Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Censorship
#1
Thought I would do a poll about censorship. While I think it is a good idea to have a heads up about questionable content, I personally find censorship to be dangerous and misleading and can be abused in a way, for example, to censor opposing views.

I want to know how everyone feels about censorship. Should anything be censored at all? How should censoring be executed? Does censoring infringe on freedom of speech?
Chickity China, the Chinese chicken
You have a drumstick and your brain stops tickin'


[Image: 848398.png]
Reply
#2
I picked the option I felt most comfortable with - that it should be minimal and really used as a way to alert others of questionable content. But I think I need to consider it and the implications more deeply before I'd be sure in that answer.

It depends on many things. Like who is doing the censoring and how did they get appointed to have that responsibility? By whose standards of decency or morality determines what is to be censored? I mean even minimal censorship can have a powerful influence depending on the answer to those questions.

I guess what I support is giving people a heads up. Having whatever material is out there, still be out there, but behind a closed door. Like I don't want to watch a show and suddenly see super graphic violence where I wasn't expecting it. Or look up to see a pornographic billboard, or go to a bookstore and see a children's book filled with hate speech. It's not so much that I want those censored, so that no one can see it or be exposed to those things, or that I want those things to banned from being created at all - I just want to be able to have enough of a heads up that I can decide for myself if it's something I want to see.

I feel like top down censorship makes me uncomfortable because I don't like the idea of someone else deciding what I should or shouldn't see, or what someone should or shouldn't say. But if there were a way to give people the power to decide for themselves, that's better.

Even that though bugs me to say because sometimes we don't push ourselves out of comfort zones as we should. Sometimes being exposed to something that you'd never expose yourself willingly to, can act as a major catalyst for positive change or personal growth. And I wouldn't want important works or ideas to be missed because people decided they preferred to keep themselves in the comfortable little box they have made for themselves.

But unnecessarily exposing others to trauma, incredibly offensive opinions, or obscene material against their will, just for shock value, or to push limits isn't something I really get behind either.

It's a complicated, loaded question. I'll have to think more about it and see if I can come back with any more definite thoughts. And I'll be interested to read what other people think.
Reply
#3
I support minimal censorship.
Usually the censoring of promotions of violence and murder against individuals and/or groups of people.
Overall though, I don't think I have a great grasp on the issue.
Silly Sarcastic So-and-so
Reply
#4
Emiliano Wrote:I picked the option I felt most comfortable with - that it should be minimal and really used as a way to alert others of questionable content. But I think I need to consider it and the implications more deeply before I'd be sure in that answer.

It depends on many things. Like who is doing the censoring and how did they get appointed to have that responsibility? By whose standards of decency or morality determines what is to be censored? I mean even minimal censorship can have a powerful influence depending on the answer to those questions.

I guess what I support is giving people a heads up. Having whatever material is out there, still be out there, but behind a closed door. Like I don't want to watch a show and suddenly see super graphic violence where I wasn't expecting it. Or look up to see a pornographic billboard, or go to a bookstore and see a children's book filled with hate speech. It's not so much that I want those censored, so that no one can see it or be exposed to those things, or that I want those things to banned from being created at all - I just want to be able to have enough of a heads up that I can decide for myself if it's something I want to see.

I feel like top down censorship makes me uncomfortable because I don't like the idea of someone else deciding what I should or shouldn't see, or what someone should or shouldn't say. But if there were a way to give people the power to decide for themselves, that's better.

Even that though bugs me to say because sometimes we don't push ourselves out of comfort zones as we should. Sometimes being exposed to something that you'd never expose yourself willingly to, can act as a major catalyst for positive change or personal growth. And I wouldn't want important works or ideas to be missed because people decided they preferred to keep themselves in the comfortable little box they have made for themselves.

But unnecessarily exposing others to trauma, incredibly offensive opinions, or obscene material against their will, just for shock value, or to push limits isn't something I really get behind either.

It's a complicated, loaded question. I'll have to think more about it and see if I can come back with any more definite thoughts. And I'll be interested to read what other people think.

Ah but that's the big question. Who get's to say what's is bad and what is good and by what moral values...

Now, I'd say most probably know I'm on a Frank Zappa binge. Back in the 80's the wives of congressmen formed this organization called the PMRC, the Parents Music Resource Center. They attempted to censor music albums based on their lyrical content. Orginally they wanted to rate music the same way movies were, G, PG, R, etc...

Here's one of many videos that covers the topic...





On the other hand one would have to speculate that if there no censors at all, would things be better or worse when it comes to things like hate speech or coming across pornographic billboards be an issue at all? Is there any chance at self regulation? Would being exposed to things of that nature make one more likely to realize that certain things are just bad?

What about other kinds of censorship? Say the more subtle type. For example. I'm on Facebook, if I were to post certain things I could lose my job for having a particular opinion on something. Might be that I'm gay for example.

A reporter on the Indy 500 was fired because he wrote that he was uncomfortable with a Japanese person winning the race on Memorial Day... Of course, the newspaper fired him to protect themselves over an unpopular view...Should he have been fired? Would an apology suffice? Not that I agree with the reporter or approve of what he said, but often enough censoring occurs beyond government reach, might be that we have to act a certain way or say and do certain things because our family, our employer requires us to be within a certain guidelines of behavior.

Oh and yes, it is a loaded question from hell. It is something I have given a lot of thought about and a great deal of the inspiration to think about it does have a lot to do with the things Frank Zappa had to say on the subject.
Chickity China, the Chinese chicken
You have a drumstick and your brain stops tickin'


[Image: 848398.png]
Reply
#5
I really dislike censorship, anyway I think it should be just an alert to the public.

The only censor that I like (or I could like) is the one used to limit violence-racism and some forms of ignorant concepts-ideas. In any other case I find censorship a very stupid wrong thing.
I'M BOH.
[Image: sigpic17709_4.gif]
Dogrun WOOF! Dogrun
Reply
#6
sillyboy86 Wrote:I really dislike censorship, anyway I think it should be just an alert to the public.

The only censor that I like (or I could like) is the one used to limit violence-racism and some forms of ignorant concepts-ideas. In any other case I find censorship a very stupid wrong thing.

I think that is a reasonable position. The thing that gets kind of sticky is the subjective censoring, meaning who gets to determine what is too racy. For instance there was a big debate on renaming the Redskins to something else, despite the popular opinion being that it doesn't need to be changed.

Same thing with censoring idiots and their shallow points of view, someone has to decide and that is the scary part.

Likewise, if we have no censors we do run the risk that some people who are dumb promote very bad and possibly damaging ideas. However, that's happening already (terrorism for instance) and I think that a lot of the radicalism is due to the lack of exposure to different cultures and points of view. Or perhaps the world is too much for people?

I think censorship is fine as long as it is black and white, but what's really black and white? Are sex and foul language things that should be censored anyway?
Chickity China, the Chinese chicken
You have a drumstick and your brain stops tickin'


[Image: 848398.png]
Reply
#7
InbetweenDreams Wrote:Ah but that's the big question. Who get's to say what's is bad and what is good and by what moral values...

Now, I'd say most probably know I'm on a Frank Zappa binge. Back in the 80's the wives of congressmen formed this organization called the PMRC, the Parents Music Resource Center. They attempted to censor music albums based on their lyrical content. Orginally they wanted to rate music the same way movies were, G, PG, R, etc...

Here's one of many videos that covers the topic...





On the other hand one would have to speculate that if there no censors at all, would things be better or worse when it comes to things like hate speech or coming across pornographic billboards be an issue at all? Is there any chance at self regulation? Would being exposed to things of that nature make one more likely to realize that certain things are just bad?

What about other kinds of censorship? Say the more subtle type. For example. I'm on Facebook, if I were to post certain things I could lose my job for having a particular opinion on something. Might be that I'm gay for example.

A reporter on the Indy 500 was fired because he wrote that he was uncomfortable with a Japanese person winning the race on Memorial Day... Of course, the newspaper fired him to protect themselves over an unpopular view...Should he have been fired? Would an apology suffice? Not that I agree with the reporter or approve of what he said, but often enough censoring occurs beyond government reach, might be that we have to act a certain way or say and do certain things because our family, our employer requires us to be within a certain guidelines of behavior.

Oh and yes, it is a loaded question from hell. It is something I have given a lot of thought about and a great deal of the inspiration to think about it does have a lot to do with the things Frank Zappa had to say on the subject.


Hmm.. that was an interesting video, thanks.
I think I bit off more than I could chew with the response I was starting to write. Im sick today and my brain and ability to express myself is a little clouded right now. Ill have to come back to this when I'm feeling a little better and am better able to think it through. I want to give you a proper response, because those are good questions you ask, but I'm just confusing myself right now.
Reply
#8
Just keep the censorship out of movies and music.
Gay by nature. Proud by choice.
Reply
#9
A balanced approach is the only viable approach. Either extreme opens the door to hideous abuses.
Reply
#10
The only form of censorship I support is when it is against open threats of violence. I would make an exception to that if this was Revolutionary War times, but otherwise that is the only form of censorship I could see as being justified. Glad to see everyone that voted does not want much censorship, it is very dangerous indeed.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)