Other countries stance on censorship?

[Guest XplsvBam]

I was wondering what each not-poor country does about censorship in the media. I'm not sure about the United States but I'm sure alot of people have an opinion on what the government should do.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If there is a country that doesn't allow damaging freedom media maybe we should take a look at how thats going and see if we could adopt their policy or change it to make life a little bit more appropriate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I personally don't think there is enough censorship in the United States.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Discuss.

[Flametrooper]

 

 

 

I personally don't think there is enough censorship in the United States.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why not? What changes do you propose?

[Parabola]

 

 

 

 

I personally don't think there is enough censorship in the United States.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why not? What changes do you propose?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Censor everything that doesn't conform to his fundamentalist christian views.

[Guest XplsvBam]

 

 

 

 

I personally don't think there is enough censorship in the United States.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why not? What changes do you propose?

I propose that we have an agency of professional psychologists to decide what a child should and shouldn't see in the media. Censorship can be bad if it is hiding something from us, it isn't bad if it is protecting us. True good intentions of protecting us could end up hiding stuff from us but thats what the professionals are for.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Parabola this is a discussion not a flame war.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This remains a discussion, thank you.

[Harrington]

As with everything in life, it's impossible to please everyone.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I believe there is a little too much freedom of information and speech, not just with the Internet, but with many other mediums.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In particular, I believe the media services including television reports and newspapers have far too much free speech and urgently need an element of control asserted on them. This is especially true in the US and the UK.

[angryjoe]

 

 

 

 

 

I personally don't think there is enough censorship in the United States.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why not? What changes do you propose?

I propose that we have an agency of professional psychologists to decide what a child should and shouldn't see in the media. Censorship can be bad if it is hiding something from us, it isn't bad if it is protecting us. True good intentions of protecting us could end up hiding stuff from us but thats what the professionals are for.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Parabola this is a discussion not a flame war.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This remains a discussion, thank you.

but where would you draw the line between hiding something and protecting people because a government could just hide stuff and say it's to protect people.

[Parabola]

China is 'protecting' it's citizens from the 'dangerous' influences of outside media. Maybe he wants something like that.

[Satenza]

The problem with national censorship comes when the citizens look elsewhere and see whats really going on. Then complain that they had a right to know certain things. They would be employed by the Government aswell and so biased in what they show. For example if the country was being ran by a republican ruler then it would be much more right wing and following christian morality. As they would not like to offend their employers, and are instructed differently.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm all for liberty, however things like Saddam Husseins' hanging, and pictures of him after that was inappropriate to be placed on newspapers across the country. I think it's either the Government controls the media, or the people control the media. I'm more for the people's control, however sometimes they need to be a little more concerned with telling people whats happening rather than selling newspapers.

[Bauke]

 

 

 

 

 

I personally don't think there is enough censorship in the United States.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why not? What changes do you propose?

I propose that we have an agency of professional psychologists to decide what a child should and shouldn't see in the media. Censorship can be bad if it is hiding something from us, it isn't bad if it is protecting us. True good intentions of protecting us could end up hiding stuff from us but thats what the professionals are for.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Parabola this is a discussion not a flame war.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This remains a discussion, thank you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Protecting them from the inevitable is not a good idea. Just learn the kids to cope with it. Learn them that the world is not always such a nice place. Such an agency that you are proposing gives me scary thoughts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kids will find those things out. Heck, they WANT to find the things out that mom and dad hid from them. They will only be inspired more to discover those "cool" "bad" things.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Censorship is ALWAYS bad, imo. Yes, also in RS and on TIF. I find it disgusting that people hide these things. Get some reality sense please...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Don't hide/censor, but educate people. Drugs are illegal in the US, but they are legal in Holland, and we are quite liberal in those things. And yet, studies show that far more drugs are used (in percentages) in the US.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Censoring/hiding stuff does not work, it only works in a wrong way.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

At least I will be raising my kids without hiding anything from them. (Ofcourse, at an age they are able to comprehend and deal with these kind of delicate matters)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edit: After re-reading my post it seems that I'm trying to promote liberalism a tad bit too much. There should be regulation, but denying reality gets me off.

 

 

 

As with everything in life, it's impossible to please everyone.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I believe there is a little too much freedom of information and speech, not just with the Internet, but with many other mediums.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In particular, I believe the media services including television reports and newspapers have far too much free speech and urgently need an element of control asserted on them. This is especially true in the US and the UK.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And why?

[unknownmasterofnothing]

Just because some people think a certain thing is bad, doesn't mean that you should force it on everyone. Let people decide what is bad for themselves.

[Adam007]

It's the parent's responsibility to censor their children, not the government's. Nothing good whatsoever comes out of censorship. It just creates a mess of artificiality.

[Parabola]

Nothing good whatsoever comes out of censorship. It just creates a mess of artificiality.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And a resentment of the government when they overstep the line. Which is inevitable.

[Nitramosma]

I think as far as keeping things from children, that is entirely the parent's responsibility.

 

 

 

I do not believe at all in government censorship mainly because of all the problems it creates. However I wish the mass media would make some ethical decisions regarding what to show and what not to show.

 

 

 

When it comes down to it, people will get what they want and censorship does nothing to stop that from happening. So why waste time on legislation that will ultimately end up doing nothing and being declared unconstitutional. Freedom of speech is a cornerstone of our society and once you censor one thing it becomes easier and easier to censor anything.

[1_man_army]

However I wish the mass media would make some ethical decisions regarding what to show and what not to show.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What is it that the mass media shows that you feel is unethical? I'm not particularly against what you've said as my response would depend on what you're refering to but your point takes me back to what was said about morality in the Presidential Election thread (there can be no real absolute morality).

[Nitramosma]

 

However I wish the mass media would make some ethical decisions regarding what to show and what not to show.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What is it that the mass media shows that you feel is unethical? I'm not particularly against what you've said as my response would depend on what you're refering to but your point takes me back to what was said about morality in the Presidential Election thread (there can be no real absolute morality).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I suppose that I've been caught in another one of my famous mis-statements. I don't have many problems with whats in the mass media. (I don't approve of all the sexual and violent content readily available on TV, but I don't by any means think it should be censored)

 

 

 

More what I was referring to was not actually mainstream media, but rather new age and modern "art" and performance pieces. For example: government grant money when to an "artist" who took an image of the Virgin Mary, smeared it with elephant fecal matter, and surrounded it with pornographic pictures of female genetaila. This is the type of thing I don't approve of and I believe should not necessarily be censored, but certainly not sponsored by the government. Another government sponsored "artist" engaged in a performance piece in which (This is a quote from the book "The Death of Right and Wrong")

 

 

 

He (the "performer"'s volunteer) was tied up. He had a blindfold and a gag, but he could see and talk through it. He had freedom of movement of his pelvis. I (the "performer") engaged in oral sex with him and he engaged in oral sex with me. I had given him an enema, and I had taken a [cabbage] and stuffed it in his [wagon]. That goes on, he [cabbage]s all over me, I [cabbage] in him."

 

 

 

This piece of trash was not only govt funded, but it fulfilled a course requirement at the "performer"'s college. This is the kind of crap I can't stand. I don't care that we don't censor you creativity if thats what you call this disgusting display, but please do not give taxpayer money to this garbage.

[gonpost]

Here's something most people don't realize.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is a way education works on the scale of censorship.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Btw, I'm defining education as a way to measure wordly experience and ability to understand and deal with the world around the person.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Complete censorship, no education

 

 

 

2. Complete censorship, high education

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. High degree of censorship, little education

 

 

 

4. High degree of censorship, average education (high for some)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5. Some censorship, average education

 

 

 

6. Some censorship, high education

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7. no censorship, no education

 

 

 

8. No censorship, high education

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, I just made those up rather arbitrarily. Now...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Choices 2 and 7 are impossible choices. (Practically speaking) 2 is paradoxical and the next would result in absolute chaos.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Choice 1 works well, however, little growth is encouraged in most areas and anyone who gets by the censorship won't know how to deal with what was being censored in the first place. Basically, absolute hell could break out at times. This also leads to blind obedience.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Choice 3 is similar to choice 1, although the effects on both sides are lessened.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Choice 4 leads to some fundamentalism and tension within the society or towards other countries/cultures/etc. Development occurs, but not very quickly because of lack of growth (socially). This is present in several areas of the world.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Choice 5 is comparable to many areas of the United States or western Europe. Progress occurs well enough because there is enough acceptance, although there is resistance.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Choice 6 is a bit unique... There are not many areas of the world that have this except for perhaps a few areas within countries. Censorship here is almost exclusively imposed by governmental requirement, not by cultural ones. There is no need for "censorship" by the community because it can deal with or accept things normally censored in a mature way. Such undesirable things like strip clubs may be unwelcome, however, for community image or such, but not for overtly moral reasons.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Choice 8 doesn't exist anywhere in the world beyond small groups of people. In this, there is no existence of anything that would require censorship because everyone would act maturely and responsibly, and could understand and appreciate nearly anything seen or experienced. There is no need for censorship, and progress is highest. Change is also constant whether for "good" or "bad", as seen by outside groups.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm welcome to critiques. These are just some things I can see as possibilities...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As a note on children, I acknowledge that censorship is probably needed to a degree. Having the child accidentally flip on a channel with extreme violence wouldn't go over well with the child immediately (emotionally, sociologically, and psychologically). However, gradual introduction is definitely the way to go.

[misterxman]

I think that if any more censorship legislation is made in the US, it should go toward putting the responsibility of censorship to the parents, not the media. This way, each family can censor whatever they like without blocking stuff other people want to see.

[Nadril]

I think that if any more censorship legislation is made in the US, it should go toward putting the responsibility of censorship to the parents, not the media. This way, each family can censor whatever they like without blocking stuff other people want to see.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agreed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm fine with the family raising a child the way they would like in reguards to censorship. I also think that every person individualy needs different *levels* of censorship, I mean, some people are just more impressionable than others.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now, sadly, many parrents could care less which causes the government to 'have' to intervine. Chances are though that no matter what the government do people will get their hands on stuff.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So yeah personaly I am against censorship in a way that I'm against manditory censorship. If a parrent wants to try and censor stuff they should have the tools to do so.

[Flametrooper]

The thing is, the moment something is forbidden it gains an attraction among most people. The human mind has an attraction to things that are forbidden to it. Censor something and you make people want to find out more about it. Oh, and Denmark is awesome.

[Guest XplsvBam]

 

I think that if any more censorship legislation is made in the US, it should go toward putting the responsibility of censorship to the parents, not the media. This way, each family can censor whatever they like without blocking stuff other people want to see.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agreed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm fine with the family raising a child the way they would like in reguards to censorship. I also think that every person individualy needs different *levels* of censorship, I mean, some people are just more impressionable than others.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now, sadly, many parrents could care less which causes the government to 'have' to intervine. Chances are though that no matter what the government do people will get their hands on stuff.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So yeah personaly I am against censorship in a way that I'm against manditory censorship. If a parrent wants to try and censor stuff they should have the tools to do so.

I agree with both of you. The only problem is that you are talking complete freedom, which parents don't have. For example it is child abuse (against the law) to neglect your child. Neglect can range from psychological and physical issues. Basically supporting laws against child abuse but being against censorship is hypocritical. I'm not saying you are wrong that parents should be responsible, because they are, I'm just saying it isn't realistic of the government not to censor.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not against freedom, I'm against abuse of freedom.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Do you realize it is illegal to yell fire in a movie theatre (if there isn't really a fire)? It may be funny but ultimately unnecessary. Is it not possible that somethings in the media aren't necessary? And why?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The thing is, the moment something is forbidden it gains an attraction among most people. The human mind has an attraction to things that are forbidden to it. Censor something and you make people want to find out more about it. Oh, and Denmark is awesome.

Where is your opinion coming from? Do you have anything to back up your evaluation?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The majority of society is driven to want forbidden things because of the media. Look at the 1920's U.S history. Look at MTV. Look at the media.

[Adam007]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Basically supporting laws against child abuse but being against censorship is hypocritical. I'm not saying you are wrong that parents should be responsible, because they are, I'm just saying it isn't realistic of the government not to censor.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How is being anti-censorship synonymous with pro-child abuse? Further, it's completely realistic for the government not to censor. It's called personal responsibility. People have common sense, we're not sheep who need to be herded in the "right" direction because we don't know what's right and wrong. You can figure these things out for yourself without some higher power telling you what's good and bad.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not against freedom, I'm against abuse of freedom.

 

 

 

So pretty much limit freedom out of assuming the worst out of people.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Do you realize it is illegal to yell fire in a movie theatre (if there isn't really a fire)? It may be funny but ultimately unnecessary. Is it not possible that somethings in the media aren't necessary? And why?

 

 

 

Yelling fire in a movie theater isn't funny. Thanks for clarifying that it's ultimately unnecessary though. That one was up in the air. As well as that it's illegal, specifically when there isn't a fire. Even if there was a fire you're not supposed to scream fire, because you still get people chaotically trampling everyone.

 

 

 

Anyways, I just wanted to say that you're making no sense in comparing the necessity of yelling fire in a movie theater to the necessity of media censorship.

[Guest XplsvBam]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Basically supporting laws against child abuse but being against censorship is hypocritical. I'm not saying you are wrong that parents should be responsible, because they are, I'm just saying it isn't realistic of the government not to censor.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How is being anti-censorship synonymous with pro-child abuse? Further, it's completely realistic for the government not to censor. It's called personal responsibility. People have common sense, we're not sheep who need to be herded in the "right" direction because we don't know what's right and wrong. You can figure these things out for yourself without some higher power telling you what's good and bad.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Did you read anything that I wrote? It is hypocritical because the government has laws against damaging children psychologically and physically. If you want to disagree with me then do so and give a reason. For example the media doesn't damage children psychologically because exposure to drugs, sex, and all of the above doesn't influence their mental perceptions at all, back that up with a good argument and you solved the entire controversial issue. Congrats =D> .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not against freedom, I'm against abuse of freedom.

 

 

 

So pretty much limit freedom out of assuming the worst out of people.

I don't understand your view on this. Are you disagreeing with me, agreeing with me, or trying to put words in my mouth? :-s

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The latter. I'm not assuming the worst of people, I'm against abuse of freedom, the two don't event correlate from what I wrote. And the media is abusing freedom. You can disagree with me but that just goes back to my previous paragraph.

[Nadril]

I agree with both of you. The only problem is that you are talking complete freedom, which parents don't have. For example it is child abuse (against the law) to neglect your child. Neglect can range from psychological and physical issues. Basically supporting laws against child abuse but being against censorship is hypocritical. I'm not saying you are wrong that parents should be responsible, because they are, I'm just saying it isn't realistic of the government not to censor.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not against freedom, I'm against abuse of freedom.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Do you realize it is illegal to yell fire in a movie theatre (if there isn't really a fire)? It may be funny but ultimately unnecessary. Is it not possible that somethings in the media aren't necessary? And why?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Child abuse isn't 'censorship' its illegal. What I was talking about was simply the parrents should decide what their children are and are not exposed to, not the government.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also, again, the fire thing isn't 'censorship' in that sense either. Its maybe, at best, a really weak kind of censorship against what you can say but it is completly necisary.

[Tigra00]

Get these icky George Bush views outta' here. Seems like ever since he said "There should be limits to freedom of speech." everyone on the right-wing religious side has been calling for everything to be censored.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ultimately, why do you care? You believe in God, right? According to that, the world is going to end sooner than later anyways. So why do you care about censorship? Why do you care about anything? Seems your faith in God isn't that strong if you're actually concerned about worldly politics...Does the Bible not say you shouldn't even get involved in such things? Obviously for that reason...The world will end eventually and nothing you worked for will ever matter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Stop caring. Noone wants to be censored, and if you're so concerned with it, MOVE TO CHINA.

[Guest XplsvBam]

 

I agree with both of you. The only problem is that you are talking complete freedom, which parents don't have. For example it is child abuse (against the law) to neglect your child. Neglect can range from psychological and physical issues. Basically supporting laws against child abuse but being against censorship is hypocritical. I'm not saying you are wrong that parents should be responsible, because they are, I'm just saying it isn't realistic of the government not to censor.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not against freedom, I'm against abuse of freedom.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Do you realize it is illegal to yell fire in a movie theatre (if there isn't really a fire)? It may be funny but ultimately unnecessary. Is it not possible that somethings in the media aren't necessary? And why?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Child abuse isn't 'censorship' its illegal. What I was talking about was simply the parrents should decide what their children are and are not exposed to, not the government.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also, again, the fire thing isn't 'censorship' in that sense either. Its maybe, at best, a really weak kind of censorship against what you can say but it is completly necisary.

The government does decide what the child should be exposed to. Have you ever heard social workers? Parents get their children taken away for allowing their children to be exposed to things the government decides they shouldn't be exposed to. Looks like censorship to me. So why are you against child abuse but also against censorship. Clearly they correlate, at least specifically speaking.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The point of the fire statement was to show that sometimes freedom of speech can cause unnecessary consequences because of unnecessary motivations.