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

[FirstNameLastName]

This thread should be labeled BYOC for Bring-Your-Own-Controversy, since it seems few people have any idea what we're supposed to be bickering about. I guess the lesson here is not to assume people have heard of this controversy unless it truly is ubiquitous.
Anyway, can we perhaps bury this argument once an for all and agree upon some kind of intermediary term between "editing" and "censorship"? No? Okay then.
As for the supposed censorship, I'm probably wasting my words here by repeating what others have said, but, it's stupid but ultimately not a big deal nor censorship.

 

[runic knight]

A change made to the show to suit a different demographic? Well, could be censorship, could just be localization, I would be curious to see an article on the topic of the localization itself to get a better feel of exactly what they are changing, as a vague "removing lesbian undertones" could be anything from the Sailor Moon "cousins" thing to a much milder removing of any sexual undertones in general that just hits the lesbian undertones in the swing (since 90% of the show's cast is female, and thus greater likelihood of crossover there). So would like a little more info there.

Still, if it is as said on the tin here, the lesbian undertones are removed because lesbian undertones, then I would say that yes, that is censorship. That would be a single party dictating a change in art to suit a personal moral judgement and pushing that moral judgement onto others. The original art was changed in order to appease the moral authority, that is censoring it. So, got to oppose that sort of thing on principle.

I suppose there is argument that could be made about the audience it is directed at being children and it being a television show, and that both children's shows and television media are censored regularly as it is. And that is a fair point to make, both are relevant here. Still, assuming the reporting of it by the OP is correct, this would be a specifically anti-lesbian intent in on behalf of the censors, and that is a bit more off-putting than the usual censoring of gratuitous content and profanity, since it is the idea they are going after.

 

[IceForce]

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

Nah, see, there appear to be two different meanings for the word "censorship" in common use today.

1] The scary and worrying form of 'censorship' enacted by the government to enforce their will on things, and the public can't do anything about it.
2] The colloquial form of of 'censorship', where it's literally just a private entity exercising their right to make alterations to something.

An extraordinarily large number of people on the internet take the second meaning, and try to put a 'scary and worrying' twist on it, when it really isn't scary or worrying.


"SOMETHING'S BEING CENSORED!!1!"
"You mean that scary form of censorship?"
"Nah, the boring colloquial form of censorship."
"Oh..."

 

[NiPah]

This isn't censorship, it's just a localization. Everybody knows only the government can censor, this is just a decission taken by a private corporation in order to avoid alienating half of its fanbase.

Anyways, none of this matters. Nobody would've watched that episode anyways (Wow, the amount of arguments I'll be able to recycle for this thread from R&P and GiD is astonishingly long)

It's censorship and it's localization, the two terms are not exclusionary.
Private corporations can censor content, they do it all the time, especially when localizing content they believe may impact the sales of an item. For other examples of censorship look censored versions of CDs, bleeping curse words on TV, and of course more heinous examples of governments suppressing information to control the masses.

Not all censorship is created equally, when a company censors an anime to make it more palatable to the mass market it's annoying but understandable, when a company censors out "gayness" then it's more insidious, and when a government does it to protect it's hold on the population then it's downright evil.

Also when you're recycling counter arguments with an air of smugness it's advantageous to double check their validity, otherwise you're not helping anyone.

 

[IceForce]

2] The colloquial form of of 'censorship', where it's literally just a private entity exercising their right to make alterations to something.

And just to add to this; things get even more silly/amusing (delete as appropriate) when you begin to realize that oftentimes an alteration to something is only labeled "censorship" if the person doing the labeling disagrees with the change. If they instead agree with the change, then it's perfectly fine and not "censorship".

That's why so many people (myself included) take issue with the word being used colloquially. It's not so much that "only the government can censor", but it's more a case of using the term in any other context is sooo nebulous that it renders the term effectively meaningless.

 

[Something Amyss]

Nah, see, there appear to be two different meanings for the word "censorship" in common use today.

1] The scary and worrying form of 'censorship' enacted by the government to enforce their will on things, and the public can't do anything about it.
2] The colloquial form of of 'censorship', where it's literally just a private entity exercising their right to make alterations to something.

An extraordinarily large number of people on the internet take the second meaning, and try to put a 'scary and worrying' twist on it, when it really isn't scary or worrying.


"SOMETHING'S BEING CENSORED!!1!"
"You mean that scary form of censorship?"
"Nah, the boring colloquial form of censorship."
"Oh..."

More to the point, the people who are trying to flip arguments around consist largely of the "my free speech" crowd, which is why the concept of it only being an issue if the government does it comes up. The First Amendment only protects you from the government punishing you for free speech. I can see why people would be confused as to how this might become "it's only censorship if the government does it," but that's not usually the argument. It's a strawman, or a very poor understanding of the kind of issue that is at play with "free speech."

But yes, there was literally a time where these people were called censors. I don't believe they are anymore pretty much anywhere in the industry, but they are censoring material. And they absolutely have the right to do it, whether I personally think it's okay or not. Which seems to be another point of contention: the line between "I want those extra frames of panty shots" and "my rights have been violated."

...unless UK law works radically different and this somehow does infringe upon the rights of the UK population.

2 words: kid's show. Tolerance takes a nosedive when young kids are involved.

Kids seem to have very little problem with tolerance unless taught to do so. That's the problem.

Well it's a show that's aimed at children, and CN is a Turner owned network... Still, I think the US is currently making more progress in GSM[footnote]Gender and Sexuality Minorities[/footnote] tolerance currently, though we have farther to catch up, after legalizing same-sex marriage we've made a strong push in tolerance and acceptance.

Except the "further to catch up" thing, you will pretty much find this attitude on "GSM" in America, for the same reason you will only hear about American Exceptionalism here. We are not special. We are, in fact, lagging most of the industrial world on almost any measure of LGBT rights and recognition. And for the most part, we're still having the same fights we were having 30 years ago, while the rest of the world marches on. I'm reasonably sure I'd feel safer living in London, even if the children's cartoon I barely knew existed didn't have lesbian (with an asterisk) gemstones dancing. Hell, let's be fair. I live in a tiny, teeny, rural town. And given what I know of minority treatment in most of the UK (most!), I'd be trading up if I lived in a rural community there.

This thread should be labeled BYOC for Bring-Your-Own-Controversy, since it seems few people have any idea what we're supposed to be bickering about.

In that case, I demand we pass a Constitutional amendment to prevent hamsters from marrying gerbils.

Yay for heteronormativity. Can't show two women[footnote]I know they're not but they look like women and thats all grumpy homophobic parents give a shit about so we'll treat them as such.[/footnote] showing affection for one another in one of the most innocent ways possible but we can depict straight couples making out. Next they'll alter their genders of them because heaven forbid a character not be a man or a woman. Non-binary folks are extraordinarily sexually explicit in their very existence, after all, as giant penis tentacles slowly start sprouting from every pore in their body until they're the average star in a Japanese hentai video.

As the partner of a non-binary individual, I am offended by your generalisation. My SO only has three penis tentacles.

But don't you see the precedent here, MA? First it's the cartoons, and then people will be fighting for the right to marry magical gemstones! Why, I had never thought about making out with a gemstone, and now I'm in a torrid affair with one.

 

[Strazdas]

[
Nah, see, there appear to be two different meanings for the word "censorship" in common use today.

1] The scary and worrying form of 'censorship' enacted by the government to enforce their will on things, and the public can't do anything about it.
2] The colloquial form of of 'censorship', where it's literally just a private entity exercising their right to make alterations to something.

the only real difference is that the second form is legal. censorship is censorship no matter who does it, or for what reason. There are however legal forms of censorship and it happens all the time. for example every time a mod deletes a post here it is a legal form of censorship. and that is fine, sometimes its an improvement.

 

[EternallyBored]

This isn't censorship, it's just a localization. Everybody knows only the government can censor, this is just a decission taken by a private corporation in order to avoid alienating half of its fanbase.

Anyways, none of this matters. Nobody would've watched that episode anyways (Wow, the amount of arguments I'll be able to recycle for this thread from R&P and GiD is astonishingly long)

It's censorship and it's localization, the two terms are not exclusionary.
Private corporations can censor content, they do it all the time, especially when localizing content they believe may impact the sales of an item. For other examples of censorship look censored versions of CDs, bleeping curse words on TV, and of course more heinous examples of governments suppressing information to control the masses.

Not all censorship is created equally, when a company censors an anime to make it more palatable to the mass market it's annoying but understandable, when a company censors out "gayness" then it's more insidious, and when a government does it to protect it's hold on the population then it's downright evil.

Also when you're recycling counter arguments with an air of smugness it's advantageous to double check their validity, otherwise you're not helping anyone.

Once you cut away the hyperbole, I think most people here can agree that the concept of censorship can apply in cases like this, but like you said, there is a vast gulf between what a private company does for arguably shaky reasoning, versus something a government does that is usually viewed as something that must be either seriously protested by the populace at large or even resisted through physical force.

I think it's one of those flaws of the internet that causes semantic arguments like these to constantly crop up, its hard to judge tone and inflection, so it's difficult to tell whether the person calling censorship on something like this is expressing their dissatisfaction with a corporate decision, or actually thinks it's a violation of free speech and the company should actually be forced to fix it through intervention.

It's generally hard, and I try to avoid quibbling over semantics, but even I've fallen into the trap a couple times, especially when you get someone comparing things like this to government sanctioned book burnings, or someone breaks out the "first they came for.." quote when you ask why you should care about their cause. Such posts are usually littered with references to free speech, basic human rights, and that any instance of censorship should be resisted by the populace at large lest we all fall to some kind of tyranny, usually of the type the poster politically dislikes.

It's a form of poe's law, for the majority of people that can keep a nuanced perspective, you never know when you are going to run into that group that thinks all forms of censorship are equally bad, and genuinely believe something like this infringes on their right to free speech. It sours that kind of hyperbole in the future, and knocks everyone's perspectives out of whack.

Quotes like what the OP seems to hate, are a sort of hyperbole in the opposite direction, they are true and useful depending on their context and use, but every once in awhile you get that those individuals that actually thinks you shouldn't even use the word censorship unless the government is doing it, whereas the more rational person realizes that the quote is referring to censorship as a violation of human rights, and it's basically a short hand way of trying to get the other person to knock off the comparisons to human rights and the first amendment.

I don't think I've used either phrase word for word, the kind of person that seriously thinks a petition to Target to stop selling GTAV is a right to free speech issue is someone that requires more than a one line snappy comeback to have a real argument with.

 

[Leg End]

OP, you need to provide info on what you're talking about in the OP.
Otherwise, I've heard no one say either of the alleged usual statements in regards to this and fans are either just pissed or, for the darker dens, laughing their ass off that the scene was altered. Then again, most people are keeping up with the US airing and not their local broadcast.

As for the why, well, I've got some theories I'm keeping quiet until I see any other specific patterns in what they cut.

 

[fenrizz]

2 words: kid's show. Tolerance takes a nosedive when young kids are involved.

Oh yes, don't want them kids to catch the gay after all.

 

[IceForce]

the kind of person that seriously thinks a petition to Target to stop selling GTAV is a right to free speech issue is someone that requires more than a one line snappy comeback to have a real argument with.

Yeah, see it's still a private entity deciding to make an alteration to something. In the case of Target Aus, they simply decided to make an alteration to their product line up.

That's it. That's literally it. Retailers do the same thing every day of the week.

If people want to label that "censorship" that's their prerogative I guess. But in doing so I feel they've lost some serious perspective of things.

 

[Superbeast]

What is really weird about this decision is that the UK is more tolerant of GSM than the USA (where this was not changed) - the defence put forth by Cartoon Network about it being a show for children so had to be edited for the ratings boards do not hold up when one looks at the "U" rating in the UK:

"What does U mean?

The U symbol stands for Universal. A U film should be suitable for audiences aged four years and over. However, it is impossible to predict what might upset a particular child, especially at this lower end of the category range.

...

Might U works contain any sexual behaviour?

Characters may be seen kissing or cuddling and there may be references to sexual behaviour. However, there will be no overt focus on sexual behaviour, language or innuendo.

Sex and sex references are treated the same irrespective of sexuality so there could be mild or undetailed references at U."
http://www.bbfc.co.uk/what-classification/u

Now, this decision does not just affect the UK but the EU as a whole and I know there are some countries in the EU that are certainly less tolerant of GSM so perhaps that is why the changes were made?

It is still not censorship. Though it should be noted it was the network making the changes rather than the creators which gave me second thoughts, but then again the network surely has executive control about what it will and will not show just as a store has control over what products it stocks (to reference an comparison from earlier in the thread).

 

[NiPah]

This isn't censorship, it's just a localization. Everybody knows only the government can censor, this is just a decission taken by a private corporation in order to avoid alienating half of its fanbase.

Anyways, none of this matters. Nobody would've watched that episode anyways (Wow, the amount of arguments I'll be able to recycle for this thread from R&P and GiD is astonishingly long)

It's censorship and it's localization, the two terms are not exclusionary.
Private corporations can censor content, they do it all the time, especially when localizing content they believe may impact the sales of an item. For other examples of censorship look censored versions of CDs, bleeping curse words on TV, and of course more heinous examples of governments suppressing information to control the masses.

Not all censorship is created equally, when a company censors an anime to make it more palatable to the mass market it's annoying but understandable, when a company censors out "gayness" then it's more insidious, and when a government does it to protect it's hold on the population then it's downright evil.

Also when you're recycling counter arguments with an air of smugness it's advantageous to double check their validity, otherwise you're not helping anyone.

Spoiler

Once you cut away the hyperbole, I think most people here can agree that the concept of censorship can apply in cases like this, but like you said, there is a vast gulf between what a private company does for arguably shaky reasoning, versus something a government does that is usually viewed as something that must be either seriously protested by the populace at large or even resisted through physical force.

I think it's one of those flaws of the internet that causes semantic arguments like these to constantly crop up, its hard to judge tone and inflection, so it's difficult to tell whether the person calling censorship on something like this is expressing their dissatisfaction with a corporate decision, or actually thinks it's a violation of free speech and the company should actually be forced to fix it through intervention.

It's generally hard, and I try to avoid quibbling over semantics, but even I've fallen into the trap a couple times, especially when you get someone comparing things like this to government sanctioned book burnings, or someone breaks out the "first they came for.." quote when you ask why you should care about their cause. Such posts are usually littered with references to free speech, basic human rights, and that any instance of censorship should be resisted by the populace at large lest we all fall to some kind of tyranny, usually of the type the poster politically dislikes.

It's a form of poe's law, for the majority of people that can keep a nuanced perspective, you never know when you are going to run into that group that thinks all forms of censorship are equally bad, and genuinely believe something like this infringes on their right to free speech. It sours that kind of hyperbole in the future, and knocks everyone's perspectives out of whack.

Quotes like what the OP seems to hate, are a sort of hyperbole in the opposite direction, they are true and useful depending on their context and use, but every once in awhile you get that those individuals that actually thinks you shouldn't even use the word censorship unless the government is doing it, whereas the more rational person realizes that the quote is referring to censorship as a violation of human rights, and it's basically a short hand way of trying to get the other person to knock off the comparisons to human rights and the first amendment.

I don't think I've used either phrase word for word, the kind of person that seriously thinks a petition to Target to stop selling GTAV is a right to free speech issue is someone that requires more than a one line snappy comeback to have a real argument with.

True, from the op's perspective the argument seems to be since we've allowed censorship in the past, coupled with a slippery slope argument and a simplified (albeit incorrect IMO) version of arguments made defending non-government censorship this is now the world we live in.

Honestly I disagree with this statement, while I find the argument that only governments can censor completely incorrect, I do not believe that argument resulted in the current censorship of Steven Universe. This is company taking a backwards regressive approach to sell to a perceived market, censoring out content they believe may negatively impact sales. This takes away from the value of the show, sets a very bad precedent, and by hiding it attacks an already at risk population (from what I've heard, op was very vague over exactly which act of censorship he was referring to). That said this is not the fault of people arguing incorrectly about censorship, but of society as a whole, but like you said this is a nuanced issue in a sea of witty one liners.

 

[Therumancer]

The way I see it is that censorship is wrong, in the UK they should either put the show up as is, and make allowances, or simply not show it at all.

That said one should not just be pointing fingers at the UK here, but those who made the show and hold the rights, as they are the ones allowing the edits to be made as opposed to simply saying "okay, we're going to maintain the integrity of our work so you just won't show it then".

Editing for a bit of implied lesbianism reminds me of why I used to go out of my way to find uncut, subtitled, anime due to the ridiculous things that would be cut out of legitimate releases.

That said, other than opposing censorship (even of things I disagree with) I don't have a dog in this fight since I am not a big "Cartoon Network" fan and don't watch "Steven Universe".

 

[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.

 

[Scarim Coral]

While I do agreed the "censorship" is stupid but I am certain we would had alot of stupid and angry parents complaining about the show (in saying so was there ever a complain from that idiot group All American Mum in the US?).

 

[Silvanus]

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

Your medal's in the post.

[...]or maybe the censors board decided it was too adult for a kids' show - more a plain old suggestive/sexual content thing.

A likelier possibility had the various instances of opposite-sex romance-- which routinely get more intimate-- not remained untouched.

[...]it a waste of time in a digital age where the original will all be on youtube or torrent sites.

For us, perhaps. Not for kids, who don't routinely download their cartoons.