Should media be censored?

[I cant think of a name]

If he is raised to believe it is demeaning to women and inappropriate, he doesn't give a rat's ass whether you think he has an excuse. He will be angry and offended. Take for example the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy of 2005. Muslims were outraged that Muhammad had not been censored. They issued death threats to the Danish. No anti-censorship parties were outraged before when his image was censored. It goes to show that those in favor of censorship are far for more outspoken and volatile than those against it. They believe their defence of morality supercedes the press's freedom of expression. Censorship, at least in the case of the Danish cartoons, is a lesser-of-two-evils kind of deal.

I understand people will freak out, but that's no excuse for violating people's rights.

Well, then. Television must be one giant hotbed of crime.

Not crime, just unconstitutional legislation in the works.

 

[JamestheFreak]

censoring is the reason why we cant have nice things, i mean seriously kids will learn this stuff like swearing eventually especially from their parents

 

[Wigglytuff FTW!]

censoring is the reason why we cant have nice things, i mean seriously kids will learn this stuff like swearing eventually especially from their parents

I agree, but I'd say, keep the harsh stuff on the down low, make it go on really late. I don't like censorship, especially when I'm watching stand-up. (Except when there's so many bleeps, it's almost like morse code, THAT'S funny.)
But things shouldn't be hidden just 'cuz some crazy republican says so.

 

[I cant think of a name]

I agree, but I'd say, keep the harsh stuff on the down low, make it go on really late.

Why should they have to? Isn't it the parents responsibility to protect children?

 

[Wigglytuff FTW!]

Why should they have to? Isn't it the parents responsibility to protect children?

Good point, but still, there are parents who would let their children watch the stuff, which would lead to an unnecessary media uproar.
(Btw, I'm going to bed, I won't be here for a while)

 

[I cant think of a name]

Good point, but still, there are parents who would let their children watch the stuff, which would lead to an unnecessary media uproar.
(Btw, I'm going to bed, I won't be here for a while)

Well, is there proof that that material is harmful to children? Last time an 8 year old watched porn, I don't think his head exploded.

 

[Vaporeon4evr]

I understand people will freak out, but that's no excuse for violating people's rights.

It's the lesser of two evils, I'm afraid :/ You either have pro-censorship people freak out, or anti-censorship parties voice condemnation. Censorship's aim is to avoid trouble. It's goal is to express a sensitivity to people's morals, lest they become enraged and violent like the muslims did in 2005. Lack of censorship infuriates the people. Censorship infuriates the companies that publish the material, if at all. A government would rather have civil peace with its people.

Not crime, just unconstitutional legislation in the works.

Right, because in this case, they'd rather avoid trouble than uphold the virtues of free press. Unfair, perhaps, but ultimately a necessary sacrifice. And even the publishers of explicit material would have some degree of sensitivity toward the public's morals. In most cases, they aren't dying for the country to see the explicit material.

 

[I cant think of a name]

It's the lesser of two evils, I'm afraid :/ You either have pro-censorship people freak out, or anti-censorship parties voice condemnation. Censorship's aim is to avoid trouble. It's goal is to express a sensitivity to people's morals, lest they become enraged and violent like the muslims did in 2005. Lack of censorship infuriates the people. Censorship infuriates the companies that publish the material, if at all. A government would rather have civil peace with its people.

Right, because in this case, they'd rather avoid trouble than uphold the virtues of free press. Unfair, perhaps, but ultimately a necessary sacrifice. And even the publishers of explicit material would have some degree of sensitivity toward the public's morals. In most cases, they aren't dying for the country to see the explicit material.

I think you're exaggerating the effects of ending censorship, there would not be riots about censorship, and if there are, you shouldn't back down and let these people control the law, you should let them voice their opinion, and if they commit a crime, arrest them.

 

[Vaporeon4evr]

I think you're exaggerating the effects of ending censorship, there would not be riots about censorship, and if there are, you shouldn't back down and let these people control the law, you should let them voice their opinion, and if they commit a crime, arrest them.

Perhaps, but it doesn't negate the fact that the majority of opposition would come from those in favor of censorship. After all, they are defending themselves. Those opposed to censorship are simply fighting an unconstitutional act of which they are not personally even victims. And majority rule, after all, is a principle of democracy. Many rules and laws are tailored around sensitivity to the population's morality. A government such as our own is keen on preventing civil unrest.

 

[I cant think of a name]

Perhaps, but it doesn't negate the fact that the majority of opposition would come from those in favor of censorship. After all, they are defending themselves. Those opposed to censorship are simply fighting an unconstitutional act of which they are not personally even victims. And majority rule, after all, is a principle of democracy. Many rules and laws are tailored around sensitivity to the population's morality. A government such as our own is keen on preventing civil unrest.

The fact that censorship came about democratically is not an excuse for unconstitutional government. We have the right to vote, but it is an abuse to vote on everything, the voters must be limited by the constitution. No man has the right to vote away another man's rights to life, liberty, or property. Is it acceptable for the majority to throw you in jail without a trial as long as they vote on it? Fuck no!

"I object to the idea that people have the right to vote on everything, the traditional American system was a system based on the idea that majority will prevail only in public or political affairs, and that it was limited by inviolable individual rights, therefore I do not believe that the majority can vote a man's life, property, or freedom away from him. Therefore I do not believe that if a majority vote on any issue, that this makes the issue right, it doesn't."-Ayn Rand

 

[Vaporeon4evr]

The fact that censorship came about democratically is not an excuse for unconstitutional government. We have the right to vote, but it is an abuse to vote on everything, the voters must be limited by the constitution. No man has the right to vote away another man's rights to life, liberty, or property. Is it acceptable for the majority to throw you in jail without a trial as long as they vote on it? Fuck no!

"I object to the idea that people have the right to vote on everything, the traditional American system was a system based on the idea that majority will prevail only in public or political affairs, and that it was limited by inviolable individual rights, therefore I do not believe that the majority can vote a man's life, property, or freedom away from him. Therefore I do not believe that if a majority vote on any issue, that this makes the issue right, it doesn't."-Ayn Rand

Fair enough. Unconstitutional as it may be, however, the fight against it has thus far been relatively unsuccessful. I just don't think banning censorhip allows the publishers of the material to gain very much, other than the satisfaction of their explicit material being shown to the public. But I will concede that I am opposed to government-controlled censorship. I'm not sure whether the government regulates it or not, though.

 

[I cant think of a name]

Fair enough. Unconstitutional as it may be, however, the fight against it has thus far been relatively unsuccessful. I just don't think banning censorhip allows the publishers of the material to gain very much, other than the satisfaction of their explicit material being shown to the public.

Well, they'd be able to put porn on tv, which is clearly very profitable or else there wouldn't be any tv channels.

But I will concede that I am opposed to government-controlled censorship. I'm not sure whether the government regulates it or not, though.

The FCC forces tv stations to bleep out 'bad' words and blur nudity and the middle finger.

 

[Vaporeon4evr]

Well, they'd be able to put porn on tv, which is clearly very profitable or else there wouldn't be any tv channels.

The porn industry wouldn't be happy about this new "free porn". But that's a subpoint I'd rather not get into.

I could hardly imagine the outrage that would ensue if pornography were allowed to be broadcasted on the air. Especially if it is for the sole purpose of revenue.

The FCC forces tv stations to bleep out 'bad' words and blur nudity and the middle finger.

Hm. I suppose I just fail to see what the tv stations would have to significantly gain if these tiny censorships are removed. I mean, it doesn't require any significant amount of imagination to figure out what's going on.

 

[Farmermon]

The porn industry wouldn't be happy about this new "free porn". But that's a subpoint I'd rather not get into.

I could hardly imagine the outrage that would ensue if pornography were allowed to be broadcasted on the air. Especially if it is for the sole purpose of revenue.



Hm. I suppose I just fail to see what the tv stations would have to significantly gain if these tiny censorships are removed. I mean, it doesn't require any significant amount of imagination to figure out what's going on.

Haha but we men find life much better to visualize then imagine No they might not gain MUCH but they would gain a little, and gaining a little is better than staying the same!

 

[I cant think of a name]

The porn industry wouldn't be happy about this new "free porn". But that's a subpoint I'd rather not get into.

The free porn would be combined with advertising, making it more profitable. If tv wasn't more profitable, tv shows would just sell using the same methods as the porn industry.

I could hardly imagine the outrage that would ensue if pornography were allowed to be broadcasted on the air. Especially if it is for the sole purpose of revenue.

Well, frankly, the people who get outraged should just shut up, change the channel, and read the constitution.

Hm. I suppose I just fail to see what the tv stations would have to significantly gain if these tiny censorships are removed. I mean, it doesn't require any significant amount of imagination to figure out what's going on.

They would possibly gain more viewers, what would the average man rather see, pixelated breasts or real ones?

 

[Starlight Aurate]

As far as swearing goes, in some cases no, and in some cases yes. If it's a video or something they have on the internet, they should say if they'll censor it, because listening to censored videos are annoying in my opinion and I was just listening to one that didn't say it was censored.

If it's a naked person on TV, I say yes. If your an innocent person channel flipping and see somebody naked, that would disturbing and bad, in my opinion.

They would possibly gain more viewers, what would the average man rather see, pixelated breasts or real ones?

It depends on how dirty they are.

 

[Vaporeon4evr]

The free porn would be combined with advertising, making it more profitable. If tv wasn't more profitable, tv shows would just sell using the same methods as the porn industry.

Well, frankly, the people who get outraged should just shut up, change the channel, and read the constitution.

They would possibly gain more viewers, what would the average man rather see, pixelated breasts or real ones?

Frankly, pornography is easily accessible as it is. You and I both know this (). Pornography has its place.

 

[I cant think of a name]

Frankly, pornography is easily accessible as it is. You and I both know this (). Pornography has its place.

And why should we have to use the internet etc.? Having porn on tv won't hurt anyone, will it? However, censorship is a violation of the constitution and a dangerous slippery slope to disrespect for it.

 

[Vaporeon4evr]

And why should we have to use the internet etc.? Having porn on tv won't hurt anyone, will it? However, censorship is a violation of the constitution and a dangerous slippery slope to disrespect for it.

Because you're just asking for trouble. No, porn won't kill anyone if its on television, but people will see it as an attack and disrespect of their morals. They will feel insulted. I don't see why pornography can't just stay on the internet, etc., and if tv stations want to make money off of porn, they can use a medium that isn't television.

Censorship has been around forever, yet we haven't fallen into this "slippery slope" you've described.

 

[I cant think of a name]

Because you're just asking for trouble. No, porn won't kill anyone if its on television, but people will see it as an attack and disrespect of their morals. They will feel insulted. I don't see why pornography can't just stay on the internet, etc., and if tv stations want to make money off of porn, they can use a medium that isn't television.

Well, I feel censorship is an attack and disrespect of the constitution, and the state is supposed to follow the constitution and not people's morals. Another thing, why is porn acceptable on the internet, but not on tv?

Censorship has been around forever, yet we haven't fallen into this "slippery slope" you've described.

The Patriot Act and the Drug War, for example. Either way, one violation of the constitution is too many.