I want Kat's glasses!Re "Branada": To me, it depends on how "legal" the "secret mission" is. If it includes planned war crimes, then denouncing it is the right thing to do and the army brought its failure on iself. Re part of first post: Denying to children ("parental locking") is not censorship to me. Denying to legal citizens is.
edited 12th Dec '11 12:53:59 AM by Medinoc
They Called Me Mad!! I decided to show them all; but when I looked on my works, oh mighty, I despaired: for it made me realize they were right.
Okay, I thread hopped a bit/a lot. My shower-time thoughts on censorship are like this: Government doesn't need to waste money on censorship. I believe that self-regulation makes more sense. What I expect is that each media industry develops an informative code of what is contained within a particular piece of media (types of violence, sexual depictions, expletives etc) and then it is up to individuals to purchase or not purchase something based on that information. For government grants, especially for the fine arts, I would sorta just spew that money in every direction. I don't think it worth the dollars wasted in managing money to only go to "moral" works. I know my government is attempting to do that and the first things it did was cut funding to a movie that had suggestive title, yet have no sexual depictions in the movie itself (they didn't even bother reviewing anything and cut funding to something that didn't hit their not-moral guidelines) and another one which simply disagreed with their political views (ie. it was a liberal movie... and liberalism is evil). So I would put no restrictions on art grants. For making certain types of art illegal, my only criteria is this: if you have to do something illegal to produce it, then it is an illegal good. For instance, child pornography is illegal because then you have to sexually abuse children in order to produce it. Possession of illegal material is also illegal. Trading in illegal material is illegal.
I see the Awesomeness.I agree with breadloaf except for government grants, they should be cut in their entirety as well as classifying support of the arts as charity or tax write offs.
Christmas SheepI have a new question for the forum: What about obviously evil work? For example, a movie that portrays the acts of Hitler as the best thing that's ever happened to the world? A pro-KKK movie? Or just a movie with morally unacceptable viewpoints, for example racism or sexism? One that portrays [insert belief system here] in a downright false way, for example "showing" the internal organization of an atheist church sacrificing virgins to Baal? Note: That doesn't mean a work of fiction in which atheists sacrifice virgins, I mean a work that actively says that all atheists sacrifice virgins.
Tyrannicidal ManiacWhat about them?
I changed accounts.~shrug~ Free speech doesn't discriminate against immoral things. They should be ignored, but... Now, if they did something actually illegal while making this work, then yes, it should be dealt with.
I am now known as Flyboy.
Christmas SheepShould they be censored, or even given a "worse" rating? (i.e. a shift from PG-13 to R because of "Anti-Semiticism" or something)
No, it should just clearly state what it is on the media. The community should reject the piece of media because it is immoral to them.
I see the Awesomeness.Hm, I would say that basic "honest advertising" laws should still apply.
The system doesn't know you right now, so no post button for you.
You need to Get Known to get one of those.
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 email@example.com.