Should media be censored?

[Hammerheart]

Id just like to point out, if it hasnt allready been mentioned. That there isnt all that much media that is censored.
As far as Im aware, Music isn't Censored. (Apart from the ban on Cannibal Corpse in Germany for a while.

Films (at least in the UK) aren't censored. The BBFC are merely a classification company. They don't make cuts to films any more. they just give them ratings on what they see. Any cuts will have been made by the Director in order to get the desired Classification. There are only a handfull of things that are out rite banned, Actual Death, Beastiality, Necrophilia, Paedophilia and a few other things, which I cant remember at the moment.
But then the film is banned all together, not censored.
And as far as Im aware its the same everywhere else.
But, local authorities can overrule a BBFC classification, if they dont agree with it.
for example, the film Sweet Sixteen, was an 18 rated film, but the Director ken Loach argued that it was about the lives of 15 year olds it should be a 15. but cause it said the C word (not crap), more than 4 times, it had to be an 18. There was also violence and drug taking, which bumped up the rating to 18. But some local authorities in scotland, were its set, put it down to 15.
But still nothing was censored.

The only media I can think of thats censored is TV. but thats for the protection of those watching it. between say 3 and 9 the chances are there will be a lot of kids watching TV, even if the programs arnt aimed at them.
I really dont see the harm in waiting for the watershed.

 

[Vaporeon4evr]

To mandate parental controls is to illegalize the sale of television sets without controls, why is that necessary in any way? How is that good in any way? Remember, anytime a law is created, the burden of proof is on whoever supports the law to show why the law is necessary, as everything is legal by default. I don't see how it is necessary, so you still have to explain the reason for it.

I think you are overexaggeratin the implications of my proposal. Requiring televisions to have parental controls would be no more outlandish than to require cars to have seat belts, or public restrooms to have handicap-accessible stalls. You make it sound as though I'm trying to illegalize the production and sale of all television sets that do not carry them. That's not the case at all. Make the parental controls standard, part of the regulations for manufacturing. I'm not asking for a new law banning non-parental control televisions.

 

[I cant think of a name]

I think you are overexaggeratin the implications of my proposal. Requiring televisions to have parental controls would be no more outlandish than to require cars to have seat belts, or public restrooms to have handicap-accessible stalls. You make it sound as though I'm trying to illegalize the production and sale of all television sets that do not carry them. That's not the case at all. Make the parental controls standard, part of the regulations for manufacturing. I'm not asking for a new law banning non-parental control televisions.

True, but still, there is no reason to mandate parental controls if they will already be on a sufficient number of television sets. Since everything is legal until legislation is proven necessary, you still have to prove it necessary.

As for requiring cars to have seat belts, first, seat belts are for safety purposes, not personal preferences (as parental controls are). Second, if the buyer does not want to have a car without seat belts, he will not buy cars that lack them, if he does not care, he will consider buying a car without a seat belt, meaning that car companies that do not implement seat belts will only have a chance to sell to a small part of the population, clearly a poor business decision, as a result, almost every car company will have seat belts. So I oppose seat belt requirements even though they are fundamentally very much more necessary than parental controls.