Should media be censored?

[I cant think of a name]

I really think the government censoring our media is absurd, if parents want to keep their kids from hearing words people say are 'bad' on tv, they should get parental controls, instead of keeping swearing and nudity away from everyone.

Anyways, what is so harmful about showing breasts? Why is saying sh*t so much worse than saying crap? Are there any logical reasons to fine any tv station that allows nudity and bad words?

 

[legendary master Jose]

I really think the government censoring our media is absurd,

what do you propose?

if parents want to keep their kids from hearing words people say are 'bad' on TV,

so the n-word and f-word are nice to you

they should get parental controls, instead of keeping swearing and nudity away from everyone.

why do you want it so bad?/ some people have basic cable (in which there is no box to set controls on)

Anyways, what is so harmful about showing breasts?

The porn industry would go under, exposing children to sex

Why is saying sh*t so much worse than saying crap?

Crap is a noun, Sh*t can be used as a verb or noun.

Are there any logical reasons to fine any TV station that allows nudity and bad words?
they would be contributing more to the declining morals of society

comments in bold

 

[Noheart]

No, not really. I still don't understand while I say "Oh Shit!" instead of "Oh Poop!" people yell at me, since they mean the same thing.

Nudity, I'm going to have to disagree with you here. Words are just words, and I probably knew every single curse word since the fourth grade.

Let's just say you have a child. 4 years old, and he's watching an R-rated film with sexual content. How would you feel about that?

 

[SBaby]

I don't normally do debates, but this one was too appealing to pass up.

comments in bold

Well, based on this site's track record, I'd definitely NOT recommend this site to kids. But that's just me.

Back to the topic though. It depends on what form of media you mean.

I do think the news needs to be regulated, because nowadays the news is so opinionated that it serves as more of a propaganda device than anything information related. Just go to MSNBC, Fox News, or CNN and watch for about an hour and you'll see what I mean. Either that or you'll just agree with them and won't listen to what I have to say anyway.

As for entertainment. I don't think it needs to be censored. It shouldn't be the media's responsibility to show more kid-appropriate entertainment. It should be up to the parents to follow through on the committment they made when they had kids in the first place and supervise what they watch. And don't give me the 'I can't be there because I work' excuse. I work too, but I'd still find time for my kids if I was a parent. My parents did.

But at the same time, I think it's the news' fault too. Because they are often the first ones to blame any type of violence that's caused by minors on either video games or TV. That goes back to what I was saying about regulating the news. Teachers need to be regulated too, because alot of them use subliminal messaging in their classes. Especially college instructors.

 

[I cant think of a name]

I really think the government censoring our media is absurd,

what do you propose?

if parents want to keep their kids from hearing words people say are 'bad' on TV,

so the n-word and f-word are nice to you

they should get parental controls, instead of keeping swearing and nudity away from everyone.

why do you want it so bad?/ some people have basic cable (in which there is no box to set controls on)

Anyways, what is so harmful about showing breasts?

The porn industry would go under, exposing children to sex

Why is saying sh*t so much worse than saying crap?

Crap is a noun, Sh*t can be used as a verb or noun.

Are there any logical reasons to fine any TV station that allows nudity and bad words?
they would be contributing more to the declining morals of society

comments in bold

1. I propose we stop censoring the media, isn't that a bit obvious?

2. No, they're not 'nice' to me, they're just words, like any other one, no liberties are taken away, if you are strongly offended, you'll get parental controls

3. If they have cable, they obviously don't care enough about blocking the material, no one's being forced to get TV in the first place though.

4. First, nudity doesn't mean sex, nudity is just what people look like without clothes. Second, even if porn is on TV, it's the parent's job to enforce morality in the house, not the government's.

5. This is irrelevant, and crap can be used as a verb.

6. There's no strict definition of morals though, I could just as easily say the word 'sky' is wrong.

 

[shining-Celebi]

Tantalizing thread, I was going to post this topic, but never got around to it.

Europe doesn't censor shows, just look at Big Brother: they show everything in the shower scenes.
Why can't kids watch what is natural in the first place? I think being exposed to nudity early, will cure the "curiosity" or "nudity is forbiddenn111!!!!" bug, that will put less teens in wedlock.

I mean Japan's Shonen Jump would be rated probably MA18+ compared to the American one. And last I heard Japan's population was in decline.

I'll post more later, I have a lot more to say.

 

[SBaby]

Real quick here.

Let's just say you have a child. 4 years old, and he's watching an R-rated film with sexual content. How would you feel about that?

If I had a 4-year-old child, he would never be ALLOWED to watch an R-rated movie. What parent in their right mind would let their kid do that? But it's not the fault of the company that made the movie. The rating is on the package, plain as day. They've done their job.

 

[Carlisle]

Why in the world should I care about declining morals?

Breasts are breasts. "Half the country has them, the other half of the country wants them." In Europe, breasts are no issue. Is everyone bursting into flames? No.

I don't see why my tv, radio, media, movies should have to be censored for a bunch of snot nosed little brats. Children are not the majority of this world, I could care less if one sees a breast. They're a natural part of the female body that should not be required to be hidden.

 

[Willow's Tara]

Okay can someone tell me this, how is it worse for a kid to see an Ice ad or Speed ad where a guy is screaming or a girl is digging out her skin on her arm compared to seeing two breasts which is the most natural thing in the world. Same with the news, they show all kinds of crap that could terrifly a kid yet one nipple and the entire world freaks out.

And can I ask something else, the world freaks out about real breasts correct? But yet they have no problems the media showing statues with nipples on them, sure they are silver or gold but there's bo different, or they show those fake rubbery breasts that people buy at the store or whatever and nobody is bothered by that.

I do think the media shouldn't bve censored especially nudity since it does not harm anyone. Maybe if parents sat their kids down and explained to them that it's a natural thing and they shouldn't worrying about it, or when it comes to violence tell them it's just fictional and ask them if they can handle it, or just control what they watch since they already do that.

 

[Fused]

why do you want it so bad?/ some people have basic cable (in which there is no box to set controls on)

Actually, more TVs nowadays have soem sort of parental cotnrol on them regardless of what kind of cable you have.

The porn industry would go under, exposing children to sex

He was talking about seeing bare breats, not full frontal porn sex orgy. Half the population has breasts which theys ee everyday so it's nothing new to them. The other half only gets excited because it's taboo. Not to mention this other half has breasts, just without all the technical stuff. It's two balls on a person's upper torso, get over it.

And if breasts are so bad, why were they created? "If something about the human body disgusts you, the fault lies with the manufacturer."

And think abotu this, if we all said "nigger" and "faggot" without thinking about it, by next year they wouldn't be anythign hurtful or taboo cause society would get bored of them.

Crap is a noun, Sh*t can be used as a verb or noun.

Meaning what? Just because one can be a verb and a noun doesn't mean anything.

The crackdown on cencroship is really getting out of hand. You can't say Jesus without Jesus being in the shot. You can't show people sitting on the toilet takign a crap, even though everyone of all ages does it. On a Family Guy episode, it was okay to say "cowboy gay sex" but it wasn't okay to say "cowboy butt sex." You can talk about masturbation, but not about pooping. It's a messed up line cencors walk.

The laws of obscenity can never be constant because what we consider moral keeps shifting. Society creates taboos with it's insecurities.

 

[Skaisdead]

Profanity and Nudity are only offensive because we as a culture believe that they are offensive. In most European countries, television is not censored, for the most part. If nudity is offensive, then why are some of the most well-renown works of art based off of it?

Why are ****, ****, or ****** offensive? Because we believe that they are supposed to be. Television should not have been censored in the first place, but now that these things are so controversial, there's really no way we can safely introduce them back into our acceptable culture.

 

[Tim the turtle]

No, not really. I still don't understand while I say "Oh ****!" instead of "Oh Poop!" people yell at me, since they mean the same thing.

No, they don't. Meaning is not simply described as the literal translation, it covers all sorts of other factors, including the social connotations of a word. Shit means a stronger variant of crap and is why it is more heavily consored.

Words are just words

Please tell me you don't honestly think that.

Oh, and all these comments are brilliantly hillarious:

It should be up to the parents to follow through on the committment they made when they had kids in the first place and supervise what they watch.

If I had a 4-year-old child, he would never be ALLOWED to watch an R-rated movie. What parent in their right mind would let their kid do that? But it's not the fault of the company that made the movie. The rating is on the package, plain as day. They've done their job.

What you're essentially arguing is that the media should, nay, must be consored. But the responsibility has to lie with the parents because... uh, well, that's where your arguments fall down. If you claim the media has to be censored then why not just let the government do it?

And think abotu this, if we all said "******" and "***got" without thinking about it, by next year they wouldn't be anythign hurtful or taboo cause society would get bored of them.

Because one year of openness is long enough to get rid of decades of oppression and prejudice

To all of those arguing that we need to be open with curse words so that they don't become offensive anymore, how do you then propose that we, er, offend people? Dramatic TV can be greatly enhanced by the clever use of curse words, but if they didn't offend us then they would lose all impact and the drama itself, the media, would be less entertaining.

Though yes, America probably could do with loosening up on the whole tits thing.

 

[Killer_Squirtle]

well within reason. I mean they can censor shows for younger children's shows, but you have to respect free speech. If they swear, it must be to illustrate their passion for what they're saying.

 

[Tyrant Tar]

I wonder how breasts got censored. Just about every human being, err, used them at a very early age. And they don't (naturally) do anything "adult."

 

[Surfing_Pikachu]

Stop being selfish. Some things can really be bad for kids you know. You wouldn't want little kids talking about having sex and cussing, would you? And violence leads to mental scarring.

 

[I cant think of a name]

No, they don't. Meaning is not simply described as the literal translation, it covers all sorts of other factors, including the social connotations of a word. Shit means a stronger variant of crap and is why it is more heavily consored.

But why should it be? If someone is offended by sh*t, they'll get parental controls or just won't watch that program.

Please tell me you don't honestly think that.

How is that not true though? Last time I said fuck, I don't think anyone died.

Oh, and all these comments are brilliantly hillarious:

What you're essentially arguing is that the media should, nay, must be consored. But the responsibility has to lie with the parents because... uh, well, that's where your arguments fall down. If you claim the media has to be censored then why not just let the government do it?

Because if the government does it, nobody can watch a show with swearing in it, all for a few kids. If parents do it, the kids are 'protected' from the real world and the adults still get to listen to words surrounded by stupid taboos.

Stop being selfish. Some things can really be bad for kids you know. You wouldn't want little kids talking about having sex and cussing, would you? And violence leads to mental scarring.

There are three things wrong with this post:
1. The parents would be able to put parental controls on their TV right? I'm not being selfish by wanting to see boobs on TV.
2. Is there any real problem with cussing? They are, after all, just words. And I wasn't necessarily proposing that we allow sex on TV, and breasts won't make kids have sex.
3. Is there any evidence violence does lead to mental scarring?

 

[pokemaster001]

No, they don't. Meaning is not simply described as the literal translation, it covers all sorts of other factors, including the social connotations of a word. Shit means a stronger variant of crap and is why it is more heavily consored.

*raises eyebrow*

Please tell me you don't honestly think that.

*raises other eyebrow*
it's true, words mean what they mean, it's like saying good or nice are different because someone told you that they were
kids should be able to see everything except for.....how they're made

 

[Tim the turtle]

How is that not true though? Last time I said ****, I don't think anyone died.

Right and the last time someone shouted racist abuse at a legal Polish immigrant he simply sauntered on by with a doff of his cap and a jaunty smile on his face.

Because if the government does it, nobody can watch a show with swearing in it, all for a few kids. If parents do it, the kids are 'protected' from the real world and the adults still get to listen to words surrounded by stupid taboos.

A few kids? I'm pretty sure that during certain times of the day kids will be the majority audience.

it's like saying good or nice are different because someone told you that they were

Uh, good and nice are not synonymous.

 

[I cant think of a name]

Right and the last time someone shouted racist abuse at a legal Polish immigrant he simply sauntered on by with a doff of his cap and a jaunty smile on his face.

But if people are offended by those words, they just won't watch the show, it's not like they're being tied to the couch and forced to watch KKK rallies.

A few kids? I'm pretty sure that during certain times of the day kids will be the majority audience.

The amount of kids is, for the most part, irrelevant. My point, which you ignored, is that with no censorship, adults can watch what they please while kids can be 'protected' with parental controls. With censorship, adults have to watch 'kid friendly' TV, just because of kids who would be protected anyways.

Uh, good and nice are not synonymous.

You, once again, are just targeting irrelevant parts of the post. The point the post made was that there is no strict definition of which words are good or bad, it's something created by society. Since it's not illegal to not follow society, why should it be illegal to broadcast material going against society.

 

[Tim the turtle]

But if people are offended by those words, they just won't watch the show, it's not like they're being tied to the couch and forced to watch KKK rallies.

Unfortunately it's not really that simple. There are many times when parents cannot regulate everything a child watches because of work etc. Now what I find interesting is that you clearly oppose censorship but do think that it's necesarry around children by advocating parental controls.

The amount of kids is, for the most part, irrelevant. My point, which you ignored, is that with no censorship, adults can watch what they please while kids can be 'protected' with parental controls. With censorship, adults have to watch 'kid friendly' TV, just because of kids who would be protected anyways.

I didn't ignore your point. If, at a certain time of the day (say when school finishes) kids are the largest audience demographic then it makes sense to broadcast kid friendly shows. Seeing as how children tend to watch TV from that point onwards until bed time there's little point in putting on shows that aren't kid friendly. I personally don't like censorship in the shows I watch, but I think it has its uses, and I honestly don't see why you can't just wait until the watershed to view adult programmes.

The point the post made was that there is no strict definition of which words are good or bad,

It not being strictly prescriptivist has utterly no bearing on the fact that words can cause offence. Yes language is subject to change, but that doesn't make it meaningless. You can't just ignore taboo language because it doesn't offend you, because as you pointed out, language is based on society and you are not society.

it's something created by society.

Then why can't society censor it?

Since it's not illegal to not follow society, why should it be illegal to broadcast material going against society.

Because you live in and are a member of society, that means you do have to conform to certain aspects of it if you want to experience its benefits. If you want society to provide you with entertaining television then you also have to accept that society can impose its moral standards on that entertainment, however much you agree with it.