Jump to content

Censorship Good or Bad?


RSBDavid

Recommended Posts

(note, since there was not a topic about this within the first 2 pages, I made my own)

 

 

 

Definition of Censorship:

 

 

 

 

the act or practice of censoring.

 

 

 

 

 

1. What lazy parents use as an excuse to not want to teach their children what is and isn't acceptable to view. Proven to be useless because all it does is make the children even more curious as to why it is censored.

 

 

 

2. What the government uses to keep the dumb masses from finding out the truth about its corruption and incompetence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Censorship is when things are blurred and bleeped out.

 

 

 

 

 

Here is a comical video on overcensoring everything from the Jimmy Kimmel Live show.

 

[hide=videos][yt]D8Vh9_Hi1kY[/yt]

 

 

 

[yt]ltGmjMBrLjs[/yt][/hide]

 

The purpose of this thread is to dertermine whether censorship is neccessary

 

 

 

Good points made by you guys:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Swearing - It's just words, using them has no real harmful affect on anyone. It's often used in bullying, but verbal abuse is verbal abuse, swearing isn't really a factor in that.

 

 

 

Violence - The news isn't censored and some parents have their kids watch that. Schools teach about wars and gang violence. Kids know about violence, the type of violence doesnt matter as all the worst kinds are covered in school anyway.

 

 

 

Nudity - It's the human body. What the hell is the harm in it?

 

 

 

It also gives teens and other people a reason to say them, if nothing was censored the words would probably lose their bad meaning and just be usual.

 

 

 

 

 

Swearing - It's just words, using them has no real harmful affect on anyone. It's often used in bullying, but verbal abuse is verbal abuse, swearing isn't really a factor in that.

 

 

 

Violence - The news isn't censored and some parents have their kids watch that. Schools teach about wars and gang violence. Kids know about violence, the type of violence doesnt matter as all the worst kinds are covered in school anyway.

 

 

 

Nudity - It's the human body. What the hell is the harm in it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Censorship is based on what the public deems decent or respectful, I mean you'd probably get worse outside your house than from a stupid TV.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am wondering your opinions on this matter. I will add your good and bad points above along with mine.

 

 

 

I honestly believe it should be up to the parents to provide censorship of things instead of the government. It is almost impossible to keep young children unexposed to violence of some sort of degree. What we see as violence as teenagers is different from what little todders see. When Bambi's mother is shot, we don't think of that as violent like someone getting decapitated. I think there should be an option, kind of like closed caption, to censor and uncensor things. I also think sex-ed should be taught every year from third grade on (at my school, we have a 45 minute period of sex education where they say sex is bad and show us pictures of herpies on a girl and guy.).

 

 

 

discuss. :shock:

wii_wheaton.png

[software Engineer] -

[Ability Bar Suggestion] - [Gaming Enthusiast]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly? It's dumb. It should be up to the parents to decide what the kids should and shouldn't see, but here's another thing.

 

 

 

Why is any of this stuff so bad anyway?

 

 

 

Swearing - It's just words, using them has no real harmful affect on anyone. It's often used in bullying, but verbal abuse is verbal abuse, swearing isn't really a factor in that.

 

 

 

Violence - The news isn't censored and some parents have their kids watch that. Schools teach about wars and gang violence. Kids know about violence, the type of violence doesnt matter as all the worst kinds are covered in school anyway.

 

 

 

Nudity and Sex - It's the human body. What the hell is the harm in it? Clothes were invented for protection and warmth, but who at one point considered it to be a crime to not wear clothes, especially in a time where it's not necesary.

LOTRjokesigedition-1.png

Get back here so I can rub your butt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally hate Censorship, as it deludes facts that could be shown.

 

 

 

Censorship is based on what the public deems decent or respectful, I mean you'd probably get worse outside your house than from a stupid TV.

If you do things right people won't be sure you've done anything at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly? It's dumb. It should be up to the parents to decide what the kids should and shouldn't see, but here's another thing.

 

 

 

Why is any of this stuff so bad anyway?

 

 

 

Swearing - It's just words, using them has no real harmful affect on anyone. It's often used in bullying, but verbal abuse is verbal abuse, swearing isn't really a factor in that.

 

Whats the difference between crap and sht? Same meaning basically, but since a group of people hated sht, we can't say it.

 

 

 

Violence - The news isn't censored and some parents have their kids watch that. Schools teach about wars and gang violence. Kids know about violence, the type of violence doesnt matter as all the worst kinds are covered in school anyway.

 

 

 

Nudity - It's the human body. What the hell is the harm in it?

 

 

 

 

 

Good points!

wii_wheaton.png

[software Engineer] -

[Ability Bar Suggestion] - [Gaming Enthusiast]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its bad. By censoring stuff they are only making it appear worse then it should be. If they did not censor "bad" words they would be nowhere near as "bad".

 

It also gives teens and other people a reason to say them, if nothing was censored the words would probably lose their bad meaning and just be usual.

10postchm2105.png

8,180

WONGTONG IS THE BEST AND IS MORE SUPERIOR THAN ME

#1 Wongtong stalker.

Im looking for some No Limit soldiers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Censorship for adults is wrong, but it is necessary for children. Censorship for children is to be at the discretion of their parents.

 

 

 

I'm completely fine with warning labels and age restrictions to a certain extent, but the government should have no right to impose restrictions on adults. I'm not a child any more and I have the capacity to judge for myself what is or isn't appropriate for me to watch. I'm not interested in government-sponsored nannying. That's not their business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a means by which to control millions of ignorant constituents. It is often used to brainwash the masses into believing that a certain ideology is evil, or it sets a taboo that prevents the advancement of the civilisation. For example, the US government led a crusade against communism during the 1950s. The masses were fed propaganda about communism being an ideology of atheists and anarchists; communists were forbidden to rally and they were often persecuted. Another example includes political correctness. Political correctness is also a device for propaganda that a government might implement in order to hide or "candy-coat" its own corruption and oppressiveness; they may choose specific wording in order to justify genocide or increment tensions with a rival nation. In summation, I believe that censorship destroys ideas and the ability to think freely.

SWAG

 

Mayn U wanna be like me but U can't be me cuz U ain't got ma swagga on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Censorship is horrible. All it does is shield your eyes from reality. The problem is that there is no escaping reality - we're all a part of reality and there's nothing you can do about it. You're going to encounter the stuff that's being hidden from you at one point or another, so why not desensitize yourself to it now?

 

 

 

PS: I can understand censorship for privacy reasons, such as blurring/bleeping addresses and the likes, of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To all the people that think censorship is bad, do you think it's okay to censor nudity (i.e censor body parts of both genders)?

10postchm2105.png

8,180

WONGTONG IS THE BEST AND IS MORE SUPERIOR THAN ME

#1 Wongtong stalker.

Im looking for some No Limit soldiers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To all the people that think censorship is bad, do you think it's okay to censor nudity (i.e censor body parts of both genders)?

 

Warn people that there will be graphic content if they proceed to watch. Don't let underage kids into R-rated movies.

 

Do all kinda of similar things, but don't blur crap out unless you're absolutely sure it'll reach children.

TIF-SIG-PREVAIL.jpg

IRC Nick: Hiroki | 99 Agility | Max Quest Points | 138 Combat

Bandos drops: 20 Hilt | 22 Chestplate | 21 Tassets | 14 Boots

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To all the people that think censorship is bad, do you think it's okay to censor nudity (i.e censor body parts of both genders)?

 

 

 

Unless the person being exposed specifically wants it censored from a certain audience (like public tv) for privacy reasons, then yes. We've lived without censors for centuries and we've done fine without them.

 

 

 

Violence - The news isn't censored and some parents have their kids watch that. Schools teach about wars and gang violence. Kids know about violence, the type of violence doesnt matter as all the worst kinds are covered in school anyway.

 

 

 

Great point. Two years ago I went to school wearing an Iron Maiden shirt with guns on it. An administrator forced me to go to the bathroom and wear it inside out. He said weapons are not allowed in the dress code. The ironic part about it is that their school mascot was a knight with a sword and they sold "School Spirit T-Shirts" with the mascot on it. All the admins' outfits had the mascot on them too. That's authority for you.

 

 

 

EDIT: This thread is purely rhetorical and I think taking away censors at this current moment would actually be a bad thing. We're used to things being hidden from us, so it would be too much of a shock factor for us to deal with. Censorship gave us the mentality that whatever is behind the censor is supposed to be shocking just because of the fact that it's censored. So now whenever we see the same thing without something covering it, there is a little more shock attached than there should be. Like Jaerk said, it's making things appear worse than they actually are. It was a bad idea to incorporate them in the first place and now it's kinda too late to change things. Although, if we did things slowly and gradually overtime then I can see a possibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with whoever said it should be up to the parents. Bad is what we see as "bad." I asked my parents why bad words are "bad" words and they couldnt give me a coherent answer.

 

 

 

I think a lot of "bad" words are synonyms for subjects considered taboo, like sex, bodily functions, etc. That is why a lot of people deem them "bad," because they dont want to talk or listen about them.

 

 

 

as for nudity, i agree, it is a body and our physical makeup. we see it everyday. once again, i think the "private" parts are part of the taboo subject of sex.

 

 

 

do we need censorship? it is a hard question, because we grow up with these ideas that these words and images are "bad" and really cant see the world without the censorship. I think a interesting experiement would be to not make a point to put more swear words or nudity on tv, just not edit any of it and let it run like on a dvd or in the theatres. just show the ratings as usual, even show a more extravagant warning, but just show it how it is. I want to see how people would react.

 

 

 

sorry, but to answer that question in my opinion, of course, would be no. We dont need censorship. how does using a "bad" word to accentuate a point cause any harm. how does seeing some bewbs immoral? do other animals have censorship? pretty much all the other animals are nude, they show mating on tv, even some shows show tribes that are pretty much nude, on tv. however, still have censored versioned of stuiff, if you feel the need to shield yourself or others.

99 Fishing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Curse words being censored on TV is a joke. A lot of family-friendly formats like 24 have had their scripts altered since the beginning to only use mild swears like 'damn' or 'dammit', which is also a good direction, but if swears are used... Why bother blanking them out?

 

 

 

For example, in France and some other European countries this practice doesn't exist. You can hear swearwords, see nudity and other 'bad' things during the day even at 15.00PM. People quickly become desensitized to things. They are no longer a taboo or something bad. If you forbid something, it just becomes more fascinating to young people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm...

 

 

 

1. I believe you're only commenting on censorship involving swearing, nudity and violence. What about censorship of material which may be harmful to the national security? Good idea? Bad idea? Just let every country in the world know all the security secrets of YOUR country??

 

 

 

2. Do any of you honestly believe that you should be able to say whatever you want, whenever you want, to whomever you want? IMHO that way lies anarchy.

 

 

 

3. Do any of you with children believe they should watch anything, listen to anything? At any age? If so I feel sorry for your children, if not where does the "censorship" begin and end?

 

 

 

4. Not too sure about the nudity issue. You can be arrested for being nude in public (oops nearly wrote pubic!!), via public decency violations, but can see any form of nudity in art galleries, museums etc. Apparently "art" is fine, whereas public nudity is not! I can't see the logic in that, personally, although I suppose you have the choice of viewing art but no choice if Joe Bloggs streaks down the street in front of you! (Although I wouldn't complain if it was Angelina Jolie!!)

 

 

 

The problem is not censorship per se, but the amount/form. Some censorship is essential (national security) whereas other forms are moral and open to interpretation (public nudity, swearing).

 

 

 

When I was a lot younger, I thought that censorship was totally wrong in all forms. Then I grew up and realise that some forms were needed, although some censorship was still over the top. Parental control cannot cover all types of censorship, what children learn amongst their friends cannot be controlled, they can hear far more in the schoolyard than they could on TV.

 

 

 

I've started to ramble. Basically, not all forms of censorship are needed and not all forms are bad. The main questions are where does one draw the line; and who do we choose to draw that line?

 

 

 

Happy to discuss

 

 

 

 

 

Teeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ruddy (Kevin Rudd) needs to learn a thing or two about how censorship should be. He is implementing a mandatory ISP-level internet filter. It uses a combination of whitelist/blacklist and active filtering. It has already been stated on several sites some (very) easy ways to get around the filter.

 

[hide=]

What do we know so far?

 

 

 

* Filtering will be mandatory in all homes and schools across the country.

 

* The clean feed will censor material that is "harmful and inappropriate" for children.

 

* The filter will require a massive expansion of the ACMA's blacklist of prohibited content.

 

* The Government wants to use dynamic filters of questionable accuracy that slow the internet down by an average of 30%.

 

* The filtering will target legal as well as illegal material.

 

* $44m has been budgeted for the implementation of this scheme so far.

 

* The clean-feed for children will be opt-out, but a second filter will be mandatory for all Internet users.

 

* A live pilot deployment is going ahead in the near future.

[/hide]

 

[hide=]

What we don't know is just as important.

 

 

 

* What age level is the country's Internet to be made appropriate for? 15? 10? 5 years old?

 

* Who decides what material is "appropriate" for Australians to see?

 

* How are lists of "illegal" material compiled?

 

* Who will maintain the blacklist of prohibited sites?

 

* How can sites mistakenly added to the list be removed?

[/hide]

 

[hide=]

There are free-speech concerns.

 

 

 

Although the initiative is intended and marketed as a tool to help protect children from the dangers of the Internet, this paternalistic scheme raises some troubling issues that affect all Australians. As a source of daily information, the Internet increases in importance every day. Do we really want the Government of the day deciding what Australian adults can and can't see? Do we want Australia to join a censorship club in which Burma, China and North Korea are the founding members?

 

 

 

* The list of prohibited sites will probably be secret, so it will be hard to know what content the Government has effectively banned.

 

* Filtering will be compulsory in all homes, even where there are no children.

 

* It is unknown whether there will be any way to have content removed from the prohibited list.

 

* How far will the list go, now and in future? Will it filter out material on sexual health, drug use, terrorism... even breastfeeding? Euthanasia and anorexia have been touted by Government MPs as topics worthy of filtering.

[/hide]

 

[hide=]

The Clean Feed is bad policy.

 

 

 

In short, even if it worked the filter would be terrible policy. By censoring the entire country's Internet access down to the level of a child of indeterminate age, it robs Australian adults of ability to make their own decisions about what content they view.

 

 

 

* Most Australians don't want the filter.Support for this overly broad policy is virtually non-existent, even from child-protection organisations. A recent survey shows that 51.5% of Australian net user strongly oppose the plan, while only 2.9% strongly support it.

 

* One size doesn't fit all. A single filter list can't deliver results that are appropriate for all parents, teens and children, with no way to customise the filter for your household.

 

* The protection for children is minor at best, an illusion at worst. The clean-feed does nothing to protect children from real threats like cyber-bullying, online sexual predators, viruses, or the theft of personal information. It may provide a false sense of security to parents, reducing effective monitoring of their children's online activities.

 

* The money is better spent elsewhere. The filter will cost tens of millions of dollars to attempt. Yet the Government's own studies admit education is more effective than filtering in protecting children, and that "content risks" are less dangerous than other risks.

 

* No other democracy has a scheme comparable to the clean-feed. Comparable systems in Europe only filter a handful of illegal sites, and then only to prevent accidental access.

[/hide]

 

 

 

For anyone interested, the Electronic Frontiers Australia have made a pdf to bring people up to speed on it. it coveres these 6 things:

 

 

 

1. Overview: What is the scheme, how did it come about?

 

2. Cyber-safety: Will the filter protect children and how?

 

3. Technical issues: How will the filter work and what are the technical difficulties?

 

4. Filtering overseas: How does this scheme compare to those in other democracies?

 

5. Combating illegal material: Will the filter crack down on the distribution of child abuse material online?

 

6. Filtering and free speech: Does the scheme pose a threat to our democratic freedoms?

Steam | PM me for BBM PIN

 

Nine naked men is a technological achievement. Quote of 2013.

 

PCGamingWiki - Let's fix PC gaming!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're on the cutting edge of current politics there Mage Man.

 

 

 

Was announed the start of last year.

 

 

 

The ISP filtering thing failed. 7 Major ISPs dropped out because it greatly reduced speed, filters were easy to bypass [some kid did it - it was in the news], blocking the wrong websites, and cost far too much.

 

 

 

Also, political content would also be blocked. Anti-abortion, blah, etc...

 

 

 

The blacklist is still being added to - wonder why.

 

 

 

When it went to senate - failed. Complete withdrawl about 4 months ago.

 

 

 

Only one major party seems to be still slightly interested. Nope, its not the libs. ;)

 

 

 

Met with much hesitation and reluctance - failed in the middle of last year basically.

 

 

 

Though I do understand why you'd post it here. For the sake of argument and all that.

 

 

 

But, still - there is a leson to be learned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Censorship is a bad idea, you should be allowed to see what you want to see if it's victimless. It's true that steps need to be taken to protect children, but that's the parent's/guardian's job. In fact, it would be ok if, say, free tweakable internet filter programs were handed out to parents/guardians of young children with a password lock, by the government, but everything should be optional.

~ W ~

 

sigzi.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Censorship is a necessary evil as it keeps (or at least should keep) certain content, particularly sexual and violent content away from children. However I do agree that material that is designed for adults should not be subject to any censorship unless it infringes the rights of other people.

 

 

 

Censorship is a bad idea, you should be allowed to see what you want to see if it's victimless. It's true that steps need to be taken to protect children, but that's the parent's/guardian's job.

 

 

 

That's okay in the home but it can't be applied in the outside world. If there is no censorship of consumer items (such as DVDs, CDs and games) then any child can buy what they want if they can afford it.

wild_bunch.gif

He who learns must suffer, and, even in our sleep, pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart,

and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God.

- Aeschylus (525 BC - 456 BC)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's okay in the home but it can't be applied in the outside world. If there is no censorship of consumer items (such as DVDs, CDs and games) then any child can buy what they want if they can afford it.

 

 

 

Well, what's wrong with games that advertise shooting, violence, blood, and nudity? There are pretty much no games that have actual 'sex' parts in it, unless you hack (E.G. GTASA). Can the average person under 18 do that?

 

No.

 

 

 

The media and over cautious parents complain "i dont want my son to be playing this game" for, what I have seen the top 2 reasons are:

 

 

 

1. It's against my religion

 

 

 

Well, maybe your son doesnt want to follow the same religion? At 13 it's easy to make a decision like this.

 

 

 

2. It promotes (insert something like: guns)

 

 

 

And what is bad about that? If we had no guns, we'd have no army. There may be the obvious comeback of "guns started warfare" but wars could be fought using fists, feet and simple weapons, and nuclear bombs, etcetera.

I dont need a siggy no moar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're on the cutting edge of current politics there Mage Man.

 

 

 

Was announed the start of last year.

 

 

 

The ISP filtering thing failed. 7 Major ISPs dropped out because it greatly reduced speed, filters were easy to bypass [some kid did it - it was in the news], blocking the wrong websites, and cost far too much.

 

 

 

Also, political content would also be blocked. Anti-abortion, blah, etc...

 

 

 

The blacklist is still being added to - wonder why.

 

 

 

When it went to senate - failed. Complete withdrawl about 4 months ago.

 

 

 

Only one major party seems to be still slightly interested. Nope, its not the libs. ;)

 

 

 

Met with much hesitation and reluctance - failed in the middle of last year basically.

 

 

 

Though I do understand why you'd post it here. For the sake of argument and all that.

 

 

 

But, still - there is a leson to be learned.

 

Yeah, it's not the latest thing but it is relevant, and shows what censorship is like when it starts to go too far. One thing I am hoping is that they give it up and just focus on the National Broadband Network.

 

 

 

2. It promotes (insert something like: guns)

 

 

 

And what is bad about that? If we had no guns, we'd have no army. There may be the obvious comeback of "guns started warfare" but wars could be fought using fists, feet and simple weapons, and nuclear bombs, etcetera.

 

I think what people don't like is impressionable kids getting these games and trying some stuff out. Another thing is guns are easier to obtain then bombs, and kill alot easier then fists could do. I am not saying I am against games like this, infact I love them and they often release stress for me.

Steam | PM me for BBM PIN

 

Nine naked men is a technological achievement. Quote of 2013.

 

PCGamingWiki - Let's fix PC gaming!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's okay in the home but it can't be applied in the outside world. If there is no censorship of consumer items (such as DVDs, CDs and games) then any child can buy what they want if they can afford it.

 

 

 

Well, what's wrong with games that advertise shooting, violence, blood, and nudity? There are pretty much no games that have actual 'sex' parts in it, unless you hack (E.G. GTASA). Can the average person under 18 do that?

 

No.

 

 

 

The media and over cautious parents complain "i dont want my son to be playing this game" for, what I have seen the top 2 reasons are:

 

 

 

1. It's against my religion

 

 

 

Well, maybe your son doesnt want to follow the same religion? At 13 it's easy to make a decision like this.

 

 

 

2. It promotes (insert something like: guns)

 

 

 

And what is bad about that? If we had no guns, we'd have no army. There may be the obvious comeback of "guns started warfare" but wars could be fought using fists, feet and simple weapons, and nuclear bombs, etcetera.

 

 

 

Children are far more likely to be influenced by media at a young age, if you glorify violence as a way to win and get on in life to children from a young age then they're more likely to act it out later. As for your point about guns, sure there would be no armies but you don't want children to be using them either. We live in a violent society as it is without pushing violence as a way of life and as entertainment onto children.

 

 

 

I agree with you on the religious point and it's an argument I use often - you can't make laws solely on religious grounds. I also concede that too often video games, music and films are used as a scapegoat within the media to explain why certain crimes are comitted but that still doesn't make games like GTA4 suitable for children.

wild_bunch.gif

He who learns must suffer, and, even in our sleep, pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart,

and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God.

- Aeschylus (525 BC - 456 BC)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Children are far more likely to be influenced by media at a young age, if you glorify violence as a way to win and get on in life to children from a young age then they're more likely to act it out later. As for your point about guns, sure there would be no armies but you don't want children to be using them either. We live in a violent society as it is without pushing violence as a way of life and as entertainment onto children.

 

:lol:

 

Do we have gladiators killing each other for our entertainment where the winner is bloodied from the loosers entrails? Do we go to the neighbouring town, kill the men and keep all the women as our own? Do we train our sons to kill from a young age? Do we offer sacrifices to gods, even if the sacrifice is our own child?

Steam | PM me for BBM PIN

 

Nine naked men is a technological achievement. Quote of 2013.

 

PCGamingWiki - Let's fix PC gaming!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.