Censorship - Make Up Your Mind!

[Ralen-Sharr]

I say remove any and all censorship. If people don't want to see it, don't watch it. Almost anything is going to be offensive to someone, so the only way to be fair is to not censor anything.

Keep in mind, a rating system is not censorship, just a clue as to what you're getting into. This allows people to make better informed decisions about what they watch or what games they play.

I think some people are stupid simply because we treat them like they are stupid before they can prove otherwise.

 

[zaly]

Couldn't agree more, it should be all or nothing.

Just because you dislike something it doesn't mean you can ban it.

To restate the point I was trying to make earlier on in the thread. Isn't the law part of censorship? - Some people decided certain things were wrong and (rightfully) made them illegal. Isn't this similar? Edit: Obviously to a smaller extent but still.

 

[WanderingFool]

Hypocracy at its best. As much as I enjoy free speech and all, I always feel that some people should have that right taken away because they abuse it...

Also, The guy who concieved of this movie is a mess up mother fucker...

 

[tahrey]

I wouldn't censor it. But I still find it a disgusting and offensive idea, probably more so than almost any sex and violence thing (that doesn't descend into a similar arena)

Possibly because we're inured to the others by overexposure. Or maybe they're more a part of our base nature and we can understand the urge to indulge in them more and tolerate the image and idea of them.

Kidnapping people and surgically altering them to... ahem... create a gestalt entity where three individuals share a common gastrointestinal tract, for fetishistic pleasure? That's a bit beyond the normal.

I'm sure it's someone's fantasy, and I'm not enough of a stranger to the badlands of the internet (particularly some of the japanese spawned ones) to not have seen stuff on a similar level before, but it was just... there... you know? Not something I'd go out of my way to view, and it does seem a bit sick to actually make a whole film, to go and watch in a cinema - i'd worry about the mental state of those who do.

But if you and enough of your buds or employees want to make that, consentingly, and enough people want to pay to watch it, and no-one is actually harmed at the end? Eh, go ahead. Just spare me the details already. I've managed to avoid 2G1C thus far, I'm sure I'll manage to avoid HC1 & 2.

 

[lacktheknack]

Because it's way cool to tell other adults what they can and can't enjoy so long as it hurts no one, right? Hear that, parents against video games? You can totally ban violent video games that you dislike and find offensive.

The idea is that the film could cause very real mental trauma.

Let's see what Vansau wrote in the official news thread:

Unsurprisingly, "It is the Board's conclusion that the explicit presentation of the central character's obsessive sexually violent fantasies is in breach of its Classification Guidelines and poses a real, as opposed to a fanciful, risk that harm is likely to be caused to potential viewers."

That's a good start.

If nothing else, I'm under the impression this just removes it from THEATERS, which seems appropriate enough (they don't allow porn in theaters either, you gonna take issue with that?) If you really want to see it, go find a DVD. They're still legal.

 

[Shio]

-

Assuming something might make someone perhaps have the potential to maybe do something that could cause possible harm to someone isn't a reason to band it. If you want to say it is, cars are illegal (people run others over), movies are illegal (people have copies film scenes and harmed themselves and others), music is illegal (people are killed over music - see: John Lennon) shoes are illegal (people are kicked to death more often than shot to death), speaking is illegal (sometimes people's speaking causes violence) - you see how that works? Just because there are insane people in the world doesn't make it okay to ban everything that can trigger them.

 

[Danzaivar]

Erm, THC2 hasn't been banned in the UK; it's been refused classification. If a cinema gets written permission from the local authority then they can still screen it np.

 

[Lord Doomhammer]

I'm with anonymous on this one.

I think censorship is wrong on a fundamental level. Its the crushing of ideas and the enforcement of a specific way of doing things... no, the enforcement of a way of THINKING!

Oh sure, there's documents that need censoring, national security, protection of nuclear secrets and all of that. But thats not what I'm talking about... to me, that kind of censorship is different. TO ME IT IS. That kind of censorship is to protect the capacity of the government to maintain its armed forces that are used to protect the people, and maintain the so called 'nuclear watchdog' ideas (theories from the cold war that if the US has the capacity to nuke everyone, then no rogue state or organization is going to risk oblivion to use nuclear weapons).

In short: TO ME the protection of the schematics for our defense infustructure and military operations is reasonable, as well keeping them classified is probably in the best interests of not just the US but all of NATO and the EU.

But suppressing public information about public companies and the diplomatic dealings between nations should not be lawful. Aw well, suppressing the voice of the people (from whom the power of the government is derived) is criminal on behalf of the government and most definitely on behalf of any offending company. Those kinds of acts restrict the ability of people to be informed about the world they may be helping to shape. Moreover, these actions restrict the freedom of speech of the people.

 

[Motoko_Urashima]

Oh bleeding anus, I hit preview and it erases my post. I love this forum. now I have to reconstruct that page and a half of reply.

I know people IRL that are very into Lolicon and people that are very into Guro. Both of these things disturb me not because of some "holy scripture" that decided they were taboo, but by the very feel of my soul twisting and darkening slowly into a piece of coal as I look at them.

Sexuality is one thing, the act of sex is something else, both are perfectly fine but need a sort of "when you are ready" age limit, as we don't want 40y.o. virgins or second graders having oral sex in the classroom. The media needs to down-tune their sexual output and the common people need to increase theirs. Trust me, we'd have alot less rapists and serial killers if people got properly screwed on a regular basis.

Now. gore is one thing, guro is another. Samurai films feature far more spurting blood and severed limbs then the average horror film, but you never see warriors charging into battle with massive erections. No, guro is the fetish related to sexual arousal from mutilation and pain of others, and boy is it a doozy.

While I find the thought of a movie such as The Human Centipede truly revolting, to the point where the trailer makes me want to projectile vomit, but I have so many problems with censors already, so I'll call a truce on this one based on a simple fact: there is a designated theatre in my city that plays nothing but horrible movies, if this were to air only in similar theatres, with no chance of the unwilling being duped into it at the local AMC 20, I'll be willing to let it live.

in short:
sex = fine
violence = fine
gore = fine
sexual pleasure derived from violence and gore = recipe for disaster

 

[zaly]

Not really.

Surely there has to be an actual reason to ban something. Like it's possibly going to hurt someone.

A film isn't going to hurt anybody.

Also, I wouldn't say that just because something is a law that it's 'right'.

I apologise in advance for another extreme example, but surely "all or nothing" censorship includes extreme cases, otherwise if there were exceptions, it wouldn't be all or nothing.

Child pornography. It doesn't necessarily cause any harm to anyone, and some people like it. That doesn't change the fact that it should be banned.
Well, it is, but you know what I mean.

 

[lacktheknack]

-

Assuming something might make someone perhaps have the potential to maybe do something that could cause possible harm to someone isn't a reason to band it. If you want to say it is, cars are illegal (people run others over), movies are illegal (people have copies film scenes and harmed themselves and others), music is illegal (people are killed over music - see: John Lennon) shoes are illegal (people are kicked to death more often than shot to death), speaking is illegal (sometimes people's speaking causes violence) - you see how that works? Just because there are insane people in the world doesn't make it okay to ban everything that can trigger them.

Of course not. They're concerned for REAL ACTUAL DEPRESSION/TRAUMA this can cause NORMAL CURIOUS PEOPLE. Not psychos.

And nice snipping out the part you didn't want to answer - Again, this removes it from theaters ONLY (as far as I can tell). Are you gonna protest the fact that they aren't allowed to play porn in theaters either?

The dumbest part that renders your thread entirely useless is that they're not even banning it - they're taking it out of theaters. BOO HOO. Go rent the DVD.

 

[Shio]

The dumbest part that renders your thread entirely useless is that they're not even banning it - they're taking it out of theaters. BOO HOO. Go rent the DVD.

Because it's cool if someone decides a company can't show a film that is 100% legal on their own property? Yeah, that's not so cool.

Also, you're fairly close to another suspension. I'd hold off on that sort of talk, dude. No one wants to see someone get suspended.

 

[lacktheknack]

The dumbest part that renders your thread entirely useless is that they're not even banning it - they're taking it out of theaters. BOO HOO. Go rent the DVD.

Because it's cool if someone decides a company can't show a film that is 100% legal on their own property? Yeah, that's not so cool.

Also, you're fairly close to another suspension. I'd hold off on that sort of talk, dude. No one wants to see someone get suspended.

So you ARE in favor of porn re-entering theaters?

 

[Shio]

Child pornography. It doesn't necessarily cause any harm to anyone, and some people like it.

How about the child?

Sheesh.

The dumbest part that renders your thread entirely useless is that they're not even banning it - they're taking it out of theaters. BOO HOO. Go rent the DVD.

Because it's cool if someone decides a company can't show a film that is 100% legal on their own property? Yeah, that's not so cool.

Also, you're fairly close to another suspension. I'd hold off on that sort of talk, dude. No one wants to see someone get suspended.

So you ARE in favor of porn re-entering theaters?

I've never thought about it, but sure. If someone wants to screen porn on private property to adults, go ahead.

Why do you ask?

 

[zaly]

Not really.

Surely there has to be an actual reason to ban something. Like it's possibly going to hurt someone.

A film isn't going to hurt anybody.

Also, I wouldn't say that just because something is a law that it's 'right'.

I apologise in advance for another extreme example, but surely "all or nothing" censorship includes extreme cases, otherwise if there were exceptions, it wouldn't be all or nothing.

Child pornography. It doesn't necessarily cause any harm to anyone, and some people like it. That doesn't change the fact that it should be banned.
Well, it is, but you know what I mean.

This really isn't something we can discuss on here as a matter of rules, so I'm going to be very brief with it.

If a child is being photographed.... for that reason, then yes, I'd consider them 'being harmed'.

If it's just drawings, then no matter how disturbed, I can't really find an issue with it.

Child pornography. It doesn't necessarily cause any harm to anyone, and some people like it.

How about the child?

Sheesh.

Yeah I'm regretting bringing it up now, I'll just clarify that I said "necessarily". If they were completely unaware of it, I'm trying to point out it would still be 100% wrong, horrible, and completely justifiable to be censored / banned. I'll speak no more on the matter, in fear of getting misquoted and end up sounding like I'm defending the sick stuff.

 

[Motoko_Urashima]

[So you ARE in favor of porn re-entering theaters?]

Sure, why not? I go to mass-hentai screenings at anime conventions, and you can watch porn on-demand in most adult toy stores. I don't really see a concern provided you don't get hit by spooge from the row behind and above you