Censorship

[barrk]

The activities of the past couple of days have started me thinking. What makes the difference between censorship and common sense? This is not an attempt to irritate anyone. This is just an open dialog regarding the subject of censorship.

There has been an ongoing debate about the use of the Confederate Flag by the southern states of the US. Many people find this flag a symbol of repression. Others think of it as their heritage. A vote was held and the majority decided that it should remain in use. This does not mean that it is not still offensive to the minority…it just means that more people found it acceptable than found it unacceptable. Should the discussion of whether to keep the flag or not be forbidden since it is offensive to a group of people? In my opinion, ABSOLUTELY NOT!

Another example is the attempt to ban the Harry Potter books being read to elementary school children. The religious right has done just that. They find it offensive because of the theme of witchcraft and dragons. Since it is offensive to some, should it be forbidden? Again, I say ABSOLUTELY NOT!

Sex is another topic that is often censored. In America if you are watching a television show on The Learning Channel about reproductive behavior of human beings they are allowed to be as graphic as they please. If you show the same thing on a network station it is censored. Does this make sense?

What criteria should be used to decide whether something should be censored or not? If you use the criteria that anything that is offensive to a group of people should be banned, then we could not discuss Harry Potter, reproduction or flags. This is obviously ridiculous. Okay then, what criteria should be used?

Anyone have any ideas?

[crptcblade]

Well, let me just say this about that...

Censorship = Good in moderation

Sex = great in extreme over-abundance

Harry Potter = never met him, can't base an opinion on a subject to which I am ignorant (but that's just me)

Flags = coolest one - Japan

[crptcblade]

Oh, and to answer the question about deciding criterias...

How about John or whoever, holds a summit of all the members, and we will calmly discuss terms of offense and what should and should not be censored

[Behemoth]

The weight of censorship arguments revolves around what physical things should and shouldnt be allowed (she we be allowed to see that, should bee be allowed to say this...), but the important aspect is the intention of the item considered for censorship. If offence is intended it is offensive. If not, then it shouldnt be.

A quick disclaimer (for the sake of those to quick to judge) : I plan to make use of a phrase or phrases which, when taken in the wrong context, may be considered offensive - racist to be specific. I would like to first assure readers that I am not racist and am simply illustrating a point... )

A number of black youths have takes the label "nigger" upon themselves as a term or endearment. The word itself no longer has the harsh racist connotations it once did. the concept of "nigger" is only offensive to those who want to take offence to it (for example a black youth who had been called it in jest by a white youth), or from those who deliberately want to cause offence.

in a similar respect, homosexuals playfully call each other pansies, queens and ******s. these terms are not offensive as long as the "caller" is acting in a fun and light-hearted way. this is usually obvious.

Fun and light-hearted...Isn't that how we used to refer to ChitChat? I for one don't take offence in there cos it's one big joke. When people are being deliberately offensive (eg. Nukem) it becomes quickly apparent and we know how to deal with it.

I appreciate that I've used a lot of words and said very little, but I enjoyed writing it. People, please think about what's going on and lets be sensible about it...

[crptcblade]

Here's a phrase we hear a lot around my work :

"That's it, I'm offended. I'm going to HR"

[barrk]

I think you made a very good point, Behemoth. You must take into consideration the speaker and the audience.

Jokes I make with my Mother I would never make around my Grandmother.

Jokes my kids make with their friends are the same jokes I make with my Mother but they don't make them when they know I'm listening because they don't feel comfortable doing so.

We (the Chit-Chat regulars) feel comfortable around each other and so we make jokes that others may find offensive. We really haven't been taking into consideration those who do not know us.


We can't be expected not to discuss any subject in here because someone's mother, grandmother, teacher, children may be reading. Then the whole purpose of Chit-Chat is lost.


So what is the solution? Where does the line from common sense to censorship get crossed? The whole topic is so subjective.

This is a very difficult problem that pertains to much more than just the Chit-Chat forum. It is a problem that has been wrestled with in every form of media.

[Skitchen8]

Originally posted by barrk
I think you made a very good point, Behemoth. You must take into consideration the speaker and the audience.

Jokes I make with my Mother I would never make around my Grandmother.

Jokes my kids make with their friends are the same jokes I make with my Mother but they don't make them when they know I'm listening because they don't feel comfortable doing so.

We (the Chit-Chat regulars) feel comfortable around each other and so we make jokes that others may find offensive. We really haven't been taking into consideration those who do not know us.


We can't be expected not to discuss any subject in here because someone's mother, grandmother, teacher, children may be reading. Then the whole purpose of Chit-Chat is lost.


So what is the solution? Where does the line from common sense to censorship get crossed? The whole topic is so subjective.

This is a very difficult problem that pertains to much more than just the Chit-Chat forum. It is a problem that has been wrestled with in every form of media.

in my mind it don't matter because the line isn't even in sight anymore, it is so far gone i don't even remember what it looked like.

[SteveCRM]

it was a pretty blue color

[tumblingdown]

Did i miss something?


td.

[Behemoth]

*CENSORED*

[simonm]

The weight of censorship arguments revolves around what physical things should and shouldnt be allowed (she we be allowed to see that, should bee be allowed to say this...), but the important aspect is the intention of the item considered for censorship. If offence is intended it is offensive. If not, then it shouldnt be.

That's all very well but consider an example.

Take the marching season in Northern Ireland. Once a year, the loyalists march on a traditional route through the province. It basically involves them all dressing up, being accompanied by a marching band and waving banners. It all goes back to celebration of British victories over the Irish many years ago and the nationalists (living on part of this traditional route) object to it as they find it humiliating and offensive.
Now, almost every year, part of the march is banned. The part that goes through a mainly nationalist area. The loyalists feel they are censored and prevented from doing something anyone else (and anywhere else) in the UK would be able to do without objection.
Are the loyalists just rubbing the nationalist's noses in their victory and reminding them of their occupation or are they just exercising a right that everyone else in the UK is entitiled to exercise by taking a harmless little march?
I think I can understand both sides of the argument but the point is that it is not always so clear cut.

[HarryW]

It always seemed to me that the marches were intended to be offensive. Loyalists don't (as a rule) like Nationalists, and it seems like they take every opportunity to annoy them. Particularly the Orange Order, I mean they're even more zealous than your average Loyalist.

[simonm]

It always seemed to me that the marches were intended to be offensive. Loyalists don't (as a rule) like Nationalists, and it seems like they take every opportunity to annoy them. Particularly the Orange Order, I mean they're even more zealous than your average Loyalist.

Well, if you consider that originally, the marches were held through entirely loyalist areas (so nobody objected to them). Gavaky Road (Sorry about the spelling) has gradually become nationalist over time and now the local residents object to it. Note that the loyalists didn't seek out nationalist areas to walk through.

Besides, whatever anyones particular views are on this subject, the point is that context can turn something, that is otherwise innoffensive, into something that is highly offensive.

[HarryW]

Furry muff.

[denniswrenn]

I find your sexually oriented comment very offense and request that you remove it right now.

*ahem*

[HarryW]

My ear-warming accessories are none of your business. Unless of course you object to the oppression of ears.

[denniswrenn]

Of course I object to the oppression of ears. It is very offensive, you know.

[Skitchen8]

lol dennis *** is up w/ ur avatar, a black box... interesting

[Guv]

I always thought that the rules here were fairly liberal. I have seen implied vulgarities, blasphemous opinions, and some insulting remarks. I have yet to notice any censorship, but from the sound of this thread, I have missed something.

There should be more restrictions on government action than on private action, because we can choose to not deal with a private organization, but the government backs up its rules with the legal use of force (deadly, if necessary).

Censorship by the government should be viewed as illegal, immoral, fattening, and without any socially redeeming features.

Censorship by individuals, groups, non-government organizations should be pretty much allowed. If you do not like it, do not associate with the individual, group, whatever.

If those who run the VB Forum want to impose some rules and censor posts/threads which do not conform, I think they have the right to do so. If their rules upset me enough, I will not use their forum.

BTW: Common usage seems to apply censorship to all sorts of situations for which I would not use the term. A dictionary I consulted seems to agree with this usage.

I always considered censorship a term applied to certain actions of a government did, but apparently I have been wrong in this belief.

[Jethro]

Originally posted by denniswrenn
I find your sexually oriented comment very offense and request that you remove it right now.

*ahem*

Damn, Chit Chat is going down in a big way.

Self censorship is the answer of course. If you find something offensive don't bother reading/viewing it.

I find the whole shambles called the English Cricket team offensive. They bring the game into disrepute....and they cannot get a good dose of sledging going either.

[Beacon]

Damn right Just coz England **** at cricket John dont take it out on Us!!

Anyway Jethro when r u going too make constant appearences again if at all????

[Jethro]

Originally posted by Beacon
Damn right Just coz England **** at cricket John dont take it out on Us!!

Anyway Jethro when r u going too make constant appearences again if at all????

Still got five weeks leave to use up Am helping setup my wife's factory at the moment...this is the first time l have touched a Computer in approx 3 days..........so ain't doing a hell of a lot else.

However, am starting to have to contact Suppliers for various things, so will probably log into here a few more times a week.

Can you image how upset John is going to be by the fifth test. He will probably take the site down completely.

[crptcblade]

All I have to say is this...

Words are just words, and nothing more. Like several others have said, most people can tell the difference between simple jesting (parksie, Katie, dennis, Matthew, myself, etc...) and out and out hurtful offence(nukem, etc...). Just get over it. Try to ignore the offensive the best you can, because its a big world, and there is not a place on Earth that you can go and be totally non-offended.

Except for my place...everybody has fun here, and no worries

[crptcblade]

Oh, and...

LONG LIVE ENGLISH CRICKET!!! shambles as it may be

[Beacon]

Factory oh i c latex rubber dolls!!!

Who were they moulded from?

[denniswrenn]

Me

[Beacon]

Well then were's your wiener then??

And how come you have such big tit's and 3rdly doesnt your mouth get sore holding it open that long?

[denniswrenn]

I remember modeling for something, but you must be talking about the mould of kovan.....

[Beacon]

[denniswrenn]

Somebody said something about liking the one with the enourmus schlong... I wasn't quite sure if they were talking about Kovan's mom or myself.....

[Beacon]

Well it wouldnt be you!

[simonm]

Guv

There should be more restrictions on government action than on private action, because we can choose to not deal with a private organization, but the government backs up its rules with the legal use of force (deadly, if necessary).

If I remember rightly, you can vote out the government at the next election (assuming you live in a democracy). The problem with private enterprise is that they can get so powerful and so dominant that you can't just walk away because there is no competition.

It is the emergence of the global, cross border, corporations that worries me. Not some government that I can vote out in the next few years.

[Guv]

Simonm: It saddens me when I see intelligent people more worried about big business than big government. Bill Gates & GM do not scare me. I am happy to buy their products.

Check your history some time. Except for some localized factory towns, there was never a private enterprise monopoly, although Microsoft comes close. You will discover that most of the real monopolies were established by law: The Western railroads of the 19th century, the utilities, and others given exclusive licenses by the government. Standard Oil under the original Rockefeller is usually used as an example of a monopoly. It might have had 90% of the oil business, but at that time, oil was only about 40% to 60% of the energy industry. Coal & wood accounted for the rest. Standard Oil never hurt the consumers, only its competitors.

A good case could be made for Microsoft not hurting its consumers. I never felt hurt by them, but software companies sure have suffered.

The direction in which we are evolving scares me.

There was a time when the supreme court would have thrown out the current US forfeiture laws.

There was a time when somebody like Ted Kennedy could not win an election without completely covering up his outrageaous behavior. He was dismissed from Harvard for cheating, the Chapiquidick incident was outrageous, and there were other incidents.

There was a time when people like Ford, Vanderbilt, and other entrepreneur types made the most money. Now, huge amounts are made by class action law firms, IPO underwriters, corporate merger experts, politicians, lobbyists, entertainment & athletic celebrities. At least big business supplies us with an incredible wealth of goods and services. As far as I am concerned, we owe the so called robber barons for most of our material comforts.

BTW: The celebrities are the ones that do not bother me one bit.

It is naive to believe that our voting power gives us as much control as you seem to think it does. A clever demagogue can too easily fool too many people. A slight modification of a quote follows.

You can fool some of the people all of the time; You can fool all of the people some of the time. That is all the edge I need to keep getting elected no matter what else I do.

The USA is probably one of the best places to live, and we have all sorts of traditions about liberty and individual rights. Yet we have some terrible abuses of police power which never seem to create the outrage that they should.

Try voting the local police force out of office. Even outrageous conduct is defended by the Police Union, often successfully.

In Los Angles and Philadelphia police have deliberately framed innocent people and have displayed incredible brutality. I suspect that the known instances are but the tip of the iceberg. I have read about terrible abuses of the forfeiture laws, mostly in southern USA, but perhaps I have just not heard about them elsewhere. The system never seems to get fixed. Most of the time the victims are unsavory characters who do not inspire sympathy from ordinary citizens. In a few cases, the victims should have inspired sympathy and invoked outrage, but it did not happen. In many cases, the city pays enormous amounts when sued, but still does not fix the system.

Big business does not scare me, but the government does. Read about the police hero of the century: J. Edgar Hoover. Many of his actions were incredibly bad and covered up until some time after he died. I suspect that a lot of that story will never be told.

[filburt1]

Jeez, how long did it take you to type that!?

[Jimmy Changas]

I dont have an answer to this question..simply because their is no answer.. anyone, anywhere could ramble all day and night about censorship and the ugly problem will still be looking at us in the face in the morning...


So instead i have a simple question.


What is the big deal about harry potter????
if parents cannot teach their children the difference between fact and fiction..then no amout of censorship will do any good.

Now i can understand trying to censor some of the violence on some video games and movies..etc.etc.etc.. but harry potter??
i dont know about you but i havent seen a dragon go flying into a school and burn kids alive..

People want to censor.. or outright ban things like flags, harry potter, and sex..yet nursery rhymes like this one run rampant in day care centers around the country....


Rock a by baby, on the tree top..
When the wind blows..the cradle will rock.
When the bow breaks the cradle will fall....
and down will come baby..cradle and all.....

Dont forget these fairy tales


Hansel and gredel.. oh yeah a story about a wicth that wants to throw children in an oven and cook them is okay

The three little pigs..

Little red riding hood..

Now i am not saying we should ban these fairy tales for their subtle VIOLENCE.. but a little common sense can go a long way..

[Jethro]

Originally posted by denniswrenn
Somebody said something about liking the one with the enourmus schlong... I wasn't quite sure if they were talking about Kovan's mom or myself.....

LOL.........Kovan's mom

[Beacon]

What about kovan's mum?

[simonm]

Guv

I see what you're saying but I think most of it relates to your (particular) political system.

Now, before I start, let me just say that our system (in the UK) is far from perfect but it seems to be progressing towards the American system and this worries me.

I think the problem is in the USA is that you don't have enough choice. You have a basic choice from two, almost identical (by the worlds standards) political parties. Their policies are so close that it hardly makes a difference who you vote for. You can't just vote for the party that offers to get rid of the Fortiture laws becasue they probably (just guessing here) both support it.

Americans rave on about how their country is the best in the world, the free-est and the most democratic. Whilst America is certainly the richest country in the world, it has some of the highest contrasts between rich and poor and amazing levels of crime. American television is more heavilly censored than British TV (I was told this by an American visitor I had), your laws of fortiture would never be acceptable here and you're only one step away from a dictatorship.

I say America is close to being a dictatorship, not because I think they're going to only have one party, but because your parties are so close (idologically) that it doesn't really matter who you vote for. No wonder you distrust the government when you can't replace them (with someone significantly different). Perhaps if the the american political system was reformed to encourage a greater range of parties then a measure of faith in the political system could be restored.

An I'm sorry if my distrust of big corporations conveys a lack of intelligence. These huge conglomorates that have a turnover bigger than many of the worlds economies have no public face. We only see a glimse of what they do, over what they have control over and who they own. It's only when you look into it and find out that, what you previously thought were many different brands of food stuff down at your local supermarket, are really all owned by the same company that give the illusion of choice.

Now, the USA with it's lack of culture may not mind the effects of the domination of these huge corporations (that bring cheap food, clothes etc.) but in Britian, the traditional way of life has been (predominately) swept aside to make way for big business. It has destroyed many peoples livelyhoods and culture. What choice do we have to walk away from the global corporations when they have already put most small, traditional companies out of business.

In the UK, we can change the government but we can't change who we buy our food from because they're all own by the same conglomerates.

[barrk]

Simonm...

I know I always seem to take exception to your posts but it is just a difference of opinion not an attack on you personally.

I would like to state that while it may seem to you that there is no difference idealogically between our two major political parties, there is a huge difference to me.

One party is dedicated to making America a cleaner, safer and more prosperous nation for all it's citizens and the other thinks these are less important issues.

While the democratic party platform supports gun control, a women's right to choose, controlling big business, hand ups for our most needy, education reform....the republican support big business, hawk-like military policy and legislating morality (which is an impossible task and a topic in and of itself).

The effects these differences have on the world stage may be indicernible but if the situation continues to decline in America it will eventually effect you. It already has to a certain extent as can be seen by your Koyoto Agreement thread.

Bear in mind that this is only my opinion, but I do feel it is a well informed one.

[Ianpbaker]

Simon - with the way labour are at the moment, there is also not alot difference over here as well. the easiest way to say it is all politics regardless of country are all completly fecked up