Poll: Censorship

[Joccaren]

Censorship of my data on sites like this? All for it. Censorship of convicted but possibly not guilty criminals to protect their reputation? Fine. Censor anything else: I'm moving to Rapture.
Also, I am disappointed that there was no 'This option was censored by the censorship bureau'. Would have been good for laughs

 

[Esotera]

Everyone should be allowed to do/say whatever the hell they want to, as long as it doesn't directly harm other people. Swear words are just scary because of their social taboo, use them enough and they lose their meaning. Censorship is a terrible idea awesome.

 

[MelasZepheos_v1legacy]

If the information/content breaks the law (like child pornography),
.

Whose law?

What with the age of syndication, where shows from Britain and America are basically shared and watched frely, what if someone on an AMerican show does something that is illegal under British law? Should that be censored only when the show is shown in Britain, or should it be allowed because the audience are smart enough to know the difference?

A good example would be cop shows, like Castle, CSI, 24. In them, the police are armed and often shoot suspects, sometimes to kill. This is (usually) illegal in Britain. The police don't carry firearms except in extreme cases, and they fire those firearms even less, so technically what the American show is showing, from a British perspective, is recklessly violent and brutal policing, but the audience is intelligent enough to know that this is true of American policing but not British policing, and so they remain uncensored.

Another example would be Age of Consent laws. If a British show (Skins, The Inbetweeners) shows a 16 year old having sex, then it's entirely legal under British law, transfer that show to America and it becomes illegal in most of the west coast (east coast and deep south laws of consent in America are different) so should the show be edited?

Bringing the law into an international situation makes it very tricky to determine what's right. The rule of thumb seems mostly to be 'as long as it doesn't break American law' but why should that stop a British or French or any other nationality artist from exploring a subject that is entirely legal in their own society, simply because it might be censored for those extremely sensitive yanks?

On Topic: I believe in censorship mostly, because I don't believe in freedom of speech. I believe things should be monitored and edited accordingly for a whole variety of reasons. Remember also that there's an issue of whether anyone will want to buy the finished product, and censorship can help.

However, I genuinely believe that while the potential exists for everyone and everything to be or create art, some of that art is simply not suitable for other's consumption. There's a time and a place, and espeially in the age of the internet, where there is little to no censorship, the forum for such things should be some dark little corner of the internet where only those who appreciate it can even find it, let alone view it.

 

[Anomynous 167]

Once someone's big and ugly enough to take care of themselves, it should be more-or-less open slather online. Policing that censorship... well, that's another matter entirely.

That said, I have no problem with censoring public TV, radio and internet content which constitutes an incitement to violence and/or racial hatred. Similarly, I think material which is in the "Two Girls One Cup" category needs to be restricted to adults.

off topic: From what I heard of "Two Girls; One Cup", they wasted a perfectly good premise which could of involved a person having to drink from an already used cup/the hillarity (or shenanigans) that could of ensured as the two of them try to drink from it at the same time.
OT: I reckon that material should be restricted from every one. No one should be able to dirty their eyes from such an ill-mannered video.

In some occasions, though those occasions are incredibly limited. For example:

A document on how to make a bomb or other such weaponry that is meant to kill people,
Yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater,
If the information/content breaks the law (like child pornography),
Hate speech,
etc.

Cursing, nudity, violence, gore, and other "offensive" content should never be censored. Those who are offended by such content can simply turn the other way. If people are worried about the children being exposed to such content, the parents simply need to manage what content their child consumes. Don't blame the media for showing some violent film to your child; blame yourself for allowing your child to watch HBO after 8 pm.

/snip *What I am about to say applies to this post in the same manner as Nick's

Cursing, nudity, excessive violins, Al Gore, and etc SHOULD be censored. It is not that I find those things "Offensive", it is because I find them extremely off putting and/or disgusting.
I for one, am for censorship. With the only possible exception is if it furthers the aims of Western Imperialist Pigs.

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

I'd rather not have a child and then turn on the TV one day to sesame street where elmo is just hardcore fucking the shit (literally) out of big bird and Oscar is introducing Grover to a pissing/puking fetish while they talk about letter of the day being I for intercourse.

Then the follow up episode being cookie monster just blwoing away mr. hooper with a shotgun for cookie dough money he just mainlines into him and the letter of the day being Homicide.

I would SOOOO FUCKING WATCH THAT!!
My life will be complete when I see Elmo pop a cap in Oscar The Grouch's ass while he says, "This is Elmo's world now, B****!"

I have a song for you:


OT: Censorship is NEVER a good thing. Even if it means a temporary breach in legality, I believe nothing should be consored.

Not to mention it is wrong, but it's also pointless. With a VERY few exceptions, if someone want's to see something, they can.

 

[Lawnmooer]

Censorship is just bad...

People who don't want to see violence/nudity or hear explitives on TV and the Internet can just not put on the shows/go on the sites with them on.

People who don't want their kids to see and hear that stuff can monitor the things they're doing or even use one of the "Parental Guidance" features (Such as needing a Pin number to put TV programmes that are 15+ on or whatever the internet variation is (Not sure what it is since I've never been subject to it))

It gets rather irritating to have things censored, the biggest thing for me is when watching Scrubs, the swearing is silenced and some of the situations that arise (Such as JD's chocolate world fantasy) are cut completely. Other things are also censored for stupid reasons such as a few times when watching music channels they censor out people smoking (Even though the song is often about drugs/sex/violence and even shows a scene that has self harming in...)

I mean seriously, if you don't want to experience bad things, make an effort to pay attention to what you are exposing yourself/your kids to instead of ruining it for the rest of us who want to see what is going on...

 

[Korolev]

Like with all things, it depends on how far you take it and what it applies to. Total information freedom is just as harmful as total censorship. For example, we wouldn't want to give the public access to the methods for producing extremely dangerous chemical weapons, now do we? Or patient health information, as another example. Or specific troop deployments during a time of war. Some information needs to be kept secret because, frankly, the public is often either unreliable or cannot be trusted, or, most dangerously of all, might draw the wrong conclusion from the data presented. Talk about freedoms all you want, but total freedom is no different than anarchy, and I do not want to live in an anarchist state. No, I vastly prefer my comfortable home, my comfortable lab, and my comfortable university, thank you very much.

Of course, censorship is also bad if taken too far. Political ideas must never be censored. War time casualty rates must never be censored. Alternative historical views, no matter how ridiculous, must never be censored. Criticism of government/public/corporate institutions must never be censored (even if they are wrong). While I don't trust the public to handle all the world's information correctly (like the aforementioned chemical weapon recipes), I do trust the public to generally reach somewhat reasonable conclusions when presented with correct or incorrect information.

In regards to Television violence, offensive musical lyrics, I also agree that these should never be censored. I do agree that labels need to be applied to such material, so that parents can decide what to show their children, but the material itself should never be banned, unless the production method of said material directly breaks the law (as in Child Pornography or Genuine, real life horrific violence. No real life Smash TV, please). What is shocking today, might be seen as completely normal 10, 20, 30 years from now. Just a scant 100 years ago, it was scandalous for a woman to flash her ANKLES, of all things. I'm not joking - showing your ankles was almost as perverse to the people in the 1800s as full-frontal nudity would be today. Violence in films and television programmes can add to the worth of such programs - "Saving Private Ryan" or "No Country For Old Men" would not be the pictures they are today if people had tried to make them 50 years ago. While I am not a fan of excessive, needless violence (except for satirical purposes, as in Fallout) or offensive lyrics in my media, banning them entirely would harm cinema, television and the music industry as a whole. You can ban serious swear words from music, but then someone will try to ban words like "Damn" or "hell". AC/DC's "Highway to Hell" might end up being called "Highway to Heck"! Can you imagine? "I'm on the hiiiiiighwaaaaay to HECK!"?

So here are the only things I am willing to censor:

1) Direct, SERIOUS, and SUSTAINED calls to violence and crime (As in: "Go out and shoot people in the face!")
2) Anything that required breaking serious laws to make - videos of illegal fighting, rape, child pornography
3) Information that could result in innocent people's lives being lost.
4) Information that everyday citizens have a right to keep private (Bank details, medical history, street address)
5) Sensitive technological and scientific information which might be misused, misconstrued, or otherwise inappropriately handled.

 

[DelphiSantano]

I can understand why some people find it necessary, but I don't think it's an absolute requirement and prefer to watch/view/read without censorship wherever possible.

 

[EmperorSubcutaneous]

Censorship most definitely is a broad issue.

I've seen a lot of people arguing that NDAs for videogame beta testing are "censorship," and that running around and breaking the NDA at every opportunity is the morally right thing to do because down with censorship and fuck the man.

That's just stupid. There are some things that shouldn't get out. But where "don't tell anyone about how buggy our game is in its testing phase because it might lead to bad publicity" is acceptable, "don't tell anyone about how we use sacrificial infants to create our game disks because it might lead to bad publicity" is absolutely not.

As for what's usually meant by "censorship" (blocking out swears, nudity, violence, etc.)? Yeah, it's pretty pointless and should be avoided.

 

[Amphoteric]

I absolutely hate censorship in music. It just completely ruins the song.

Censorship is in 99% of the cases completely unnecessary and stupid.

Also, Streisand Effect.

 

[iamnoobie616]

Censoring something only increases interest in the given subject. They(whoever it may be) will inevitably find it online if they have a working brain and limbs. So essentially , censorship only promotes the video/music/whatever.

 

[Nickompoop]

Spoiler

If the information/content breaks the law (like child pornography),
.

Whose law?

What with the age of syndication, where shows from Britain and America are basically shared and watched frely, what if someone on an AMerican show does something that is illegal under British law? Should that be censored only when the show is shown in Britain, or should it be allowed because the audience are smart enough to know the difference?

A good example would be cop shows, like Castle, CSI, 24. In them, the police are armed and often shoot suspects, sometimes to kill. This is (usually) illegal in Britain. The police don't carry firearms except in extreme cases, and they fire those firearms even less, so technically what the American show is showing, from a British perspective, is recklessly violent and brutal policing, but the audience is intelligent enough to know that this is true of American policing but not British policing, and so they remain uncensored.

Another example would be Age of Consent laws. If a British show (Skins, The Inbetweeners) shows a 16 year old having sex, then it's entirely legal under British law, transfer that show to America and it becomes illegal in most of the west coast (east coast and deep south laws of consent in America are different) so should the show be edited?

Bringing the law into an international situation makes it very tricky to determine what's right. The rule of thumb seems mostly to be 'as long as it doesn't break American law' but why should that stop a British or French or any other nationality artist from exploring a subject that is entirely legal in their own society, simply because it might be censored for those extremely sensitive yanks?

You bring up an excellent point. Usually, there are court cases that decide such issues, since both countries use Common Law system. But, I think the networks take it upon themselves to censor anything that could be controversial or seen as offensive. Plus, society views violence and sex very differently. The "excessive police brutality" shown in US police shows is probably okay since those shows take place in the US. However, if a network attempts to show a 16 year-old having sex in the US, even though it may be totally fine in the UK, that show would very likely be censored because it's viewed as obscene in the US.

Ultimately, such issues would depend on how the networks think their audiences will react to the content and acting accordingly.

 

[Rin Little]

Honestly censorship annoys me to no end. Parents are constantly bitching and whining about their kids seeing things they shouldn't. Hello! It'd called being a parent and monitoring what they watch/play/read! It's no one else's job to watch your kids and I'm sick of having more and more things censored all because people can't get that fact through their heads.

 

[Robert Ewing]

I agree that some stuff should be censored. I.e Nuclear access codes. Secret military plans. Private matters etc.

But I believe fully in the freedom of information, apart from the things I just discussed.

Trouble is, freedom of information suggests that all of it is freely obtained. I'd be quite scared if anyone could access where I lived, and what I do for a living, all at a click of a button.

So personal privacy, and severity of information should be restricted.

Everything else, let it flow freely!

 

[Nickompoop]

In some occasions, though those occasions are incredibly limited. For example:

A document on how to make a bomb or other such weaponry that is meant to kill people,
Yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater,
If the information/content breaks the law (like child pornography),
Hate speech,

I'm probably going to regret this but by Hate Speech do you mean things like "all [race] people must die" or things like "[race] people are inferior animals"?

Yes.

Both quotes are, in fact, hate speech, and wonderful examples at that.