry Clark's Kids, Takashi Miike's Ichi the Killer, and the French Avant-Garde film Baise-moi. None of these films were actually banned but they were cut, some of them significantly which seems to me to be government overstepping it's boundaries.

Technically speaking, The BBFC, the organisation which decides what films and certain games can be released is not strictly speaking government run but their decisions are legally binding which is bad enough.

EDIT: And of course there's Grotesque, a Japanese horror film which was banned outright in the UK. We're one of the few western nations still banning films in this way.

Still not as bad as Australia though. :P

[Bougainvillea]

That's... funny to me. :P
I heard Grotesque was horrible though?

Can you not own the banned films either?

[Obscene Eyedeas]

I quite liked that movie though it was very "graphic" and i think its banned here too. Censorship is overrated once your old enough to comprehend a subject then why not allow you to see it

[Continuum]

Censorship is the one of the only things I wish never existed, with a little exemption for a country's top secrets which are strictly closed-doors. People should see what they want to see, want their children to see, and what other people to see (if they have direct control over that person, but that would be mind control) But at least limit it to the extent of keeping it from people who don't want to see it.


I quite liked that movie though it was very "graphic" and i think its banned here too. Censorship is overrated once your old enough to comprehend a subject then why not allow you to see it

Governments are trying to keep it from people who cannot fully understand the contents and its consequences.

[Perseus]

See, I find censorship ridiculous. Like, when they censor "fuck" on t.v., you still know it's fuck. Sometimes, censorship gets out of hand like on Comedy Central when you can't understand a single thing on stand up stuff, and it get's annoying not understanding the joke and just hearing "beep". But some movie channels don't censor stuff, like IFC and Encore, and HBO; why is this that they don't have to censor but regular channels do?

[INFERNO]

For years, I thought that censorship was a good thing. It keeps back the "bad" or "dirty" things and only gives us the "clean" and "good" things. Upon closer inspection, I find that - in the United States - it violates our rights to free speech. The FCC, which many people know is the department which controls all television programming, is the source of censoring. It is run by the government. The government is supposed to uphold the Constitution. In the Constitution, as I have already stated, we have the rights to free speech. Why, then, does the government preach to us about free speech yet runs a department that prohibits the use of profanity?

Section 318-319 of the Canadian Criminal Code prohibit "hate propaganda" despite legislation allowing for freedom of speech. The same is in the US, the Constitution states free speech and somewhere in it there is legislation as to what speech is prohibited. The reason it's there is to prevent hate crimes and violent crimes due to hatred. The one question though is just what constitutes a hate crime?

In Canada, the max penalty is 2 years incarceration and fine of $2,000. For example, in 2002, an Aboriginal leader who was a nominee for the Order of Canada, voiced strong anti-Jewish remarks during his interview whereby he supported Hitler and wanted all Jewish people to be killed because he considered them scum and the reason for so many conflicts. Needless to say, he was arrested yet never acted on any of his remarks. I think though he only got $1,000 fine and no imprisonment (or maybe for 1 year).

For television, I support censorship on certain conditions only. I support it when the language and images are clearly too offensive for young children's programs. By this I don't mean a character saying "dick" or "stupid" getting censored but a character yelling "you fucking shit bitch cunt". That sort of offensive language, although it does not do brain damage, is not something I'd want a young child to hear. On television shows with ratings such as 18+ or R, I'm more willing because the channel is designed to allow that for an audience that can handle it. For visual content, it's more on a case-by-case basis but if on, say Spongebob, there was a Lemon Party going on with high visual clarity, that's something I would want censored. On channels/shows of 18+, R, A,AA and whatever else, I'm more willing to have it shown.

That's... funny to me. :P
I heard Grotesque was horrible though?

Can you not own the banned films either?

There was another film called Salo and it is internationally banned but more and more places have been eliminating their banns or reduced it. So it will vary where you are located. I know some countries refuse to allow any movie store, theatre and such to sell Salo whereas others say only 18+, and others have no ban at all.

I've seen it a few times and if you haven't, it is a pretty sick one but it wasn't made to be disgusting for the hell of it. The director (forget his name) made it to show the worst things humans do to one another both psychologically, financially, sexually and physically. If you want to see it, it was first made in Italian but it's also on VHS, DVD, Blue-Ray and can be translated to other languages.

[Amnesiac]

I hate censorship, it's a pointless exercise Sooner or later your child is going to hear and most likely start using "dirty" words, so why bother dumping millions of dollars on a government commission to ban them? Words are just words anyway, if you changed the definition of "fuck" to "a large mound of dirt", it wouldn't be "offensive" anymore. With all the problems we have going on around us we shouldn't waste time being offended at "horrible" content (this is why I hate the Parents' Television Council).

Furthermore, if you don't want your kids seeing something, you don't ban it for everyone else. Afraid of porn? Install a filter. Afraid of Family Guy? Use your channel blocker. The "morals" of one person =/= the morals of everyone, and I absolutely hate people who support censorship because they want to protect children. You can protect your own children the way you want, just don't try and protect me.

I'm just thankful the censorship here in the U.S. isn't as bad as Australia's, because we have such a strong Bill of Rights. I'm disappointed in my home country, Kevin Rudd has turned out to be a terrible PM and I hope that he's replaced soon with someone who doesn't want to create a Chinese-type Internet filtration system.

[Whisper]

http://z.about.com/d/animatedtv/1/0/v/S/fGuyPTV_v2_72.jpg

I think censorship is unnecessary
if a parent doesnt want their child seeing something then they should do their job

[Iron Man]

I really never thought about that before. That makes a whole lot of sense. This nation really doesn`t have freedom of speech after all.

[quartermaster]

I do not believe in censorship of the airwaves, as I do not believe it is at all acceptable to limit freedom of speech and expression under the pretense of convenience. Parents, unlike in situations of public indecency, have the ability and the means to protect their children from indecent material on television. The technology exists to limit what programs children can watch and, for the most part, what they are exposed to. Even then, parents have the option to forgo television access for their children, all-together (whereas protecting children from direct “indecent” activities, publicly, is near impossible). Ultimately, I believe in personal responsibility and restraint for oneself and one's children; to be responsible for what one’s children are exposed to or even what is tolerable for oneself. I do not believe, again, in limiting what companies or private organizations can put on their channels because the content is deemed "unsuitable." Instead of being responsible adults, those who call for censorship would prefer restrictions because such responsibility is simply "inconvenient." I draw a problem with those who would limit the freedoms and personal liberties of all, because they themselves do not value individual choice and responsibility—they would prefer someone else carry the weight of morality and “responsible” behavior for them, at the expense of the freedoms of others. I do not believe that rights and liberties should ever be limited because the full maintenance of them is simply too “inconvenient” for certain groups (that even includes, the majority).

I consider myself fairly conservative when it comes to what children should and should not be exposed to, but censorship, at the expense of personal choice and responsibility (which is to mean, at the expense of our freedom not to be aggressed against) is, to my mind, simply unacceptable.

[The Ninja]

i personally think it's retarded but i mean the "n word" is offensive to african americans so that's one of the only words i think you shouldn't say, but yet it's still taking away our free speech so yeah. on the other hand it's like on a forum where you aren't aloud to cuss since they own the forum it's they're rules. so like i said i think it's retarded but other things come into play.

[Sugaree]

i personally think it's retarded but i mean the "n word" is offensive to african americans so that's one of the only words i think you shouldn't say, but yet it's still taking away our free speech so yeah. on the other hand it's like on a forum where you aren't aloud to cuss since they own the forum it's they're rules. so like i said i think it's retarded but other things come into play.

The word "nigger" (oh look, I said something offensive, shoot me) is indeed offensive to African Americans. Just like the word "chink" or "beaner" are offensive to Asians and Latinos. However, a word is a word; they have no meaning unless you GIVE them meaning. The entire censorship of words is solely based on the mental process of not wanting to offend people. If you offend someone in today's word, simply saying "I'm sorry" or something along those lines get you nowhere.

Just because it's the "rules" doesn't mean it stops people from doing it. You can make a law decreeing that one may not say the word "apple"(for example sake). You can make all the laws you want, but it will still happen.

[Bougainvillea]

You can make a law decreeing that one may not say the word "apple
That's a racial slur towards asians, too you know.

[The Ninja]

That's a racial slur towards asians, too you know.

ha ha i didn't know that and btw murdock when they break that law to say apple wouldn't there be consequinces (there goes my bad spelling again) cause if you said nigger to one of your african american friends the consequince would probably be that you lose a friend

[Sugaree]

ha ha i didn't know that and btw murdock when they break that law to say apple wouldn't there be consequinces (there goes my bad spelling again)

More than likely, yes there would. However, my point is saying that you can tell people "Don't do this" and they will continue to do it. Unless the person you tell it to is a total sheep. In which case, you needn't worry.

[The Ninja]

More than likely, yes there would. However, my point is saying that you can tell people "Don't do this" and they will continue to do it. Unless the person you tell it to is a total sheep. In which case, you needn't worry.

unless you kill them for saying nigger which if you said that to a gangster they would "pop a cap up yo ass"

[punkjake]

They show porn on tv,if you pay an extra 5$ ;) so why the hell not?I think it's wrong the way the goverment runs the media,yeah.So you can't say fuck but you can talk about pills that make your dick bigger...yeah.

[Sugaree]

They show porn on tv,if you pay an extra 5$ ;) so why the hell not?I think it's wrong the way the goverment runs the media,yeah.So you can't say fuck but you can talk about pills that make your dick bigger...yeah.

Penis enlargement pill commercials do not use offensive language. Though they do use some sexually suggestive terms and phrases, they do not use "offensive" words.

[Scarface]

That's why they wait for late night TV. I mean for the younger, younger viewers under double digits i would completely understand because they are more likely to be influenced by the things they see and listen to. regardless of what their parents say. I don't think I would want to hear a 9 year old going around saying the word "Fuck" like some illiterate person. Now for the older viewers I see no problems because they have a little more of a mind and know when and when not to use vulgarity.

[mrmcdonaldduck]

i dont mean to make america seem like a pussy when it comes to censorship, but it is. In australia, government policy is to censor the internet of all things deemed "innapropriate" with a ISP level filter that will not work. The blacklist wont be revealed to the public, and a leaked copy had several pro abortion websites and anti euthanasia campaigns on the block list. This is a mandatory filter as well. if this legaslation is passed, we would be WORSE than china and cuba. not on par, but worse!

[The Dark Lord]

The word "nigger" (oh look, I said something offensive, shoot me) is indeed offensive to African Americans. Just like the word "chink" or "beaner" are offensive to Asians and Latinos. However, a word is a word; they have no meaning unless you GIVE them meaning. The entire censorship of words is solely based on the mental process of not wanting to offend people. If you offend someone in today's word, simply saying "I'm sorry" or something along those lines get you nowhere.

Just because it's the "rules" doesn't mean it stops people from doing it. You can make a law decreeing that one may not say the word "apple"(for example sake). You can make all the laws you want, but it will still happen.

It depends in what context you use it and if you intend to cause offence. I agree with that you can't stop people using racist words, but there should be more severe punishments for inciting racial hatred