Multiple choices, if I dont include one, be free to include that in the message section. Yes, this is like another one of my threads, but it a little more in depth
It is what the MAJORITY of people want to have taken out, deleted or removed so that the MAJORITY of people will not ne offended by the MINORITY which likes to ridicule them from time to time. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Funny how polls are always biased. I mean "Yes Censorship Is Right. It Will Destroy Society" and "Yes Cenosrship Is Right. Just Because Its Art Doesnt Mean It Can Be Offensive", both have the ingrained perspective of the OP. Is Censorship Right... Well it depends doesn't it. I mean is it write for personal details about you to be kept on a publically available database without your knowledge (unless of course you go look for it?) Simplest answer there is most would want privacy, unless of course they crave attention. Is Censorship Right to remove cuss words... To be honest the English language is so huge, it doesn't really need the use of explicit language anyway. Therefore their shouldn't be need to Censor because people shouldn't need to use language that needs censoring. As does language need censoring... Well as you get older it means less, I think the major concern has always emphasised the "Impressionable Youth", which are proven over and over again to be extremely impressionable. Of course not just with bad language, but bouts of violence... I mean you don't like someone or hate a group of people most people that have lived a while know to just ignore them, youngsters however can feel they want to deal with them, act out their aggression perhaps "kill them" and thats a fact of society. Films, Games and Music are constantly seen as being the reason. Perhaps it's down to the children watching them, perhaps it's more down to bad parenting because the parents are too absorbed by those vices, other vices or just the troubles and tribulations of being an adult. Should a bunch of people run round screaming anti-jew/muslim/american/gay/straight/vegetarian etc slogans and claim Free Speech, simply no. It should be censored if it's extremist, why? Well it incites incidents, which if unchecked can spread like wildfire. I wouldn't suggest that such incitements should be ever classed as Free Speech.
what you just did is an example of why censorship is wrong. You just set an example for the same mindset of the censors. They want to dictate what people see and hear which is anti-american and anti-freedom of speech. If you want to be told what is right and wrong be my guest, but I will not be told what my morals are or if I even want to abide by them
I disagree. I've never heard of an upstanding argument or case of teen violence caused by a lack of censorship in art. So whats free speach to you? Say whats okay to everyone else?
Hi Varda! Where have you been? Anyway, censorship in general, under the generally accepted definition, can only lead to oppression and ignorance. (As if ignorance doesn't abound everywhere, always) If someone publishes the truth, who gets hurt? The person who is named guilty in the original publication, that's who. Possible censorship exceptions exist for military secrets, etc. - but, these should be confined to a relatively short period and still subject to oversight by some sort of body of citizens representing... are you ready... for sure?... THE CITIZENS. Sunshine is good... :m:
agreed. People are scared of the truth, especialy special intrest groups. Including the government and people like Tipper Gore (one of the founders of the Parental Advisory sticker) who gain publicity and a name for themselves by blameing violence and sexuality on explicit art. Plus, they dont want people thinking for themselves so that they can fill that empty space with their lies and politics
Internet groops for instence.!!! Is it right for somone who creates a groop for the purpose of discussin cookin/recipies... to censor other people who want to fill the groop wit sports stories.???
Actually it was an example of Sarcasm and English Humour, which probably due to the extra letter "u" has somehow been missed. In fact, you could suggest that Roosovelts "Labotomy" of the English language to generate the US variants, was itself a form of censorship. So please stop censoring your words from the extra letters. (Again an atttempt at Humour...)
I know you were being sarcastic and I know you were joking, but you still perfectly set an example of what censors do. You (joking or otherwise) made an outward lash towards someone who disagreed with something you said. Same as the censors do. What he said could be seen as unpleasent or conservsial so you crossed it out. I know that you were kidding, but what I wasnt saying that you were serious
Pre/Young Teens are the most impressionable, in fact back in the 40's and 50's, I'm guessing children wanted to be superheroes idolised in comic books and cartoons. You didn't exactly have a sudden bout of underpants on the outside wearing heroes remove criminals from society, but what you did have was potentially the morals imparted onto those children for that period and later periods. As time has marched on, the increase in video's that are turned out by hollywood each year for the adult market means that some of those videos get watched by youngsters, sometimes even while the parents know. This of course is not always a problem, as long as the parent is responsible and understands to play a part in that child's development, the problems usually occur where the child gets ignored and the video's are used as a distraction just to keep the out the hair of a parent that deepdown wishes they never had a kid. That sort of neglegance is what is responsible for teenagers acting out things that they overwise wouldn't have if their social development had the parent being more involved. Hollywood and other film presences throughout the world, no longer try to push "heroes" or "Moral" stories, the main reason for this is because people get bored of hearing the same story or being about to guesswork a plot. The public wants Action, which usually requires violence and likely sex is incorporated too. As a film is rarely aimed at just one particular stereotypical group but made to attempt to elleviate as much ticket sales as possible from the widest audience possible. It's not up to hollywood to molly cuddle, heck it's not really up to a government to do that. The only reason why groups or governments empart censorship on films however is when you have cases of either parents not being good enough to know whats best, or when individuals are screwed up so bad they don't know whats best. I mean take the instance of a guy that killed and ate his friend because of the film "Queen of the damned", Telling him to do so.... Okay it wasn't the film, it wasn't the actress that played the role, it's because the guy was obsessed with the film and had a number of real life issues. In fact the blaming of a film is probably inspired by lawyers who want to make money out of defending someone that is caught red handed (or potentially stomach pumped in this case) and is unmistakenly guilty. Should there of been censorship? Well the guy that got killed and eaten would probably agree their should, if only for those people that need psychiatric help. The initial meaning of "Free Speech" as in regards to a US declaration is the Freedom of either expression or the freedom to put forwards an opinion. If you are trying to run a "Democratic" country then you require people to play an important role in it's development and this can only be done through open discussion. This means if someone comes up with an idea of how something should be done, then it should be shared for the common good as it might be better than the way that it would otherwise be handled. However this means the consensus has to identify if it's worth listening to, and it shouldn't be shouted and ranted as a repetative retort when a person believes they aren't being heard. In fact when it comes down to things that undermine the overall consensus because either a person feels that their view isn't being heard or they think everyone should agree with them, thats when people can assume "Muting" rather than censorship can occur. (Incidentally we don't "Mute" people here at Sciforums, for the most part we let them rant, the problem is that it can degrade the service that people would otherwise like to have here, which means occasional people act accordingly to it.) People that vocalise that human rights should be undermined or a particular person, party or country should be lynched, are not playing a positive part, they aren't helping in identifying a problem and looking for an ammicable and alround beneficial solution, they are just an exact equal and opposite to whatever the problem is, making them too also a problem. "Self-Censorship" only works for people that are "A-typical: Normal", unfortunately with an ever growing worldly population we are more and more likely to be in each others faces increasing the likelihood that someones going to be offensive and cause some form of trauma which in turn causes a psychiatric issue. So I guess you could say that "A-typical: Normal" is far and few between, which undermines "Self-Censorship". Thats why sometimes people have to impart regulation, to try and Standardise a little so as to stop people becoming too psychotic in the long run.
What if it isn't the truth? The same guy still gets hurt. There are good reasons to censor possible slanderous or libelous media. IMO
That is why I specifically included the word "truth". Now who gets to decide what is "true" is a whole different kettle of fish, and is usually up to the courts, ultimately. That is why you mentioned "slanderous" and "libelous" - often legally actionable. (At least that is what I think is the truth about why you used those terms... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!) /head spins
