Discussions
What's your view on censorship?
Posted by Epicharis • 2/21/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: censorship
Do you believe in censorship?
Do you think some things should not be allowed to be published/broadcast/distributed?
Or do you think people should be able to choose for themselves what they read/watch/listen to?
I've just written a post about the Ken Russell film "The Devils", which is still subject to censorship 38 years after it was made:
siuilaruin.wordpress.com/2009/02/22/the-devils/
User Comments
-
I disagree with outright censorship - there should always be a venue to express one's opinions uninhibited.
However people (and media giants) Need to understand that there is a proper time and place for everything. Airing adult themed shows during kid's cartoon time is absurd - they can air the shows at a more appropriate time.
Same goes for books, music, etc. Some places, like family friendly shops/restaurants just shouldn't play or show things that are inappropriate for our youngest citizens.
There are more than a few legal, accessible venues for such media.-
I agree with you, I wouldn't call that censorship though...just consideration. I think if it's going to offend or upset a lot of people then don't make it unavoidable for them...just don't ban it because of the sensibilities of those people.
-
Exactly - it's situational censorship, otherwise known as restraint
Like, I don't mind if a record store sells censored and uncensored versions of the same CD, but if they'll only sell the censored version, they've lost my business. -
Yeah man censorship is f***** retarded sh**. f***.
-
-
I think censorship is [ bleep! ] -
me likey...
also....ken leeeeeeeeeeee! -
Tulibu dibu douchoo!
-
-
I'm against censorship too but I have seen people publish defamatory posts containing character assassination on their blogs and get away with it. It's true that there are libel laws but proving malicious intent in a defamation suit is not easy and more to the point it's costly.
It's costly to hire a lawyer to represent you and you lose income when you have to travel and attend court dates, which are frequently adjourned over and over again. Even if you are successful in court and you get a paper judgment saying the other party owes you money you cannot get blood out of a stone.
When it comes to "free speech" it's astonishing how many people do not understand what the amendment actually states.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
This amendment does not give people the right to defame others and assassinate their characters in private spaces like here at BC and on other forums and yet I do see this happening.
Do you know about Electronic Frontier? Are you a member?
EFF is the leading civil liberties group defending your rights in the digital world. www.eff.org/-
Wow...is this still going on? I went away for 2 weeks and this is still what you guys are talking about?! yikes...
Anyway...as for what the US Constitution says, the internet is not American and not everyone on it is American so I don't see how your constitution has anything to do with what people say online? -
Is it really censorship when outright lies are blocked? If someone commits slander and liable against a person can we truely call it censorship if they are forced to remove or recant what they said? -
(1) I am a paralegal and a Canadian. The first two paragraphs of my comment above apply to blogs, not to BC.
(2) The first amendment does NOT apply here in this private space. BC is a privately owned company, and the community guidelines do apply here, and I do approve of them.
www.blogcatalog.com/discuss/entry/read-before-posting-1
This has been explained over and BC members and whenever we have new members, who break the community guidelines and erroneously claim "freedom of speech" it has to be explained all over again.
(3) As far as I know there are no censorship problems here at BC. We members all agreed to the TOS and that includes the community guidelines in order to have an account here. So I don't know what you mean by: "Wow...is this still going on? I went away for 2 weeks and this is still what you guys are talking about?! yikes..." -
I assumed this was another timethief/jeunelle sniping thing...is there someone else defaming you?
Anyway, I don't think that defamation and libel...and the removal of that kind of comment is really censorship. -
Anyway, I don't think that defamation and libel...and the removal of that kind of comment is really censorship.
Agreed. That's the point I was trying to make but I botched it. When someone has agreed to a TOS and/or policies and later breaches those terms then having comments and/or threads removed is not censorship.
-
-
I see it as a necessary evil. You just can't let people go wild and abuse free speech. But still evil.-
What would you define as an abuse of free speech?
-
-
I really want to have one of my posts "removed by the community" just for the sake of irony...maybe I should say something really offensive...
-
You can use this, until that happens:
-
Wow, that's handy...do you have a drawer full of those? Where did you get them? Do they come in different colours?
-
I found that one in a cereal box.
-
Well, I managed it and got banned from the discussions for 38 hours...GO IRONY!
-
-
I think censorship is set by "community standards" and is more of a local issue than a national issue. I am against political censorship and generally support free speech. However social standards are different in different places. -
Abuse means the politicians who spam my e-mail with invitations to vote for them and the pornographers who make little children and very old people do lurid sex acts.
-
I don't believe in censorship. Most things that are censored are due to cultural based fear, to get attention for some organization and used as a measure of control for controls sake.
-
I'm wondering if someone from the Christian Institute did a little guerilla-censoring at the library I work at...All of our copies of "Jerry Springer: The Opera" have vanished...no sign of them...
-
If we're referring to censorship of public thoughts and ideas, I don't think it's right either, but when there are rules posted for a particular place such as a forum, people involved should respect the rules and abide by them. There's also no need to use profanity or vulgar language when the thought can be expressed in a more intelligent and civilized manner. The use of such language and addition of uncontrolled anger may make one feel power over the other, but in the end proves nothing but a lack of respect of open discussion and the rights of others to express their views.-
I don't think there's anything uncivilised or unintelligent about swearing... swearing punctuates
[resists urge to say f*cksh*tb*ll*cksc*nt] -
Son of a Be-otch what is wrong with swearing? How on earth do you jump to swearing is power tripping? That sounds more like you projecting a tone onto other people.
As for respect(and also the word civilized) I have always had issues with when people bring it up. For starters respect is earned not agiven and also it is extremely subjective. People like to throw it around expecting the world to know what their personal meaning of the word is and if someone doesn't read your mind to get it right tantrums and drama fly. In my experience people confuse respect with being polite (again subjective) and social graces. -
The reason swearing is considered uncivilized is because "curse words" have always been used to insult and devalue other human beings.
Calling someone a "bitch" is not and was never intended to be snappy hip lingo. It means you consider the person (woman) to be not only a dog, but a dog only good for breeding. (That's what a bitch is).
Bastard means you are an illegitimate child - which in terms of inheritance and social stature meant you were an untouchable.
Curse words were and still are used to hurt others, typically using stereotypes and prejudices against entire groups of people. When you think about it, using a word designed for that purpose renders you, the user, as someone who subscribes to bigoted thoughts. Which in our society today makes you uncivilized and unintelligent.
Further that, words used for that purpose (swearing) in a context meant to be fun, surprising, or common language today is still seen as unintelligent and uncivilized because of it's origin, but also because the users of said words seem to be unaware of such origins. Making them ignorant (to the public eye).
Just sayin' -
Of course they are.
Call someone a piece of shit - a piece of excrement? Or shithead, or asshat 9my personal fav) Of course that's derogatory! And, of course telling someone to go f*ck themselves - the intent is insult. Go to hell - obviously the intent is quite nasty (if you've ever read Dante)
And if not, the mental imagery is certainly not the most pleasant in the world.
Why would we want to make people imagine a pile of steaming poo or some messy f*ck fest when we're having an intelligent conversation? Would you let your child say those words? I wouldn't. Would you be surprised to hear something like that come out of a well respected professor, author, your grandmother?
That's why it's generally considered a no-no. -
I would say is has to do with the context your using it in. Now for a funny story about such words. Female dogs are called bitches therefore at a dog show you hear the term all the time. Well Male chickens are actually called cocks, not roosters. My oldest kid was getting his bird in a cage at a big chicken show a couple of years ago; he was goofing off and not paying attention and was about to put his bird in the wrong cage. There were some non show people walking around earlier than they were supposed to be and one was a mom with kids in a stroller. I was holding a hen and my youngest son, so my hands were full. I just turned around and told my kid that he's putting his cock in the wrong cage and the cock was supposed to go in that cage over there. The mom with her kids really flipped out not knowing that cock is the actual propper terms used in chicken showing. My son was completely clueless about what the womens shock was about and deceided she was just a deranged lady. She grabed her kids and stormed off away from us vulgar types lol.
-
Anyway...as I was saying before I was so rudely and ironically censored...
@Anok
Swearing isn't always used to insult people. If I say something is "F-ing brilliant!" [I've learnt my lesson admins...note the self-censoring!!] it gives it emphasis and makes it a bit cheeky...no one's being attacked or demeaned. Maybe it's a US/UK divide? Swearing is mostly comedic here, rather than aggressive...obviously people here swear to verbally attack people, but for the most part swearing is cheeky or funny...hmm...
PLUS...Stephen Fry swears quite a lot, and if he does it it can't be uncivilised or unintelligent! -
@liggybee
I agree 100% with you.
-
-
-
Please could you clarify "posts that promote hate should be banned".
Do we live in a rose-tinted world?, whereby we can only discuss happy thoughts, are we not allowed to air our own personal views on life.
What you may construe as hate, another could perceive as love.
Everybody is entitled to an opinion, even if they are totally wrong.
-
-
@ timethief: 'Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
This amendment does not give people the right to defame others and assassinate their characters in private spaces like here at BC and on other forums and yet I do see this happening.'
1. BC is a private business, not the government. You voluntary entered a contract with them to follow their rules in order to use their service. The First Amendment doesn't apply here or any other website that you sign up for.
2. This is the internet. These things can/will/gonna happen especially on sites with a huge userbase. The best thing you can do is: ignore the person or report it to the staff.-
@videogamer
I think that you misunderstood where I was coming from. I am a paralegal and I'm not complaining about BC at all. I like BC bigtime. I understand the clauses and terms of every contract I enter into and I approve of the way BC Admin delete all personal attacks as per the community guidelines. In fact, I have previously explained to other members that the first amendment does not apply in this private space.
-
-
Do you believe in censorship? Not really. I have the opinion that most censorship is uneven, so that makes me more against it than anything. In an ideal world I think that it should be black and white, no wiggle room. Either censor everyone or no one
Do you think some things should not be allowed to be published/broadcast/distributed? No.
Or do you think people should be able to choose for themselves what they read/watch/listen to? I think that this is the appropriate choice. When an agency steps in and tells you what you can and cannot watch/listen to/ read, etc than it is usually based on oppression or the assumption of ignorance of the viewer/listener/reader. Parents watch your kids, grown ups check yourself, and to each his/her own. -
I disapprove of this thread and think it should be censored.-
me likey this comment
-
-
What the %&^% is this s(&^t LOL
Censorship - We lived in an era in the UK when a lady called Mary Whitehouse acted as the moral crusader or a spoilsport for the people. If she didn't like something, then the masses were protected.
She tried to censor most things in her day.
Censorship is a real hot potato, especially when we talk about the internet.
I believe that censorship is wrong. We should be allowed to view, watch, and discuss whatever we want. A good way of 'filtering' information is to allow the online communities to self-regulate. That is all that is required.
When people start harping on about 'but what about the kids'.
The answer is simple, you're the parent, you deal with it. You as a parent should regulate your child's online activities (software guardians, education, IP blockers, etc).
Why should the rest of us suffer. Freedom of information is our last true bastion of free thought.
Without our liberties and our freedoms, we are nothing but cogs/borg/sheep in the wheelwork of the corpocratic machine. -
I like the idea of self censorship...
If you don't like it -- don't look or read it-
@recyclecindy
Self-censorship is the ONLY way forward. We are moving towards a nanny / police state. People no longer take onus for their own actions.
We should do what the IRA do, if someone nicks your car, then don't get the police involved, instead have the local community go to work on the scumbags with a blowtorch. You get the drift.
Let the people, not the governments decide what is best for them. It really is that simple. -
I don't think that anyone's going to take you seriously if you choose the IRA as a model for an ideal! ...Personally, I'd rather the police were involved than some psychos with blowtorches...I think this is exactly why we need the government to decide what's best in some cases! I don't want to live in your world!
-
@SiuilARuin
Fair point, perhaps using the IRA in that context was a tad untoward. I was just trying to make the point that such organizations adopt techniques which seem agreeable to the local communities.
I was involved in a horrific incident a few weeks ago, chavs wielding bats, machetes and destroying everything around me. I just stood and watched, totally powerless. I just thank godforce that no-one was injured.
Afterwards, all I wanted to do was find these *&(^^ers and have my wicked way with them. When the police turned up (eventually) they dissuaded me from making a statement and said it was just lads letting off steam. wtf. They kept saying was anyone hurt, reply - No. They just didn't care, even though someone's place was totally trashed and many people were left in a state of shock.
This is the nanny state we are now living in, I fear groups of 12 year olds now who loiter on street corners, chip shops, off licence, etc. I hate to admit it, but it's true. This is no way to live in a modern so-called civilized society. You get stabbed just for looking at a 10 year the wrong way. Pathetic.
So what can I do, phone the police, yeah right.
We will start to see a massive rise in vigilantism, you mark my words. -
I really don't think vigilantism is the best response to a crappy police-force...we need to improve the police-force, not take the law into our own hands.
-
@SiuilARuin
"I really don't think vigilantism is the best response to a crappy police-force...we need to improve the police-force"
Yeah right, next you'll be telling me that we should implicitly trust our governments without question. It is unfortunate that the police get caught up in too much bureaucratic BS and paper work. Gone are the days of clipping a youngster round the ear, and being given a stern warning.
Nowadays, no thanks to political dogooders, we can no longer rely so much on the police force.
If someone hurt me or someone I love, I wouldn't go to the police. Let's just leave it at that. In the voice of Martin Sheen - Juuuustice (Day Today show):-) -
ok mate, you're the reason we need a police force!
-
-
I've recently written a blog post about censorship in music myself. I believe that it is acceptable for music to be censored when broadcast up to a point, I think that by changing elements of the song then you are tainting the original idea of the musician. Explicit content can add impact to a song and I think that musicians should be free to their artistic license. However, I do think that when in mass broadcasts before the watershed, explicit content should be censored in order to protect children from it.-
Music should never be censored in any shape or form. If you don't like it, then turn it off. Music is about expressing ones emotions.
Regarding music before the watershed, simple - don't play expletive music before watershed, this is the radio broadcasters responsibility. -
I agree, I am somewhat of a purist when it comes to music, but broadcasters have to play what their target audience wants to hear. And I have recently found that at any point in radio anyway, or at least on the BBC, they do not allow any expletives at all, bar the weaker ones (I do not agree with this).
Most musicians want their records to get mass airtime, and a lot of that music would suit a daytime schedule. This is where the artist and the broadcaster comprimise and edit the music somewhat- a process I don't agree with per se, but it ensures that the music gets heard by a mass audience, meaning their records will sell and the broadcasters remain happy.
-
-
For Music, no censorship is necessary. There are 'explicit' and 'clean' versions to choose from. So if you're the kind of person easily offended (or you have kids around), go for the 'clean' one. As for Movies, that's the reason why they have 'unrated' versions. I like 'unrated' versions as they are more raw (and I watch them when my Mom is sleeping or she and my brother are not around) but I watch wholesome and clean movies when they're around. Nothing should be censored in books, no 'explicit' version needed lol. -
My answer might surprise you.
I am a pastor but I do not believe in censorship. You cannot regulate morality. People have to have the right to choose what is right or wrong in regard to what is offensive.
Now on the other hand I believe that we need to protect children from reading or seeing or being involved in some material.
Even if I personally find something offensive I believe adults should have the right to choose what they read or view.-
I totally agree with you. And though I'm an atheist, surely as a Christian the concept of free-will is very important?
-
Great response, I often wish more Christians would practice this very advice.
-
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
