Poll: Censorship

[IamSARAhearMYgrr]

I don't need anyone to sugarcoat the world around me! It is what it is and if you can't deal with it do what the other people do and go talk to a therapist who will give you pills so that you don't have to bring the world's stupidity level to new heights anymore!

 

[Goldeneye1989]

Yes ... why

what prevents an 10 year old from watching hostel/saw ect.

/thread

The parents? His free will not to?

Censorship is useful to an extent. Besides it doesn't always stop them. Next person to quote this please answer this: How many times have either you or someone you know has gotten into a film under-aged or has seen a film somehow that was rated unsuitable for him to watch?

Quite often, censorship just encourages people to watch it when they're not meant to aswell, as it is cool to get into a movie under-aged or whatever. I'm not saying that we shouldn't have it entirely, as there should be things which are restrained (Such as the famous Sex Pistols interview where they were all very drunk and just swore lots at the entertainment of the presenter), but they shouldn't be as extreme as they are right now, where a guy was arrested for selling T-shirts with "Bollocks To Blair" written on them (That one was a very old case) and where you can't even protest without permission from the police.

if the parents are stopping it they are censoring it themselves. and honestly how much free will did you have as a 10 year old.

the poll gives us two choices censoring or not, so beleive that overly censoring is better then not having any.

yes i have seen many films when i was under age for them

 

[confernal]

Nothing should be censored as long as it has a place.

 

[Agayek]

Censorship is very generally a bad thing. But what's worse is when the government is sloppy enough that direct censorship is necessary.

For example: It's fucking retarded that cursewords be bleeped out, or that a new story gets pulled because it embarrasses someone. But when news stations get wind of a military fuck up, they very certainly ought to get censored, but the fact that they eve heard about it is the worst. Civilians do not need up to date battlefield reports. Reporters do not belong in warzones. Those reports ruin civilian morale.

Agreed on purpose, not on reason. Civilians should be made aware of how a war is progressing, and decisions should be made accordingly.

That said, reporters do not belong on the battlefield, and current sit-reps should not be made public, in any way, shape, form. This puts troops at stupidly high risk for minimal, if any, gain. After-action reports, that do not detail current position, number, or importance of various troops, of conflicts should be made public though.