Censorship

[Blu·Ray]

Censorship is all around us.
Pokécommunity censors certain words with these ♥♥♥♥ing cute hearts, while we still know the words that they seek to conceal. Tv shows put a beeping noise over words and blur nudity. And even we on the d&d forum censor ourselves; for example in another thread, I see certain words described as "the f-word", "the n-word", "an f-bomb".


So I ask you:

• What are your opinions on censorship of swearwords?
  
• What is your opinion on censorship in general?

 

[twocows]

I think censoring swears is pointless in theory. In practice, it makes a few people happy, and like you said, everyone knows what I'm saying, anyway. So long as my content isn't censored, I don't really care, it's just mildly irritating. It's the ability to express yourself that matters, and I don't see swear-censoring to interfere with that.

Censorship in general, on the other hand, is abhorrent to me. One of the ways that we grow is by exchanging ideas, talking with each other, and learning from each other. It's not perfect, and unfortunately some people choose to censor themselves in effect by insulating themselves with like-minded people. And, of course, some people are just outright wrong on some things (but that tends to resolve itself; I like to think reason wins out in the end). But in the end, free expression does move us forward, and it's one of the reasons we've come so far socially in the past few centuries. So, to me, anything that discourages people from expressing their views on an issue must absolutely be fought against.

As it says in my signature, though, this often means arguing intensely with people who I mostly agree with to defend people I almost entirely disagree with.

 

[Esper]

I see censoring swear words as an attempt to keep decorum and politeness and civility. That's important in some instances and it serves to remind people to be aware of their surroundings, not necessarily just about their swears, but in general.

Censorship in general is murkier, I think. In principle I'd like to be against all censorship, but there are people in the world who can be easily influenced by what they see and hear and read. I don't mean that in a "humanity is stupid" kind of way, but in a mental health kind of way. And since, at least in my country, we don't have much out there to help people with mental health a certain amount of prevention via censorship doesn't seem like a 100% bad idea. (Don't ask me what percent it would be though.)

And of course there is the kind of censorship about things that are clearly dangerous. You don't want your local library to have a book that tells you how to make bombs, for instance.

 

[PokemonLeagueChamp]

When it comes to censorship, there is a time and place for it, but there needs to be very strict limitations. For instance, anything describing how to make bombs, promoting fascism, or anything that the vast majority of anyone can agree is bad should be censored, as well as any government secret that has a legitimate chance of harming national security(though where the line is here is very unclear). However, ANYTHING beyond that edges to infringement, at least anywhere where free speech exists as a right.

Censorship of swear words here is kind of dumb. Pretty much all of us(if not all of us)know what you're saying behind those heart things. I would say it's to shield the younger members of the site from swear words, but aren't kids using them younger nowadays anyway? I don't know, maybe there's some other reason I'm not taking into account.

 

[Fernbutter]

In the long run, it would be practically completely useless, I mean most swears have a sort of way and manner making some of those swear "socially accepted", I mean think of it this way, most swears before were really nothing compared to today, words like "Jerk" and "Moron" were already very harsh in consideration, as to now where words like s***, and f***, a******, c***, and other words are being used by almost everyone, including those who at their age are supposed to still be civil, innocent, but instead act vulgar in many means.

But assuming words like f*** eventually get to pass the level of social acceptance and it get's integrated into the everyday society, it just passes as a word that everyone uses and such, the we would have to make new words that outrank them, even worse words than the ones we had before.
Plus, it's inevitable, everyone eventually learns about it one way or another, especially since there's social media and the internet to help.

In the end? I honestly don't give a f***.

 

[Blu·Ray]

Here in Denmark we take censorship very seriously. We currently have a lot of debate on the Americanization of our media in terms of censorship of offensiveness, and I'll explain my position in this debate: I am against censorship in every way and form, I beleive censorship is wrong, and we don't make the world a better place by just ignoring it and pretending that it hasn't been there.

Original Production Danish television shows do not practice censorship, and I am proud to say that we cherish this fact as a privilege. If your kids are watching a show on TV, and they hear a *beep* in the middle of a hefty argument, don't you think they know it means a swearword? How old do you think they need to be to know that *beep* means "the f-word" or "the c word"? I don't think censorship is the right way to counter the children's view on heavy language.
As a matter of fact, even Danish children's TV shows include swearing. Of course not the Teletubbies or whatever cartoon, but films with real life actors that show real life problems, aimed at the older children, show the world the way it is. And in real life, no on is going to say "oh no, our car has been wrecked" Of course they're going to swear, and regardless of the ideal society that is displayed in a film, it has to have some real world relations. Not everyone will get a happy ending.

To return to the topic of censorship in general, I'd like to point out this sentence:

When it comes to censorship, there is a time and place for it, but there needs to be very strict limitations. For instance, anything describing how to make bombs, promoting fascism, or anything that the vast majority of anyone can agree is bad should be censored, as well as any government secret that has a legitimate chance of harming national security(though where the line is here is very unclear). However, ANYTHING beyond that edges to infringement, at least anywhere where free speech exists as a right.

In my opinion, promoting fascism should not be censored at all. If we are civilized and educated beings, we should not conceal fascist propaganda, but rather laugh at it, and praise ourselves lucky (or not, but that is an entirely different discussion) to have a system where we, the people, are in charge. We should look at their arguments, listen to what they have to say, and try to understand their point of view. A country is in my opinion oppressing free speech if they don't let a person proclaim that he/she is against the system. Besides, there are good sides to fascism as well! (although these are, from my point of view far outnumbered by the negatives...)

As for making bombs, this could easily be put in perspective with a man's right to own a gun (which, again is a different discussion) which I am firmly against. Free speech doesn't mean that you can just say anything you'd like, but rather that if you mean something politically or philosophically, you are allowed to do so as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else outside of objective verification of facts.
But I still don't think that protecting free speech is not a reason to censor anything at all.

 

[£]

tl;dr: it's an impediment for liberty

Short story long: If there's one thing that's going HORRIBLY wrong with the world right now in my book, it's this form of subtle oppression that is very much present but you don't /really/ look for it. A good example would be smoking in England. I for one detest smoking, find the habit filthy and really do prefer to avoid it. But... I think people should be allowed to smoke if they want to. England hasn't simply gone "nope none of that", however. It's been done very cleverly. The gradual ban on smoking in public places, the ban on advertising, the ban on packets having a unique look to them, the ban on displaying cigarettes openly. Yes, I do see the benefits of less people smoking. However... nannying a country in such a way to not smoke? Not a fan, really. Educating people very well on it seems like a far better solution to me. If they wanna do it afterwards, don't impede them, let them at it.

I am kinda grateful I don't live in a country where censorship is EXTREME and the governments border on dictatorship, but we're a fair way from the ideal of political freedom; and there's signs we're going the wrong way with this rather than the right way. There's rare but definite signs of our censorship reaching petty extents. I know I've gone on a bit of a tangent with the political freedom aspect; but that is really important to me.

As for censorship of words I don't even really want to bother to explain how ♥♥♥♥ing ridiculous that ♥♥♥♥ is. ♥♥♥♥ing ♥♥♥♥♥ ass ♥♥♥♥♥s need to quit their explosions of shock and ♥♥♥ at the sight of obscene words like ♥♥♥♥ and enable an option to ♥♥♥♥ the censors. ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥s would still be appeased. Quite impressed and surprised that ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ gets a censor. Anyone that knows that word isn't going to cry about it I'm certain, heh. Be quite interesting to hear how that one ended up censored in the first place.

Edit: Hang on ass isn't censored but ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ is? What is this I don't even. I'm so done.

Edit II: For those wondering: 1 = 3 = 8. The rest are all only used once. Have fun. xoxox

 

[Corvus of the Black Night]

Censorship holds society back. It closes off opinions. It shuts down parts of our language. I disagree with censorship entirely - I believe that everyone has the right to say whatever the hell they want, and they have the exact consequences of whatever they say as well. If you piss someone off then it's your responsibility to deal with the damage that comes back.

 

[gimmepie]

I tend to agree that censorship of swear words of a website or keeping your mouth shut in certain situations is simply a good way to keep things polite. I hate censorship like this in music though, it drives me made when I hear like 30 random silences in a song. Do they think this is going to stop kids hearing these words? They already know them, they probably learned them from their parents.

The more general sense of censorship... well. To a degree it is needed, I don't think sixteen-year-old boys with angst issues should have access to knowledge on how to make bombs, I don't think six-year-olds should have access to pornography and I do think that some degree of censoring in the media is needed to keep the older generation happy - but not too much. Personally, I think the amount of censorship used should be the bare minimum for covering things like I mentioned above.

 

[Eevee3]

The worst part about censorship is that most people (maybe not kids per say) know exactly what is being censored. So...what's the point?

 

[Corrin]

Well, certain words and images can be triggering to people, like images depicting violence, animal abuse and such. I certainly wish sites like FB had something to block out images sometimes because sometimes they are just disturbing.

But then again, everyone is different, so it's hard to tell how to censor something.

 

[Raine]

Majority of the responses have basically covered my opinion on censorship where individuals do have the freedom of speech for a reason. For instance, censoring swear words seems almost useless these days because of how the general population participate in such behaviours, but at the same time, I can see the purpose of doing so: to maintain a sense of politeness. Any other kind of censorship in regards to restricting people from speaking their minds I don't believe should exist; we should be able to voice our opinions, disagreements, etc. without having the feeling of being constricted. What about other kinds of censorship though? Perhaps those of the mature nature such as sexuality, gore?

 

[finalrayne]

Censorship is in a lot of things I think that people should have a choice to have certain things censored. Certain forums have this choice and I've actually played a game called Brutal Legends where you could censor the blood, gore, and swears if you pleased to do so I thought it was a cool idea and that it should be implemented in other things if people don't want what they are viewing to be censored they should have the choice to do so.

 

[BadPokemon]

Keep the censorship. I hate looking at bad words all the time. Why say the bad words in the first place? I turn down all the language and bad stuff in games. It's unneeded. I came to play a game to shoot people and zombies, not listen to swear words and watch people have sex.

 

[Sopheria]

It depends on what kind of medium it is. On PC, for example, it makes sense, since it's a site centered around a kid friendly video game, it makes sense for measures to be taken to ensure that its content be kid friendly as well. If they didn't censor swear words here on PC, then PC would get a lot less members, because parents wouldn't allow their kids to come here. It's the same thing with stuff on the radio, television, and movies. If they don't censor, they lose a huge demographic. I don't think it's a huge deal because if censorship really bothers someone, they don't have to look far to get an uncensored version. For example, they censor on the radio, but you can listen to the uncensored version on Youtube. PC censors swear words, but there are tons of forums out there where swear words aren't censored.

 

[Ezelsklap]

Yeah I kinda agree with the majority of the thread here. Like censorship to me feels like a lack of freedom. Like people should be able to use certain words but like at the same time. I feel like that the words are pretty much not needed to describe things or stuff.

 

[The Corrupt Plague]

I never did care much for it considering that kids are gonna find things uncensored anyway and it sucks for the adults who have to deal with it. Also, bleeping swear words is ♥♥♥♥ing ridiculous in my opinion. Aren't there worse things to be worried about like gore? Seems nobody cares about that one but yet they all go crazy about swearing and seeing the occasional nipple.

 

[Dakotah]

I would support censoring any material that advocates for violence and death against any group of people, such as flyers distributed to people's mail boxes, pamphlets handed out at group meetings or in public, books given out in schools or other public institutions (including religious texts that promote discrimination), among others. Such material should be vigorously discouraged and prohibited by law.

 

[Blu·Ray]

I would support censoring any material that advocates for violence and death against any group of people, such as flyers distributed to people's mail boxes, pamphlets handed out at group meetings or in public, books given out in schools or other public institutions (including religious texts that promote discrimination), among others. Such material should be vigorously discouraged and prohibited by law.

The problem with this model that you suggest is that somebody has to decide which texts can be published, and which should not. Where do you draw the line, and how can you possibly keep this line in practice?

The system you suggest is exactly the system used in dictatorships all over the world. Fascist countries choose what you can publish, and if you write what THEY think is wrong, they censor you. The only difference is that you have a different perception of what is right and wrong. Are you in a position to force your view of right and wrong on to others?

I fully agree with discouraging discrimination, but I don't think that prohibition is the way to counter it!

 

[Dakotah]

The problem with this model that you suggest is that somebody has to decide which texts can be published, and which should not. Where do you draw the line, and how can you possibly keep this line in practice?

The system you suggest is exactly the system used in dictatorships all over the world. Fascist countries choose what you can publish, and if you write what THEY think is wrong, they censor you. The only difference is that you have a different perception of what is right and wrong. Are you in a position to force your view of right and wrong on to others?

I fully agree with discouraging discrimination, but I don't think that prohibition is the way to counter it!

Actually, it is a system that Canada already employs, where hate speech, whether verbal or written, is prohibited by law, and for which punishments can include hefty fines among other sanctions.

I offer the following rulings by various Human Rights Commissions in Canada as examples:

• In Warman v. Northern Alliance, 2009 CHRT 10, Edward Peter Lustig held that the respondent's website was in violation of s. 13(1) because the website carried controversial remarks about Roma, Jews, Muslims, homosexuals, blacks, Arabs, and others. The adjudicator made an order pursuant to s. 54(1)(a) to ensure that the impugned website, which is defunct, remained inactive.
• In Warman v. Winnicki, 2006 CHRT 20, Karen A. Jensen found the respondent had posted messages to the Internet which were "vicious and dehumanizing". The adjudicator ordered the respondent to cease and desist his discriminatory practices and to pay a penalty of $6,000.
• In Citron v. Zündel TD 1/02 (2002/01/18) the Tribunal found that the respondent had theories of secret conspiracies by Jews. The respondent posted his theories to the Internet. The Tribunal found that the tone and extreme denigration and vilification of Jews by the respondent was a violation of s. 13(1). The Tribunal ordered the respondent to cease and desist his discriminatory practices.
• In 2005, the Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal fined Bill Whatcott, leader of a small group called the Christian Truth Activists, $17,500 because he distributed flyers that had controversial comments about homosexuals. The matter ultimately went to the Supreme Court of Canada where the decision was upheld in part (the court ruled: A prohibition of any representation that "ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity of" any person or class of persons on the basis of a prohibited ground is not a reasonable limit on freedom of religion. Those words are constitutionally invalid and are severed from the statutory provision in accordance with these reasons. The remaining prohibition of any representation "that exposes or tends to expose to hatred" any person or class of persons on the basis of a prohibited ground is a reasonable limit and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society). The ruling is here: http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2013/2013scc11/2013scc11.html

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada