is is ever really necessary? and where do you draw the line. personally i object to images of mutilated bodies, but should that be censored or should i just be able to guess that typing ouch into google won't be pretty?
Poll: Censorship
- Thread starter electric_warrior
- Start date
Recommended Videos
In my opinion, censorship is never a good thing. If something is offensive to you, don't watch it. If you don't want your children to see something, tell them what it is and why you don't want them seeing it. It's as simple as that. Limiting available information, no matter its form, is a crime against humanity in my book.
Same as Jharry5 said, its a complicated manner, some things i personally think should be censored, like extreme violence/mutilations and extreme sorts of porn (the ones including blood, knifes, feces etc), but that still doesnt mean that im pro-censoring, some things should be and some shouldnt be, so its really hard as everyones opinion differs from your own personal preference.
All it is is the government taking hold in our lives. Adults know of they stuff they block. Children will find out about it. It gets way out of hand.
It's like you know there's a giant gold nugget behind a short wall. You can see it. Everyone who has eyes can see it. Yet the owners of the wall insist on telling everyone that nothing's there.
It's like you know there's a giant gold nugget behind a short wall. You can see it. Everyone who has eyes can see it. Yet the owners of the wall insist on telling everyone that nothing's there.
Censorship within reason.
Things which are everyday normal occurrences dont need to be censored. Graphical perversions of the human psyche should. But they shouldnt be illegal unless it inflicts direct harm.
Things which are everyday normal occurrences dont need to be censored. Graphical perversions of the human psyche should. But they shouldnt be illegal unless it inflicts direct harm.
I see parents that are always picketing outside the homes or business that allow things on air like that and i wonder why they do it. How do they find out about it if there not watching it. Why should they care if their kids aren't watching it in the first place.
The best type of censorship is the way they rate movies based on R and PG and what not that should really be all that anybody needs. This movie includes this, this, and this if it offends you don't watch it. That is probably the best form of censorship.
The best type of censorship is the way they rate movies based on R and PG and what not that should really be all that anybody needs. This movie includes this, this, and this if it offends you don't watch it. That is probably the best form of censorship.
well see for all those saying "freedom of speech" their is a big issue with that. see i could easily go around saying " is a pedophile and likes to do funny things with young boys" and when they try to stop me claim freedom of speech and in the process ruin the person's reputation because no one will remember that i had to retract the statement just that the statement was made
so yes censorship can be a good thing
so yes censorship can be a good thing
Censorship causes curiosity. Without the curtain covering it, pr0n would only be of passing interest to 13 year old kids. But since they're not allowed to see what it is, they sneak around and click the "I hereby solemnly swear that I am above the age of 18, punishable by death as of Federal Regulation A322" button.
Censor only what is truly offensive.
But that won't happen because censorship is perpetually abused, particularly by creationist heretics to silence scientific atheists on YouTube with false DMCA claims to further their own misinformed religious doctrines.
But that won't happen because censorship is perpetually abused, particularly by creationist heretics to silence scientific atheists on YouTube with false DMCA claims to further their own misinformed religious doctrines.
I don't mind censoring of mutilated bodies.
I do mind censoring of unmutilated bodies. You can guess the context.
I do mind censoring of unmutilated bodies. You can guess the context.
Talk about a black-and-white poll. Is anything ever purely good or bad? Censorship certainly isn't.
Any judgement of censorship depends on how it is used. For example, the government of Australia is currently trying to implement a censorship filter for the internet. Leaving aside the issue of how ridiculously impractical it is, if it was somehow magically able to filter only child pornography and other truly indefensible material, I would support it, but it will undoubtedly be abused and misused; sites will be blacklisted by mistake or poor judgement, without a doubt. So you could say I think censorship is bad because it so rarely works as it is claimed to.
Any judgement of censorship depends on how it is used. For example, the government of Australia is currently trying to implement a censorship filter for the internet. Leaving aside the issue of how ridiculously impractical it is, if it was somehow magically able to filter only child pornography and other truly indefensible material, I would support it, but it will undoubtedly be abused and misused; sites will be blacklisted by mistake or poor judgement, without a doubt. So you could say I think censorship is bad because it so rarely works as it is claimed to.
Freedom of speech. If something is going to be censored (for the sake of small children, or what have you), people should still have the option of seeing/hearing it uncensored.
It depends on the access point. One of the big questions in obscenity rulings, for instance, is how accessible the material is, and how easy it is to avoid it. Material you have to go out of your way to access is rarely considered obscene (no matter what it is). If I have to go to a website to see smut, it's not obscene. If it's played on broadcast TV, it may very well be. Context is king.Agayek said:
Uh... DCMA has nothing to do with obscenity censorship, it's about copyrights. Those suits are mostly about the atheists using copyrighted material without either consent or fair use protection. I'm not agreeing with the creationists, but the law is the law. But, beyond that, who gets to define what is truly offensive? What's offensive to you might be something I find perfectly acceptable. If you mean it has to be something everyone finds offensive, nothing's off limits. If you ban anything a majority of people find offensive, you have troubles there, too.Cid SilverWing said:
I completely agree, and you have my support. All rights (free speech, free association, free religion) are restrained by the harm that can be done to others. Your right to religious practice doesn't allow you to commit statutory rape. Your right to free association doesn't give you the right to lynch someone. Your right to free speech doesn't give you the right to slander someone.cleverlymadeup said:
Censorship is good when used to protect the sense and sensibilities of the community, and protect people either from defamation, direct harm, or just things which gross them out. Community standards are the standard for review by the FCC, and it's worked pretty well so far. If it's on a form of media which one can accidentally stumble into, it's held to a higher standard than if I have to work to go see it. So, there shouldn't be absolute censorship (except with regards to slander/libel), but there should be censorship about what can be shown where.
What about something like child pornography? Are we saying that that shouldn't be censored, either?
Barring hardcore porn and extremely offensive speech, I dont see why regular media has to be regulated. It's basically parents who want to let their kids watch or hear things that will keep them busy so the parents dont have to actually supervise. But then the parents get all fussy when they hear a curse word. Life ends up being pretty vulgar, even when you are a child. Media tends to not compare with reality.