Censorship

[pokecole]

I think that if a show or program is meant specifically for viewers under the age of 12, that it should be censored. Above that age I believe either the parents or children themselves can handle censorship for the most part. Nudity could use to be censored until age 18, as it is a much more mature subject. This being said, I believe that it is entirely the parents' choice for censorship.
At the same time, we need try to find a great balance between censorship and allowing children to become mature. It would not be wise if we forever hid children from reality they would become sheltered and be of no real help to society. On the opposite side of the spectrum, if we don't hide anything from them it may scar them emotionally. Finding that balance is very important.

 

[Megan]

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...)

Except for Germany where it's forbidden by law to show fascist symbols. That's the main reasons why many games either are forbidden (Wolfenstein 3D), or get extremly censored (the console version of the South Park game; the Steam version got spared fortunately) there. The only normal way you can come across those symbols is in school (history lessons and...well fascists trying to distribute their propaganda in form of CDs and the likes).

I'm against censorship and I also think that it's not the TV shows or video games that should educate the kids; it's the parents. Unfortunately many parents think that it's not up to themselves, but the opposite. If there's a chance that a certain show contains lots of swearing and you don't want your children to learn something inappropriate, don't let your kids watch them.
It won't solve the problem entirely, considering that there will be a time they have to face the "real world", but it should be a better way to prepare for it.

 

[Sopheria]

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.

That's actually the kind of censorship that I'm against, personally. When you start policing people's speech, there's serious potential for abuse. For example, what if a politician didn't like people expressing their dissent against him, so he construed it as inviting violence against minorities, and ordered all negative posters of him be removed, and all the offending parties thrown in prison. Since what constitutes a threat of violence is at the discretion of the the people who enforce the laws, it basically becomes an easy way to shut up anybody they personally don't like.

 

[Clebby]

The idea of censorship is all subliminal, really. People that are around 13+ will typically know what any censors will mean because they are exposed to such language and vulgarity. On the other hand, you have the younger base of civilization which does not know about this censorship because vulgarity has not yet been introduced in their life. It's really a way of segregating age and maturity, really. Young kids who know these censors will typically end up less mature, while older people who do not know of these censors may be more mature about situations that others.

However, this is the English language we are talking about. A language that is meant to contain as many insulting words as possible, and words are what makes for a tone. Taking other languages into account, emotional vocalization of a sentence is what makes something insulting. I'll take Japanese and Mandarin for examples; their languares are based solely on logograms, but have been adapted by scholars to include a written form of the language as well. Knowing that these logograms are in place, emotional vocalization is key to getting emotions across to other people. The same can be said for Arabic language as well, but I'm not 100% sure about it. The German language is the same way.

In reality, censorship is mainly an American invention that is solely based on segregation of maturity (or if you look far enough back, you could see a segregation between American and British colonists), and if America didn't exist, neither would censorship.

 

[Euphoric]

There are few types of speech that need to be censored. One of them is hate speech. Sure, it can be argued that it's a form of free speech, but we have too much free speech as it is. People shouldn't have the right to freely disparage and reduce the rights of other citizens. Protecting one party's rights so they can limit another's is worse than limiting the former's.

Most speech shouldn't be censored, though. Taking an example from above, talking about fascism is fine unless you're actively trying to target, say, Jews with it and/or using force. In the Skokie case, for example, the Nazis shouldn't have been allowed. Normally, I think that they would be able to if not for the fact that they deliberately decided to hold their parade in Skokie because of its huge Jewish population, specifically ones that had experienced WWII. If you don't think that's why they held it there than sorry but that's bs.

tl;dr mostly not but some things need it

 

[Dakotah]

As a follow up to my previous post I would like to offer this bit of news which further illustrates the way certain forms of speech is regulated in Canada:

Anti-gay, abortion activists arrested at University of Regina

An American anti-gay activist and a Canadian abortion activist have been arrested at the University of Regina.

Peter LaBarbera, the controversial head of an American lobby group that has been labelled a hate group by the South Poverty Law Center, and Bill Whatcott, an abortion activist who has a history of legal troubles in Saskatchewan, were taken into custody by the Regina Police Service.

News Talk Radio's Kevin Martel observed police officers tell the two to leave the school's campus or risk being arrested; after some discussion the men refused to move and were arrested for trespassing.

LaBarbera and Whatcott were in Weyburn over the weekend to speak at a pro-life conference. They were at the school attempting to hand out anti-abortion and anti-gay pamphlets, flanked by large placards depicting aborted fetuses.

It isn't the first time Whatcott has been in trouble with the law in Saskatchewan. Several human rights complaints were filed against him after he handed out anti-gay pamphlets more than a dozen years ago. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada, which found Whatcott has violated the province's Human Rights Code. He was ordered to pay a fine of $7,500.

 

[Talon]

First off, let my start by saying that the more you censor something, the more curious people get. If you completely censored all nudity on the internet, tv, and a lot of it in person, people will get very curious. Human's are a very curious species, similar to a cat. The more curious we get, the more we will search down and find the answer.

Censoring is useless in theory, I understand why we do it, but it's all in vain. Hiding something from someone is useless, you can't hide something forever. Eventually the one you are hiding from will find you. You can run, but you can't hide. You can only chase things away from people, but you can't hide it from them. Eventually they'll find out. Hiding swearwords? What point does that have? It's just a word. It really has no effect.

If you hide sex from kids, when they find out what it's truly like, they'll have trouble trusting you again. Censorship is a serious catalyst for trust issues. Sex is a natural thing. It's supposed to happen. We have to do it. So why hide it? I can understand making sure they understand the consequences that come from unprotected sex, and the long lasting effects even unprotected sex has on people.

♥♥♥♥ing vulgar language is the worst of them all for goddamn censorship. It really has no use. What do you gain from hiding it? The words have no bad meanings. ♥♥♥♥ means fecal matter. ♥♥♥♥ means woops, a sexual act, or that you're simply mad. ♥♥♥♥♥ is a female dog. Bastard is a fatherless son. Ass is a donkey, and a part of the body. Dick (Which may or may not count), is a short name for Richard, and another part of the body. Pussy is someone who is scared, a cat, and a part of the body. The list goes on and on and on and on. ALL of these words I use on a regular basis. Whether it be over the internet, or through speech, I use every single curse word you can think of in the american language on a daily basis. I don't understand whats so wrong about them anyways.

 

[BadPokemon]

When people hear all these bad words all the time, they start saying it. They become desynthesized to it. I know about all those bad words, but if I hear then enough, they will come out of my mouth. I don't want that.