Censorship

Doc

I'm not talking about censorship on Boards but in movies and videos.

I was watching a movie the other night on video that was rated 18 due to the fact there was violence (explosions shootings etc.) and some mild nudity (were not talking hard core porn here but just a run of the mill love scene).

It then accrued to me that legally a 17-year-old who can quite legally have sex with anyone (of the opposite sex) can not legally watch a video containing people having sex. This seems completely nonsensical.:rolleyes:

I then thought about videos that I am prevented from viewing despite the fact I am over 21. You know the kind of thing like how "The Exorcist" until recently was not allowed to be shown in Ireland.

Who decides what films can and cant be seen and why do these people have the right to tell me that I can't watch in the privacy of my own home whatever the hell I like on video? :mad:

_______________

"Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool."

Shinji

There are two seperate issues here; censorship, and age ratings.

I fully, totally approve of strictly enforced age ratings. I totally despise censorship, as I don't want a nanny state to tell me what I can and can't watch as a responsible adult.

Age ratings protect children; censorship deprives adults. Different.

Doc

Originally posted by Shinji
There are two seperate issues here; censorship, and age ratings.

I fully, totally approve of strictly enforced age ratings.

But as I said in some cases this is stupid as some people are being prevented from viewing something that they can legally do!

_______________

"Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool."

The_Bullman

Why are some movies rated differently in Britian than in Ireland. Is that Seamus whatever guy just trying to make it look like he checks each movie and makes an independant decision.

Doc

Dont know but Id like to know why he gets to pick what people can or cant see!

_______________

"Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool."

Biffa Bacon

I agree with censorship in principle. It's necessary to protect society.

Aspro

Protect society from what?
I think we can decide as individuals what we want to be exposed to or not. Change the channel, don't buy the movie, newspaper, magazine.
Especially as the censor is an unelected official.

The_Bullman

Just remembered. Did anyone see the top 10 banned videos that was on Channel 4 the weekend?? It was a repeat and it cast an interesting light on the censorship issue.

koneko

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
I agree with censorship in principle. It's necessary to protect society.

Are you serious? Let's wrap everyone up in cotton wool, so they can't see what the world is really like. If I want to watch something, I'll watch it.

As Aspro said, protect society from WHAT exactly? Maybe try venturing out of that cave of yours...

TwoShedsJackson

Biffa, if you're going to make a statement like that, back it up. Otherwise any post of yours I see that looks like an unbackedup attempt to troll or say something for the sake of disagreeing with nearly everyone else in the thread, gets deleted.

Biffa Bacon

Protect society from what?

Alienation of members of society who are upset or depressed by the availability of certain videos, magazines, books etc.

I think we can decide as individuals what we want to be exposed to or not. Change the channel, don't buy the movie, newspaper, magazine.

Not always. After all, you often won't have any idea of how offensive you might find something unless you see or hear it. Also, you can find something offensive even if you don't see/read/listen to it.

pH

The interesting thing about censorship is how it changes over time, in a deliberate attempt at mind control of the 'unwashed masses'. Educated people have brains and ways of thinking that let them deal with dirty pictures, but if you showed this stuff to the average coalman he would become a salivating ruin.

If you think about it, when there was only books they were heavily censored. Now you can write and publish pretty much anything (even in this state). As far as I know, no books remain on the Irish banned list, but I may be wrong.

As film became more popular, it was heavily censored, but over time 'art films' can now pretty much show erections/penetration (Intimacy,In the Realm of the Senses), but there's no way these would be allowed in a 'mainstream' film.

Video and TV are now the most heavily censored mediums, why? because those that control feel morally superior to those that watch.

pH

Victor

Originally posted by Doc
I then thought about videos that I am prevented from viewing despite the fact I am over 21. You know the kind of thing like how "The Exorcist" until recently was not allowed to be shown in Ireland. Who decides what films can and cant be seen and why do these people have the right to tell me that I can't watch in the privacy of my own home whatever the hell I like on video?

I thought you lived in England? But when you come home, yer ma does!

Otherwise its down to the Irish Film Censors Office. http://www.justice.ie/802569AD005A6D62/vWeb/wpDANN4X6NEF using the Censorship of Films Act, 1923; the Censorship of Films (Amendment) Act, 1970; Video Recordings Act, 1989; and the Censorship of Films (Amendment) Act, 1992. Full text http://193.120.124.98/front.html

For printed material it's the Censorship of Publications Board http://www.gov.ie/justice/Agencies/agencies_3.htm

TwoShedsJackson

Alienation of members of society who are upset or depressed by the availability of certain videos, magazines, books etc.

And what about alienating the larger number of people in society who are able to make their own minds up? The people depressed by the lack of availability of certain videos, magazines, books etc?

Not always. After all, you often won't have any idea of how offensive you might find something unless you see or hear it. Also, you can find something offensive even if you don't see/read/listen to it.

And if it's been censored you'll never be able to make up your mind like a rational human being capable of independent thought. Logically you can't find something offensive unless you have seen/heard/experienced it, so your second above sentence is ridiculous.

Please explain how you can find something offensive without having seen it? Like a Catholic group finding The Last Temptation of Christ offensive whilst never having seen it? Among innumerable other examples of close-minded ignorance.

Victor

Originally posted by Castor Troy
And if it's been censored you'll never be able to make up your mind like a rational human being capable of independent thought.

Yeah, like those damned sociopaths that went on a killing spree around the time 'Natural Born Killers' was released. How inconvenient

mike65

Victor, earlier today some nut in southern Germany went postal and killed 3 (I think) then blew himself up, are we to suppose he had just sat through Rambo or similair for the nth time?

There is no role for censorship in a democracy, there is a need
for restriction on age grounds and enforcement of same.

pH is on the right track, indeed I said it mysel on a similair
thread last year, censorship is based on class and education.
Opera and theatre can be as explicit as you like, TV and video
is for the prolls so must be heavily restricted. In Ireland the
extra element was the Catholic church so its no wonder things have been so bad here, but its hard to make a case that Ireland
is heavily censored now, after if you want to watch a banned flick just watch Channel 4 or BBC2 or any number of other outlets.

The issue of no see any sex until 18 is of course bonking er bonkers.

Mike.

Victor

Originally posted by The_Bullman
Why are some movies rated differently in Britian than in Ireland. Is that Seamus whatever guy just trying to make it look like he checks each movie and makes an independant decision.

In Ireland, the censor, generally takes a more negative view on prominent drug taking.

Victor

Originally posted by mike65
Victor, earlier today some nut in southern Germany went postal and killed 3 (I think) then blew himself up, are we to suppose he had just sat through Rambo or similair for the nth time?

I haven't heard about that so I couldn't comment. However, would you like Sky1 to take the footage off a certain rotten website and make a series out of it? While yes, we can turn it off, I think most people would be uncomfortable with it being in the mainstream media. It would merely reduce the levels of what is or isn't acceptable (even in a liberal sense) further. Do I really want to see brain, breast reduction or penile surgery as I flick past Discovery channel at 1am? Do I really want to watch Ibiza Uncovered with every guy in the bar fondling a bare-breasted 16-year old?

Originally posted by mike65
[BThere is no role for censorship in a democracy, there is a need
for restriction on age grounds and enforcement of same.[/B]

So Danish child porn from the 70s is OK?

Originally posted by mike65
Opera and theatre can be as explicit as you like, TV and video
is for the prolls so must be heavily restricted.

Where you you put gigs, comedy shows and CDs?

Originally posted by mike65
In Ireland the extra element was the Catholic church so its no wonder things have been so bad here, but its hard to make a case that Ireland is heavily censored now, after if you want to watch a banned flick just watch Channel 4 or BBC2 or any number of other outlets.

RTE2 / Network2 has been showing nudity and or sex for 20 years.

Originally posted by mike65
The issue of no see any sex until 18 is of course bonking er bonkers.

Most nudity and sex scenes in cinema and video will get a 15s rating (not sure how the new cinema ratings will treat it - 15s will become 'under 15s accompanied by a parent / guardian'). Extreme scenes and drugs attract an 18's rating.

JustHalf

If you watch "Army of Darkness" 43 times, you start cutting people with chainsaws.

Victor

Originally posted by JustHalf
If you watch "Army of Darkness" 43 times, you start cutting people with chainsaws.

Maybe I might, you never know ...

JustHalf

Originally posted by Victor
Maybe I might, you never know ...

I do.

Aspro

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
Not always. After all, you often won't have any idea of how offensive you might find something unless you see or hear it. Also, you can find something offensive even if you don't see/read/listen to it.

I often find Sand's posts offensive as I think they are overtly and melodramatically right-wing, while he/she tries to equate democratic socialism with fascism as if they were more or less the same thing.

But that doesn't mean he/she should be censored from the board just because I don't agree with his/her views. They have a right to freedom of expression so long as they are not inciting people to violence or hatred.

pH

So Danish child porn from the 70s is OK?

Child porn is a problem BUT it's solvable without resorting to censorship. The *acts* involved are illegal, and a law that prevented money being made out of illegal activities would effectively mean that child pornography remained illegal, even in a society with no censorship.

However, modern technology (even today) would probably allow someone to make a child porn flick with virtual actors.

This would probably stretch my liberal censorship views as far as they could possibly be stretched, but If it is a work of total fiction, and the works of de Sade are legal to read, then I see no reason why this should be banned.

pH

mike65

Thanks pH, I was going to make the same point, child porn is documentry evidence of a criminal act and should be dealt with accordingly.

Victor, you ask what I would do with audio media, good question.
I'm not in favour of sticking ratings on Album and Single sleeve-
its used by record chains not to stock certain acts in the USA.
I suppose if it were that or a ban...however I'm not aware any records have been given any outright retail bans. Not even Derek and Clive Live.

In an well ordered world parents would parent of course.


Mike.

Sand

I often find Sand's posts offensive as I think they are overtly and melodramatically right-wing, while he/she tries to equate democratic socialism with fascism as if they were more or less the same thing. But that doesn't mean he/she should be censored from the board just because I don't agree with his/her views. They have a right to freedom of expression so long as they are not inciting people to violence or hatred.

Well thanks for your approval to be right wing even if im not. What i find more offensive is the JPFers attempts to equate non JPFing with fascism but how and ever.

Anyway I dont agree with censorship because it is basically someone else deciding what you can or cannot view and who is to say they are qualified to do so?

Typedef

Now now, if people got censored from forums for trolling their opinions there would be about two or three users using about 10,000 forums across the web and they'd all be the administrators and in the end said administrators would end up on their own ignore/12 clicked list.

So what if the guy has a different opinion or you find him 'offensive' lots of people find me offensive and more power to them, I try not to be offensive and as unbiased as I can be, but debating invariably exposes people's differences of opinon on the vicissitudes of life which is good. Testing the versimilitude of one's own moral endemnification is half the reason to parcicipate in logical (or illogical if that is your thing) discourse, if you can't handle it when someone differs with you on the versimilitude or otherwise of your assertions then maybe it is you who is in error and not them?

I seem to remember watching a nightmare on elm street when I was in 2nd class and a whole plethora of ultra violent films from when I was very small, about the only thing I couldn't watch was porn else movies like the Terminator, Predator, Apocalypse now or whatever.

If someone is so disassociated from reality that what they watch on the TV will prompt them to go out and start to murder people with a chainsaw then that person is already pyschologically deviant.
For example, if you let your 6 year old kid play Half Life does that mean he/she/it will go out and start to clobber things with a crowbar?

Part of the lure of media is that you can be a voyeur or party to in some small way things that you know you can never do in real life, that is the attraction of it, a means to live outside of the constraints of reality that is why you are so enthralled by it and if you can't seperate it from 'the real' then you are an abbarant personality.

/
Typedef's clinic of psychological analysis charges by the nanosecond :rolleyes:

Aspro

I can't believe it! Me and Sand agree on something!

What a great forum

seamus

Originally posted by Typedef
Part of the lure of media is that you can be a voyeur or party to in some small way things that you know you can never do in real life, that is the attraction of it, a means to live outside of the constraints of reality that is why you are so enthralled by it and if you can't seperate it from 'the real' then you are an abbarant personality.

Agreed. The amount of vicious movies I saw as a kid. I had seen every horror available (except the exorcist obviously) by the time I was 10, including those 'chuckie' movies. Am I now going out killing people, thinking it's ok? Not that I'm aware of . Just to go back to the Jamie Bulger thing. It sticks with me, because I was the same age as the 2 guys at the time, and in fact had recently watched all of the movies that I saw the media scapegoating over the killing. I felt no urge to go out and abduct and kill some random kid......There is no proof (and never will be) that music and video inspires people to commit deeds. If they kill someone or torture, etc, then they were messed up waay before they watched the movie. Why wouldn't our state trust us to watch stuff and make up our own mind? Who are they to decide what we can and can't watch and what is and isn't suitable for us. If making the films doesn't hurt anyone (literally) then I should have a right to watch them.

Zero

'responsible' adults are going to be affected by a film no matter how much blood/guts/sex is in it. Anyone who will run out and commit some horrible crime after watching one, is a ticking timebomb anyway and unstable in the head. Kids are different, they have to be "protected" from it.
==> I agree with all the lads there who were sayin censorship is bóllocks but age restrictions are perfectly acceptable.

And that "17yr old legally allowed to shag but not allowed watch it" argument is bullshít. They use, what, 4 ratings (?) for videos, they arent gonna make a rating for every age that its legal to do/see certain things. Videos like that are rated 18s more in a "not suitable for 15s" more than a "be over 18 to watch this".

Censorship is bóllocks tho.

The funniest thing is ***** *** ******** ********** (Censored by Tom Murphy, aka HITLER)

Victor

Originally posted by Typedef
If someone is so disassociated from reality that what they watch on the TV will prompt them to go out and start to murder people with a chainsaw then that person is already pyschologically deviant. For example, if you let your 6 year old kid play Half Life does that mean he/she/it will go out and start to clobber things with a crowbar?

You do raise a good point. Should we ban something because it will provoke 0.0000001% of the population? I think that the effort would be better directed elsewhere. However, if it provokes 0.1% of the population, I think it's something to be considered carefully and acted on appropriately.

koneko

I think the decision has been made. We should ban anything that someone may find offensive.

A lot of people on the boards should be banned, can a mod help here? I mean, if they offend a few people here, surely that's enough. They should be banned. To hell with free speech.

Age restrictions and censorship are different issues. Age restrictions should probably be in place, yes, but censorship? Surely that goes against everything a free country stands for.

mike65

My stock repost to would be censors is to recall the tragic tale of a 9 year old who in 1978 went to see the first Superman film and shorty threafter dived to his death from several floors up-
after all if Clark Kent could fly why could'nt he?
The power of good fx.
Would anyone seriously suggest banning Superman?

Mike.

TomF

Hmm. The thread I started on both Green Issues and Humanities on Irish Women and asking why they trowel-on the orange makeup, run to and from their cars and pronounce words like "hit" as though the word is "hiss", etc., has been removed from both boards (first from Green Issues, and just recently from Humanities).

Sorry for being so irritating to the powers that be.

TwoShedsJackson

That thread was deleted as it started out bad, before descending into the realms of utter rubbish. Your last post in it was particularly mindless. It also has bugger-all to do with Humanities. Post that kind of $hite in After Hours, if you really must.

Biffa Bacon

And what about alienating the larger number of people in society who are able to make their own minds up? The people depressed by the lack of availability of certain videos, magazines, books etc?

You would have to then make a judgement call on which was the worse harm. My point is that you cannot claim that no harm is caused and thus there is no need for censorship.

Logically you can't find something offensive unless you have seen/heard/experienced it, so your second above sentence is ridiculous.

Of course you can. Now you're being ridiculous.

Please explain how you can find something offensive without having seen it? Like a Catholic group finding The Last Temptation of Christ offensive whilst never having seen it? Among innumerable other examples of close-minded ignorance. [/B]

Nothing ignorant or closed-minded about having views different from yours. If you know that the movie contains scenes that you would consider blasphemous, then quite obviously you will find that offensive. Why should you have to upset yourself by watching it, just so you can say "Oh I watched it and found it offensive"? Of course people would then say "Well you knew what the film contained so you shouldn't have watched it."

Biffa Bacon

I often find Sand's posts offensive as I think they are overtly and melodramatically right-wing, while he/she tries to equate democratic socialism with fascism as if they were more or less the same thing.

But that doesn't mean he/she should be censored from the board just because I don't agree with his/her views. They have a right to freedom of expression so long as they are not inciting people to violence or hatred.

So you do believe in censorship then?

Biffa Bacon

Anyway I dont agree with censorship because it is basically someone else deciding what you can or cannot view and who is to say they are qualified to do so?

The democratic will of the people.

Dustaz

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
But that doesn't mean he/she should be censored from the board just because I don't agree with his/her views. They have a right to freedom of expression so long as they are not inciting people to violence or hatred.


So you do believe in censorship then?

So you cant read?

And btw, incitement is ilegal, so is not censorship.

TwoShedsJackson

Ok Biffa, please explain precisely how someone can find something of which they have no knowledge offensive.

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon

Nothing ignorant or closed-minded about having views different from yours. If you know that the movie contains scenes that you would consider blasphemous, then quite obviously you will find that offensive. Why should you have to upset yourself by watching it, just so you can say "Oh I watched it and found it offensive"? Of course people would then say "Well you knew what the film contained so you shouldn't have watched it."

Someone who watches the film and finds it blasphemous is entitled to their opinion, and indeed to call for it to be censored if they so wish. Someone who hasn't watched it, doesn't.

chernobyl

/you would want to be pretty dumb to support censorship.

Biffa Bacon

And btw, incitement is ilegal, so is not censorship.

Alright then. But I suppose you believe it should be legal?

Biffa Bacon

Ok Biffa, please explain precisely how someone can find something of which they have no knowledge offensive.

They can't. Which is not to say that just because you haven't watched the film doesn't mean you have no knowledge of it. You can hear from other people what it's like.

Someone who watches the film and finds it blasphemous is entitled to their opinion, and indeed to call for it to be censored if they so wish. Someone who hasn't watched it, doesn't.

Why not? Have you ever watched a kiddie porno flick? If not, do you still find them offensive?

As for someone who has watched the film and is thus "entitled" to call for it to be censored, is it still unjustifiable to censor the film?

Biffa Bacon

/you would want to be pretty dumb to support censorship.

Why?

chernobyl

/sorry biffa but the reason is censored from dump ppl.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by chernobyl
/sorry biffa but the reason is censored from dump ppl.

I guess that's what's called "double irony".

NeRb666

Slightly off topic with regard to movies/TV, here's a quote from Anthrax about the anit-censorship song, Startin' Up A Posse

There are no such things as "swear words" (why is it that "****" is bad and "excrement" is ok?), that sex is not pornography, violence is, and that heavy metal is not the devil's music (I personally think he's into New Age). This is a free country. Speak your minds people. Think it, say it, and ****in live it!

Victor

What about recipies for 'home made' explosives (as an example), should they be readily avavilable on the 'net?

TomF

Holy smoke! I'd hate to read our discerning (and very sensitive) moderator's reaction to a posting that was really offensive. Is it possible for a moderator to delete the poster as well as the posting? I think I'll unplug this thing at night in case something comes down the line to get me.:eek:

Victor

Originally posted by TomF
Holy smoke! I'd hate to read our discerning (and very sensitive) moderator's reaction to a posting that was really offensive. Is it possible for a moderator to delete the poster as well as the posting

Only admins can delete a user, not mods. And there are only about 5 admins. This is commonly know as "twelve clicking".

Originally posted by TomF
I think I'll unplug this thing at night in case something comes down the line to get me.:eek:

So far as we know, only DeVore does this.

TwoShedsJackson

Originally posted by TomF
Holy smoke! I'd hate to read our discerning (and very sensitive) moderator's reaction to a posting that was really offensive. Is it possible for a moderator to delete the poster as well as the posting? I think I'll unplug this thing at night in case something comes down the line to get me.:eek:

Same thing. Your post wasn't offensive in any way, it was just cretinous. I can ban you from Humanities as well if you like, just let me know.

TomF

Wonderful illustration of the phrase, "Choking on his own bile.":)