[unreality]

The drugs debate kind of died down so here's a new one for y'all... Censorship!!! It happens on the radio, in forums like this, on the TV, in newspapers and really almost anywhere. What is your opinion of blocking out content?

Edited June 4, 2010 by unreality

[EDM]

*the vote thing is slightly faulty......i had to click 'other' for against it part to give my vote....

Censorship is important....it helps to keep innocence in youngsters, preventing drug abuse, violent behaviour, etc, at an early age.....

Children as young as 4 are swearing and disrespecting and even learning new vices like smoking!!! Honestly, this is just wrong.....

People who feel that censorship is not needed.....well, they've got issues.....

[Guest]

*the vote thing is slightly faulty......i had to click 'other' for against it part to give my vote....

Censorship is important....it helps to keep innocence in youngsters, preventing drug abuse, violent behaviour, etc, at an early age.....

Children as young as 4 are swearing and disrespecting and even learning new vices like smoking!!! Honestly, this is just wrong.....

People who feel that censorship is not needed.....well, they've got issues.....

Yeah, you have to put a vote in all fields, so it's not perfect.

Considering that we have censorship now and there are four-year-olds swearing up a storm, so to speak, how can the lack of censorship be said to be the problem?

I like the rating system for movies (G, PG, R, X, etc.) and video games (E, T, M, AO) since they give some indication of what the viewer is going to be exposed to, but I think that (like the "War on Drugs") the censorship thing is wrong-headed. I don't really have any collaborating evidence, but it seems to me that a lot of American censorship derives from Victorian Era Britain, which had some pretty strict ideas regarding the "proper" conduct of a good British aristocrat.

You might wonder why the Victorian Era would have any bearing on American morals, but as we settled into our new country, there was an Anglicization movement to emulate our forebears in jolly old England and this Anglicization coincided with the VE.

As far as I can see, censorship hasn't done anything to make us more moral as a society, or to "protect the innocence" of children. I admit, kids these days are far more "plugged in" to their television and computers than I was growing up so it might be more of an issue in some ways now than when I was a kid. I watched Saturday morning cartoons, but that was about it. My parents were conscientious and didn't swear around me and my brothers, and we didn't watch programs where censorship is relevant. I didn't know that swear words existed in second grade. We were studying words ending in "AM" and I offered "DAM," which to my utter bewilderment caused most of the class to titter. Considering that the word they thought I had meant isn't found in most children's media, regardless of censorship, I doubt that they learned the words from the TV.

Where did Ralphie in "The Christmas Story" pick up his foul language?* That's more likely where your average kid is going to be picking up bad words. That or other kids at school who picked it up from their parents. Censorship isn't anywhere in that equation. *(He confesses that his father was a serial swearer at home. )

Regarding censoring content on TV, it should really be the parents' responsibility for controlling what their children are doing so a failure to do so shouldn't really be the content-providers fault. With the rating systems I mentioned above, people should be adequately warned and then they should have the information necessary to make a value-judgment on whether to watch (or not watch) the following program. If you don't like what's on the television, change the channel.

I think that this blanket censorship of swearing (not violence so much, which would be pretty ridiculous considering its pervasiveness in American drama shows) and nudity has really hindered American social development. We've become obsessed over these sorts of things which really shouldn't be taboo. When families living in a one-room house and having 5+ kids was the norm, I don't think that most of these things were an issue...

[unreality]

Firstly about the poll, yeah it's flawed, just vote 'Other' for the off-vote, I can't change it now.

Anyway I disagree with EDM and agree with Dawh; i voted to be Strongly Against Censorship.

EDM, I suggest reading the book Fahrenheit 451 or watching the movie Equilibrium to show how extreme censorship can go (both are set in dystopian future societies). Also why would you want to censor drug-related things? My motivation for making this topic was actually seeing the word 'stoner' bleeped out in a VEVO-hosted music video on youtube. Are you kidding me??? Since when is 'stoner' a swear word (even though I don't even believe in swear words in the first place haha)?? It's not, it's just a perceived oversensitivity of society. Bleeping out the word 'stoner' is almost like an insult to a genuine lifestyle choice.

But anyway,

Censorship is important....it helps to keep innocence in youngsters, preventing drug abuse, violent behaviour, etc, at an early age.....

as Dawh said, America is highly censored and we have this stuff already. I would prefer the European method where drug use is differentiated from drug abuse, where EDUCATION occurs instead of PROHIBITION and where sexuality is less restricted but violence is more restricted.

The other day I was watching the tv at 8pm primetime, a time that's supposed to be okay for kids for the most part. I don't watch tv that often except for a few key shows that I like, so I was kind of shocked by how widespread the blatant violence was. That being said, I wouldn't want it censored, maybe just more realistic. We are too uptight... personally I think we need less obsession on violence but in other areas censorship is just ridiculous. It's not helping, it's hurting.

Children as young as 4 are swearing and disrespecting and even learning new vices like smoking!!! Honestly, this is just wrong.....

People who feel that censorship is not needed.....well, they've got issues.....

Swearing and disrespecting are two different things. If swear words didn't exist there would be another way of disrespecting (and there is), etc. It's not like if a four year old learns a magical new "bad" word they suddenly become a violent toddler hell-bent on rebellion. What matters is the negative stigma given to that word... which was given by the parents themselves!

[Guest]

My motivation for making this topic was actually seeing the word 'stoner' bleeped out in a VEVO-hosted music video on youtube. Are you kidding me??? Since when is 'stoner' a swear word (even though I don't even believe in swear words in the first place haha)?? It's not, it's just a perceived oversensitivity of society. Bleeping out the word 'stoner' is almost like an insult to a genuine lifestyle choice.

I've seen this in other videos too... To be honest I really don't get the consorship in music, I don't know if it's been proven that listening to swear words (which usually are phrases made from ordinary words) makes you more violent?

Yet there are some people that decide not to say these words, and I respect it, but that doesn't mean we should all be censored for it.

as Dawh said, America is highly censored and we have this stuff already. I would prefer the European method where drug use is differentiated from drug abuse, where EDUCATION occurs instead of PROHIBITION and where sexuality is less restricted but violence is more restricted.

I'm sure the argument would be... That's whith restrictions (prohibition), imagine without it...

The other day I was watching the tv at 8pm primetime, a time that's supposed to be okay for kids for the most part. I don't watch tv that often except for a few key shows that I like, so I was kind of shocked by how widespread the blatant violence was. That being said, I wouldn't want it censored, maybe just more realistic. We are too uptight... personally I think we need less obsession on violence but in other areas censorship is just ridiculous. It's not helping, it's hurting.

True... It's a known fact that TV (and all the other media) is filled with delicate content, like violence, sex, etc. But censoring it 100% isn't gonna help at all, I mean, if your kid (call it son, little brother, nephew or whatever) doesn't see it in your house, he'll probably see it somewhere else. If violence and sex were things that came up in TV as more "realistic", then you could discuss with the youngsters about it.

For instance, you see a bunch of shows about sex... How many of them talk about how unprotected sex can be harmful? How many of them talk about the trouble kids could go if they get pregnant at young age? I don't know the real numbers, but I'm quite sure that only a small percentage of them.

It would be totally educational if shows like this discussed or showed the pros and cons about a specific activity, then they would become uncensored because of all the benefits they could translate too.

That's about censoring things for children and other people... But what about being censored 100% from stuff like the internet, cable TV, etc... There are some countries where you can't use the internet, you can't use twitter or some specific applications... Sometimes you can't have cable TV, you can only watch government channels that tell you WHAT YOU MUST SEE! This I'm totally against, it's up to you what you watch and use. And if you can afford it then why can't you use it? I don't know if this is topic is about this kind of restrictions, but it sure is censorship...

[Guest]

i voted to be Strongly Against Censorship. EDM, I suggest reading the book Fahrenheit 451 or watching the movie Equilibrium to show how extreme censorship can go (both are set in dystopian future societies).

But surely you must see there need to be limits to what types of content can be legally distributed. Otherwise, you are advocating free dissemination of snuff, child and rape pornography, hate literature...

My motivation for making this topic was actually seeing the word 'stoner' bleeped out in a VEVO-hosted music video on youtube.

Surely you don't think a government body forced them to bleep 'stoner'. Content providers must be allowed to use their own discretion deciding what they feel is appropriate. You don't have to agree with their decision, but forcing them to provide content they find objectionable is really no different from censorship.

Having said all that...

Parents are the ones who need to take responsibility for what content their children are viewing, especially young children. It is not the government's responsibility to protect them from seeing things you would rather they didn't. If that were the case, the only things on television and the internet would be Dora and the Wiggles.

When I was a child, we didn't have a TV, much less HBO, and the internet hadn't been invented yet, but somehow, I still knew every four-letter word there was (and what they meant), and played with cigarettes, among other things you'd probably be shocked to find out a four-year-old was doing. Parents', relatives', and older children's behavior have a much more profound effect than anything on TV or the internet, especially at a very young age. No matter how hard you try, you can't shelter children from absolutely everything "bad" in the world. You can, however, help them understand why certain behavior is inappropriate, and discourage them from repeating it.

[EDM]

ok, fine maybe i went a bit too much on this one......but there should be a certain amount of censorship......It's more on the question of respect and morals, don't you think? (don't answer that....)

I mean, you can't be totally blunt on everything immediately.....it's , well, it's just ridiculous.....think about it; would you like to explain what each bad word means to a 3 or 4 yr old? Or explaining about rape to a kid who saw it on the news.... Parents would mostly find it uncomfortable.....and with TV, internet, etc. stuffing the kids' minds, there should be a certain control....adults can handle stuff like that; even teens......but what about a child?? They just say what they hear and see, then and there....

Regarding censoring content on TV, it should really be the parents' responsibility for controlling what their children are doing so a failure to do so shouldn't really be the content-providers fault. With the rating systems I mentioned above, people should be adequately warned and then they should have the information necessary to make a value-judgment on whether to watch (or not watch) the following program. If you don't like what's on the television, change the channel

yes, it should be the parents' responsibility.....and yes, the rating systems are to be considered as part of the censorship program......if they weren't there, there would be no Tom and Jerry.....

Swearing and disrespecting are two different things. If swear words didn't exist there would be another way of disrespecting (and there is), etc. It's not like if a four year old learns a magical new "bad" word they suddenly become a violent toddler hell-bent on rebellion. What matters is the negative stigma given to that word... which was given by the parents themselves!

I never spoke about a toddler's rebellion .....that's just craving for attention....

and swearing is disrespectful.....especially if a kid says it to 'prove they're smart' or something to the parents or others.....

That's about censoring things for children and other people... But what about being censored 100% from stuff like the internet, cable TV, etc... There are some countries where you can't use the internet, you can't use twitter or some specific applications... Sometimes you can't have cable TV, you can only watch government channels that tell you WHAT YOU MUST SEE! This I'm totally against, it's up to you what you watch and use. And if you can afford it then why can't you use it? I don't know if this is topic is about this kind of restrictions, but it sure is censorship...

Yeah....i know about that.....They banned Orkut for us here (i don't use it, anyway) and some websites with heavy adult content.....

But censorship is basically certain restrictions on certain stuff for certain ages, in general.... (that's how I define it)

Extreme censorship is stupid ....but smart censorship isn't......

[Guest]

I do think that there are limits to what is and what is not appropriate for a particular situation, but I think that the American system has gone way overboard on its restrictions. Such as it is, there are a lot of different channels with a lot of different content and the creators tailor the content to a particular demographic already. If some of the censorship is lifted, I think that most of the content would probably stay the same. There would be a public outcry from responsible parents if Nickelodeon suddenly started throwing curses and nudity into their shows, even if it were legal for them to do so. So I don't think Nickeleon's line-up would change if they weren't under FCC censorship regulations.

I was about to say that most kids channels wouldn't have to deal with censorship issues at all, since they aren't catering to that sort of crowd when I remembered a (possibly apocryphal) situation I heard about (I can't remember where) involving Bozo the Clown. Supposedly, one day on his live television broadcast, he was trying to cheer up this miserable kid who really didn't want to be there and he was trying to tickle the kid's chin or something like that when the kid bit his finger. The station had temporary "Technical Difficulties" for the next few minutes...

It's an interesting case study in my mind since I think Bozo was swearing and I think the last shot before they cut away involved an upraised hand...how does something like that fit into this debate?

[Guest]

But censorship is basically certain restrictions on certain stuff for certain ages, in general.... (that's how I define it)

That's not how the rest of the world defines it. It is the deletion or suppression of all or part of a publication, communication, performance, or work of art, so that nobody may access it.

[unreality]

But surely you must see there need to be limits to what types of content can be legally distributed. Otherwise, you are advocating free dissemination of snuff, child and rape pornography, hate literature...

There already is a free dissemination of rape pornography, I don't think that's illegal. Same with hate literature. As far as child pornography or 'animal killer' videos go, sure it's absolutely sickening, but it's the people doing the actual crime we need to go after, not anyone that's watched the video. You can't suppress the public's knowledge of it. It makes me shudder thinking about those videos were the woman was crushing small animals under her heel. I hope she's rotting in prison now along with anyone else involved in the production of that. Maybe PETA has assassinated them by now haha. Anyway, should that be censored? I don't think so. The more people see it, the more awareness is raised and these people can be caught. I realize the delicacy of that position though and if there was evidence that more people were making this videos as a result of them being discussed and villified, then I would be against.

The thing is, I'm aware that there are certain cases where we do not have Free Speech and I'm okay with that. You can't threaten to kill someone; you can't yell "FIRE" in a crowded venue; etc.

I just feel that we shouldn't censor further in than this and that the border between Free Speech and Non-free Speech should be the same as the border between Censored and Non-Censored.

So you can make a hate video but not one threatening to kill someone, etc.

Surely you don't think a government body forced them to bleep 'stoner'. Content providers must be allowed to use their own discretion deciding what they feel is appropriate. You don't have to agree with their decision, but forcing them to provide content they find objectionable is really no different from censorship.

I never said I thought it was the government. Nor did I say I wanted to force anyone to not censor. What I said was that I found this practice to be detrimental to society and that I think the people are making a bad decision in their censoring

Parents are the ones who need to take responsibility for what content their children are viewing, especially young children. It is not the government's responsibility to protect them from seeing things you would rather they didn't. If that were the case, the only things on television and the internet would be Dora and the Wiggles.

I agree completely

I mean, you can't be totally blunt on everything immediately.....it's , well, it's just ridiculous.....think about it; would you like to explain what each bad word means to a 3 or 4 yr old?

Yes I would. Better me than others

Or explaining about rape to a kid who saw it on the news.... Parents would mostly find it uncomfortable.....

Oh no! Not, *gasp*, uncomfortable! Don't talk to your kids about sex, rape and drugs - it's too uncomfortable of a subject!

and with TV, internet, etc. stuffing the kids' minds, there should be a certain control....adults can handle stuff like that; even teens......but what about a child?? They just say what they hear and see, then and there....

Yeah but like d3k3 said, it's not the government's job to be the Parent. That's the Parents job

and swearing is disrespectful.....especially if a kid says it to 'prove they're smart' or something to the parents or others.....

Yes swearing is disrespectful and often inappropriate. I don't do it often myself. But nor do I think it should be censored from my delicate ears

[EDM]

You know.....I discussed this topic with my mum (she's very practical.....) and I came to the conclusion that 'all things should be in moderation - even censorship' so, I conclude by saying that I'm strongly for censorship - as long as it's in moderation and not being overdone......

*my views look like they've change in the posts... , but they haven't.....I'm just a VERY POOR WRITER!!!!!

[unreality]

okay so give us an example of the type of censorship you think is appropriate. Also, just curious, what country do you live in? If you don't want to say that's okay (or you can PM me), I'm just wondering about the correlation between censorship and acceptance of censorship.

[Izzy]

Here's my view, in short (because House is on ). I'm strongly against censorship, btw.

People can request WHATEVER information they want, ie the lyrics to songs with crazy cursing, the CIA's secret plans, and naked pictures of a Mr. Gregory House. Likewise, people can refuse to give you any information they want. So, unfortunately, nekkid pics of a hot TV doctor.

However, when media exists, such as a song or film, and it is censored by a corporation, that corporation is altering something that does not belong to them and broadcasting a version that the author didn't intend. This alteration should violate some law, honestly. When you watch TV or listen to the radio, you are fully aware of what you're tuning into. I'm sorry, but if you're afraid of your four year old hearing the f word or seeing some boobahs, it means you're incapable of explaining the harmlessness human inventions and anatomy, and suck. Sorry.

In places like China and New Zealand, internet censorship is being put in place. Imagine not having access to.. everything. Censorship sucks.

[Guest]

There already is a free dissemination of rape pornography, I don't think that's illegal. Same with hate literature.

Not if the rape is real, and you know it. Hate literature is a bit of a gray area. On the one hand, you are protected by the First Amendment, but on the other, you can be prosecuted under the Civil Rights section of the Code.

As far as child pornography or 'animal killer' videos go, sure it's absolutely sickening, but it's the people doing the actual crime we need to go after, not anyone that's watched the video.

Knowingly possessing or distributing such material is illegal in the US, and most other countries. There are already enough disturbing things to watch in documentaries and old newsreels. We don't need to encourage people to continue producing and distributing such material by making internet celebrities out of them, or by supporting them financially.

FYI, I used to work in this field, and I have seen some sickening and deeply disturbing things I wish I could erase, and that nobody should have to see, or be permitted to watch. I'm not talking about weird stuff done with actors. People have some bizarre fantasies, and I'm OK with them indulging in them as long as everybody knows it's fake. I'm talking about real, premeditated acts of extreme violence and cruelty, performed expressly for entertainment. Believe me, the people who enjoy watching such scenes, and who collect and distribute them, are not the sort of people you want for neighbors. The only enjoyment I ever took from that job was hearing of their convictions, and destroying their 'materials'.

[andromeda]

I'm only for censoring the stupidity on TV, but the society haven't evolved enough to distinguish it

[unreality]

Not if the rape is real, and you know it. Hate literature is a bit of a gray area. On the one hand, you are protected by the First Amendment, but on the other, you can be prosecuted under the Civil Rights section of the Code.

Like I said in that same post, I understand where Free Speech is limited (no death threats et al) but don't think Censorship should limit it any more.

Knowingly possessing or distributing such material is illegal in the US, and most other countries. There are already enough disturbing things to watch in documentaries and old newsreels. We don't need to encourage people to continue producing and distributing such material by making internet celebrities out of them, or by supporting them financially.

As I also said in the last post, I would think that the availability of the material (1) helps the perpetrators be caught quicker and (2) raises public attention to the problem rather than sweeping it under the rug, BUT if evidence suggests that the "infamy" of the videos leads to an increased production of them then I would be against it, so like i said it's a delicate issue on the hazy part of the whole Free Speech thing

FYI, I used to work in this field, and I have seen some sickening and deeply disturbing things I wish I could erase, and that nobody should have to see, or be permitted to watch. I'm not talking about weird stuff done with actors. People have some bizarre fantasies, and I'm OK with them indulging in them as long as everybody knows it's fake. I'm talking about real, premeditated acts of extreme violence and cruelty, performed expressly for entertainment. Believe me, the people who enjoy watching such scenes, and who collect and distribute them, are not the sort of people you want for neighbors. The only enjoyment I ever took from that job was hearing of their convictions, and destroying their 'materials'.

just curious, what 'field' is this? Is this some kind of branch of the government?

Edited June 6, 2010 by unreality

[tiger_lily111]

In general, I'm all for "light" censorship, to help protect the young (& old!) from things they can't understand or *shouldn't* (according to society) have to deal with yet. However, what this form should take, or how extreme it should be, I haven't the foggiest. I'm not knowledgeable enough to figure out what should & shouldn't be censored - I know what I don't want to have to see/hear, but that's different from other people.

Basically, if I ever have kids, I don't want to have to really explain to them about rape or violent acts until they're old enough to actually comprehend what I'm saying. Until then, it's just "don't talk to strangers" etc. because their brains aren't developed enough to understand what danger is.(Emotion vs Reason) I don't want any potential progeny to end up as prudes, but I don't want them paranoid, either!

Edited June 6, 2010 by tiger_lily111

[Guest]

just curious, what 'field' is this? Is this some kind of branch of the government?

No, I worked in law enforcement, but the DOJ conduct similar investigations.

[Guest]

The only reason I'm against most censorship in general is because society has to become "politically correct" in order to "survive." Seriously, most people don't really care about swearing unless its extreme.