Censorship

[Sephiroth Crescent]

I don't think a thread about this has been created, so bear with me here!

I want to get my peers opinions about two types of censorship: Media and Art.

Media(maybe not the best word): This has been a conflict of interest for quite some time, should people be censored if what they say offends somebody(Don Imus). Should people be allowed to say whatever they want even if it interferes with the peace?

Art: Somebody draws something "suggestive" and calls it art, but some people see it instead as something else...if something suggestive(example two people making love) is drawn should it be displayed publicly, or in a more private place?

- Sephir8th

 

[Aeralea]

Censorship is a touchy subject and everyone has strong opinions on the matter.

I don't believe in censorship, I think that we can all make judgements on what we should and shouldn't see. I don't think that it is fair for others to make that decision for us. I think that as long as you are of sound mind and considered an adult then you should have the freedom to make your own decision. There are some pretty crappy and grotesque things in this world, but it should be up to the individual about whether than want access to the material.

I think certain things should definetly be censored for children. They really aren't at an age to comprehend some things. I think that this reaches into the realm of the first topic I want to address and the first topic you asked about and that is media.

You see in Australia, we do not have the magical rating of 'R' for video games. It is up to the politicians to introduce new ratings and thus far the general public have been denied an R rating. My friend recently ranted to me because the new Silent Hill game didn't make it through the censors and thus would not be released in Australia. I think that it is absolutely ridiculous that we get denied access to something the rest of the world can use.

How does this relate to the children argument? well the majority of state politicians have voted in favour of having an R rating installed into the ratings system for Australian games. However, there is one ass of a politician who has voted against the proposal numerous times and therefore because one denies it, the rating cannot be passed. He argues that video games are only for children and there is no need for an R rating because children can't play the games anyway. O.k yes, this man has his head shoved a long way up his ass.

Children should be subject to censorship when it comes to violence and nasty things.
But the average video gamer is actually over the age of legal maturity. The man is an absolute fascist who cannot see the forest through the trees. There has been so many protests, petitons, well structured debates to try and persuade this man. His reply is the same everytime, arrogant to the end. Children cannot buy these games unless they have I.D or their parent buys it for them. Then in that case it is the parents responsibility to censor what their child sees. Either the parent thinks that their child is mature enough to deal with adult material, or they are a dumb ass. Either way I think it is up to the individual parent to make these decisions, not have them forced down their throat by one man. I don't understand why he thinks he has the right to decide for an entire nation.

Art censorship, I suppose that can be placed within media censorship as well. As long as its not forced in our faces we should be able to make up our own minds about being about to view something. Whether it be suggestive or not. I think that art should be displayed publicly, but with a warning so people can decide for themselves. It may very well be a lovely piece of art but if someone censors that art then alot of people would never have the chance to appreciate the love and work that went into creating that piece.

 

[Sephiroth Crescent]

Censorship is a touchy subject and everyone has strong opinions on the matter.

I don't believe in censorship, I think that we can all make judgements on what we should and shouldn't see. I don't think that it is fair for others to make that decision for us. I think that as long as you are of sound mind and considered an adult then you should have the freedom to make your own decision. There are some pretty crappy and grotesque things in this world, but it should be up to the individual about whether than want access to the material.

I think certain things should definetly be censored for children. They really aren't at an age to comprehend some things. I think that this reaches into the realm of the first topic I want to address and the first topic you asked about and that is media.

You see in Australia, we do not have the magical rating of 'R' for video games. It is up to the politicians to introduce new ratings and thus far the general public have been denied an R rating. My friend recently ranted to me because the new Silent Hill game didn't make it through the censors and thus would not be released in Australia. I think that it is absolutely ridiculous that we get denied access to something the rest of the world can use.

How does this relate to the children argument? well the majority of state politicians have voted in favour of having an R rating installed into the ratings system for Australian games. However, there is one ass of a politician who has voted against the proposal numerous times and therefore because one denies it, the rating cannot be passed. He argues that video games are only for children and there is no need for an R rating because children can't play the games anyway. O.k yes, this man has his head shoved a long way up his ass.

Children should be subject to censorship when it comes to violence and nasty things.
But the average video gamer is actually over the age of legal maturity. The man is an absolute fascist who cannot see the forest through the trees. There has been so many protests, petitons, well structured debates to try and persuade this man. His reply is the same everytime, arrogant to the end. Children cannot buy these games unless they have I.D or their parent buys it for them. Then in that case it is the parents responsibility to censor what their child sees. Either the parent thinks that their child is mature enough to deal with adult material, or they are a dumb ass. Either way I think it is up to the individual parent to make these decisions, not have them forced down their throat by one man. I don't understand why he thinks he has the right to decide for an entire nation.

Art censorship, I suppose that can be placed within media censorship as well. As long as its not forced in our faces we should be able to make up our own minds about being about to view something. Whether it be suggestive or not. I think that art should be displayed publicly, but with a warning so people can decide for themselves. It may very well be a lovely piece of art but if someone censors that art then alot of people would never have the chance to appreciate the love and work that went into creating that piece.

For the most part I agree with you, however I think some form of censorship(or at least arbitration) should exist. The problem is that I too don't think people should deem this or that improper. And that of course contradicts my opinion.

The radio and media thing is quite simple, if you don't like it change the damn station/channel. However the art subject is where it indeed gets touchy. We had an incident here in Puerto Rico, where an artist drew two naked men(ill let you figure out the rest lol), and he wanted it publicly displayed in a museum. However there was an eruption of outrage at this painting, one side said this, the other side "No its art". Basically one side saw it as a freedom of expression, while the other said "Umm yes thats art, but I don't want my kid to see that". And this of course is the problem. Because you cannot simply walk away from the painting, its there and its not going anywhere. If you put the painting in an isolated spot, your not giving the man a fair chance for people to admire his work(playing devils advocate here).

Very Well Said Aeralea, I look forward to seeing more posts from you .

- Sephir8th

 

[Aeralea]

We had an incident here in Puerto Rico, where an artist drew two naked men(ill let you figure out the rest lol), and he wanted it publicly displayed in a museum. However there was an eruption of outrage at this painting, one side said this, the other side "No its art". Basically one side saw it as a freedom of expression, while the other said "Umm yes thats art, but I don't want my kid to see that". And this of course is the problem. Because you cannot simply walk away from the painting, its there and its not going anywhere. If you put the painting in an isolated spot, your not giving the man a fair chance for people to admire his work(playing devils advocate here).

I agree with the parents, but why would they take their children to see artwork of that nature? Even if it is in an art gallery, I don't know any children that would actually be interested in browsing an art gallery (maybe I don't know many smart or interesting children, lol).

The artist created this picture because he saw something within the subject matter that he felt needed to be explored. To want to put it on display shows that he believes he has some message to tell and thinks it important enough for others to see. I think he has a right to express his opinion. Its not like the picture is hanging off the jungle gym at a primary school.

If parents don't want their child to see such work then they should keep them away. But as a general rule of thumb the more you are told that you can't do or see something then the more you want to do it. Being told what your rights are by someone else gives you a small rebellious streak and a curiosity to see if what you are being warned away from will actually harm you. They say curiosity killed the cat, but I think that line was invented by a mum who didn't want her child to see a picture of two naked men, lol.

 

[looneymoon]

Why would parents even want to take their children to an adult art museum? I mean, unless they're hippy parents or something. That form of art generally holds themes that can give children negative or false impressions. Unless the artist intended the piece to be for children, I don't really see the problem with the museum displaying the image. Not to be an anal prude or anything, but I doubt that the place would probably be a place for wee kiddies in the first place. If their parents don't want them seeing that kind of stuff, they shouldn't really be bringing them to an art museum in the first place. Art galleries are riddled with violence, nudity and controversy.

With that, I fully believe that expression should be generally free so long as no one is hurt in the process. Kids should come to terms with the world's harmfullness in their own time. It's simply not fair to expose them to all the world's ugliness at young ages. Of course, what constitutes as "ugly" is really up to the parents. Nonetheless, in this sense, I think it's only fair to respect a child's right to stay a kid until they're ready to face all those things.

On harmful expression. I've seen art that expresses the artist beliefs that we should not respect animals in the same way we should respect humans. Fair enough if they believe that, I don't really care, I'm sure many people agree. The image itself was very graphic and grotesque, but hey, it's art, it's expressive, and if one can't handle its graphic nature then maybe he or she should not partake in that field. However, what I found offensive about that particular work was not its extreme use of graphic imagery, but the fact that the artists chose to use the intestines of various slaughtered animals he (she? can't remember) killed by hand to put it together. I understand the message and all, but really, is that particular method really necessary? Should it even be allowed?

 

[Ang]

Censorship is easy for me. If it is psycologically damaging or indecent it should be censored in public areas. I say, public = bad. Private = none of my business unless it's me. People should be allowed to do whatsoever they desire (within the boundaries of the law) but only in private. There are some things that are not suitable for public display.

Now for the media. They just piss me off, to be blunt. I mean it's ok if people are in a public area but when they start invading people's privacyit's just wrong. If there is something which is completely legal, say a sex tape, but the owner does not want it released then it should not be released.

 

[Donald Trump]

I don't think a thread about this has been created, so bear with me here!

I want to get my peers opinions about two types of censorship: Media and Art.

Media(maybe not the best word): This has been a conflict of interest for quite some time, should people be censored if what they say offends somebody(Don Imus). Should people be allowed to say whatever they want even if it interferes with the peace?

Art: Somebody draws something "suggestive" and calls it art, but some people see it instead as something else...if something suggestive(example two people making love) is drawn should it be displayed publicly, or in a more private place?

- Sephir8th

For the former, I think censorship should only exist when someone is trying to stir up trouble, ie inciting racial hatred. But then again people should be allowed to broadcast their beliefs because they actually believe in them. That comes first to me, people should be allowed to say what they like about anything.
Personally I'd quite like stupid people to be censored, and people that I think are wrong. Fox news immediatly comes to mind. However I still think even they should be free of censorship.

Also I don't think any art should be censored. It's made to be admired or to provoke thought. If you dislike the thoughts being provoked that is the fault of the viewer not the piece of art. As for the picture in Puerto Rico, it's probably on the same scale as Tillmans, ( he has one photo on a man in bondage masturbating) it's not graphic for the sake of being graphic like pornography is, but it is how the artist chooses to express himself.

I personally feel that nothing should be censored, because it's wrong. It doesn't result in anything positive and it comes down to some people having the power to say that they dislike something so it should be banned.
Censorship is a step towards Authoritarianism.
Edit: The only things that should be censored are those that are illegal in even quite liberal societies, child porn etc.

 

[Sephiroth Crescent]

For the former, I think censorship should only exist when someone is trying to stir up trouble, ie inciting racial hatred. But then again people should be allowed to broadcast their beliefs because they actually believe in them. That comes first to me, people should be allowed to say what they like about anything.
Personally I'd quite like stupid people to be censored, and people that I think are wrong. Fox news immediatly comes to mind. However I still think even they should be free of censorship.

Also I don't think any art should be censored. It's made to be admired or to provoke thought. If you dislike the thoughts being provoked that is the fault of the viewer not the piece of art. As for the picture in Puerto Rico, it's probably on the same scale as Tillmans, ( he has one photo on a man in bondage masturbating) it's not graphic for the sake of being graphic like pornography is, but it is how the artist chooses to express himself.

I personally feel that nothing should be censored, because it's wrong. It doesn't result in anything positive and it comes down to some people having the power to say that they dislike something so it should be banned.
Censorship is a step towards Authoritarianism.
Edit: The only things that should be censored are those that are illegal in even quite liberal societies, child porn etc.

What is somebody drew a racist picture, I mean drew this for no reason other than to cause mayhem(no this isnt a loaded question ).

I dont think censorship is a step towards authoritarianism(not a big one anyway), but some form should be out there.

If parents don't want their child to see such work then they should keep them away. But as a general rule of thumb the more you are told that you can't do or see something then the more you want to do it. Being told what your rights are by someone else gives you a small rebellious streak and a curiosity to see if what you are being warned away from will actually harm you. They say curiosity killed the cat, but I think that line was invented by a mum who didn't want her child to see a picture of two naked men, lol.

I agree, and i love your sense of humor lol.

- Sephir8th

 

[poker king46]

personally my opinion on the subject is rather...for lack of better word...fair weather?would that be the right term?
i believe that if what someone says could endanger people then they should be very censored(like during world war 2) but if its merely offensive then i say screw the feelings of whoever is offended.

 

[Bun]

Ahh, censorship. Such a wonderfully frustrating topic.

Anyway, my view on the subject are as follows:

The one thing that pisses me off the most about censorship is that it has been left in the hands of the government. Oddly enough, we preach about things like freedom of speech, press, religion and all that jazz which can be found in the Bill of Rights.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Yet organizations like the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) exist and loom ominously within our televisions, radios, telephones...the list goes on.


I mean, I could understand a privately owned company censoring whatever they want to since it's theirs, but the realm of 'public' has been so saturated with restrictions, suppression, bleeping and literally blacking/blurring things out--and for such a long time--that one beings to wonder why a law such as the first amendment exists at all.


Then again, the United States has so many double standards when it comes to media; it just boggles my mind.


But, to be fair, I believe that some sort of censorship should exist to those who want it. Things like TV ratings and parental controls are great ideas, but I don't think people utilize these kinds of resources as much as they should. Instead, they go and blame people who wish to express themselves candidly, which results in the government forming organizations like the FCC. We have people on the news blaming video games for being too violent, even though it was rated M, and we wonder who to point the finger at.


I think we're harming ourselves even more by allowing the government to control censorship. But I do not forsee us anytime soon coming to the realization.