• Should censorship be used in any form?
    93 replies, posted
Does censorship need to be utilized in any way, or is it wrong and only promotes hindrance of freedom of speech and expression in any shape or form?
Yes, sometimes necessary.
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;32517730]Yes, sometimes necessary.[/QUOTE] Like when?
Prevention of tits on the TV, etc. I know you'll have a thousand objections to that but that's the way I see it.
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;32517788]Prevention of tits on the TV, etc. I know you'll have a thousand objections to that but that's the way I see it.[/QUOTE] "Oh boo hoo a tit was shown" seriously, soccer moms scream about it too much [editline]28th September 2011[/editline] and yet people pissing on dead bodies swearing their heads off isn't as bad as a single boob flash according to them it literally makes no sense
[QUOTE=J!NX;32517904]"Oh boo hoo a tit was shown" seriously, soccer moms scream about it too much [editline]28th September 2011[/editline] and yet people pissing on dead bodies swearing their heads off isn't as bad as a single boob flash according to them it literally makes no sense[/QUOTE] It's a cultural shock. Some people are desensitized to one thing, and they're horrified of another. But it is more than questionable if I'm allowed to view violence on public television, but not possible nudity.
[QUOTE=J!NX;32517904]"Oh boo hoo a tit was shown" seriously, soccer moms scream about it too much [editline]28th September 2011[/editline] and yet people pissing on dead bodies swearing their heads off isn't as bad as a single boob flash according to them it literally makes no sense[/QUOTE] The government doesn't censor private media outlets like cable or satellite. They only censor broadcast TV. Their policies are a bit ass-backwards and arbitrary, but I think there needs to be something present.
I don't mind the U.S. censorship laws. During the daytime things are cleaned up a bit more, nighttime is a "free for all" on most stations.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32517765]Like when?[/QUOTE] Military secrets are a pretty important use of it.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32517765]Like when?[/QUOTE] Protecting the information of people who are at a high risk of being threatened/hurt
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32517765]Like when?[/QUOTE] Racism?
[QUOTE=Ownederd;32517955]It's a cultural shock. Some people are desensitized to one thing, and they're horrified of another. But it is more than questionable if I'm allowed to view violence on public television, but not possible nudity.[/QUOTE] they should judge it purely based on ALL content, not just if you see a little titty, that makes literally no sense at all but we should also have 'completely uncensored' TV as well
Censorship is only acceptable when lives are at risk such as during a war
That's why I love Swedish laws. Theoretically, you are allowed to publish anything.
[QUOTE=Neolithic v2;32519958]Racism?[/QUOTE] No, censorship for a reason like Racism, or Homophobia is stupid.
No, it's never acceptable
An editor of a newspaper should have the right to edit/censor the newspaper. Same goes with all types of media. I have to assume you meant government censorship of the media and other mediums (like internet), though. I only have experience with the U.S. government, so that's my scope. In matters of national security, I believe information should be forcibly withheld from the public. By that, I mean it should be illegal for media to broadcast information designated as such. It is my opinion that both the federal and state governments should have this power. Is this unconstitutional? Probably. Does it conflict with the "inherent rights of man?" Certainly. The reason governments have the power to censor is because the people give them that power. This could be viewed two ways. The first is the "He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither" approach. Franklin was a smart man, and you could do worse than to agree with him. The second approach, however, is based more on moderation than total exclusion. We Americans willingly give up a portion of our individual rights for the good of the community. The moment the majority is no longer willing to give up that arguably necessary portion, the government lose their right to censor.
[QUOTE=Ownederd;32517955]It's a cultural shock. Some people are desensitized to one thing, and they're horrified of another. But it is more than questionable if I'm allowed to view violence on public television, but not possible nudity.[/QUOTE] I've never really seen gruesome violence on public TV without buying extra channels. That goes for nudity as well.
Violence and otherwise gruesome scenes should be censored, yes, but that's about it.
I think the information should be available, but I don't think it should necessarily be in everyone's faces if they don't go out looking for it. The fact of the matter is, a lot of people are very impressionable. If some things aren't censored it would just be so easily to manipulate people.
I believe in a certificate and I think it's a great idea (needs to be enforced more); but I don't like my films censored or my government saying what I can and cannot watch. But for censorship of government and military, I agree with that.
Human Beings are capable of being sadistic and completely immoral, so yeah.. some people should be prevented from seeing it unless they themselves wish to see it on their own accord.
[QUOTE=Timebomb575;32518132]Military secrets are a pretty important use of it.[/QUOTE] Maybe we shouldn't keep so many secrets?
Censorship should be left up to the parties that are broadcasting their content. If ABC doesn't want to show boobs, and therefore reinforce the stereotype that the human body is disgusting and needs to be covered up, then let them censor them, but there should be no government interference telling you what you can and cannot say/show. On the other hand though, I think hardcore gore and stuff could be damaging to young viewers, so it's really difficult to say. In the end, what should and should not be censored really just comes down to a matter of opinion. [editline]28th September 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Zedicus Mann;32525157]Maybe we shouldn't keep so many secrets?[/QUOTE] Just stop, any military needs to have secrets. If our plans for building a nuclear bomb were public I think WW2 would have turned out quite a bit differently.
[QUOTE=Kopimi;32525265]Just stop, any military needs to have secrets. If our plans for building a nuclear bomb were public I think WW2 would have turned out quite a bit differently.[/QUOTE] Peace is the answer here.
certain things should be more censored than other things like a boob or two is no big deal but showing full out sex should be kinda censored
I'd rather have almost zero blood and gore in exchange for ridiculous cases of swapping out the lines on the movies( the infamous Snake on a Plane scenario, "I'm tired of these monkey fighting snakes on this moday to friday plane!").
Government censorship? This kind of censorship is most often broad in the actual size of censorship, so that can impede on free speech. In an ideal society government censorship shouldn't be allowed. Ethical censorship? This is censorship delivered from the producers of content, such as a TV station that attempts to not use adult content during kids programmes, stuff like that. Although I wouldn't necessarily advocate for businesses to tell us what is right and what is wrong, it should still be there in a limited form so that the correct content reaches the correct market, and only that.
There is nothing wrong with censorship aslong as it used responsibly. I don't mind not hearing people swear if it means there isn't uproar from all the people who do. Censoring something to conceal information can sometimes be good, but most of the time it isnt.
Paraphrasing a little Franklin: Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.