Something has been censored. Let's get to those two obligatory statements.

[Mazinger-Z]

Well, if we're in a world where we have to remove content that makes people uncomfortable and we have to be totally cool with it, at least it's being applied equally. :^)

And as the demographics in that region are swelling with cultures that actually pretty homophobic, I would expect more of that to occur. Probably better than the roofs of Cartoon Network UK corporate offices being used to throw people off of or something equally horrific. Better to apologetically scrub it out, amirite?

This is much like how there were attempts in the US to create more Latin American appeal in its products and children's programming, though we don't import a lot of stuff other than what Japan makes. Maybe some of the occasional Canadian stuff.

South Park was right. Again. [http://southpark.cc.com/clips/103674/cartmans-motive]

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

I gave... I think no fucks, at all.

Your medal's in the post.

Yours has been censored by the Committee of Parents Against Salt.
It's a kid's show, made for kids, aired in a kid's TV channel. Sensitive shit is always going to get cut for as long as adults have a problem with it. Fighting grown-up hang-ups in kids' shows is very noble because you want the kids growing up and above them, but it's not as effective as dealing with the issues upfront.
There's also the possibility that the scene was deemed too sexually suggestive for a kids' show. Which happens all the time.
That's all I have to say about Steven Universe, a show I don't care for in a channel I don't watch.
Feel free to send me another medal.

 

[Johnlives]

Let me give this a try:

1) Find some people who are having a hard time [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35177547]
2) Find where their beliefs contradict with this, let's try Leviticus 20:13
3) Shout a bit; THINK OF THE CHILDREN, won't somebody please think of the children
4) Excuse this change as otherwise it may offend the above group

Am I doing it right guys?


But seriously, I don't get it. I've seen the clip and it's two people dancing. Idon't know what age group this is aimed at but I checked amazon and both it and Doctor Who have PG-13 ratings. Doctor Who had Captain Jack doing what he does for a good spell, that got plenty of kid viewers.


Here's a comparison for those interested, the change happens not long after 2 minutes.

Spoilered because I'm British and have to take measures from letting kids see this apparently - I really have no idea why.

Spoiler

 

[Fallow]

Nope still not censorship. Nobody owes you a platform and if you want to be on someone else's platform you do it knowing "their house, their rules." CN are well within their rights and fans are within theirs to criticise, boycott, petition to let their dissatisfaction be known.

Also if this is to draw attention to other instances of "censorship" there is kind of a difference. By "censoring" racist (as an example) material what you're saying is "Racism is bad". By "censoring" material for homosexuality what you're saying is "homosexuality is bad". You know why those two things are different right?

Actually, both say the same thing: "Thinking is bad, and from now on I'll decide your worldview for you".

Letting people draw their own conclusions seem like a far better option.

 

[Gengisgame]

It's a CHILDRENS SHOW, I understand adults watch this but it's still a CHILDRENS SHOW, the idea of censorship should only ever apply to legal adults.

I was a child once. I wouldn't want to be censored.

Children's shows were in general a lot more intelligent in my days, as well. People use "it's for children" as an excuse too often to dismiss things like this. If anything, children deserve more than adults in these cases, they shouldn't grow up with the impression that such things are acceptable.

EDIT: Intelligent shows have been on the uprise, however, and I'd hate for this to begin the pendulum swing back to stupidity.

The OP was complaining about censorship in a "childrens show"

We are not talking quality or substance, we are talking censorship which does not apply to childrens shows because age restriction means that things are suppose to be cut, whether you think children should be able to see these things or not is irrelevant

I was a child once is not a valid point, I watch things casually now that would have given me sleepless nights as a child. It's for children is not an excuse, it's a fact, if you are going to debate that gay themes be added to childrens shows that's a separate issue and one that has already been done on this board.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Nope still not censorship. Nobody owes you a platform and if you want to be on someone else's platform you do it knowing "their house, their rules." CN are well within their rights and fans are within theirs to criticise, boycott, petition to let their dissatisfaction be known.

Also if this is to draw attention to other instances of "censorship" there is kind of a difference. By "censoring" racist (as an example) material what you're saying is "Racism is bad". By "censoring" material for homosexuality what you're saying is "homosexuality is bad". You know why those two things are different right?

Actually, both say the same thing: "Thinking is bad, and from now on I'll decide your worldview for you".

Letting people draw their own conclusions seem like a far better option.

Excepting, of course, that not something racist or homophobic doesn't take away people's right to decide for themselves anymore than saying something racist or homophobic does.

 

[Areloch]

Nope still not censorship. Nobody owes you a platform and if you want to be on someone else's platform you do it knowing "their house, their rules." CN are well within their rights and fans are within theirs to criticise, boycott, petition to let their dissatisfaction be known.

Yeah, like the government! It's their house, after all. Why can't they decide what people staying there are and aren't allowed to say? It's not censorship there either because it's merely the government saying "my house, my rules".


No, jokes aside, it's censorship through and through. It's merely a slightly more socially acceptable one than government-based censorship.

"Censorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are "offensive," happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others." as per the ACLU and other similar wordings from many, many other sources.

Cartoon Network UK imposed their particular moral judgments on a media because it was deemed possibly offensive. Censorship. There ya go. It may be potentially justifiable censorship - the viewership may indeed not like that content - but it still involves a body imposing blocks on certain content based on certain moral or political viewpoints that the implementing body holds that the consumer of said content may not.

Same thing for your example about censoring racist or homosexual content. BOTH are censorship, as it involves someone suppressing content based on political or moral values. One may be much easier to justify, but it's censorship all the same.

 

[Fox12]

You know the Steven Universe thing? Well, it's time to hear those dumb statements people make that show they don't understand what censorship actually is.

You know the ones

"It's only censorship when the government does it."

When this statement was first originated, it was usually followed up with "Because the people would never censor each other, they're not total idiots."

"Nobody is trying to take your "X" away."

This is bullshit and even the people who are saying it know it's a paper thin shield at best.

*criticizes people for not knowing what censorship is*

*clearly has no idea what censorship is*

You need to explain your stance a little more clearly in the OP. I won't say that only the government can censor, but 90% of the examples given on this site don't qualify. A Japanese dev deciding not to bring an item to the United States, of its own volition, is not censorship. People criticizing a games content isn't censorship. Target not stocking an item in their store is not censorship.

Do I disagree with CN decision? Sure. Am I vocally critical of it? Yes. But they do have the right to control what gets presented on their channel. It is censorship of a sort, but it's very different from government censorship, since it's a private entity. What are we supposed to do, make the government tell them what to do? That would be unethical. We should be hugely critical of them, and let our feelings known, thus exercising our free speech.

 

[Silvanus]

Yours has been censored by the Committee of Parents Against Salt.

Ouch!

That's all I have to say about Steven Universe, a show I don't care for in a channel I don't watch.

You know, there are whole forums dedicated to books you don't read. Friendly tip. Hours of fun.

But seriously, I don't get it. I've seen the clip and it's two people dancing. Idon't know what age group this is aimed at but I checked amazon and both it and Doctor Who have PG-13 ratings. Doctor Who had Captain Jack doing what he does for a good spell, that got plenty of kid viewers.

I don't think Captain Jack had any explicit romantic interaction in Doctor Who itself. That only really cropped up in Torchwood, which was rated 15+ by the BBFC (for various reasons).

 

[Fallow]

Nope still not censorship. Nobody owes you a platform and if you want to be on someone else's platform you do it knowing "their house, their rules." CN are well within their rights and fans are within theirs to criticise, boycott, petition to let their dissatisfaction be known.

Also if this is to draw attention to other instances of "censorship" there is kind of a difference. By "censoring" racist (as an example) material what you're saying is "Racism is bad". By "censoring" material for homosexuality what you're saying is "homosexuality is bad". You know why those two things are different right?

Actually, both say the same thing: "Thinking is bad, and from now on I'll decide your worldview for you".

Letting people draw their own conclusions seem like a far better option.

Excepting, of course, that not something racist or homophobic doesn't take away people's right to decide for themselves anymore than saying something racist or homophobic does.

I'm not sure how to read that.

If you are saying that censoring racist and homosexual content does not prevent people from deciding their stances on those issues themselves, that is an obviously accurate (and trivial) statement.

If you are saying that censoring an issue is fine because you aren't yet able to control people's thoughts then I would respectfully disagree and ask you to get back to me once you can stand firm on the topmost incline of a slippery slope.

 

[Fallow]

Nope still not censorship. Nobody owes you a platform and if you want to be on someone else's platform you do it knowing "their house, their rules." CN are well within their rights and fans are within theirs to criticise, boycott, petition to let their dissatisfaction be known.

Also if this is to draw attention to other instances of "censorship" there is kind of a difference. By "censoring" racist (as an example) material what you're saying is "Racism is bad". By "censoring" material for homosexuality what you're saying is "homosexuality is bad". You know why those two things are different right?

Actually, both say the same thing: "Thinking is bad, and from now on I'll decide your worldview for you".

Letting people draw their own conclusions seem like a far better option.

Excepting, of course, that not something racist or homophobic doesn't take away people's right to decide for themselves anymore than saying something racist or homophobic does.

I'm not sure how to read that.

If you are saying that censoring racist and homosexual content does not prevent people from deciding their stances on those issues themselves, that is an obviously accurate (and trivial) statement.

If you are saying that censoring an issue is fine because you aren't yet able to control people's thoughts then I would respectfully disagree and ask you to get back to me once you can stand firm on the topmost incline of a slippery slope.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I don't think Captain Jack had any explicit romantic interaction in Doctor Who itself. That only really cropped up in Torchwood, which was rated 15+ by the BBFC (for various reasons).

He flirts with everyone, and snogged Eccleston in the latter's last story, though.

 

[Silvanus]

He flirts with everyone, and snogged Eccleston in the latter's last story, though.

Ah. My memory betrays me, then. This is the last time, memory!

 

[Erttheking]

Sadly I'm not sure if you can call this censorship.

It PISSES ME OFF! UTTERLY PISSES ME THE FUCK OFF! But...you can't really call it censorship.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

So, I had a thought as to how much they would have to cut out of Steven Universe to avoid "Lesbian Overtones" and just started laughing. Each episode would be, what, 3 1/2 minutes long? 😄

I mean, CN UK can show, or not show, whatever it likes, but if, deep down, they're trying to shield kids from "the gays", it's a losing battle there.

 

[Luminous_Umbra]

It perplexes me how people continue to argue this kind of thing isn't censorship.

I mean, this isn't even a case where something was removed from the entirety of the show, this was removed specifically from the UK version, left in other versions.

On a related tangent, a few questions for those that bring out the whole "artist's choice" or something similar for these cases: Do societal pressures mean nothing to you? Do you honestly believe that for some cases, that the creator wants to change it? Isn't self-censorship still censorship?

 

[Loonyyy]

Sadly I'm not sure if you can call this censorship.

It PISSES ME OFF! UTTERLY PISSES ME THE FUCK OFF! But...you can't really call it censorship.

Technically, it is. An aspect of a public communication is being surpressed as it might be considered objectionable. That fits the definition of censorship perfectly.

I realise there's this strange trend these days to say "it's only censorship if it's government censorship" but in the real world that just doesn't check out. And frankly I think it's a dangerous line of thought considering that corporate censorship is a larger threat today than government censorship is.

The problem is that the response to censorship is universal opposition because of government censorship, which is a terrible, oppressive thing.

The other forms we seem, "self-censorship", or "corporate censorship", just aren't the same thing, and don't merit the same response. If the government wants to shut down free speech and criticism, everyone should oppose that, naturally. If I refrain from cursing around delicate family members, suggesting that that deserves the same opposition would be simply silly. Similarly, here we're looking at a company releasing a product, and they're changing it. They can do that, they might piss off some viewers, they might piss off a bunch of people working on it, but at the end of the day, that's their prerogative, and their job. I hope this isn't the form of corporate censorship you're referring to, because frankly, it's not dangerous. It might be dickish, you might disagree with what they did (I do), but there's no reason they're obliged not to.

Calling "censorship" is a quick way to mobilise the response to government censorship, towards anything else, because when you bring in speech and censorship, nuance is lost instantly.

"it's only censorship if it's government censorship" may be wrong, but government censorship, by and large, is the only one that matters. Unless someone is actually being suppressed, then we're not talking about being denied the right to speech. Signing on with a giant corporation to produce a television show and then being stuck under their rules and thumb sucks, but it's an arrangement entered into willingly, to provide oneself with a platform.

 

[Loonyyy]

You know the Steven Universe thing? Well, it's time to hear those dumb statements people make that show they don't understand what censorship actually is.

You know the ones

"It's only censorship when the government does it."

When this statement was first originated, it was usually followed up with "Because the people would never censor each other, they're not total idiots."

"Nobody is trying to take your "X" away."

This is bullshit and even the people who are saying it know it's a paper thin shield at best.

How is this anything other than a grotesque mockery of an argument, hamfistedly using Steven Universe to barge in on a couple of strawmen. It's very clear you don't care much about this example, why don't you actually put forward an argument of your own?

Because yeah, ok, that first sentiment is misplaced, but Government censorship is the one that matters.

The second sentence I've never heard before. It feels like a fabrication. Let me try this. I don't like your posting. It lacks substance, nuance, and uses a gotcha technique. I'm going to try to censor you. I want your posting stopped.

Did it work? Oh, wait, no. Because I'm just a random dickhead, and I have exactly no power over you. The Steven Universe thing is a company modifying a product they own the rights to. I don't agree with it, but it's the deal that everyone involved went int for. Nobody had to be censored, CN didn't have to be involved. SU could be a YouTube series and put up with none of this, and it'd have a much smaller reach. You trade your soul for money. It's a story as old as time.

Unless someone can stop you talking, then they're not realistically able to censor you.

"Nobody is trying to take your X away". Now I have heard this one, and it's completely unrelated to the first. Dishonestly so. It's usually a response to umbrage at criticism. To which I say get over it. For all the talk of censorship, some folks really do have a problem with some people using their free speech to criticise something. Yeah, some people want things taken away. Some people want things to change. And some people want to continue being pandered to because it makes them feel special. And all of these are readily conflated for the needs of whoever's doing the arguing. Furnish us with actual examples rather than disconnected phrases. It doesn't make an argument unless you're a fundamentalist.