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

[Areloch]

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. That fits the definition of censorship perfectly.

Technically, it is. An aspect of a public communication is being surpressed as it might be considered objectionable.

You can still watch the original version of the scene in the UK. Its just that Cartoon Network isn't airing the original version on their private television network. The original cut is not being suppressed but its not being shown either. Saying that is censorship is like calling it censorship when a networks uses the theatrical cut of a film when they air it on television. You can still watch the director's cut, the network is simply not choosing to air that cut for whatever reason (most likely length).

Technically, yes, it was suppressed, as suppression is defined as "prevent the development, action, or expression of (a feeling, impulse, idea, etc.); restrain." or "prevent the dissemination of (information)." It may only be in the sphere of influence of their network, but yes, they actively prevented the expression of an idea and the dissemination of it. As I or John have commented, censorship is not inherently BAD and can absolutely be justified, but it's still censorship, and it needs to be correctly termed.

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.

Would you purport that a religious television network is obligated to air something antithetical to its belief system against their will?

This gets into a gray area a bit, and I think is probably the single most interesting part of discussion of censorship. Per definition, they're not really suppressing any particular idea because it was not provided exposure in the first place. An idea or action cannot be suppressed if it's never expressed in the first place. If, however, they were, say, running a segment where they were interviewing people who had been affected by Jesus, and went to interview someone who used the opportunity to say "God isn't real and no one loves you" or whatnot, and they decided to cut that segment, they would be censoring that.

Again, whether it's good or justifiable is obviously something of a complicated notion, but if someone attempts to express a action, thought or idea, and that effort to express it is denied or blocked, it's censorship.

And frankly I think it's a dangerous line of thought considering that corporate censorship is a larger threat today than government censorship is.

Corporations can't really make you do anything. The only thing that a corporation could make you do is buy from them if they have a monopoly set up, which is exactly why we have the government (ideally) break up monopolies.

Really though? If I made a youtube video talking about the evils of tobacco and some random lawyer at a tobacco company decided to file a lawsuit, it'd probably bankrupt me before we even get to the initial hearing stages to show that the lawsuit has no merit. And even then it'd cost them pocket change, while my financial situation is in ruins. That's an incredible amount of pressure that could be applied if they so chose.

Edit: Another example that's much more likely(because it's happened) is all the business with false, arguably malicious DMCA claims filed against people on youtube. Someone makes a negative review you dislike? Throw some DMCA claims their way, abuse the system and potentially even get their youtube account banned, shutting off their income. It doesn't even need to be a valid claim to be able to screw someone over with this system.

Sure, they may get the account re-instated, but that could take weeks and if that's your job, being unemployeed for a few weeks because some dickbag company filed some DMCAs because they didn't like what you said can still screw you over.

 

[Schadrach]

I got curious and checked. Cartoon Network UK is censoring out 'queer' material from the show. Basically, de-gaying it.

While a disturbing notion, and one I don't personally agree with, it's legal, and it should continue to be legal. By all means, get upset with it, tell Cartoon Network that your pissed, do all that jazz, but don't try to compare it to government run censorship. It may still be censoring, but its an entirely different beast.

All this whining over a business decision to localize the show that way. It's completely unrelated to the concept of censorship whatsoever. No one is trying to take your asexual genderless space alien suggestive dance scenes away! [footnote]This paragraph said with a fair measure of schadenfreude.[/footnote]

Specifically, they trimmed the Rose/Pearl "Rainbow Quartz" dance from the episode "We Need To Talk." It's a few seconds of a scene, and people have decided it's "de-gaying" because another dance scene later in the same ep (Greg and Rose doing a slow dance with a kiss at the end) was left in.

The Rainbow Quartz dance was a lot more suggestive, and arguably that's why it was trimmed the way it was. Not as suggestive as the Sugilite or Sardonyx dances, but if this episode just recently aired censored then we haven't gotten to those yet.

 

[NiPah]

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. That fits the definition of censorship perfectly.

Technically, it is. An aspect of a public communication is being surpressed as it might be considered objectionable.

You can still watch the original version of the scene in the UK. Its just that Cartoon Network isn't airing the original version on their private television network. The original cut is not being suppressed but its not being shown either. Saying that is censorship is like calling it censorship when a networks uses the theatrical cut of a film when they air it on television. You can still watch the director's cut, the network is simply not choosing to air that cut for whatever reason (most likely length).

There is no caveat in the definition of censorship that deems if content being removed is still available then it's no longer censorship. This also meets the definition of suppression, "prevent the dissemination of", while it's not complete suppression withholding content from wider releases does in fact prevent it's dissemination.

For another example censored versions of CD releases, they by definition have censored content but still sell uncensored versions, it's preventing the dissemination of content from "censored" versions of the CD.

And yes censored for TV broadcast is censorship, it's not censorship by government, it's not an issue of freedom of speech, but it is by definition censorship.

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.

Would you purport that a religious television network is obligated to air something antithetical to its belief system against their will?

No one is obligated to not censor their work, censorship isn't in-itself a bad thing (although some dislike it in almost all forms). Censorship is just removing content considered to be offensive, immoral, harmful, and while I personally believe it's a bit backwards and reprehensible to remove content like this they have every right to.

And frankly I think it's a dangerous line of thought considering that corporate censorship is a larger threat today than government censorship is.

Corporations can't really make you do anything. The only thing that a corporation could make you do is buy from them if they have a monopoly set up, which is exactly why we have the government (ideally) break up monopolies.

You likely have more interaction with corporations then government, your world view is shaped by Walmart, Sysco, Aramark, and other major corporations where ever you live. Fashion trends, news, shopping, food, every aspect of your daily life is set for you by the corporations, it's just how our society works.

 

[NiPah]

When you call basic curation of the content of a for-profit television network "censorship" you devalue the meaning of it and what actual censorship is.

Is that what this is all about? Protecting the value of a word that never had any value in the first place? Back in 1999 Dr. Dre released a "censored version" of his 2001 CD and yet people still understand when the Democratic People's Republic of Korea ban works deemed anti-government its a bad thing.

Censorship is just a word with a pretty basic definition, when I say ****, well that's self censorship, when Cartoon Network edits out gay bits they deem inappropriate well that's corporate censorship, and when Germany banned mein kampf, well that was government censorship.

 

[Areloch]

Technically, yes, it was suppressed, as suppression is defined as "prevent the development, action, or expression of (a feeling, impulse, idea, etc.); restrain." or "prevent the dissemination of (information)."

Which hasn't happened. Nobody has been gagged from saying anything. IF we're using your standard then any and every time a television chooses not to air anything it is "censorship". Cartoon Network doesn't want to air Bible Black for fourteen hour straight? Censorship. See how ridiculous that is?

It may only be in the sphere of influence of their network, but yes, they actively prevented the expression of an idea and the dissemination of it.

You can still talk about it in the UK its pretty clear that expression of the idea isn't being prevented. You can still watch it in the UK so the dissemination of the content isn't being prevented.

Talk about what? I thought the point of the topic was the removal of scenes from a show that implied a screening of homosexual presentation. Sure, people can talk about it, but that is not the same thing as displaying the content on TV. If I've been censored from publishing a book because of it's content, I could still TALK about it, but I've still been censored.

As I or John have commented, censorship is not inherently BAD and can absolutely be justified, but it's still censorship, and it needs to be correctly termed.

When you call basic curation of the content of a for-profit television network "censorship" you devalue the meaning of it and what actual censorship is.

And as has been stated several times now. "Censorship" is not inheriently bad. I think it's fine that Cartoon Network would be disenclined to put Bible Black on their network. But the suppression of expression is, BY DEFINITION, censorship. Not "evil". Not "bad". Not "needs to be stopped". Merely censorship.

I'll keep using words as their definitions actually apply, thanks. If using words by what they actually are defined by is "devaluing" then language is dead.

This gets into a gray area a bit, and I think is probably the single most interesting part of discussion of censorship. Per definition, they're not really suppressing any particular idea because it was not provided exposure in the first place. An idea or action cannot be suppressed if it's never expressed in the first place.

Okay so I'll just go up to the Christian Broadcasting Network and demand that they show a livestream of a an eightway filled with sodomy and violence. Nevermind that it goes against their values and is antithetical to the interests of the viewers, nevermind that they make money off of their programs for a living, I'm the victim if they reject my proposition.

If, however, they were, say, running a segment where they were interviewing people who had been affected by Jesus, and went to interview someone who used the opportunity to say "God isn't real and no one loves you" or whatnot, and they decided to cut that segment, they would be censoring that.

So any cut content of any kind whatsoever is censorship even if it hurts the final product? Okay then, be prepared to watch three hundred cuts of "Heeeeeere's Johnny!" the next time you watch The Shining. Otherwise you would be censorship poor Stanley Kubrick and Jack Nicholson.

If someone is preventing you from expressing an idea, thought or action, then BY DEFINITION it is censorship. As stated earlier, that doesn't make it a bad thing. Just a thing that exists.

As for the Shining bit, given that the scene was presented, just a particular variant of it, it wouldn't, by definition, be censorship. The idea of the scene was conveyed in full.

Again, whether it's good or justifiable is obviously something of a complicated notion, but if someone attempts to express a action, thought or idea, and that effort to express it is denied or blocked, it's censorship.

Do you understand what being denied speech is? Being denied speech is when you say something and the cops beat the shit out of you and throw you in prison. Being denied speech is when you say something critical about the government and you get thrown into a Happy Playtime Reeducation Slumber Party. Being denied speech is when your vocal cords are surgically removed against your will so that nobody can hear your voice again.

So, as stated, several times, BY DEFINITION, the suppression - preventing the presentation or dissemination of - an action, idea or expression, is censorship. That's what the word means. That's what it is.

You attempting to attach physical assault to 'censorship' doesn't really do anything, because yeah, that's censorship too. But censorship does not, itself, imply a LITERAL denial of speech. It is the suppression of spreading ideas, actions or thoughts.

It's not inheriently good or bad as myself and others have stated several times now, but that IS what it is.

Really though? If I made a youtube video talking about the evils of tobacco and some random lawyer at a tobacco company decided to file a lawsuit, it'd probably bankrupt me before we even get to the initial hearing stages to show that the lawsuit has no merit.

Only if you couldn't provide evidence of those claims because that is called slander. That is when you lie with the explicit intent of bringing some sort of undue harm or scrutiny onto another that negatively effects their ability to live. The thing about slander is that its untrue. You know what they call slander when its truthful? Free expression of your distate of a person, people group or organization.

And even then it'd cost them pocket change, while my financial situation is in ruins.

If you're not lying then you would win and they would have to cover the expenses that you made.

Well, given that my bills won't pay for themselves in the MONTHS it would take to weave through the court system, I'm still SOL, have no money and when I have to declare bankruptcy to stave off collections for all those bills I can't pay, my credit score would be bottomed out making it difficult to get loans for cars and houses and the like.

It takes surprisingly little effort for major corporations to screw over someone long enough they can't reasonably recover from it. And legal fees and damages rarely act as a full and proper payout. It might, but that's a terrible thing to assume when one's livelyhood is on the line. There are plenty of stories where people were paid back a pittance and were still pretty well screwed over in the end.

And even then, you ignore the fact that while I MIGHT be able to recoup the damages, it was still a corperation abusing the legal system in order to cripple my livelyhood because of something I said. Put another way, they would be using the legal system(or threat of it) to prevent me from continuing to say what I'm saying.

Which is, by definition, censorship.

 

[inmunitas]

This really isn't as big a deal as it's being made out to be, no one watches 'Cartoon Network' in the UK, most kids watch CBBC [http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/cbbc], CITV [http://www.itv.com/citv], or the regional equivalent.

 

[Leg End]

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.

That's an insult to children.

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

In a show already explicitly for children. We're taking the piss out of that.
Also censorship totally applies to kid shows, especially just on what is cut and where it is cut, for what audience.

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.

Well, that's you man. I've seen stuff when I was a kid I handled just fine, and then some kid shows are still creepy as balls.

It's for children is not an excuse, it's a fact,

It's an insult to children.

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.

We're talking about a show that airs in the US uncut while the UK airing cuts content which is leaving the question why? What makes the UK so different that they can't have the scene while the US gets it just fine? A show tailor made for kids and apparently UK children(or possibly, adults) can't handle something that their rebellious offspring can handle across the pond. I'm betting on adults because kids universally seem to handle the show just fine with no complaints at all.

You can't take the Gay out of Steven Universe, that's like....75% of the show [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEJvCQ7QZEo]. Remove the overlaying lesbian tones and all you're left with is various inter-cut reaction shots of Steven making a face.

I still think it's funny it got censored in the UK of all places, home of the gayest show of all time. Sherlock.

I had Queer as Folk in mind, personally.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

This is kind of a weird discussion to be having when nobody can even nail down what "censorship" is. To me, while what CN is doing may be wrong and stupid, it's not effectively censorship- they are choosing not to display it, not preventing it from being displayed at all. But hey, in the interests of clarity, let's all play a little mental game. Suppose I'm an author and I'm writing the latest in a series of popular novels that includes gay characters. So what if:

- I write in a sex scene between two gay characters, and the publisher tells me to excise it or they won't publish. Is that censorship?

- I write in the sex scene, and the publisher tells me to make it less graphic. Is that censorship?

- I write in the sex scene, but then later remove it because I fear there will be a backlash from the readers. Is that censorship?

- I write in the sex scene, but then later remove it because I find gay sex appaling. Is that censorship?

- I write in the sex scene, but then later remove it because it doesn't help the story. Is that censorship?

- I don't even think to write in the sex scene because I don't like to think of gay people in a sexual manner. Is that censorship?

- I don't even think to write in the sex scene because I have no desire for sexual situations to be in the novel. Is that censorship?

 

[inmunitas]

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.

We're talking about a show that airs in the US uncut while the UK airing cuts content which is leaving the question why? What makes the UK so different that they can't have the scene while the US gets it just fine?

Apparently Cartoon Network want all their content aired in the UK to meet the "Universal [http://www.bbfc.co.uk/what-classification/u]" (U) BBFC classification, which means anything directly sexual in nature would need to be cut.

 

[Leg End]

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.

We're talking about a show that airs in the US uncut while the UK airing cuts content which is leaving the question why? What makes the UK so different that they can't have the scene while the US gets it just fine?

Apparently Cartoon Network want all their content aired in the UK to meet the "Universal [http://www.bbfc.co.uk/what-classification/u]" (U) BBFC classification, which means anything directly sexual in nature would need to be cut.

So, they want to get a show that is rated stateside as "hey kid, you should be cool but maybe bring a parent" and have it fit a rating we roughly assign to preschoolers and up. GG CN.

 

[inmunitas]

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.

We're talking about a show that airs in the US uncut while the UK airing cuts content which is leaving the question why? What makes the UK so different that they can't have the scene while the US gets it just fine?

Apparently Cartoon Network want all their content aired in the UK to meet the "Universal [http://www.bbfc.co.uk/what-classification/u]" (U) BBFC classification, which means anything directly sexual in nature would need to be cut.

So, they want to get a show that is rated stateside as "hey kid, you should be cool but maybe bring a parent" and have it fit a rating we roughly assign to preschoolers and up. GG CN.

Cartoon Network is not popular in the UK, it's ratings are like 0.1-0.2%, and yeah if anyone it most likely is going to be preschoolers watching.

 

[Leg End]

Cartoon Network is not popular in the UK, it's ratings are like 0.1-0.2%, and yeah if anyone it most likely it is going to be preschoolers watching.

I can see why with them taking this long to actually air We Need To Talk considering we're nearly 20 episodes ahead in the states.

 

[NiPah]

There is no caveat in the definition of censorship that deems if content being removed is still available then it's no longer censorship.

So private for-profit corporations should be morally obligated to host everything and anything that is requested of then or they're infringing on the right of others to speak, then?

Moral obligation has nothing to do with the definition of censorship, rather the censorship in question is moral or not is irrelevant to the fact that it is still censorship.

This also meets the definition of suppression, "prevent the dissemination of", while it's not complete suppression withholding content from wider releases does in fact prevent it's dissemination.

Its their stuff, its their speech. You cannot stifle your own speech. You can choose your words but cannot forcefully gag yourself to prevent from saying something. I'm not suppressing my freedom of speech by not saying something, I'm saying what I freely choose to say.

You can censor your own speech, you can stifle your own speech, self-censorship is a thing:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/self-censorship
As far as Freedom of speech is concerned that's another issue completely, it's a much more ambiguous term mainly used to refer to the government amendment to the constitution affording citizens the right to communicate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship, I agree that by not saying something you're somehow effecting the ability of your rights as a citizen is incorrect, but again we're discussing suppression of dissemination of information which is impacted by censorship.

Also the concept of "freely" is ambiguous here, for example the TOS of this site impacts what you say here, and in the example of Cartoon Network I'd argue they are not free restraint or reservation as they want to sell to a mass market and may impact their choice of censorship.
But again irrelevant to the topic at hand, they may have freely chosen to censor themselves on a whim, does not negate the fact that they censored themselves, or the fact that it's preventing the dissemination of information.

For another example censored versions of CD releases, they by definition have censored content but still sell uncensored versions, it's preventing the dissemination of content from "censored" versions of the CD.

a) Sometimes that is mandated by the government. You know, the government. The people who can throw you in prison for not following their rules.

b) Thats ridiculous. Thats like saying that Disney is suppressing their own speech by not stocking Cinderella DVDs anywhere and everywhere that they have a presence. Its a ludicrous notion that paints an impossibly large brush.

And yes censored for TV broadcast is censorship, it's not censorship by government, it's not an issue of freedom of speech, but it is by definition censorship.

Per A) Irrelevant to the conversation at hand, I'm arguing from the standpoint that this is censorship, not rather government censorship exists or is worse. Of course when a government censors information it can be much worse, like you say governments hold much more power and can throw you in prison, it does not negate the existence of other types of censorship or invalidate their impact.

Per B) If a company goes into and removes content (censors) a release, they are preventing the dissemination of (suppressing) that content. The act of the censorship is the prevention. Suppression is relatively easy to prove, your other example would not be suppression due to lack of prevention, if there was no dissemination there would be no prevention, if there is dissemination (IE release of censored content) there can be.

No, its not. Censorship is getting thrown in the back of a police wagon for saying mean things during a stand-up act. Censorship is having your tongue pulled out because you said something critical of the king. What Cartoon Network did is a financial decision. Its no more censorship than Activision decision to not sell copies of the newest Call of Duty for $200 in the center of a poor Chinese village that lacks electricity.

You've provided two examples of punishments and ambiguously examples of government censorship. The definition of censorship:

The suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security

The third again is like you surmised a bad example, but does not mirror my original point and is closer to your own examples IMO.

They're businesses. They have this thing called a "bottom line". They're trying to make money and these are decisions they've made in the pursuit of said money. They're not moral entities, they're not public servants, they're hotdog stands.

Irrelevant to invalidating their act of censorship.
If you want to get into the reasoning of their censorship then CN is indeed financially inclined to censor out obscene content to sell more. An example of corporate censorship, morality of said censorship nor their connection to the private sector is irrelevant. Also they're not hotdog stands, they're a UK branch of an American cable and satellite television station, but that's not relevant either.

Censorship is just removing content considered to be offensive, immoral, harmful, and while I personally believe it's a bit backwards and reprehensible to remove content like this they have every right to.

Why do people look to businesses for morality? They're there to earn money. Money. Any and every single decision they make has the possibility to earn money, some more than others. That is their end game, their goal.

I'm judging their act of censoring out the content in question. I also judged Turing Pharmaceuticals for raising the price of a 62 year old drug for treating a life-threatening parasitic infection from $13.50 to $750 overnight, like you said it was a decision to make money, doesn't stop me from judging said decision. It's odd to say someone is looking for morality from a company, but people can and should judge the actions of a company if they believe them to be immoral or unethical, censoring out gayness to make a buck to me is backwards and reprehensible.

You likely have more interaction with corporations then government, your world view is shaped by Walmart, Sysco, Aramark, and other major corporations where ever you live.

My worldview isn't shaped by corporations. I don't have to listen to them. I don't have to pay attention to them. I don't have to respect them. I don't have to give them my money. There are absolute no consequences to how I treat a business. Can you say the same about the government? No, because there are these things called laws. I'm sure you've heard of them, they're a few thousand years old. If you disobey the law the government comes down on you.

While that's a romantic view, it's completely false, the logic follows that laws are the determining force the government has on you while in reality it's dissemination of information that has a greater impact. You're referring to freedom of speech and punishment almost interchangeably with censorship and control, but in reality laws and punishment likely have the least amount of impact on you then any other aspect of social control.

I mean I break the law every time I drive over the speed limit, not a huge factor in my life.

Also no governmental law I follow is over a few hundred years old, even Iraq doesn't follow the Code of Hammurabi so I'm not sure where you're getting the thousand years from, they've been edited since*.

Fashion trends, news, shopping, food, every aspect of your daily life is set for you by the corporations, it's just how our society works.

No, those are set by people. Those things exist in cultures that aren't capitalistic too, you know. Businesses are influenced by people because they serve people. They have whatever power we give them. If we don't give them anything they wither and die and unlike the government there is no obligation whatsoever to support a business. That is the basis of capitalism. I don't believe we should be discussing corporate rights if there isn't a fundamental understanding of how capitalism functions in the first place.

I'm not saying your obligated to, I'm just saying that you are being influenced by corporations (be it consciously or subconsciously) and as such their actions are important, you nor they exist in a vacuum and if a corporation is acting immorally it has a negative impact on ourselves, even if (or especially so) if they're still profitable.

We're not discussing corporate rights, we're discussing impact of corporations, your snide comment on my fundamental understanding of how capitalism functions is noted though.