It's what gets censored that I take issue with. Some of the stuff you'd see on Nickelodeon is far more brash and crude than a beautiful story with hints of sex or an inspiring documentation of someone rising from the depths of poverty, etc. They use a criteria that includes cigarette usage and amount of times a swear word is used. I'm not sure there's a panel that sits through a movie or show and judges whether or not it's wholesome. I think the back of the March of the Penguins DVD said 'Contains mild peril'. I mean, that's funny, right?
In theory, I absolutely think censorship is wrong, especially in art. (Including music and writing.) I have the biggest problem with censorship of sex and nudity. From the moment you open your eyes for the first time, you're going to be faced with nudity all of the time--your own, at the very least. I see no reason why, for example, a 16-year-old teenager who has had sex multiple times couldn't go to a theatre and watch a movie where two of the characters happen to have sex. And I see no reason why I can see my own boobs but it's "wrong" for me to see someone else's in a picture, or on TV. Sex and nudity are entirely, one hundred percent natural, and a huge part of human life. There's absolutely no reason to hide it from children. Drug use and violence are a slightly different issue. Personally, I don't think drugs should be made taboo to anyone, children included, for various reasons. And violence... well, I dunno. I don't want to raise my kids letting them see violence on TV and therefore think it's okay, but at the same time, I think it's wrong to censor it. I also have a huge issue with censorship of language.
No one says that the human body is "obscene". That's not the point, anyway. The point is that all societies have customs and expectations involving what children are allowed to see or do. Making the distinction between child activities and adult activities is not "censorship". It's simply a matter of recognizing that children are very impressionable, and cannot understand or appreciate certain adult activities. I don't see why this is a problem. All societies do it, and there's a very good reason for it. "Censorship" is where a society attempts to prevent certain activities or forms of expression on moral grounds. Given that you can find pretty much anything possible on the internet, I'm not sure what it is that you think is being "censored".
I agree with the "no censorship" thing, and all the talk about children/Bible thumpers, etc... but majority of folks on here probably don't even have kids yet, so how will you know what you'll allow as a parent as far as images in art or television?
Wow, I kind of feel like an idiot. You are completely right. I stand by what I said but that's not censorship, is it? I starting debating a tree and couldn't see the whole damn forest. Thanks for pointing that out.
Agreed ... I strongly oppose arbitrary censorship too, but the key there is the "arbitrary" part. I guess the point is that the censorship issue is not as simple as it might sound. There are legitimate reasons for limiting access to certain kinds of stuff. Children are the obvious example. But that's not the same as trying to tell adults what they can or cannot view in their own home, for instance.
There has to be some censorship regarding children.Would anyone like to sit down and watch hard core porn with their 4 year old child?Or say,dad with your 15 year old daughter? I don't think so,except in a household with warped priorities.As far as religious people being uptight about sex--I have no idea at all why it is so,since we supposedly were created in "his" image.But commercially,I see why it is is that womens bodies are used to sell products.Some are so blatent ,they might as well come right out and say "buy our product and get more puss".If nudity was more accepted, the money makers would lose a major selling tool. I didn't want my kids watching the crap on TV when they were growing up,so I had one only to let them see kiddie movies on. They don't care about TV at all now and never watch it. Anyone that says constantly being exposed to violence doesn't change a child's behaviour,probably doesn't have children.
You are right. And it's been rigorously proven, too. Studies have shown over and over that young children who watch violent acts immediately become more aggressive and violent themselves.
Violence is against the law and so violent programming that will most likely make a child more violent should be censored. We can't say the same thing about nudity, because viewing naked people isn't going to make children nudists and nudity in itself is not a pernicious thing, only if the idea is made pernicious, usually by religious types. We can't say the same thing about swearing because swearing isn't against the law. Drugs are against the law and for the sake of sincerity if we can prove that if viewing drug use will make children more likely to use drugs, that should be censored too. Same goes for stealing or any criminal behavior that can be proven that viewing it will make a child more likely to do it. Seems like a coherent and un-arbitrary theory for what should be censored, except for the problem how how much more likely it would be that the child would reproduce the behavior that is viewed? 2% more likely? Why bother? 90% more likely? Absolutely. Damnit, I really thought I had a non arbitrary theory for justified censorship. Then there's the problem of studies being imperfect because of personality variation? Then I think you would have to factor in parental teaching. Certainly if a parent does a good job teaching their kid, the risk is reduced greatly. I think I've gone and made my theory too arbitrary. Help me out here.
If you're asking for everything to be 100% black-and-white, I can't help you. Pretty much everything in modern life involves a judgement call of one sort or another. We as a society have collectively made the judgement that children should not be exposed to certain things. That isn't going to change anytime soon. So everyone has a choice ... they can waste their energy and spin their wheels bitching and moaning and complaining about it, or they can live with it and try to make their own peace with it. Am I saying that a 12-year-old is going to be traumatized for life because he happened to glimpse a bare breast in a movie? Of course not. And the ordinances against breastfeeding in public, for example, are just silly. But the connection between viewing violence on television/movies and later violent acts has been demonstrated beyond a doubt, for all ages of children, across all socio-economic and ethnic backgrounds. And regarding the religious thing ... for petes sake, churches don't make our laws. The Congress makes the laws and we elected the Congress. If you don't like the laws, then elect different people to Congress. But quit whining endlessly about religion.
Yes, let's just shush about laws that don't make sense to us that aren't going to change any time soon. It's useless after all. We should all stop whining about what we don't like and sit down, shut up and drink our juice. Debate and questioning of laws are essential to any democracy. It seems to me that many censorship laws are useless, arbitrary and can not be proven to have tangible benefits to the population. Some do and should remain, however questioning laws that are unreasonable is important to do. Because the legislative branch of government is elected by the people and when censorship laws were implemented, religious values played a huge part in who people voted for, and still do today to a lesser extent. We can blame religious influence for the actions of the legislative branch, as it is a reflection of the people. Not to mention popular polls, advocacy groups and the influence of lobbyists. Legislation is not isolated and not uninfluenced externally.
