Books, plays and films should be censorsed. Do you agree or not? Why?[B][SIZE=7]

So... [That was just unnecessary - Mata] and then [so was that] so that the babboon would [you're walking on think ice, Mike] and the the butter would never melt! [...] nipple! [That's it. You're banned - Mata]

[That wasn't me, in case anyone's confused - The real Mata]
[Yes it was - The really real Mata]

I think that, although censorship is overall a good idea, it is far too black-and-white.

I like the concept to some extent, but not the way the censorship we do have is applied. If people want something banned, I prefer it done via a protest or boycott, rather then the government getting involved generally. People will still mess up, but I'd rather it mass opinion about whats harmful or protest worthy, then a handful or teachers or governement workers.

Some things yes, or at least if not censored then age limits imposed. I'm thinking stuff depicting sex and violence here. You don't want your 12 year old watching hard core porn or really nasty horror/violent films.

Censorship has its merits, to protect vunerable groups from being exposed to disturbing images being the main one. However its easy to go overboard or for stuff to fall to the censor for the wrong reasons. (Like the banning of books in Alabama and so on)

First off, plays, books and films should not be banned in my opinion. If you don't like it, don't see/read/watch it.

I also happen to agree with the censorship of films. You would not want, as beleraphon said, your little twelve year old walking into a shop and buying the likes of Clockwork Orange or other somesuch film.

That said, it's bloody annoying when you're 14 and you see a good trailer but you can't go see it, but that's just life.

In conclusion, yay to censorship, nay to banning.

I'm not entirely happy with the age restrictions, fair enough you don’t want little kids watching some films but it should be up to the parents not the censors to decide if their kids are mature enouth to see a film, you don’t suddenly become mature when you reach 18. However some parents aren’t that responsible and couldn’t care what their kids are watching. So I can see why we need the age restrictions.

Thing is, Chronotub, that's not a problem. If a child is considered mature enough by their parents, then the parents can buy the film on behalf of the child. So the kid can't see it at the cinema. Not really a big deal.

As for suddenly becoming mature at 18, that's not how I see it. There are plenty of people who aren't 18 and yet watch 18 films, enjoy them, and aren't influenced in a negative way by the nudity or violence. It's not that everyone suddenly becomes mature by 18, most (I should think) are before that. It's that at 18, all (or at least most) of the people seeing the film will be mature enough. Subtle difference.

I disagree with any type of censorship or banning of anything. If someone is going to put forth the effort to write a book, play, movie, song, whatever, it should be on the market without restriction.

I disagree with age restrictions on things as well. One, kids will learn about it eventually. Two, age restrictions kind of work like this. You have a five year old kid. There is a piece of candy or some type of sweet on the counter. He wants the candy, he's not allowed until after dinner. Or next week, or for some occassion or for whatever reason. This only makes him want it more. When I was growing up, the more strict a rating was, the better the movie it was. Kids who are 13 and want to see a rated R movie generally aren't going to give a damn about it. They just want to see they've seen an age restricted film without their parents.

My point is, putting age restrictions on things only encourages kids to go after them more. And, censorship and banning has a similar effect.

But yeah, sure, if you're a believer in morality and rules and the like (ask me about that elsewhere), age restrictions all the way. Go have fun, have your arguments and strain your family life with that type of stuff. I've really only seen horribly negative effects with restrictions on anything.

All right. So kids under 12 should be able to rent hardcore porn or say, movies like The Professional? Which I happen to like, but thats not the point. Or another example, the music/literature the KKK produces.. we should have it available in public libraries and grocery stores for children and adults to have easier access? Writings against women, extreme religious movements that include violent anti-semitism/misogyny, ect. No censorship to whatever degree wouldn't just include well written books, but everything. I don't always like our current system, but the idea of no restriction worries me too.



To a point. Kids do pick up the knowledge about sex and whatever pop culture is at the moment. There is a big difference between popular knowledge and what the truth is. This is clearly evidenced by some of the recent polls on kids and sexuality. These sexually knowledgeable kids that often have access to explicit (cough, cosmopolitan, cough) magazines, movies, sex ed and more.. still don't always realize you can catch diseases from oral sex. While that is something we do want them to learn, my point is that popular knowledge can be highly colored, inaccurate or tainted by bias. Kids do pick things up, but its not the same as a researched subject.

Sure, children get rebellious and do stupid things, most notably teenagers. They do tend to see at least the occasional R movie and probably get a quick out of it til they grown up some. The thing is, if something is dangerous (I'd debate the point about some R movies, but anyway..) you don't toss at it people because they might do it anyway. We don't give out illegal drugs, straight razors and literature preaching the joys of suicide to kids because they might go out and do something stupid to be rebellious. The kids that are determined to do it generally don't need the help.

Restrictions don't always work, but the point would seem to be lessening the damage done when possible or at least the personal responsibility one of one involved. If you prevent a kid from seeing some R movies or at least certain ones and you feel they're harmful, you're still ahead of the game. If you a movie maker that remembers the firestorm after things like Columbine, you've also tried to cover your rear. Its clear that rightly or wrongly, a fair number of people do blame the media. Sometimes they even do frivolous lawsuits and/or boycotts too. heh.

I think that there are some plays, books and films which should be banned. For example a person makes a film showing the rape torture and murder of woman - then others get hold of the film and copy and sell it. Clearly the act of torture and murder is illegal but shouldn't the film also be banned? Other examples are below...


Zivane, I just need to clarify if you've thought about all the different types of things that people try to publish... are you sure you disagree with any type of censorship or banning of anything? Would you change your mind about the following examples:

- So a real life snuff video depicting sexual abuse and murder should be on the market without restriction? Anyone (old and young) can just walk into Blockbusters and pick up a copy?
{currently banned under restrictions on depiction of sexual violence both real and fictional, banned as showing a real life crime, banned as most likely evidence of sexual assault and murder, as well for concerns for the victim's family etc}

- What about the book that lists your credit card and other financial details that someone stole from your bank?
{currently banned as your financial data is considered private under contract (trade secrecy laws relating to banks etc), and private under criminal legislation to prevent theft}

- How about the Billboard Poster outside your house that says you're a neo-nazi paedophile?
{currently banned under laws protecting people from incitement (especially relating to unfounded allegations), also you would have the right to sue for defamation - rules are there to persuade people not to lie about each other}

- What about the KKK magazine that lists the names and addresses of black and hispanic families with false claims that they're involved in drug dealling and terrorism, and urges its readers to kill these people?
{In the UK we have race relations legislation that automatically bans race hate nonsense like this, as well as legislation similar to the US that bans the incitement of violence}

- How about the leafletts being handed out infront of your school that someone took with a long range camera of you undressing in your bedroom?
{currently banned for invasion of privacy and of sexual harrassment, also banned for publically handing out material of a sexual nature (if people want that kind of stuff they should go to a sex shop to buy it)}

First of all, I assume we're talking commercial films here. Something that would be screened in a cinema and available for purchase in a chain store.

I wasn't very specific there, so allow me to clarify: I don't think books/films/plays should be banned as a reaction to public complaint. I'm not knowledgeable on how it works, but I assume the BBFC (as far as films go) have some kind of screening process so that films can be classified into ratings. I assume also that, should a film like the one you describe come up for screening, it would be considered inacceptable to society and be, as you say, banned. This I have no problem with. Once it has passed this process, and been given a rating, I see no reason why a film should be banned.

Your example there. Can I suppose that you are talking about a self-made (i.e. non-commercial) film featuring actual violence? If so, it's not really officially released, so it can't be officially banned in the sense that a commercial film can. If not, there are fictional films (such as Clockwork Orange, to bring it up again) that depict the scenes you describe, and again, if it passes the screening, I see no reason why it should be banned.

Just a little, well, thing, for some reason, ever since society got so "civilized", people have become ashamed of being human. That's terrible. I believe that all our rules and restrictions have pretty much stunted the evolutionary process anyways.

And as for age restricted material and the like. Now, I don't believe in these but you know how you find labels saying "warning, not a low calorie food" or your lovely cigarette labels in the UK? That I agree with. Labels with information about what's in them (not the tiny fine print ones we may or may not have on our videos) should simply be put into action. I really don't care of a small child gets scared and has emotional scars for the rest of his life if he watches something that particularly damaging. Or if a 13 year old watches something "violent". We have war pictures in the news, don't we? Watching normal television or the news is far worse than what generally pops up in most places. We seriously baby the mind even in it's earliest stages.

Billboards shouldn't exist to begin with because they waste space, time, and in another of my wild theories, cause lots of car wrecks.

That KKK thing does exist. At least, here in Southern USA it does. Yeah, sure, we pride ourselves on being tolerant and all of other cultures - it's complete crap. Most people down here see in total black and white anyways. And now we have a law in Florida that says if we feel threatened in the street, we can shoot them.

And, our local news, gives pictures of people that the locals dont like, tells of the "things" they've done and says go ahead, turn them in. We won't blame you if you kill them first though.

The human body is there to look at. I'm not a nudist, but *shrug* people shouldn't be so ashamed of themselves. And, if you really care that much, block your windows or just plain use some common sense.

Erm, and The Professional (Leon?), is not that bad of a movie. Really. It's not. (Wow, it shows little Natalie Portman smoking cigarettes and cursing - 9 year olds do it all of the time).

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that because a book gets published, every bookstore has to sell it. Or that because a movie is made, Blockbuster has to have it. Businesses have the option whether or not they want to sell it. Businesses are privately owned, national chains or not. Someone's at the top saying what they sell in their sores and what they don't. Some internet company can sell it, whatever. I'm just saying there shouldn't be laws saying that "You're under 18, you can't buy a copy of Terminator, or Marquis de Sade's book".

It's also up to the publishing companies. We obviously don't trust anyone in the world so we have to impose law on publishers and editors and so forth to make sure they do their job. Half those editors destroy artistic quality when cutting scenes or lines from films because they had a curse word in it. I just think it's wrong to put so many restrictions on the public, film makers, novelists, and so forth. It only causes more strain, more problems, and more misunderstanding.

Although I'd warrant you'd be rather upset if said 13 year old came to school the next day with a knife, and slashed your daughter's face in imitation of a film.

And I imagine that if your 6 year old couldn't sleep for weeks because he'd watched a slasher flick at a friends house, you'd be rather miffed at that kids parents, right?


And with good reason. By all means, expose teenagers to the horrificness of the world, but children don't have the emotional maturity to make sense of how bloody nasty the world can be. Do you enroll your 4 year old in PhD courses? No, of course not, his brain simply isn't set up to deal with that.


They also keep the economy ticking over nicely by encouraging everyone to spend, spend, spend. While I agree with you that abolishing all advertising would lead to a happier world, that's not going to happen in a free market environment.


With you 100% on that one. If everyone spent one day of the week naked, it would really calm down the world. There's a limit to how much of an arrogant twat you can actually be while your tackle is swinging in the wind. I think that all political summits should take place naked for that very reason.


But you're missing a vital point here. A business does not (by and large) have a conscience. Certainly with larger businesses that have shareholders, their only responsibility is to their shareholders, and in the majority of cases, those shareholders don't give a flying frig about the morality of the day-to-day operations of the business.
So, let's use Blockbuster as an example. If Blockbuster were to take a moral stand, and not stock any violent movies, guess what happens? Some or all of it's competitors will stock the movies, and they'll get a boost to their business as a result. Blockbuster's share price suffers, and it's shareholders get mad. They get rid of the board of directors, and elect someone who will stock those violent videos in order to protect the interests of the companies shareholders.
To expect all businesses to conduct themselves morally is naive at best.

Jonman, while I agree that taking things to an almost irrational extreme is a vital way of arguing, I think that you missed a bit of the point with your Blockbuster speech. What zivane was getting at is if say director Joe Schmoe comes out with an incredibly violent, pornographic and profane movie that causes an uproar among some particular sect (cough, Volvo driving soccer mom Christian fundamentalists, cough) then Blockbuster could choose to not sell it but under the first ammendment (in America anyway) that movie should not be banned.

I am very much of the opinion that parents should stop being twats and bitching about the world when a little parenting could fix a lot of it, but the fact of the matter is is that kids are crafty - they'll see that movie whether they have permission from parents or not - I know I did. Still, I think that rating systems should only be in place for parents to know what to expect from a movie, not a "this child gets to see this movie while this one doesn't" label. Example: the remake of The Ladykillers a while back was rated R, but you didn't get that feel from the previews. Sans a rating, any little Billy or Susie could have seen it and been exposed (much to the chegrin of the parents) to a very vulgar movie. With the rating system, the parents know what to expect. Conversely, I don't think a movie's rating should have anything to do with admissions - I (17) tried to see Team America: World Police with my girlfriend (16). They wouldn't let her in due to her age so we wound up not seeing anything. I don't think a few months later she was any more mature to see the movie than when we first tried.

So ratings: good to let parents know what's what. Bad for admissions/rentals/sales.

I totally agree with labeling things or mentioning the bad in them so that people know ahead of time that there's "bad stuff" or something unwanted in the movie. I will admit, I'm a little biased in that I despise small children altogether and frankly don't give a damn what happens to them. They aren't going to learn any better because parents are too full of themselves to explain things properly (especially in this country).

I also think that items like sharp knives and the like should be kept away from kids to begin with (like that's ever going to happen). But, in reality, kids imitate things all the time. A commercial with sword fighting or something in it - kids are going to mock it using whatever they have on hand. It doesn't mean that they want to kill someone. Maybe they do. If people are going to make violent movies, then maybe teachers, parents, and adults in general should be more responsible in watching little kids. I say no to banning, but yes to better parenting and looking out for other people. Let the kid watch a slasher film. Let the kid know it's not real. Explain acting to kids. They don't get it half the time and most of them would much rather be playing a video game with half naked girls in it anyways.

Zivane:

..I'm not seeing a whole of evidence of this in how we treat people, foreign policy and whats popular. I wish we were more ashamed. But I should ask you to clarify what it is you think we're ashamed of. Inhibitions? Sex in some cases?



They don't usually proposition adults in my experience, however. I do like the movie, but that doesn't mean I'd want a young child seeing her try to get Leon in bed repeatedly either. In most cases where this happens, its a pedophile involved with much more destructive consquences.



Think of it like this: If that teenager becomes damaged and does violent things, guess who pays for it? You do or will. You pay for it with taxes for prison, trials, social services and sometimes higher insurance costs. If he goes out and does something violent, that child you don't care about could well hurt someone you do care about. Friends, lovers, families, people I presume you do want to stay alive and not be damaged. These things don't happen in a vaccuum. While TV/media aren't near as damaging as child abuse, neglect, drugs, ect, people ending up damaged hurts far more than just that one person if things go badly.



Why not? What good do you feel having it available does?



Sure, some people go overboard. Sometimes to the point of being detrimental.




A lot of parents aren't too full of themselves and do care, Zivane. I've meet a few good parents, though far more bad ones. Again, you don't have to care, no one does. Its just generally easier to fix problems when the kids can heal, then wait til later when you've got one more person thats never likely to be fixed. The sort that you spend your life paying for.



There's a huge difference in imitating heroic battles and blowing someone's head off for the heck of it. Sword fighting and the medieval-ish films or cartoons like Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles do show a lot of fighting. They also have a context thats dramatically difference than mindless violence. Kids aren't stupid and they pick whats 'cool' whether its being the hero or the gangster that shot the woman in the head.

On the parenting bit that you and PsychWardMike mentioned:

Yes, exactly. All the rules in the world can't make up for a good active parent. Especially when that explains slasher violence or other things to their kids in context.

I think that in an ideal world, there would be no need for censorship - there would either be no dangerous ideas (racism, sadism, hatred, apathy) or people who saw glorification of these ideas would understand well enough to not act upon them. Unfortunatly, people, especially younger people, are impressionable. At any young age, a child has not yet experianced enough to really understand the implications of some of those ideas, especially if this child lives in a place where these ideas are common. I'm nineteen, and I still don't think that it would be a good idea for me to read/see certain media. Propaganda is simple to make, and easy to believe. Just look at the BS that Michael Moore gave us with "Farenheit 9/11" - he deliberately misled people, played to emotional responses, and presented only one side of the story, with slanted facts. Many people I know were completely taken in by it, and believed the whole thing, and these were people in college, who should have known better.

Now, lets take that idea and change it a little. Rather than watching political propaganda films, we're watching a movie so violent, it could be considered pro-violence. A movie which glorifies violence as an answer to problems. And we are no longer intelligent college students in a metropolitan area, but young fourteen year olds, perhaps less than average intelligence, living in a small town in the US Midwest. I believe that a movie such as this, shown to that young and impressionable population, would have adverse effects, not just on the children, but on the community around them.

Censorship helps maintain society, it helps standardize what is acceptable in our society. Perhaps we don't need to ban things, but we need to say that we don't want a lot of it. What would our society be like if we allowed as much violence, sex, drugs, profanity, rudeness, and the like in anything that was made? Do you honestly think that we would have a better society?

I think we'd have tougher people and a smaller society that can take care of itself instead of relying on government so much to make all the decisions for what's best for people. Granted, there wouldn't be as many people. And lots of people would die. But you know something, in 150 years, everyone who is alive right now, won't be. Evolution rules. Sooner or later, something is going to wipe out the human population whether it's disease or us killing eachother off or the world exploding or the sun exploding.

Profanity and rudeness are courtesy, manners, based on what is socially acceptable at the time. They don't change people. Just because a kid gros up saying "ass" instead of "bum" doesn't mean he's going to be a serial rapist, or randomly shoto someone in the head.

Just because a kid watches someone blow some chic's head off doesn't mean he's going to go out a do that to the girl who sits next to him in kindergarten.

Government should not have the right to say that no one of a certain age can or can not see this movie, read this book, or listen to this song. Banning and censorship, in my opinion, are not the ways to go. Labeling things and regulating them to a certain degree is a more proper approach in my opinion.

Having access to material, knowledge in general, different ideas - it's not just comforting. It helps. Most kids don't read to begin with in this country. I don't think we have any real laws for age restrictions that deals with books. People mostly care about what goes on television and in movies. And, having access to it lessens the hype about it. We banned alcohol for two years across the country. What happened? More drunken people instead of less. We put pressures to raise our drinking age even more. What happens? More drunk driving. The more we condemn something, the more people are going to want it and do it.

The Columbine ordeal wasn't really to do with those kids watching violent films. It's mostly from the ignorance of other people who'd probably not been allowed to watch R rated films at 14 mocking those kids because they'd seen more and dealt with more and were therefore, different. Kids don't go shooting up schools because they watched a fictional film about it.

I'm out of this now as I don't really care that much anymore.

Man's very downfall will be his prosperity.

If so many (nearly all?) kids watch them anyway, hence the lack of censorship needed.. that would be a very small number of children. Not that kids need R rated movies to be cruel. And while they don't do it because of that, teenagers and some adults have a 'monkey see, monkey do' attitude. Witness the rise of eating disorders in countries that didn't use to have them, any fashion fad, ect.

I think what is really desensetizing the kids is the news- every day they hear dozens of reports of people being killed and eventually some of them will think its OK.

I hate to jump on a bandwagon here, but I really worry more about the video games/movies/tv when its not put into context. The news is violent, but it also shows shoot outs, people being arrested for crimes and negative aspects of things. (Excepting the glorification of serial killers, which is a bad thing) Its not that it has to be innately evil. I played mortal combat (violent video game), I watched sometimes 'violent' kids shows like Ninja Turtles, movies like Terminator, ect. I also turned out a completely nonviolent person as did my brother overall, who did/watched more of it than I.

The thing is, when you add the extreme violence to kids that have issues, lack stable parents and are often young and troubled.. its gets messy. Their world view is already slanted enough that the 'power without consquences' message can accepted as such. Or that the consquences don't outweight the benefits/glory/necessity of the violence. Fixing that is much harder as it took several social issues to reach this stage, the most damaging of which cannot be blamed on the media.

If by censorship we mean age labels and warnings on books/films etc and the protection of the individuals privacy/physical self then yes. Banning anything else is counter productive. If you can ban things you can ban anything and no one will know. Also I don't think parents should be the ones to decide as they will all have wildly different ideas of what's appropriate (repeats her etire argument from "banned books"). If the child is mature for their years then that's different but some parents are horribly restrictive even past the state approved age limits and it's fairer all round if a neutral committee of educated people decide. Also the only things that should be censored are graphic sex scenes, graphic violence or extreme racism (not the sort of racism from to Kill a Mockingbird for example).

Museum Girl: The concerns you have about parents deciding apply to any school board, any library and any government body. There will be no one entiety thats not touched by some degree of conservatism (say a southern school or whatnot), bias or various concerns. I think parents are in line to ideally know their children best, but I note the obvious exceptions. To actually decree they couldn't decide though, would be volatile at best. People do have religious or whatever beliefs and I can just hear the firestorm that would come from telling them that they have no rights over what their children are exposed to.



Usually it makes it wildly popular. Just look at Saddam's booksales or the history of Lolita, various videos that were banned or banished til late night, ect. There's some obvious exceptions for very, very graphic material, but banning rarely keeps anything secret and usually aids its popularity as likely as not.