Censorship

[Condraz23]

Hello everyone.

Censorship is the removal or suppression of information from the public by a controlling group or body. Typically, censorship is done by governments, religious groups, or the mass media. There are obviously positive and negative aspects of censorship. Censorship may protect a certain group of individuals within society. Censorship may also be used to enforce traditional moral values within society. Pornography and violence may be censored with the intent that any children watching would be prevented from accidently viewing disturbing scenes which may traumatize or emotionally scar the child for life. Nevertheless, the word censorship has a rather negative meaning. Many people believe that the negative consequences of censorship outweigh its positive consequences. Censorship is often used in totalitarian nations and during special occations like wars. Since the rise of democracy, government-enforced censorship and intolerance has been rapidly declining in most European nations. What is now considered perfectly appropriate on national television would have been considered extremely obscene just a century ago.

I think that censorship should continue to exist, for the benefit of humanity. But unlike today, it should be entirely optional and voluntary. This would mean that all public sources of information such as national television would still be censored. But personal sources of information such as the Internet should definitely be not censored by the government.

A good system would be similar to the following. Any private source of information should have a warning to alert viewers that the content may be offensive. All public sources of information must adhere to the first three levels, in order to avoid offending unsuspecting viewers...

Unless they specifically desire to view offensive material, unsuspecting children should be prevented from viewing extremely offensive information, in order to prevent trauma and emotional scarring. Similar case with mentally retarded people and elderly people with heart conditions. Sounds alot like common sense, really.

Anyway, what is your opinion on censorship?

 

[Joey D]

I'm not a big fan of censorship, during high school I was the editor of the newspaper and we were constantly censored...I couldn't print the word hell and the administration only wanted us to print stories like "Who's your favorite ____" and "What would you do with a million dollars?", you know stuff that isn't news.

The government should play no role in censorship with the public, if a TV station deems something unfit to air then they have every right not to show it. I think today censorship goes to far, everyone has heard someone swear before, it's no big deal to say it on TV. Along with that it always makes me wonder when someone says "God Damn" they edit out the God but not the Damn, I don't quite understand that.

There should be a rating system however, but the government shouldn't enforce it, the parents should enforce it. If you don't want your 10 year watching a violent movie with sex, drugs and rock and roll in it then don't let them.

 

[Sureboss]

TV without censorship would be chaotic.

Censorship is a good thing if it's applied correctly.

 

[Joey D]

How would it be chaotic? Just because someone would swear?

 

[3-Wheel Drive]

I don't think there should be any censorship at all. The reason is this: once you censor even one thing, you step on to a slippery slope. Once people get wind that you decided to censor one thing, there will be demands from people who want to censor all sorts of things. Anything that is found offensive to even the smallest minority has the potential for being banned.

The problem lies with the simple fact that censorship is fundamentally flawed. It is designed to protect us from having to view material we find objectionable and offensive. But both are purely subjective qualities. What is offensive to some may not be to others, so how can we define and bar it properly, and most importantly, fairly?

Our American system is screwed up. I can see, on the news, the bloody, gory, aftermath of a car wreck. If I change the channel (not even leaving the local ones), I can watch Jack Bauer torture information out of a terrorist, or watch him put 8 holes in someone with a 9mm. But, God forbid, Janet Jackson's (semi) bare breast pops out at the Super Bowl, and it's OMG!!!1 THINK OF THE CHILDREN OMG11!!!11!! Similarly, movies can be the same way. Apparently, it's perfectly fine to show in any theater a chick in a horror movie getting disemboweled with a chainsaw, but if that woman is shown in a sex scene with penetration, it becomes "smut" that is shunned by all but the seediest locales, and barred from all but anyone 18 or older.

I'm sorry, but I think society has its values a little backwards if the natural human form and/or act of reproduction are not allowed in all but a few situations, but gratuitous, graphic violence is a-okay to show practically anywhere.

I am a 17 year-old guy. I like violence. I like boobs. Why can't we embrace both?

 

[Joey D]

I am a 17 year-old guy. I like violence. I like boobs. Why can't we embrace both?

Best. Opinion. Ever.

I do agree with you though on our societies backwards values.

 

[Danoff]

I am a 17 year-old guy. I like violence. I like boobs. Why can't we embrace both?

I've given this quite a bit of thought, because I also find it completely backward that children are exposed to violence, but sex, a much more healthy behavior, is somehow taboo.

I think lines are drawn more easliy with sex than violence. There's such a wide range of violence whereas sex is more clear-cut and obvious.

 

[Sureboss]

How would it be chaotic? Just because someone would swear?

Channel 4 being allowed to screen whatever they want would be stupid.

The watersheds are right, or are we going to chuck Basic Instinct on between The Tweenies and Bob the Builder?

 

[Joey D]

I don't think they TV stations would show sex in the middle of a kids program, I think they would have it in prime time. All stations should be required to do is put a rating on each show and that way parents can figure out what their kids should and should not watch.

 

[3-Wheel Drive]

Channel 4 being allowed to screen whatever they want would be stupid.

The watersheds are right, or are we going to chuck Basic Instinct on between The Tweenies and Bob the Builder?

As Joey said, it would be very unwise to mix programming like that. Any station like that would lose viewers if they didn't put any planning into air times. Also, the best way to handle loss of censorship is to retain the viewer advisory warnings like we have for some programming, and have more defined TV ratings. Most TVs these days have customizable parental locks, so anyone could weed out what they don't want to see/let their kids see, if anything.

 

[Sureboss]

For me, the broadcaster has always and should always have an moral obligation to censor it's programmes.

 

[Scaff]

For me, the broadcaster has always and should always have an moral obligation to censor it's programmes.

Ah but exactly who's moral standpoint should they then use to censor the programmes? What I consider acceptable may be very different to you and different from that of various TV standards pressure groups. Keep in mind what Mary Whitehouse considered acceptable as far as moral standards for TV.

Regards

Scaff

 

[emad]

Am I the only person who has noticed a SIGNIFICANT rise in the number of times I've heard the term "B**** on prime-time tv lately? Did something happen that made it drop off of George Carlin's list of dirty words you can't say on TV? I find it amusing since the F-Bomb is still strictly censored while it's perfectly OK for B**** to be used. It seems like only a few years ago when the worst word you ever heard on the tube was Damn.

 

[Sureboss]

The word Bitch beats the watershed now, regularly on our 'soaps'.

 

[Shannon]

I vote for a new broadcasting technology with user-selectable censorship levels.

 

[Sureboss]

That's probably not that far fetched an idea for the future.

 

[Barracuda]

Am I the only person who has noticed a SIGNIFICANT rise in the number of times I've heard the term "B**** on prime-time tv lately? Did something happen that made it drop off of George Carlin's list of dirty words you can't say on TV? I find it amusing since the F-Bomb is still strictly censored while it's perfectly OK for B**** to be used. It seems like only a few years ago when the worst word you ever heard on the tube was Damn.

Ive noticed that too.

actually heres another thing. Adult swim posts 'TV-14' or 'TV-MA' before each of their shows but they still edit out the swears and blood for the 'TV-MA' shows.

But comedy central has a set aside time on Saturday where they show a movie, completely unedited, so why can't adult swim?

 

[TuneRVisioN]

Yeah, we all cursed when we were kids. And we all seen a set of boobs before. (Well atleast I did IRL. ) But still every kid has said/saw something negative. Trust me, if I would've went to school without doing some negative harassment, I wouldn't have a girl.

 

[Tornado]

actually heres another thing. Adult swim posts 'TV-14' or 'TV-MA' before each of their shows but they still edit out the swears and blood for the 'TV-MA' shows.

Not for every show. GitS season 1 and 2 both ran essentially unedited, as far as I can tell.
They have also loosened up considerably from what they were at when the block started.

But comedy central has a set aside time on Saturday where they show a movie, completely unedited, so why can't adult swim?

Comedy Central isn't a bookend for a childrens cartoon channel.

 

[Joey D]

Watch Family Guy on Adult Swim, there is a lot more "offensive" content in there then when it was played on Fox.

 

[Tornado]

Watch Family Guy on Adult Swim, there is a lot more "offensive" content in there then when it was played on Fox.

I've noticed that too. They seem to bleep a lot less than they did when they first aired or when they air in syndication.

 

[Joey D]

The wikipedia episode guide tells what is different between the Fox aired ones and the Adult Swim aired ones. I guess since Cartoon Network is on cable.

If anyone watches The Shield they swear quite a bit on there as well, even a few sh**s as well.

 

[Gil]

I swore to myself that I wouldn't be the first one to bring this up: But since no one else has:

Censorship: is probably a good thing to a degree. However in a lot of ways it is a violation of our first amendment rights.

However, there should be some responsibility involved also. Just because I have the right of free speech doesn't mean I should go in to a dark, crowded movie theater yelling. "OMG, everybody run, he's got a gun!"

As many of you know, Don Imus stepped on his **** several days ago when he dropped a racial insult on the Rutgers ladies Basketball team.

While he was/is an insensitive asshat, should he have said what he said? Probably not.

By the same token, Black comedians talk **** on white people all the time on BET.
I've yet to hear the white people complaining. In fact, they are usually the ones telling me about it the next day, laughing their butts off.

Growing up when I did, I understand that racial slurs can be pretty damn hurtful.
But if we continue to let idiots and asshats shape our views of ourselves just because they say something that is blatantly untrue, stereotypical, or just plain stupid, where is our self-worth?

Letting someone else undermine your sense of self worth is the same as being a slave to them. Didn't jump that hurdle some time back?

Should they be censored? No, they have a right to their opinion. Even if it's wrong.

Should people, especially the media, be more responsible about what they say and write for public consumption? IMHO, Hell yes!
My somewhat uneducated father often told me, "Be careful of every word you say. The words that come out of your mouth should be sweet. If not sweet, than certainly not sour. That way when you have to eat your words, they won't taste so bad."

 

[Joey D]

I think it might be different when a comedian says something, we know, or at least we should know it's in the name of comedy. I like black comedians even though they do rip on whites, I have no problem with that, I especially like Chris Rock. And hey most of the time they are speaking the truth about white people, if you can't laugh at yourself who can you laugh at?

I don't believe in race (it's that anthropologist thing), I see people as cars, we are all the same model just different colors.

 

[Gil]

I don't believe in race (it's that anthropologist thing), I see people as cars, we are all the same model just different colors.

Well, put.👍
In the immortal words of Garth Brooks from "we shall be free"

"...there's only one race, and that's mankind."

And yes, I do listen to country music...

 

[Strittan]

Well, sorry for digging up an old thread, but I was gonna create one otherwise.

Censoring swearing and foul language is extremely foreign to me, and something I will never understand. What harm can words do, really?

 

[TexRex]

Well, sorry for digging up an old thread, but I was gonna create one otherwise.

Censoring swearing and foul language is extremely foreign to me, and something I will never understand. What harm can words do, really?

"censoring" ≠ "censorship"

Censorship is suppression of expression either directly by or using the mechanisms of the state or otherwise governing body.

As ever, offense is subjective and ultimately private actors get to condition services on adherence to arbitrary standards. That's not censorship. That's free association.

That becomes censorship when the state mandates that private actors conditions services on standards it sets. My knowledge on the legal end of this is limited to the United States and the agency empowered to apply such standards, the Federal Communications Commission, has been given that authority over broadcast bands provided and regulated by the state on the basis that the state provides and regulates them.