Moviebob why is your cursewords coutn reduced now, and the few remaining ones get beeped out? In Transformeers 2 review they were not, and other Escapists' cursewords are not beeped out to this very day, such as Yahtzee or Sterlingjim.
The Big Picture: Don't Censor Me!
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Government in the case of censorship is synonymous with "those in power". Just because it isn't classified as a government doesn't mean it can't censor. Just because it doesn't have a police force or can do so via the barrel of a gun if needed doesn't mean it can't censor.
The use of power, not rhetoric, to remove someone's ability to express their views is censorship.
That being said, not all censorship is bad. And what is bad is subjective.
The use of power, not rhetoric, to remove someone's ability to express their views is censorship.
That being said, not all censorship is bad. And what is bad is subjective.
I have to be with Bob on this one, just because you have the right to free speech, that doesn't mean you have the right to a platform to speak it from. As backwards and stupid as this may sound, I don't have to listen to what you have to say. I have the right to walk away, and I certainly have the right to say you aren't allowed to bring your speech into my area. You can't come into my house and tell me what I have to think.
However, there are still forms of censorship that happen outside of government issued censorship. The DDOS attacks against certain people, the copyright claims pulling videos down from youtube, or calling in threats of violence to prevent speakers from speaking. These are going into someone else's house and preventing them from using their own platform to speak on.
And as for all the people talking about the right and wrong issues, well, there really isn't such a thing. There is no black and white, this is right, this is wrong, kind of answer to this. It's a grey area, and you're fooling yourself if you think otherwise that there is some simple answer to it all.
However, there are still forms of censorship that happen outside of government issued censorship. The DDOS attacks against certain people, the copyright claims pulling videos down from youtube, or calling in threats of violence to prevent speakers from speaking. These are going into someone else's house and preventing them from using their own platform to speak on.
And as for all the people talking about the right and wrong issues, well, there really isn't such a thing. There is no black and white, this is right, this is wrong, kind of answer to this. It's a grey area, and you're fooling yourself if you think otherwise that there is some simple answer to it all.
I think that the "real life" definition of censorship doesn't have to be just the government censoring people. If dev deletes all of the negative reviews from their forums, it could also be considered censorship. So another practical definition might be "a small group of people in power preventing the voices of a larger group from being heard".
People overuse the word "censorship" but I believe that they have genuine concerns.
The refusal to allow criticism is seen by many to be "censorship". Technically it is but there's a difference between Feminist Frequency disallowing comments and totalitarian regimes sending anyone that speaks ill of their government to death camps.
But I understand the frustration if one side isn't allowed to criticise. It's made me lose my temper before, admittedly.
The refusal to allow criticism is seen by many to be "censorship". Technically it is but there's a difference between Feminist Frequency disallowing comments and totalitarian regimes sending anyone that speaks ill of their government to death camps.
But I understand the frustration if one side isn't allowed to criticise. It's made me lose my temper before, admittedly.
You know when a private person, group or company says that you can not say what you want at their forum: that is not censorship ... ever. Never has EA or Levis Jeans or a radio station ever had anyone arrested, deny them the freedom of movement or life. IF Group A say you have to do it this way, you can say F-U and go over to group B or C or till you find a venue that lets you say what you want.
The Government can levee fines, they can seize your land and or your possessions, your personal papers, or even take your life. To fight the government you have to have a lawyer go in front of a judge to explain why you should get your stuff back. And you can just decide you don't like it here in group A; tough because there is no group B to move on too.
No matter what a group or company says or does, you do not have to associate with anyone you do not wish too. The government is a different animal, if you like your freedom, you have to obey the laws.
The Government can levee fines, they can seize your land and or your possessions, your personal papers, or even take your life. To fight the government you have to have a lawyer go in front of a judge to explain why you should get your stuff back. And you can just decide you don't like it here in group A; tough because there is no group B to move on too.
No matter what a group or company says or does, you do not have to associate with anyone you do not wish too. The government is a different animal, if you like your freedom, you have to obey the laws.
I tend to be hugely anti censorship, and have fought a lot against it all my life. There are still a few areas where censorship is actually needed. So the first one is stated in the Constitution, and that is no slander. You should not be allowed to run around and spread out right false hoods about someone. The funny thing about this is how much more prevalent such an issue was back when they wrote the Constitution. We tend to think that the current political scene is negative, but let me tell its a joke compared to what it used to be.
The second is exploitation of children, IE child pornography which is incredibly fucked up, and is obviously illegal.
The third is terrorism, IE making a bomb threat (or just threats in general).
After that it should be a total free for all, swearing, nudity, violence, punk rock, hip hop, Nazism, racism, sexism, conservatism, liberalism, and on and on. Let that crap be screamed to the heavens, and let anyone scream back.
The second is exploitation of children, IE child pornography which is incredibly fucked up, and is obviously illegal.
The third is terrorism, IE making a bomb threat (or just threats in general).
After that it should be a total free for all, swearing, nudity, violence, punk rock, hip hop, Nazism, racism, sexism, conservatism, liberalism, and on and on. Let that crap be screamed to the heavens, and let anyone scream back.
I'm not american, I always thought people already know what censorship is. Live a year in china and you'll know exactly what is censorship and what isn't.
I'm really tired of the semantic distinction between government censorship and private/public censorship.
The law of the first amendment is in place to protect citizens from tyranny and injustice, the principle of free speech is to allow anyone and everyone - up to and including minorities - a chance to speak and be heard.
To say you support the principle of free speech because it protects people from the government but then be completely unwilling to participate in, or even oppose free speech or artistic expression when it comes to literally anything else makes you seem at the very least hypocritical.
And on the topic of, oh, say recent controversies in gaming? It doesn't help that both sides of the debate are claiming they're being censored, while the people in power in the media are the only ones with the power to censor.
The law of the first amendment is in place to protect citizens from tyranny and injustice, the principle of free speech is to allow anyone and everyone - up to and including minorities - a chance to speak and be heard.
To say you support the principle of free speech because it protects people from the government but then be completely unwilling to participate in, or even oppose free speech or artistic expression when it comes to literally anything else makes you seem at the very least hypocritical.
And on the topic of, oh, say recent controversies in gaming? It doesn't help that both sides of the debate are claiming they're being censored, while the people in power in the media are the only ones with the power to censor.
I just read this and thought it was a really special example.canadamus_prime said:
"Censorship" is wrong, and mis-used, I'm told.
"Torches and pitchforks" is okay, even when it just refers to a group of people expressing dissent.
Because it's easier to characterize people who disagree with you as an angry mob than to acknowledge they're rational human beings with different points of view.
There is a difference between LEGAL and MORAL.klaynexas3 said:
If you are trying to reach the truth, silencing any argument that contradicts yours, while legal, is dishonest, and thus immoral. And, depending on your argument, harmful.
I mean, imagine if during the civil rights movement a bunch of rich, conservative people convinced news outlets to NOT report the exploits of Martin Luther King. I mean, it's legal. News outlets can report whatever they want. But would it be "right"?
Correct. You have understood the central point of the video. Pat yourself on the back.Westaway said:
No-one is saying it's a good thing to do, merely that it is not censorship.
The problem is a lack of public space. And by space, I don't just mean physical space (although that's an issue too), I mean metaphorical space. It is bad when private interests control all of the media. For example, the idea that political debates are held on a commercial news channel (with a specific agenda, be it Fox or MSNBC) should be of great concern.
In my case I meant it as a metaphor for a large group of people rallying to express extreme overreaction to something.UberPubert said:
It IS censorship. It's just legal.SnowWookie said:
And, for the record, it SHOULD be legal. But it should also be frowned upon.
My point is if you're going to use "torches and pitchforks" to mean an "angry, violent, mob" which in all reality is probably just going to be people arguing over the internet in the context of this forum, doesn't that seem a little extreme?canadamus_prime said:
As in, in the sense that casually using censorship to refer to people not being given the right to a platform to speak on is extreme?
