TV Tropes Org

Forums

On-Topic Conversations:
Censorship?
search forum titles
google site search
Kickstarter Message
TV Tropes Needs Your Help
X
Big things are happening on TV Tropes! New admins, new designs, fewer ads, mobile versions, beta testing opportunities, thematic discovery engine, fun trope tools and toys, and much more - Learn how to help here and discuss here.
View Kickstarter Project
Total posts: [60]
1
 2 3

Censorship? :

 1 The Earth Sheep, Fri, 9th Dec '11 4:06:25 PM from a Pasture hexagon
Christmas Sheep
Now, I think we can all agree that a government stopping works of art that carry morals it disagrees with is not acceptable, and I'm going to use that as a logical given * .

The real question I'm looking in to is whether the government should have any power of censorship at all, and, if it should, where the limits are.

For example, do you think it is acceptable to deny access to overtly sexual, violent, or otherwise disturbing content to children? What if their parents feel that they're "mature enough" to view it?

If you knew, for a fact, that by allowing someone to view a particular work of art, they would snap and commit an act of violence, would that make it OK to deny that particular work to the general public?

Should the government be involved in this censorship, or should that duty be left completely to publishers/producers/etc.?

Note that these questions are only a jumping-off point for this thread, and are not the only relevant questions to this topic. Feel free to discuss other facets of censorship entirely or to put forward other questions.
Still Sheepin'
 2 Milos Stefanovic, Fri, 9th Dec '11 4:13:59 PM from White City, Ruritania
Decemberist
For example, do you think it is acceptable to deny access to overtly sexual, violent, or otherwise disturbing content to children? What if their parents feel that they're "mature enough" to view it?

Minors aren't considered full citizens, and therefore don't have full civil rights. Anyway, I'd say that purchase of disturbing content should be left open to minors, but only with parents' consent.

If you knew, for a fact, that by allowing someone to view a particular work of art, they would snap and commit an act of violence, would that make it OK to deny that particular work to the general public?

Nope. Art doesn't kill people, people do.

Should the government be involved in this censorship, or should that duty be left completely to publishers/producers/etc.?

In case where censorship is acceptable (such as the regulation of sale for minors) have a government agency determine age limits, though more as a guideline to the public than anything else.

The sin of silence when they should protest makes cowards of men.
 3 USAF713, Fri, 9th Dec '11 4:14:07 PM from the United States
I changed accounts.
For example, do you think it is acceptable to deny access to overtly sexual, violent, or otherwise disturbing content to children? What if their parents feel that they're "mature enough" to view it?

Yes, but I guess I'd be willing to allow it if the parents consent. I wouldn't be particularly happy about it, and I might condone watching said family further for any signs of abuse, but...

I also think communities and nations should be allowed to—and probably should—ban overtly violent or sexual advertising from the public sphere. That doesn't mean that they're allowed to publish such things at all, assuming they don't violate other laws in the process (so, no releasing that tape of you murdering or raping someone for real, for example), but not right out in Times Square, let's say. I think it's fairly reasonable to say that people have the right to keep such shit out of their lives, and putting it out in the middle of a public square precludes them from that right.

If you knew, for a fact, that by allowing someone to view a particular work of art, they would snap and commit an act of violence, would that make it OK to deny that particular work to the general public?

...this is probably too context-sensitive to give a blanket opinion on.
I am now known as Flyboy.
Minors aren't considered full citizens, and therefore don't have full civil rights. Anyway, I'd say that purchase of disturbing content should be left open to minors, but only with parents' consent.
Minors under a certain age can't legally purchase anything, parental consent is therefore always implied.

 5 The Earth Sheep, Fri, 9th Dec '11 4:36:46 PM from a Pasture hexagon
Christmas Sheep
(so, no releasing that tape of you murdering or raping someone for real, for example)

What! Dammit US, I need to make money somehow!
Still Sheepin'
 6 USAF713, Fri, 9th Dec '11 4:38:06 PM from the United States
I changed accounts.
@Milos,

This is true. Civil rights work less as "things you're allowed to do" for kids and more as "things you are protected from."

@Earth Sheep,

tongue
I am now known as Flyboy.
 7 Excelion, Fri, 9th Dec '11 4:52:17 PM from The Fatherland
The way I see it, you only gain your full freedom once you're over the age of majority so I think it's okay to censor shit for children.

If you knew, for a fact, that by allowing someone to view a particular work of art, they would snap and commit an act of violence, would that make it OK to deny that particular work to the general public?

If I understand correctly, you're saying that because a single person will turn insane, I should decide on whether or not to censor it for everyone else? Of course not. That would be ridiculous. Not that this is a realistic scenario anyway. People aren't so one-dimensional as to change their character over something like that.

Imagine that children viewing porn leads them to objectify women and possibly commit a sexual crime, or at least become extremely sexist. Is the porn to be blamed? Maybe partially. But at least as much blame should be assigned to their parents.

If the scenario is to be understood in the way that I would deny access only to that person I would do it, if only for the greater good.

That said, I do not think censorship should ever happen for people older than 18. There's no reason for it to exist.
 8 feotakahari, Fri, 9th Dec '11 5:14:57 PM from Looking out at the city
Fuzzy Orange Doomsayer
There was one time I seriously wondered whether some stories should be censored, and that was after reading David Brin's Reality Check. It's written in Second-Person Narration, with "you" as the subject, as the narrator pleads with "you" in increasing desperation to wake up from a Lotus-Eater Machine. Were the story not so badly written, I have a feeling it could have caused a minority of mildly psychotic readers to become significantly more psychotic.

edited 9th Dec '11 5:15:24 PM by feotakahari

That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something Awful
 9 The Earth Sheep, Fri, 9th Dec '11 9:02:21 PM from a Pasture hexagon
Christmas Sheep
[up] I'm sorry, are you trying to argue for or against censorship, then?
Still Sheepin'
 10 Mark Von Lewis, Fri, 9th Dec '11 9:31:30 PM from Somewhere in Time Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
KCCO
I do think really young kids shouldn't be playing GTA unless their parents fully explain to them the difference between fiction and reality. I'm for regulation to keep really violent games and porn from kids.

Other censorship can fuck off, though. I mean, take breasts for example. Kids see them when breastfeeding, you can walk into an art museum and see 'em, and yet suddenly it's a moral outrage if they are flashed for a second on TV. What.

While I'll admit not everyone likes violence and sex in media, I'm a proponent of a "don't like, don't watch" mindset. If someone finds something objectionable, maybe they should block the channel/site rather than ruin it for others who may enjoy it.

edited 9th Dec '11 9:32:55 PM by MarkVonLewis

Val-halla at your boy, yo.
 11 feotakahari, Fri, 9th Dec '11 9:44:25 PM from Looking out at the city
Fuzzy Orange Doomsayer
[up][up]I haven't got the faintest idea.
That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something Awful
 12 Drunk Girlfriend, Fri, 9th Dec '11 9:46:40 PM from Castle Geekhaven
I think that society has their priorities backwards. Violence is glorified while sensuality is stigmatized.

I'm more okay with letting a five year old see a set of boobs than I am with letting them watch a violent movie.

Edit: However, I'm okay with a standardized rating system, so that people who have problems with boobs and gore can avoid them if they want.

edited 9th Dec '11 9:48:17 PM by DrunkGirlfriend

"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian
We're Having All The Fun
I don't really like the idea of censorship beyond when it is removing instructions on how to make bombs and the likes. (Basically how Burn Notice has the protagonist say "I do this by mixing some household chemicals with some other stuff." It keeps it vague so that people don't blow up themselves or anyone else by imitating that guy) But I do feel that there needs to be content warnings, so that idiots don't get up in a tizzy and complain when they find out that the wholesome family film Honey and Milf was actually a porno.

Also, funny story about film ratings. I went to the cinema the other day with one of my friends to see Attack the Block (Really good film about aliens attacking council flats in South London) and both of us were asked to show driver's licenses to get in (It is rated MA 15+, both of us are older than that by a number of years.) which struck me as very bizarre, because there were two girls at the next ticket vendor, they must've been about 10, buying tickets to the new Twilight film. They were not asked for any ID or anything, that film is also rated MA 15+ and has far more offensive content. That cinema is weird.

edited 9th Dec '11 10:04:47 PM by YeahBro

All I do, is sit down at the computer, and start hittin' the keys. Getting them in the right order, that's the trick.
 14 Mark Von Lewis, Fri, 9th Dec '11 10:22:19 PM from Somewhere in Time Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
KCCO
Yeah I support ratings. Those are a good idea.
Val-halla at your boy, yo.
 15 USAF713, Fri, 9th Dec '11 10:30:21 PM from the United States
I changed accounts.
I support ratings so long as we don't actually force a work to change if it gets a high rating. I.e. it's for informative purposes, not dictatorial purposes.
I am now known as Flyboy.
 16 Mark Von Lewis, Fri, 9th Dec '11 10:31:56 PM from Somewhere in Time Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
KCCO
^ That too.
Val-halla at your boy, yo.
 17 Ekuran, Fri, 9th Dec '11 10:43:34 PM from somewhere. Relationship Status: watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
Hi.
We could always have two different ratings for sexual and violent stuff.
[Insert seemingly profound or amusing phrase here.]
I think videos of people being murdered ought to get scrubbed from the internet.

 
 19 Blue Ninja 0, Sat, 10th Dec '11 7:15:58 AM from The Middle of Nowhere Relationship Status: Non-Canon
Plotting my Escape
[up] Why? Do you mean, for example, videos like the execution of that journalist by terrorists?* Criminals making a home movie project?

I support ratings so long as we don't actually force a work to change if it gets a high rating. - USAF
I am fairly sure, in the modern era, that nobody is forcing companies to re-edit their movies to get lower ratings, but several of them have done so, because lower rating usually equals more ticket sales.

Then there's some movies (mostly older ones IMO) where the rating attached to the movie is fairly inaccurate for the content of the movie. The rating was done based on the standards of the time for sex/violence/language, and those standards have (in some cases significantly) changed.
I'm going to get killed becuase some guy saw me walk out of a Subway eating a foot long shotgun - Mousa
 20 Karalora, Sat, 10th Dec '11 7:36:31 AM from San Fernando Valley, CA Relationship Status: In another castle
Manliest Person on Skype
I actually don't like the use of "ratings" as currently handled, because it's a one-dimensional solution to a multi-dimensional issue. Everyone has different "too much" thresholds for the types of thematic elements that contribute to a high rating, and not everyone prioritizes them the same way. I think a better method would be to categorize the various "offenses"—realistic violence, comical violence, nudity, drug references, etc.—and assign each a number depending on how prevalent it is. Then someone who doesn't mind a lot of swearing but hates depictions of underaged drinking won't go to the wrong PG-13 movie by mistake, or allow their kids to see it.
[up][up] No, not like those execution videos, I mean videos where murderers kill people, and tape it. It's got no point existing on the web besides assholes showing it off to their friends.
 
 22 Milos Stefanovic, Sat, 10th Dec '11 9:17:50 AM from White City, Ruritania
Decemberist
Such videos are against the policies of all video-sharing sites such as Youtube, and the site administration has full right to remove videos they don't want on their site. The government doesn't need to interfere there.
The sin of silence when they should protest makes cowards of men.
Not all video sharing sites; there are sites devoted to that kind of thing, unfortunately.
 
 24 Milos Stefanovic, Sat, 10th Dec '11 9:27:58 AM from White City, Ruritania
Decemberist
That's a pretty interesting issue.

Although, you see, it is possible for those sites to be secretly bought by the government and used to instantly track down the uploaders. Sure, many will use proxies, but not all are that smart.
The sin of silence when they should protest makes cowards of men.
 25 Excelion, Sat, 10th Dec '11 9:30:44 AM from The Fatherland
Censorship for snuff films would be akin to censorship for child pornography, me thinks.

What is the legal status on snuff films anyway? Is it legal to watch/download them? Legal to share?

edited 10th Dec '11 9:30:54 AM by Excelion

Total posts: 60
1
 2 3


TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from thestaff@tvtropes.org.
Privacy Policy