censorship.........in general

Blitzkrieger

.........as distinct from the other topic about censorship

I saw a thing on MTV2 (harldy the most reliable information source I know) that it is now legal to buy, and presumably show hardcore porno in England. Apparantly there's a new rating called r18. The director talking about it said that it didn't seem to be in any papers and no1 seemed to know about it. You'd think even with the current crisis it would have been front page news with all sorts of people coming out of the woodwork to condem it

Ireland also had a recent change in the ratings system too - did they sneak it in on us too?

Not that I'm too pushed about buying hardcore porno What with what the lads send in email and all the annoying "FREE XXX, CLICK HERE NOW" on the Internet.

The thing is I don't like the idea of censorship. I'm all for not showing inappropriate things in the middle of the afternoon during an ad break in the teletubbies, but I'm an adult and in a free society someone else shouldn't be able to dictate what I can and can't see.

IMPO nothing should be censored, just plenty of warning given in case you don't want to see HOT XXX ACTION.

Porn is just one example though - several journalists have complained that they're not allowed to show the more gruesome tapes on TV. They feel they're "sanitising" conficts and therefore manipulating our views.

Opinions?

bonkey

Lack of censorship is a worthy ideal, but impossible in practice.

Why?

Lets look at censorship with respect to pr0n...the simplest case.

Lets say that we said "no censorship" for pr0n. Wouldnt this mean that any pr0n is legal to own/watch? Including bestiality and/or paedophilia. Now, it might be illegal to make such videos, but you feel that it should be legal to sell and own them?

Looking a bit further afield...

You would also support the right of any group to communicate and discuss their views, and to air them in a public place without fear of censorship and/or retribution? Including the neo-nazis, the racists, and lets not forget our prementioned paedophiles and bestialists? I mean, as long as they arent actually performing the act, they arent breaking the law...theyre being censored, right?

Personally, I think censorship is necessary. Unfortunately, once you accept that, its just a question of where you draw the line.....

jc

joev

Originally posted by bonkey
Lack of censorship is a worthy ideal, but impossible in practice.

Why?

Lets look at censorship with respect to pr0n...the simplest case.

Lets say that we said "no censorship" for pr0n. Wouldnt this mean that any pr0n is legal to own/watch? Including bestiality and/or paedophilia. Now, it might be illegal to make such videos, but you feel that it should be legal to sell and own them?

If it's illegal to make them, then it's simple enough step to make the product contraband. - Censorship aside. Being in possesion of the contraband would be a heavily punishable offence.

Looking a bit further afield...

You would also support the right of any group to communicate and discuss their views, and to air them in a public place without fear of censorship and/or retribution? Including the neo-nazis, the racists, and lets not forget our prementioned paedophiles and bestialists? I mean, as long as they arent actually performing the act, they arent breaking the law...theyre being censored, right?

Why not?

Either you have freedom of speech or you don't. If you do, you have to accept that people will have the right to voice opinions that are anathema to you.

The simple combat is to educate people at a young age to what is morally and socially acceptable. But their right to hear/see/voice views outside that scope should be maintained.

Personally, I think censorship is necessary. Unfortunately, once you accept that, its just a question of where you draw the line.....

jc

I personally disagree.

Censorship is in any case, ineffective as a means of preventing certain ideas from proliferating. The effect is to marginalise and alienate those with 'off center' views. Only an open, free flow of information can educate and potentially modify the attitudes of social deviants.

joev.

bonkey

Originally posted by joev
Either you have freedom of speech or you don't. If you do, you have to accept that people will have the right to voice opinions that are anathema to you.[/B]

OK, but sooner or later, you make something illegal to say in order to stop people hearing it - incitement to hatred being a good example.

Or, going back to paedo's....you would support their right to print a book with detailed diagrams and instructions on *how* to do something, as well as their right to advertise this. Also, they should have the freedom to make movies about it, as long as no actual paedophilia occurs?

Otherwise, you are censoring their right to free speech, because they have not actually engaged in actual paedophilia, and therefore should not have comitted a crime.

As in so many things, there comes a point where a line must be drawn. There will be a grey area around that line which some will perceive as censorship. You can draw the line more or less tolerantly, but you must draw the line.

The simple combat is to educate people at a young age to what is morally and socially acceptable. But their right to hear/see/voice views outside that scope should be maintained.

I would agree, but I would also say it is a hopeless pipe dream.

For it not to be happening today, either we have people deliberately rearing their children against this policy, or we simply have parents who dont care enough, or who arent enlightened enough themselves.

In all three cases, it is difficult to see a resolution. Unless, of course, you want to dictate how kids can be brought up...which would in itself be a form of censorship

Censorship is in any case, ineffective as a means of preventing certain ideas from proliferating. The effect is to marginalise and alienate those with 'off center' views. Only an open, free flow of information can educate and potentially modify the attitudes of social deviants.

I agree in part. Censorship is an attempt by a government to protect the people from the people....to remove certain decisions from the individual for the betterment of society. In a realistic society, I can see why this is can be a good thing, and also why it can be a terrible thing.

The bigger problem that I see is that the govt will censor things that really they should leave well enough alone.

jc

joev.

Shinji

See, there's a basic issue here which goes beyond censorship.

I don't think anyone would argue that videos depicting paedophilia or murder should be banned, but the big problem is that if you give the government powers to ban those, such powers can be abused at a later point.

The same powers which protect children today could be used to promote a racist, homophobic or hardline christian agenda tomorrow.

Giving governments powers on the basis that "we won't use them for anything wrong, honest", is a pretty damn crap way to run a country; and I'd prefer to live in a country with no censorship than to live in one where the government can potentially censor anything it feels like at the time.

azezil

I fully agree with censorship, there are some things kids sould not see. Not only because at a young age kidz are easily manipulated but exposeing them to such material at that age robs them of their childhood.

IMO youngins shouldn't have to group till they're good n ready, if they see this kinda filt in the media next thing ya know they're trying it out n bam innocence gone, kidz having kidz, lifes ruined.

joev

Originally posted by azezil
I fully agree with censorship, there are some things kids sould not see. Not only because at a young age kidz are easily manipulated but exposeing them to such material at that age robs them of their childhood.

IMO youngins shouldn't have to group till they're good n ready, if they see this kinda filt in the media next thing ya know they're trying it out n bam innocence gone, kidz having kidz, lifes ruined.

You're mistaking Censorship for Parental Guidance.

On the one hand, what children are exposed to is entirely up to their parents.

On the other hand, that choice is taken out of the hands of parents or individuals by the state.

The first is perfectly acceptable. Indeed I would be quite involved in vetting my childrens exposure to information (if I had any :>).

But the second, I do not want, or need the state to 'protect me from myself'. I should be free to choose what content is suitable for me (and for those I'm responsible for) without the state intervening.

joev.

azezil

I agree parents have the right to choose what their kidz should be exposed too but some are unperpared for parenthood n thus may make the wrong decissions thus i see censorship as a way of helping these parents out.

The way i see it unless the parents can prove their worthy of being trusted with such a responseability they should at least have a helping hand.

I'd prefer my kid to learn certain things from me, not from some sleesy movie/ graphical picture etc. If there were no censorship I'd, n possibly many other parents would be worried sick about what their kids might see.


(god i'm makeing this sound like i'm a parent! lol)

Blitzkrieger

we seem to have got stuck on the example of porno so......

I wouldn't be suggesting that we allow hardcore porno to be shown on TV, at least not with the current system. Too many parents have no idea what their kids watch on TV and of course it would be seen by kids.

The thing about censorship is I don't trust our goverment (or the Irish film board or whoever) not to abuse their power. Ireland is a nation of jesus freaks and I'd be amazed if a number of films that would be "damaging" to the church weren't banned for no reason. Isn't the film Priest banned here though legal in England?

You have some good points about neo-nazis and pedos, bonkey, but I think you underestimate the importance of where to draw the line. Probably going a bit far here but in Afganistan you would be censored if you said that women deserved equal rights, and you would be the social outcast. I'm not suggesting neo-nazis have a valid view-point but just because "the majority" deem something wrong doesn't make it wrong.

I think censorship is damaging to a free society. Protecting children aside, I'm an adult and should be free to make up my own mind about what I see, hear and read.

bonkey

Originally posted by joev


You're mistaking Censorship for Parental Guidance.

On the one hand, what children are exposed to is entirely up to their parents.

On the other hand, that choice is taken out of the hands of parents or individuals by the state.

Possibly because the state recognises that it is impossible for parents to constantly supervise their kids, and also that not all parents pay the level of constant attention which would be needed for this to be effective.

jc

Xterminator

"Wherever they burn books, they will also, in the end, burn people." --Ralph Waldo Emerson

Society has morals, laws etc.
Indivdual has rights, sometimes thereis a conflict.
There are certain inalienable rights, eg the right to freedom of speech.

But these rights cannot be absolute.

If I have the right to worship the devil, but by practising my religion, i must sacrifice children.

But this conflicts with the right of the child to live.

Thus we accept you have rights but they are qualified.

Freedom of speech isn't always the simple and straightforward ideal it seems to be.

Western countries repeatedly refused permission for historian David Irving to come and lecture us on his beliefs about the holocaust. Out of respect for the sensitivities of the Jewish community in our midst, the decision makers have decided that the consequences of freedom of speech, in that particular case, would be unacceptably divisive and offensive.

Moral strictures, similarly, forced the use of certain words and images in radio and television on the ground that they might give offence to some listeners and viewers. eg watershed times, the rule against showing an erect penis on TV etc.

This is done for 'the common good'. That is why censorship exists.
It can be abused, but is a nessacary 'evil' as those who would abuse freedom of speech are a danger to society.

X

Excelsior

Originally posted by Xterminator
"Wherever they burn books, they will also, in the end, burn people." --Ralph Waldo Emerson

I believe that was Heinrich Heine.


Maybe you were thinking of this Emerson quote:
"Every burned book enlightens the world."




(Sorry about that. I am a pedant of the worst kind. )

Xterminator

Originally posted by Excelsior


I believe that was Heinrich Heine.
(Sorry about that. I am a pedant of the worst kind. )

Source

http://www.korpios.org/resurgent/Quotes-censorship.html

Quote

"Wherever they burn books, they will also, in the end, burn people."
-- Ralph Waldo Emerson

If I am wrong, then this source is wrong.
However if you are relying on your memory ... pehaps you, my pedantic friend have erred!


X

mike65

Its very difficult to support censorship when you know its always been just another brick in the class wall, I don't know about here
but in Britain theatre has never been subject to censorship.
Why?
Because the great and the good and the educated go to
see "enlightened" or "difficult" works knowing they won't be corrupted whereas the same classes have censored popular
media like film and TV because the great unwashed, who rarely,
if ever go to the theatre, can't be trusted to keep their moral compass on a staight and narrow bearing.

The great unwashed are only now starting to be set free to
think for themselves and there's still a long way to go.

Mike.

DeVore

Oh please. Everyone go read the UN Declaration of Human Rights. Now go read it again CAREFULLY.

You dont have inalienable rights because of the final right that says noone can use these rights to break another person rights.



Anyway, what about snuff movies? where is the line between hardcore (which you say you have a right to watch but often includes women who are effectively forced to do it) and murder?

The question ISNT about your right to see it, its about THEIR right to make it and the market YOU create for it.

Then the more "interesting" question will arise when computer simulated "nasties" can be made without anyone being hurt in the process... and I'm not talking about the Carmageddon series

DeVore.

Superman

my view on the topic,

Cencorship is a broad topic and it can be at simplest broken down into two areas,

Mental Censorship and Physical Censorship.

Mental Censorship,

This is then you show the recipient one side of the story and not the whole problem from a unbiased viewpoint and if you want an intellectually better society , people's thoughts should not be censored.

Physical Censorship,

This is for example , putting age ratings on films. it may protect a child from violent scenes and language and if not adheared to it can have in some cases can affect a childs self confidence and security. A good example is a friend of mine and when he was much younger he lived in Japan (no ratings) he went to see "natural born killers" and from that day on he cannot talk about/watch the movie cause it had an enormous effect on his self-security.

Dustaz

My view on censorship:
People, in general, are idiots. Censorship is just one of the ways that people are protected from themselves and others.

Theres a very good example of this lately and its not porn:) . The pictures from that middle eastern TV station of Bin Laden spouting rhetoric were censored. The official line is that he coule be giving messages to inactive terrorist cells on the way to next attack the western world. Now, i dont think this was the case, and it is just another shot in the propaganda war.

Suppose for a moment that he WAS giving signals. Govt censorship might mean the difference between preventing more attacks and in the end saving lives.

This is just one tiny example. Censorship is nesescary, its up to the people to elect governments that dont abuse it.

Snaggle

It's been argued here that pornography should be censored because kids seeing pornography will get randy and produce more kids. Odd that in this internet age of porn behind every 2nd click the kids aren't fu<king out on the streets. Odd that people are more paranoid about censoring sex and foul language than media in which people kill, deal drugs, rob old age pensioners and kill some more. Yet even though every child from an early age has seen all this before, the vast majority don't act on them. The only reason I see pornography being censored is because some parents get all uncomfortable about having to explain sex to their kids at an early age.

Neo-Nazism, certain religions and other such candidates shouldn't be censored. Just because those with the power to censor disagree with the views of these groups, doesn't mean that they should be censored. Christianity was a banned & censored cult in its early days.

Basically, I don't believe in censorship of any sort. By all means put up warnings, recommend ages or whatever for every piece of possibly indecent or offensive material, but at the end of the day people should make their own minds up if they want to see something. If what they want to see was produced by illegal means (such as the paedophilia or snuff movies examples), then it's not a matter of censorship, it's contraband. If it's a simulation of such that is produced without doing anything illegal (like all the rape, illegal teens and snuff you already see on the internet), then it shouldn't be censored. A person who watches such things isn't necessarily a rapist, paedophile or murderer much as a person who watches the terminator isn't a killer. And even if that kinda thing isn't my bag and I wouldn't show it to my kids, I don't think people who want to watch this kinda thing should be prevented from doing so.

Snaggle

Originally posted by Dustaz
My view on censorship:
Theres a very good example of this lately and its not porn:) . The pictures from that middle eastern TV station of Bin Laden spouting rhetoric were censored. The official line is that he coule be giving messages to inactive terrorist cells on the way to next attack the western world. Now, i dont think this was the case, and it is just another shot in the propaganda war.

Suppose for a moment that he WAS giving signals. Govt censorship might mean the difference between preventing more attacks and in the end saving lives.

That's an extremely bad example, firstly because unusual special cases shouldn't be used to justify a rule or law (a kid plays Quake or Counter Strike and kills a lot of people, should violent computer games be banned?), and secondly, it's much more hassle to try to send a hidden message to terrorist cells on TV than to just tell them to check his AOL web page daily for updates

unsane

Originally posted by DeVore
Anyway, what about snuff movies? where is the line between hardcore (which you say you have a right to watch but often includes women who are effectively forced to do it) and murder?

i think the line between them, is the line whereby Snuff does not exist.


sucka.

DeVore

unsane, what are you on about?

I'd advise you regarding the Politeness thread on this forum.

DeV.

unsane

Originally posted by DeVore
unsane, what are you on about?

I'd advise you regarding the Politeness thread on this forum.

DeV.

what the hell are you talking about?