Censorship

[Alvin]

Laughing so hard now.

[InbetweenDreams]

Just keep the censorship out of movies and music.

What about the songs that talk about bestiality and incest? I mean that's what the PRMC was bitching about back in the 80's... I guess my question is are the lines that should be drawn? Ever seen the movie Pink Flamingos?

A balanced approach is the only viable approach. Either extreme opens the door to hideous abuses.

Speaking of Pink Flamingos... Do you think if censoring was completely done away with that we would see more movies that had more extreme "stuff" in it.

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.

I guess another question is when is something no longer freedom of expression and is a crime?

Would this be too far? (Not weighing in your political point of view)





Mind you I'm not disagreeing with anyone but really just challenging things. I see a definite problem with censorship and then you have these areas that get kind of complicated.

[InbetweenDreams]

Also, a clip from Pink Flamingos...keep in mind this is 1971 here...

[Confuzzled4]

While I find what she did disgusting and wrong, I wouldn't consider that a crime. If someone says "everyone go out and kill the next white/black person you see." That would be a crime to me. Back in the 1970s there were gang leaders that told its members to go and kill 1 cop a day, that would be a crime. I consider that to be beyond extraordinary circumstances though, free speech is a tenant of a free society.

[matty7]

minimal - i remember the 80s with the PMRC trying to censor music , it didn't work - just because you dont like it shouldn't mean you can censor other people from enjoying it. The flipside is things like child pornography etc , im pretty sure most rational people can put things like this as a threshold that shouldn't be freely available

[InbetweenDreams]

While I find what she did disgusting and wrong, I wouldn't consider that a crime. If someone says "everyone go out and kill the next white/black person you see." That would be a crime to me. Back in the 1970s there were gang leaders that told its members to go and kill 1 cop a day, that would be a crime. I consider that to be beyond extraordinary circumstances though, free speech is a tenant of a free society.

So telling someone to kill someone should be a crime? Looking up some of this, best I can tell it doesn't appear to be. Doesn't make it right by any means. What about people online telling others they should kill themselves? (Sick but true)

[Emiliano]

Ive been thinking about this. And I think what I keep getting hung up on is that in my mind I want to draw lines between artistic censorship, entertainment censorship, political censorship, and so on. So thinking theoretically I guess you can draw those lines, but in reality I don't think its possible to really cherry pick things like that.

Im also getting hung up on what exactly censorship is. Are we talking about trying to block certain material or voices from ever reaching the public? Like burning books, killing journalists, throwing paint on works of art. Or just blocking certain segments of the population from having access to it? Like having to be 18 to legally consume porn, not letting a 13 year old by himself into an R rated film. Is just warning people "hey this album has a song in it that is about incest -just a heads up", not restricting anyone from being exposed to it, but just having it one step removed from the public sphere, is that really censorship? I dont know.. part of me just feels like that is courtesy.

Which brings me to something else I feel like voicing on here. I was raised to be respectful, to be polite, and to be considerate of people around me - to basically be aware of how my words and actions affect the people around me. I don't always live up to that ideal, but I do try. And honestly, sometimes, the effect I want to have on others is not a polite, friendly one. But overall, I'd say I'm a very nice, good person. I certainly try to be.

So it pisses me off when people use freedom of expression or not being "PC" as an excuse to be a dick to other people. Its not my job to police people, and I really don't make a habit of doing so. Its a lousy excuse and removes the responsibility off of the person when they excuse straight up bad manners and lack of respect and decency as just not being "PC". Getting fired from your job for being an asshole is not censorship. Like fuck off with that shit. (Not directed at any of you... I had a bad interaction today and it got under my skin.)

Like its about knowing what is appropriate. I curse all the time with my friends, when I write things online.... but I don't curse around my mother. I don't curse at my job when I working with children. Some things can be appropriate or acceptable in private, but not in public. Some things are appropriate in certain public areas, and not in others. I more than understand that many people do not pick up on these social rules - but most of us do.

My feelings on how what a person says can have consequences - if you believe so strongly in what you say, or what you do, or what you created... then own it. And stand by it. And be willing to risk your reputation or your job for it. Like the Kathy Griffin thing - I could argue for or against the artistic value of that photograph and why it should or shouldn't be censored. I can see both sides of it. But I'm not going to argue that CNN shouldn't have fired her. She made a statement, and now she has to deal with the consequences of it.

The Indy 500 reporter - he made a statement. He called it stupid in his apology and I thought his apology was stupid- more of an excuse than accepting any wrong doing. Did he have the right to say what he did? Yeah sure, he was emotional. And one Japanese guy is the same as the rest - in the present as in the past, I guess. But does he have a right to not face the consequences for what he said? No.

Especially when you are a professional, in the public eye, and speaking on a public platform. People have to understand that actions have consequences. I absolutely do not support a world where actions and words do not have consequences. Where we are all free to do and say as we please feeling entitled to be protected from the words and actions of those around us - because to have to deal with consequences would be infringing on their rights. That princess type shit is one of my biggest pet peeves.

How about the nooses being left at the African American history museum in DC? Is that freedom of expression? Is that someones right to express themselves? Is removing it censorship?

Do we draw lines at when something goes from making us feel uncomfortable to making us feel threatened? And at what point does it become illegal? Does the legality of something dictate the appropriateness of it being censored?

Take child pornography, since its been brought up - if the model used in the porn was 18 but convincingly looked like a preteen - I mean, its not illegal, but it still produces a disturbing image... should that be censored in the same way that actual child pornography is? Does it matter that the model did it willingly, was not exploited - is that why things of that nature are banned? Or do we censor images like that because of what effect it has on the viewer?

And to answer a more direct question you had for me, [MENTION=23180]InbetweenDreams[/MENTION] ,
If we removed censors from pornography - do I think that would make pornographic images more prolific? Yes I do. Do I think that the lack of censorship of hate speech would cause more or less hate speech - i think it would cause more. Just look at how free people feel at expressing themselves under the illusion of anonymity the internet provides, when they think they dont have to worry about the consequences of what they say.

I don't think censoring it gets rid of the emotions and opinions behind it - and its stupid and dangerous for anyone to think that censoring something "fixes" that issue - it just removes it from the public sphere. You can censor female nipples from billboards in Times Square, but women still have them. You can ban child pornography but children are still exploited, you can bleep out the lyrics but people are still going to sing them, you can fire someone for making a racially charged statement, but they still are going to be racist. You can fire Kathy Griffin, but she still going to hate Trump. I don't care what people do at home, say to their friends, what they jerk off to late at night under their bed covers when they think the rest of their neighborhood is sleeping.

But i have to admit, I do care what is allowed in public.

So I think having minimal censorship, used as a warning of questionable content is still the answer I feel most comfortable with. Whether its a sticker on an album, or an art work behind the door of a gallery space or museum, or just a note a professor might write on a syllabus about a book - I do not view that as infringing rights, blocking freedom of speech, or dangerous censorship. Again, thats courtesy to me.

And if the person is going for a more in your face sort of thing, they want to shock, they want to challenge people, they want to make them uncomfortable - then the work should either be able to speak for itself, or the creator behind it should have the balls and the dignity to back it up and face the consequences of putting something taboo, questionable, offensive, or whatever else, into the public sphere. And by saying that, I dont at all mean that people should stop doing things like that. I just think that if its something that should be protected by freedom of expression - it should be something the creator is willing to take a risk for. I don't think people should feel entitled to be able to force others into uncomfortable positions without having to feel a little uncomfortable themselves.

It is the risk takers who make change. Gay rights are not fought for and won by people who were closeted and hid their sexuality like a dirty secret to be ashamed of. Civil rights are not fought for and won by minorities who keep their heads down and their mouths shut, just taking shit and accepting thats how life is. Things are not given, they are fought for. And fighting is risky. If Kathy Griffin wants to make a statement on Trump using a bloody mask, and believes there is some kind of value to it, then she should do it and fight for it. If the Indy 500 reporter wants to make a statement about feeling uncomfortable about a Japanese racer winning on memorial day,and believes by saying so defends the honor of his father and the holiday and the race, then he should fight for it. If Frank Zappa wants to write a song about fucking his dead cat, and believes it carries some artistic or entertainment worth, then fight for it.

But don't be surprised or act offended when people fight back.








And thats my essay on that topic...

[InbetweenDreams]

Good post. I will go ahead and say that up front.

Ive been thinking about this. And I think what I keep getting hung up on is that in my mind I want to draw lines between artistic censorship, entertainment censorship, political censorship, and so on. So thinking theoretically I guess you can draw those lines, but in reality I don't think its possible to really cherry pick things like that.

Im also getting hung up on what exactly censorship is. Are we talking about trying to block certain material or voices from ever reaching the public? Like burning books, killing journalists, throwing paint on works of art. Or just blocking certain segments of the population from having access to it? Like having to be 18 to legally consume porn, not letting a 13 year old by himself into an R rated film. Is just warning people "hey this album has a song in it that is about incest -just a heads up", not restricting anyone from being exposed to it, but just having it one step removed from the public sphere, is that really censorship? I dont know.. part of me just feels like that is courtesy.

All the above I would call a form of censorship, obviously killing a journalist and slapping a parental advisory sticker on something are very different in their approach...kind of apples and oranges. I think the valid point that PRMC made (Frank Zappa) had was that parents don't know. You can't go by the album cover to know what Motley Crue was signing about...as if anyone actually cared about the lyrical content of a 80's hair band.

Slapping a rated 'R' sticker on a movie or a parental advisory changes how someone looks at the piece of work. In the case of the kid they might see it as oh cool it's rated R, I gotta to go see that. There was another interview that had Frank Zappa and Donnie Osmond, Donnie did make that point. While I think it was still valid I don't know that every kid thinks like that. Back in the day I went through a phase where I was kind of like that.

I think there is a point where what you're needing to censor isn't really censorship. Say for instance, child pornography... It's a crime and for a good reason.

Things like murdering people to silence them or burning books are other examples or censorship that is bad. I mean if you're Zoey Barnes out of House of Cards and you're going to blow open government corruption shouldn't have to risk your life doing it.

I mean with the advent of modern technology people are now able to see and hear things they probably otherwise wouldn't be able to. So there are good grounds on whether or not people should be restricted to certain things. That being said there is a fine line between protecting the public and suppression...best word I could think to use at the moment, feel like i could have used a better word there.

This fine line, like so many others, is the reason no one well ever come to an agreement on things dealing with politics, or abortion, religion and so on. Where should the line be drawn. Where does censorship end, suppression and protection begin? When it comes to the gray areas who should be able to decide what is ok and what is not? Right now that is our elected officials, but they're not very representative of us, I think special interests often carve out these sort of things (follow the money thing). On a side note, I don't think the founding fathers ever thought there was going to be 330 million people in this country and be what it currently is, I'd say their minds would have been blown to see what 241 years would bring...

Which brings me to something else I feel like voicing on here. I was raised to be respectful, to be polite, and to be considerate of people around me - to basically be aware of how my words and actions affect the people around me. I don't always live up to that ideal, but I do try. And honestly, sometimes, the effect I want to have on others is not a polite, friendly one. But overall, I'd say I'm a very nice, good person. I certainly try to be.

So it pisses me off when people use freedom of expression or not being "PC" as an excuse to be a dick to other people. Its not my job to police people, and I really don't make a habit of doing so. Its a lousy excuse and removes the responsibility off of the person when they excuse straight up bad manners and lack of respect and decency as just not being "PC". Getting fired from your job for being an asshole is not censorship. Like fuck off with that shit. (Not directed at any of you... I had a bad interaction today and it got under my skin.)

Like its about knowing what is appropriate. I curse all the time with my friends, when I write things online.... but I don't curse around my mother. I don't curse at my job when I working with children. Some things can be appropriate or acceptable in private, but not in public. Some things are appropriate in certain public areas, and not in others. I more than understand that many people do not pick up on these social rules - but most of us do.

Right and another part from the Frank Zappa interview is having a good moral codes in terms of behavior and not religion. I think most Atheists know that killing people is a bad bad thing, they didn't need the 10 commandments to know that and not do that.

I agree that people should default to being a decent person and be respectful. I tends to work much better than being a jackass to everyone. One thing that I find interesting about people is how people act in person and how they act when they're driving. Probably normal, average people, are the hones flipping people the bird and tailgating in traffic. In the small, sleepy little town I'm in, you'd think it wouldn't be a problem, and even I get pissed at other drivers. I can tell you that people act differently because I'm driving a Prius instead of the Challenger. I had less people tailgating me at the same speed in the Challenger, why? They don't like Priuses (Prii?) because hippie libtards (except the one I seen with a Trump sticker on it) drive those and they always drive slow right? Just amazes me how people can't change in an instant, put them in a car and they're ready to run you off the road and get someone killed.

Anyway, back on the subject. I do think employers have the right to terminate employees for having done something, such as the whole deal with Trump's head... Of course, I think yeah they should have right to do that sort of stuff, but doesn't mean someone shouldn't face the consequences. However, when employers cross the line, such as the case where an employee didn't like the same beer his boss did, got fired the next day. (Which I can't seem to find, saw it years ago on some documentary sort of thing). Anyway, things like that or something you posted on Facebook (assuming it isn't something vile, racist, or threatening -- you get the idea). I had to really watch what I posted, when I posted things on Facebook at my last job. Had too many colleagues who were sticking their nose where it didn't belong. I don't think people at work need to know my sexuality or any of that stuff... When I actually have a partner and live together and so on then yeah, can't really hide that from everyone... Not for long anyway.

My feelings on how what a person says can have consequences - if you believe so strongly in what you say, or what you do, or what you created... then own it. And stand by it. And be willing to risk your reputation or your job for it. Like the Kathy Griffin thing - I could argue for or against the artistic value of that photograph and why it should or shouldn't be censored. I can see both sides of it. But I'm not going to argue that CNN shouldn't have fired her. She made a statement, and now she has to deal with the consequences of it.

The Indy 500 reporter - he made a statement. He called it stupid in his apology and I thought his apology was stupid- more of an excuse than accepting any wrong doing. Did he have the right to say what he did? Yeah sure, he was emotional. And one Japanese guy is the same as the rest - in the present as in the past, I guess. But does he have a right to not face the consequences for what he said? No.

Especially when you are a professional, in the public eye, and speaking on a public platform. People have to understand that actions have consequences. I absolutely do not support a world where actions and words do not have consequences. Where we are all free to do and say as we please feeling entitled to be protected from the words and actions of those around us - because to have to deal with consequences would be infringing on their rights. That princess type shit is one of my biggest pet peeves.

How about the nooses being left at the African American history museum in DC? Is that freedom of expression? Is that someones right to express themselves? Is removing it censorship?

Do we draw lines at when something goes from making us feel uncomfortable to making us feel threatened? And at what point does it become illegal? Does the legality of something dictate the appropriateness of it being censored?

Sure all those things should be allowed and like Kathy Griffin, the Indy 500 incident all should bear the consequences. My thinking had been that if you take away the censoring, that people would be able to see the things they have not been exposed to and would work itself out...but I'm seeing that the logic is heavily flawed...nice to think such a wonderful thing would occur but people won't come around and smell the coffee (or the coveffe). Nope, people come from all sorts of backgrounds, religions and bullshit... Some people are bigots, for whatever the reason, some people are psychopaths and literally have no soul.

Another way to look at things, take the incident at the African American Museum, if we quietly removed the nooses, said nothing about it. No one would know that it had even occurred. It is awful and really pathetic as a society that we have people who think like that and is something that should be extinguished from society. I think hiding that things such as happened would just hide the fact that we have a problem in this country. It's not they shouldn't be allowed, it's that we shouldn't hide that this stuff is still happening.

Of course when it comes to this sort of stuff you have the psychology of this stuff. When things like this happen and it get publicized you have those types of people who want to belong to a group and instead of doing something healthy, they join the so-called outspoken group who commit these atrocities.

Take child pornography, since its been brought up - if the model used in the porn was 18 but convincingly looked like a preteen - I mean, its not illegal, but it still produces a disturbing image... should that be censored in the same way that actual child pornography is? Does it matter that the model did it willingly, was not exploited - is that why things of that nature are banned? Or do we censor images like that because of what effect it has on the viewer?

And to answer a more direct question you had for me, [MENTION=23180]InbetweenDreams[/MENTION] ,
If we removed censors from pornography - do I think that would make pornographic images more prolific? Yes I do. Do I think that the lack of censorship of hate speech would cause more or less hate speech - i think it would cause more. Just look at how free people feel at expressing themselves under the illusion of anonymity the internet provides, when they think they dont have to worry about the consequences of what they say.

I don't think censoring it gets rid of the emotions and opinions behind it - and its stupid and dangerous for anyone to think that censoring something "fixes" that issue - it just removes it from the public sphere. You can censor female nipples from billboards in Times Square, but women still have them. You can ban child pornography but children are still exploited, you can bleep out the lyrics but people are still going to sing them, you can fire someone for making a racially charged statement, but they still are going to be racist. You can fire Kathy Griffin, but she still going to hate Trump. I don't care what people do at home, say to their friends, what they jerk off to late at night under their bed covers when they think the rest of their neighborhood is sleeping.

But i have to admit, I do care what is allowed in public.

Not sure how the laws are currently written but it is a good question. I think if someone is posing as a child, whether they're 18 or not, should also be banned because that's the whole point of child pornography in my opinion. I wish there was a blanket statement that would cover all this sort of stuff, but there's isn't, everything has to be cherry picked. Does it harm someone? Does it promote something bad for society? Saying the F word for instance, doesn't hurt anyone likewise we don't want to hear 8 year old kids going around saying fuck you bitch. There's a lot of dyanamics, a lot of things, words, actions you can do that are totally harmful and those who just have the princess thing going on and get offended because someone said fuck on the radio or shows a nipple at the super bowl.

That all being said yes, things should be kept of the public eye. Kids don't need to see naked people on billboards. However, suppose that particular thing was allowed, naked men and women on billboard advertisements? Is there something wrong seeing the human body? Of course there's got to be limitations, but should nudity be something we hide from kids. I mean the whole argument in the interview I posted went down the track of kids not learning about the human body and being ashamed about talking about sex or not knowing when they have been abused by an adult. The whole suppression of sex is actually a big deal. The studies have been done, we definitely need sex education and it does need to be discussed, it is the only way we're going to be able as a nation get rid of STD's.

So I think having minimal censorship, used as a warning of questionable content is still the answer I feel most comfortable with. Whether its a sticker on an album, or an art work behind the door of a gallery space or museum, or just a note a professor might write on a syllabus about a book - I do not view that as infringing rights, blocking freedom of speech, or dangerous censorship. Again, thats courtesy to me.

I think that probably is the best answer. I guess it just comes down to being able to determine what really needs to be taken out of society due to something being dangerous or just simply bad.

And if the person is going for a more in your face sort of thing, they want to shock, they want to challenge people, they want to make them uncomfortable - then the work should either be able to speak for itself, or the creator behind it should have the balls and the dignity to back it up and face the consequences of putting something taboo, questionable, offensive, or whatever else, into the public sphere. And by saying that, I dont at all mean that people should stop doing things like that. I just think that if its something that should be protected by freedom of expression - it should be something the creator is willing to take a risk for. I don't think people should feel entitled to be able to force others into uncomfortable positions without having to feel a little uncomfortable themselves.

It is the risk takers who make change. Gay rights are not fought for and won by people who were closeted and hid their sexuality like a dirty secret to be ashamed of. Civil rights are not fought for and won by minorities who keep their heads down and their mouths shut, just taking shit and accepting thats how life is. Things are not given, they are fought for. And fighting is risky. If Kathy Griffin wants to make a statement on Trump using a bloody mask, and believes there is some kind of value to it, then she should do it and fight for it. If the Indy 500 reporter wants to make a statement about feeling uncomfortable about a Japanese racer winning on memorial day,and believes by saying so defends the honor of his father and the holiday and the race, then he should fight for it. If Frank Zappa wants to write a song about fucking his dead cat, and believes it carries some artistic or entertainment worth, then fight for it.

But don't be surprised or act offended when people fight back.








And thats my essay on that topic...

Well, I don't think Frank Zappa has a song about fucking a dead cat...I mean he does have 50 albums and there is a lot of bizarre music to say the least.

I do think people should put their money with their mouth is. If they did something wrong, even if they realize oh shit I shouldn't have said that but here's what I was thinking at the time and so on. I mean I think if things were handled differently, people can be forgiven for their mistakes. I think we are often quite reactionary when someone in the public eye slips up and says something stupid, but however, it's what they do, they work in the public, that's their choice sames goes for the consequences. I have no desire to be on TV, so I don't think I should be held to the same standard that celebrities are, if I say something stupid.

When it comes to people online. People get behind a username and troll because they're safe in their little anonymous bubble. The question is, with all the hate speech that gets thrown onto YouTube, how much of it is really real and how much of that crap is actually sincere. I mean it's bad either way, but it is different when people are faking it even if the sole purpose is to piss people off and I think the majority of it is to piss people off because people get their kicks from doing so. I mean you're including the people who are of course just trolls and also people who are being paid to say certain things online, astroturfing and so on.

That did make me think Vsauce's video about the earth being flat. Skipping over the debate about the Earth being flat he does talk about, I think (hope I have the right video), how things get posted online and you can't tell if they're being serious or not.




Oh and yes, Danny Glover did turn the team around. That clip was from Angels in the Outfield....Watch it you haven't seen it, it's one of those movies you see as a kid and pretty much don't watch it again until someone brings it up. Kind of like Indian in the Cupboard...

[Cuddly]

What about the songs that talk about bestiality and incest? I mean that's what the PRMC was bitching about back in the 80's... I guess my question is are the lines that should be drawn? Ever seen the movie Pink Flamingos?



Speaking of Pink Flamingos... Do you think if censoring was completely done away with that we would see more movies that had more extreme "stuff" in it.



I guess another question is when is something no longer freedom of expression and is a crime?

Would this be too far? (Not weighing in your political point of view)





Mind you I'm not disagreeing with anyone but really just challenging things. I see a definite problem with censorship and then you have these areas that get kind of complicated.

As much as I loathe Trump, that picture of Kathy Griffins is not ok. I am a firm believer of fairness and equality and the thing is.. if that had been Obama's head I would be outraged! However, since it's Trump I'm not bothered. It's vile and wrong, but I kinda like it.
I'm all for giving bullies a taste of being bullied.

[MikeW]

This OP approaches the question from an external/sociological POV. Personally, I'm of the opinion that questions having to do with how WE OURSELVES OPERATE are far more relevant than how OTHER PEOPLE or society as a whole operates.

How many of you us censor ourselves? The way we speak, act, think, feel or express thoughts and feelings? How much do we censor? Too much, not enough, just right?

When paying attention to other people and the world around us, to what extent do we 'censor' or 'screen out' things, events, emotions, thoughts, observations, perceptions, etc., that we or some aspect of us deems 'inappropriate', 'irrelevant', or 'uninteresting' -- not worthy of our attention?

What IS "worthy of our attention"?

Better and more fundamental yet, what IS attention?