• Should censorship be used in any form?
    93 replies, posted
[QUOTE=nikomo;32544555]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.[/QUOTE] Democracy passes into despotism. Plato
[QUOTE=nikomo;32544555]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.[/QUOTE] I have always thought that quote was complete bullshit.
[QUOTE=squids_eye;32545038]I have always thought that quote was complete bullshit.[/QUOTE] Its a good way of explaining it though. Would you argue that police should be allowed to search without a warrant, because you have nothing to fear? If enough people believe this and get it written into an amendment, not only would the entire country loose some liberty, but it would make it that much easier for a corrupt politician to use this power for bad. Thus, you loose your freedom and your security, and for such a foolish decision probably never really deserved either. Kind of harsh but it actually makes a lot of sense. I feel like censorship is something which could be hard to implement. There should be a way of getting anything without censorship, but that kind of thing should not be open to everyone. Horrifying images should not be on magazine covers without a bit of censorship. But there needs to be a way to get that unbiased content somehow. This has problems when done on a private scale. For example an internet company could say that they have censored and uncensored plans, but couldn't they offer the uncensored material and en unjustifiably high cost? Then no-one would have access. I feel like it needs to be regulated on the governmental scale, just some simple rules to follow for different media. Seems like it would work. What do you guys think? It may not be feasible for certain things but I know there needs to be both present.
[QUOTE=squids_eye;32545038]I have always thought that quote was complete bullshit.[/QUOTE] It irritates me because it implies the person is a staunch supporter of freedom and such. In reality most humans are cynical cowards who would prefer security over freedom. Perhaps the best example would be the Feudal system, whereby your lord protected you in return for services. This system worked very well up until it disintegrated not because of popular dissent against it, but economic reasons as peasants simply began being paid money for their labour and were free to move around. You effectively gave up many freedoms in said system, but it meant that you had a duty to protect the people below you and serve those above you in return for security, land and in some cases a favourable eye from god.
No, censorship contradicts the purpose of Democracy,freedom of speech.
[QUOTE=coilgunner;32545142]Its a good way of explaining it though. Would you argue that police should be allowed to search without a warrant, because you have nothing to fear? If enough people believe this and get it written into an amendment, not only would the entire country loose some liberty, but it would make it that much easier for a corrupt politician to use this power for bad. Thus, you loose your freedom and your security, and for such a foolish decision probably never really deserved either. Kind of harsh but it actually makes a lot of sense.[/QUOTE] You could argue that having a police force at all goes against that saying because then you are trading the freedom to do something that would otherwise be against the law in exchange for protection from people trying to do it to you.
[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] Why prevent tits on TV? They're a part of the human body. It's stupid how we stigmatize the very thing we are all born with, like our bodies are something to be ashamed of.
[QUOTE=AWarGuy;32545180]No, censorship contradicts the purpose of Democracy,freedom of speech.[/QUOTE] The purpose of democracy is to let the people vote for their leaders, I don't believe anywhere in the definition of it that it mentions freedom of speech. You're an Australian, and you should know that our constitution doesn't actually state we have freedom of speech, but that doesn't make us un-democratic (in-fact we are more democratic than the United States on the democracy index). [editline]30th September 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=GamerKiwi;32545265]Why prevent tits on TV? They're a part of the human body. It's stupid how we stigmatize the very thing we are all born with, like our bodies are something to be ashamed of.[/QUOTE] It's a sex symbol and has been for a very long time, if you don't think it would be that bad then how about imagining dicks on TV all the time.
Only to protect the privacy of individuals (unless the individual chooses not to), though networks, newspapers, the government, etc should be allowed to censor their own content to meet their own moral standard. I believe this is protected by freedom of speech. However, the government should never be permitted to censor the works of others. The government should have no say in what gets printed in newspapers, what gets shown on TV, what books get published, or generally anything along those lines.
Absolutely not. and who says otherwise is a fascist.
[QUOTE=DrBreen;32546016]Absolutely not. and who says otherwise is a fascist.[/QUOTE] Shouting Fascist is a sure way to tell us why censorship is bad.
[QUOTE=DrBreen;32546016]Absolutely not. and who says otherwise is a fascist.[/QUOTE] Please contribute. You can't just pull stuff under from the rug.
Censorship is fine as long as it is self owned and voluntary. Government censorship is of not self owned and of course not voluntary and therefore immoral. I think most people realize there is a big difference between self censorship and government censorship.
No, I feel censorship is wrong in almost every case.
Actually, to make this interesting, someone give me a case of something that should be censored with a reason and I'll respond as to why it shouldn't be.
[QUOTE=Pepin;32548693]Actually, to make this interesting, someone give me a case of something that should be censored with a reason and I'll respond as to why it shouldn't be.[/QUOTE] alright, for the sake of argument; pornography on television.
I don't think anything except things that would endanger the lives of people should be censored. Military secrets, private information, etc should be censored.
[QUOTE=rundevil;32548716]alright, for the sake of argument; pornography on television.[/QUOTE] Someone could make the argument that there being porn on television would end up in people being quickly offended as there little way to avoid it, especially when channel suffering.But the same could be said of any subject. What if religious shows offended you, those are unavoidable when flipping through the channel and many consider them degenerative to the mind. Then the argument revolves around kids not caring and still watching. Where the real solution comes from is markets are who willing to fix this issue with parental controls. Granted the parent does it right, the control ensures that pornographic channels are blocked and require a password to access. Kills two birds with one stones. Assume it is summer time and there are there is an awful movie on Comedy Central played at noon and the movie is full of swears. You want to watch the movie, but your mother won't let you because of the bad language. Comedy central realizes this and is why they decide to censor the movie so your mother allows you to watch the movie. Of course I'm simplifying, rather this kind of stuff takes places on a much broader scale with a different circumstances, yet the same concept with many mothers and sons. Censorship attracts people. At the same time, late at night, it may be a big attractor as well. Now applying that to porn, most mothers aren't going to want you watching porn altogether, so it's kind of a closed debate there. But if we just assume some nudity and sexual content, networks would self censor to get more viewers during certain time slots. Now if they find that their late night shows that tend to not censor as much are doing poorer in the ratings, they might find out why and if it is do to the offensive nature, the are likely to self censor. Really I think the point here is that businesses will censor when they think it'll make or save them money, and they wont' if they think it'll make them money. They want to do everything to keep people watching. Profit and loss system. If a network wants to Show Girls uncensored at 12PM they should be free to, but they won't get many viewers. The scope of the issue here just isn't with the TV programming though. Let's say there are pretty ordinary commercials on a channel, and then there is one commercial that is pretty much pornographic. It should be obvious which commercial stands out to most people, but if the viewers keep watching then there is no reason to keep it off. Where the threats comes from is rather other sponsors as it is difficult for them to compete with that commercial, so they threaten to end their contracts if the station doesn't censor. The TV station would be in full right in censoring providing they didn't make some contract prohibiting it.
[QUOTE=Pepin;32551445]Someone could make the argument that there being porn on television would end up in people being quickly offended as there little way to avoid it, especially when channel suffering.But the same could be said of any subject. What if religious shows offended you, those are unavoidable when flipping through the channel and many consider them degenerative to the mind. Then the argument revolves around kids not caring and still watching. Where the real solution comes from is markets are who willing to fix this issue with parental controls. Granted the parent does it right, the control ensures that pornographic channels are blocked and require a password to access. Kills two birds with one stones. Assume it is summer time and there are there is an awful movie on Comedy Central played at noon and the movie is full of swears. You want to watch the movie, but your mother won't let you because of the bad language. Comedy central realizes this and is why they decide to censor the movie so your mother allows you to watch the movie. Of course I'm simplifying, rather this kind of stuff takes places on a much broader scale with a different circumstances, yet the same concept with many mothers and sons. Censorship attracts people. At the same time, late at night, it may be a big attractor as well. Now applying that to porn, most mothers aren't going to want you watching porn altogether, so it's kind of a closed debate there. But if we just assume some nudity and sexual content, networks would self censor to get more viewers during certain time slots. Now if they find that their late night shows that tend to not censor as much are doing poorer in the ratings, they might find out why and if it is do to the offensive nature, the are likely to self censor. Really I think the point here is that businesses will censor when they think it'll make or save them money, and they wont' if they think it'll make them money. They want to do everything to keep people watching. Profit and loss system. If a network wants to Show Girls uncensored at 12PM they should be free to, but they won't get many viewers. The scope of the issue here just isn't with the TV programming though. Let's say there are pretty ordinary commercials on a channel, and then there is one commercial that is pretty much pornographic. It should be obvious which commercial stands out to most people, but if the viewers keep watching then there is no reason to keep it off. Where the threats comes from is rather other sponsors as it is difficult for them to compete with that commercial, so they threaten to end their contracts if the station doesn't censor. The TV station would be in full right in censoring providing they didn't make some contract prohibiting it.[/QUOTE] I think you are thinking into it too much. They don't censor during the day to get more views, they do it because they literally have to before the watershed. Your point about religious shows is pretty stupid aswell. Generally atleast in the UK all the religious channels are in one place, you have to be an idiot to stumble across them accidentally. If a large group of people don't like hearing swearing on TV for example, why should they uncensor it even though you can normally understand what people are saying by listening to the context even with a little bleep over the word?
No censorship of any kind. Racism against whites should not be censored and influenced by the media, political demonstration such as Occupy Wall street should not be ignored and censored and so on.
What if its in order to protect witnesses in a gang related investigation? When there is significant threat to those witnesses lifes. Or when there is a threat to human life in any investigation for that matter? Or, when there is a child involved.
[QUOTE=Chekko;32552692]No censorship of any kind. Racism against whites should not be censored and influenced by the media, political demonstration such as Occupy Wall street should not be ignored and censored and so on.[/QUOTE] There's a difference between ignoring something and censorship. I am guessing many news outlets want to report something else, after all they can report what they like as long as it is factual.
[QUOTE=Chekko;32552692]No censorship of any kind. Racism against whites should not be censored and influenced by the media, political demonstration such as Occupy Wall street should not be ignored and censored and so on.[/QUOTE] Why only racism towards whites?
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;32554910]Why only racism towards whites?[/QUOTE] Towards everyone. I just said it wrong. I just posted about my rants. Sorry if it offended you.
[QUOTE=Pepin;32548693]Actually, to make this interesting, someone give me a case of something that should be censored with a reason and I'll respond as to why it shouldn't be.[/QUOTE] The identities of victims of sexual assault, or the identities of people serving on a jury.
I think censoring TV shows and the like is good-- I mean, the viewers could me little kids and maybe the shouldn't be seeing gore and things-- but censoring the news is completely idiotic and censoring writers is a free speech violation
[QUOTE=squids_eye;32551803]I think you are thinking into it too much. They don't censor during the day to get more views, they do it because they literally have to before the watershed.[/QUOTE] I think you're taking my argument a bit literal. I'm not arguing about the actuality of the law, but rather arguing a scenario where a profit and loss would come into play. Without any law, most people in the summer who would be watching Comedy Central would be kids, and it can be assumed that most parents would not want their children taking in profanity. Comedy Central would realize this and self censor to meet the demand of the consumer. [QUOTE=squids_eye;32551803]Your point about religious shows is pretty stupid aswell. Generally atleast in the UK all the religious channels are in one place, you have to be an idiot to stumble across them accidentally.[/quote] Again, I'm not arguing actuality. You're missing the point, which was that channels suffers can easily stumble upon something that they consider offensive. Also, there is no reason to assume that all channels with pornographic content will be lumped together, perhaps if they are purely pornographic, but even then you should assume the worst. [QUOTE=squids_eye;32551803]If a large group of people don't like hearing swearing on TV for example, why should they uncensor it even though you can normally understand what people are saying by listening to the context even with a little bleep over the word?[/QUOTE] Again, I don't think you're quite understanding my argument. If people don't like the profanity, then the network will lose viewers which will lose them profits. The network will figure out that the profanity is what it is driving their customers away and will self censor themselves. If the network refuses to self censor, people won't watch the show and they will lose money. In the alternate scenario where the large group of people like profanity, the network would be committing suicide by self censoring. [QUOTE=Snuffy;32557479]The identities of victims of sexual assault, or the identities of people serving on a jury.[/QUOTE] These are issues of privacy as opposed to issues of censorship. I believe the thinking is used to publish gun ownership records. The reasoning is as follows The state owns information The state is pubic The people are entitled to that information The fallacy is that it asserts that the information the state owns is public. It is not, is private and not owned by the state, meaning the public has no right to accessing the information. The fact that a sexual assault case takes place in public court and the records of the case are held in public offices does not at all imply the the case sexual assault case was a public case. There are cases where you could argue that a legal case was public, but all private cases are private, and the information should remain private as long as the people involved wish so. This isn't to say that the people attending the trial cannot speak out, as it is a public trial and they are free to repeat what they heard in the case and to identify jurors if those so please. The obvious fix to this is having a private trials in which the public/media is not allowed to attend as they do not have any right to discourse in private affairs, but this would only matter if information getting out to the public was potentially a big deal. Alright so to sum it up real quick. Sexual assault victims have a right to privacy, nobody should be able to attain their records without their permission. Their accepting a public trial would be an acceptance of having that information potentially becoming public. Of course, there must be option for a private trial for this to be true. The issue of the jury is a bit difficult, to handle because although I point out the victim should have right to a private trial, the jury doesn't have any say, and what means do they have to protect themselves. In the Casey Anthony trial, the jurors were named quite quickly and didn't have a chance at privacy. Whatever solution to this is, it would be pretty non tradition. Of course there should be no media censorship or censorship of speech. What I'm trying to point out is that the major issue in this debate is that the media often gets their information through state databases they shouldn't have access to. If the media catches anything in progress, they are fully entitled to make it public, just as you are fully entitled to make any information you see public. Saying otherwise would be an infringement of freedom of speech. If I didn't quite answer what you were getting at, please be more specific.
[QUOTE=Snuffy;32557479]The identities of victims of sexual assault, or the identities of people serving on a jury.[/QUOTE] This.
[QUOTE=Snuffy;32557479]The identities of victims of sexual assault, or the identities of people serving on a jury.[/QUOTE] This, along with psychopathic people. For example a guy who goes and shoots up a school of people and it is broadcast everywhere. Remember that the most important thing is to never reveal his identity and keep it a small local news story. Reporting with big news anchors who ask "How could this happen?" and unwittingly do not realise that they are a large part to blame for it.
[QUOTE=Snuffy;32557479]The identities of victims of sexual assault, or the identities of people serving on a jury.[/QUOTE] I agree. The names of people under investigation or as the victims of a crime should be withheld. For instance, Casey Anthony. It doesn't matter if you think she was guilty, she was found innocent. Even still, with how much her name and face were blared through the news, she'll be hard pressed to find a job, to talk to people, she'll be walking around the rest of her life with that hanging over her head. (On that same subject, I don't think they should have sold [i]tickets[/i] to her trial, but that's a different debate.)
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.