# To censor or not to censor?



## Everness

The cover of one of the last issues of Time magazine read, "Has TV Gone Too Far?"  

The results of a poll they conducted were very interesting, especially the responses of the public to the question "Should the government step in?"

Violence: 
(Percentage saying yes) 
Is there too much on television? 66%
Are you personally offended by it? 39%
Should government ban it from TV? 36%

Cursing and sexual language:
(Percentage saying yes)
Is there too much on television? 58%
 Are you personally offended by it? 42%
 Should government ban it from TV? 41%

Explicit sexual content, such as nudity:
(Percentage saying yes)
 Is there too much on television? 50%
  Are you personally offended by it? 38%
  Should government ban it from TV? 41%

Drugs and alcohol abuse:
(Percentage saying yes)
  Is there too much on television? 46%
   Are you personally offended by it? 32%
   Should government ban it from TV? 33%

The article summarizes the findings of the poll: "Americans find TV too risqué, according to the results of a TIME poll, but that doesn't mean that they, personally, are offended. And while most want a stricter FCC, they don't back a ban on smutty content." 

Do other American foreros relate to this "We hate it! We want it!" mentality? What happens in other countries? Do we identify with Americans' take on this topic? Maybe the key question would be: Should the government be more strict, stay the same or be less strict in controlling the amount of sex and violence on TV?


----------



## Lems

.
*Censorship? My Goodness!!! I’m shocked! * 

Looks like about 40% of Americans never read George Orwell’s novel *1984*!!! Such part of the American society does not deserve the freedom they have. Perhaps, if they eventually lived under a dictatorship for over 20 years they would learn to highly value the meaning of liberty which, by the way, is a most significative symbol of US of America.     

Lems
__________________________
This “telephone” has too many inconveniences to seriously be considered a communication means. 
Western Union internal memo, 1876.


----------



## te gato

That is so easy for people to remedy...

All they have to do is reach over..not too far now..don't hurt yourself...and pick up the remote...and on the remote is an amazing little word...it is spelt....'OFF'....push it and see what happens...ohhh..magic..you have now censored what you were watching.... 
Now go outside and play..

te gato


----------



## Agnès E.

I do deeply agree with Te Gato !
As long as you have the choice of watching or not watching, your exercise your right of private censorship. And you teach your children that they can find some very interesting/funny programs on TV, but that there also are many other ways to spend their time. And that they are not forced to talk the way people do in some of these programs!
We have one TV set at home, at our daughters ask for the permission to watch it. They know for sure that, if the weather is fine, the answer will be definitely NO and they even do not ask (and just find it normal)!
They play (a lot), they read (a lot), they discuss and debate (a lot), they exercise their brains (a lot...). And sometimes they watch TV. And so do we also, we parents. We do not need an external eye to tell us what to watch and what to avoid.
I think it is more a question of teaching children how to become critic and not "swallow" every "food" the television proposes to them than really "censor" TV programs.


----------



## goyete12

In Spain, TV is getting worse and worse one day after another, but i don't think that the government should censor it.

First of all there are tons of things more important and urgent for the Spanish government to worry about.

Besides i think that the public are who have to censor theirselves by changing the cannel or switching off TV. You cannot expect that the government will think for you!! You have to make your own choice and let everybody to do it. If the public want to watch the garbage that is shown in Spain, that's fine, let's them swallow it.

The Spanish TV is really awful, the foreign people i know can't believe it is so terrible!!


----------



## cuchuflete

Goyete, Agnes and Te Gato have all given very intelligent replies, along with Lems, who
knows what it is like to live with censorship.  It is within our own power toi decide what to look at, what to read, what to watch.  Our luxury is the freedom to have this choice.

People who say that 'they' should control or censor what is on television are the same people who want to make their own political and religious beliefs law, and force them on all citizens.  I would rather have a wide variety of choices, and make my own. "They" are not well equiped to tell any one of us what we should or should not see.

Regarding television, I found so little of interest to watch on it that I gave my box away, and have not replaced it.  That's how I 'voted'.

Saludos,
Cuchu


----------



## Artrella

To censor, anything, is not the way.  Nobody or nothing should be censored.  You can choose what to read, what to watch, what to read on the net.  Censorship is far worse than those disgusting things you can watch on TV or read in a book, newspaper, magazines.  If people are intelligent they will know what to choose for them and for their kids.


----------



## Outsider

Everness said:
			
		

> The article summarizes the findings of the poll: "Americans find TV too risqué, according to the results of a TIME poll, but that doesn't mean that they, personally, are offended. And while most want a stricter FCC, they don't back a ban on smutty content."


I can't understand what they mean by "too _risqué_". In two of the questions you quoted, most respondents thought TV had gone too far, but in the two other questions--including the one about "explicit sexual content, such as nudity"--most of them did not!

I also don't see how they can draw conclusions about the FCC. There were no questions about the FCC!

Finally, the phrase "smutty content" seems a bit loaded. We can tell how the author of the article feels about this matter.



			
				Everness said:
			
		

> What happens in other countries? Do we identify with Americans' take on this topic? Maybe the key question would be: Should the government be more strict, stay the same or be less strict in controlling the amount of sex and violence on TV?


I am opposed to any kind of censorship.


----------



## Helicopta

It's interesting to read that (so far) no one has posted in favour of TV censorship. As has been pointed out already, we all have the ability to censor what we watch, whether it be by using the remote control or getting rid of the TV altogether. In this country, I guess in a bid to avoid complaints, they broadcast warnings before some programmes along the lines of: _The following programme contains strong language, violence and scenes of a sexual nature that some viewers may find offensive_. I think they do a similar thing in the USA, am i right?

I'm afraid I can't agree with the learned Cuchu on this one, who seems to think that TV has no redeeming features... Quality drama, fascinating documentaries, arts programmes, comedy... It's not that difficult to spot the few diamonds, brightly twinkling, in the sea of manure. Some of them are imported from the USA too so I'm sure it can't all be bad there either.


----------



## cuchuflete

Hi Helicopta,

I didn't say that TV has no redeeming features.   Yes,  there are a few programs worth watching, but for me it's not worth the trouble or the cost.  I live very far from large cities, so reception with an antenna is limited to three local channels that purvey superficial garbage.  I see no reason to pay a lot to a cable company with 120 channels of junk, and one or two with good drama, news, and concerts.  Between public radio and the internet, my news needs are satisfied, and there are, in addition to my own books, a good library and two bookstores in the nearby village. Finally, conversation with interesting people is easily available.

cheers,
Cuchu






			
				Helicopta said:
			
		

> It's interesting to read that (so far) no one has posted in favour of TV censorship. As has been pointed out already, we all have the ability to censor what we watch, whether it be by using the remote control or getting rid of the TV altogether. In this country, I guess in a bid to avoid complaints, they broadcast warnings before some programmes along the lines of: _The following programme contains strong language, violence and scenes of a sexual nature that some viewers may find offensive_. I think they do a similar thing in the USA, am i right?
> 
> I'm afraid I can't agree with the learned Cuchu on this one, who seems to think that TV has no redeeming features... Quality drama, fascinating documentaries, arts programmes, comedy... It's not that difficult to spot the few diamonds, brightly twinkling, in the sea of manure. Some of them are imported from the USA too so I'm sure it can't all be bad there either.


----------



## Helicopta

Hi Cuchu.
My sincere apologies for jumping to conclusions, your reasons for non-TV-ownership now make perfect sense. I agree with you that most TV is awful, despite the good content that is on, some night's it's impossible to find anything, that's why my DVD player is indispensable to me (along with my computer and shelves full of CD's and books).


----------



## lauranazario

Artrella said:
			
		

> To censor, anything, is not the way.  Nobody or nothing should be censored.


I disagree. We're talking about TV --a very tangible and far-reaching medium-- whose impact spreads far and wide. I think that certain things *should* be censored.. they currently are and those are what consititute basic standards of decency. 

Take foul language, for example... I believe it has no place and should not be allowed in network programming accessible to anyone with a TV antenna within the broadcast area. 
Foul language can be heard in cable and satellite TV programming --mediums in which you have to pay for programming-- and I have no problem with that. In more ways than one, you get what you pay for --including nudity, profanity, gratuituous violence, religious gay-bashing, animal slaughter for 'sport' called hunting, etc. etc.

The tolerant side of my personality has no problem with the existence of TV channels that cater to things I do not endorse or believe in. They could open a self-mutilation channel and I'd be fine with that --provided it stays away from public broadcast and confined to any form of paying TV viewing system.

But as a society, we must define and defend *basic standards of decency*... raising our voices when someone breaches those standards and objecting to the infringement of what I regard as a social contract/_un contrato social_.

In TV (and that's the main focus of this thread), I do not regard censorship as being bad but rather as a system of checks and balances. 
Oh, and the 5-second delay imposed on "live" TV events in the US? Fine by me too. The sight of Ms. Jackson's pierced boob should be enjoyed by those who actually have intimate knowledge of La Janet or happen to share a nudist beach with her. 

Saludos,
LN


----------



## Everness

lauranazario said:
			
		

> I disagree. We're talking about TV --a very tangible and far-reaching medium-- whose impact spreads far and wide. I think that certain things *should* be censored.. they currently are and those are what consititute basic standards of decency.



But who and how one defines *basic * *standards * of *decency*? How do you reach consensus in defining what is basic, what are standards, and what is decency? For instance pornography is notoriously hard to define. One learned jurist said, "I know it when I see it." The problem is that it can mean different things in different communities as judged by different standards of morality. 



			
				lauranazario said:
			
		

> Take foul language, for example... I believe it has no place and should not be allowed in network programming accessible to anyone with a TV antenna within the broadcast area.
> Foul language can be heard in cable and satellite TV programming --mediums in which you have to pay for programming-- and I have no problem with that. In more ways than one, you get what you pay for --including nudity, profanity, gratuituous violence, religious gay-bashing, animal slaughter for 'sport' called hunting, etc. etc.



I've heard this argument before but I'm not quite sure that air channels are free. Although you don't pay a monthly fee, you are watching commercials. And who do you think pays for those commercials? You and me! The cost of producing and airing these commercials is included in the final price of any product or service that is advertised. Therefore, one could argue that anyone who has a TV set and access to programs via an antenna should have a say on what is shown or not shown. For instance, if I think that soft porn is ok, the networks should listen to me. By the way, how do you think that Desperate Housewives made it to network programming?


----------



## Like an Angel

Maybe not to censor but to *oversee*, there is an organization in here called COMFER that works on it... anyhow there are a lot of TV programmes that should be put down, mainly because there are people that aren't able to say "oh, this TV programme is poor rubbish, I should turn the TV set off".-


----------



## temujin

lauranazario said:
			
		

> But as a society, we must define and defend *basic standards of decency*... raising our voices when someone breaches those standards and objecting to the infringement of what I regard as a social contract/_un contrato social_.
> LN


 
I agree with Everness. We cannot define a standard of decency and I don´t see the point either. 
There are, however, different opinions and I believe that a discussion of these opinions are far more fruitful than sensorship. E.g the lack of sensorship with the "Jackson-nipple" opened up a debate that said a lot about american society.
History has shown more than once that sensorship does not work.

I was recently kindly asked by a moderator to remove my beloved Ford Fairlane quote as my signature because some people were offended by it.
I did it, but it left a bad taste in my mouth...
 

t.


----------



## Like an Angel

temujin said:
			
		

> E.g the lack of *c*ensorship with the "Jackson-nipple" ...History has shown more than once that *c*ensorship does not work.


 
I hope you don't mind temujin!

Cheerio!


----------



## ILT

I agree with the opinions in this thread that we are our only censors.  I am against somebody else deciding what I can watch and what I can't.  Here in México, a couple of years ago somebody decided to make a movie based on a book published in Portugal sometime in the XIX century - The Crime of Padre Amaro -.  Some people were against this, and some of them made it clear that it should not be commercialized or made available to the public.  Two things happened: they had to recognize they were critizing a movie the had not watched themselves made about a book they had not read, and they created so much expectation that it became an instant hit.

I want _"they"_ (them) to acknowledge that I am a thinking person who can decide by herself, if I don't like it, I change the channel or turn it off.  So simple! 

ILT


----------



## temujin

Like an Angel said:
			
		

> I hope you don't mind temujin!
> 
> Cheerio!


 

Hehe. of course not. that was not Censorship, was it?

t.


----------



## Agnès E.

Any censorship requires someone to decide where the decency ends, what is good and what is bad.
Who are we to decide about this on behalf of others?
When do decency or violence leave place to goodness ? On which criteria can someone base his judgement? What level will be decided as acceptable or not?
That's a very dangerous way of thinking.


----------



## Everness

I love translating said:
			
		

> I want _"they"_ (them) to acknowledge that I am a thinking person who can decide by herself, if I don't like it, I change the channel or turn it off.  So simple!
> ILT



But what if a 13-year-old loves the kinky show that's on tonight at 10? What are the chances that he/she is going to change channels and watch instead the documentary on WWII on the Discovery channel? Do teenagers have the same capacity than adults to make sound moral judgments? Let's not forget that there are many grown-ups in this world whose moral conscience is underdeveloped, to put it mildly!  (Ah, and some live next door)


----------



## lauranazario

Everness said:
			
		

> But who and how one defines *basic * *standards * of *decency*? How do you reach consensus in defining what is basic, what are standards, and what is decency? For instance pornography is notoriously hard to define. One learned jurist said, "I know it when I see it." The problem is that it can mean different things in different communities as judged by different standards of morality.


Who defines it? The standards of morality in "XYZ" are defined by the members of XYZ society. What is accceptable in one country and its society may very well be deemed unacceptable by the people across the border. And that may happen at a regional level as well... what may be permissible in the south may be taboo in the north --all within the same country. It all depends of what members of each and every specific society deem "fit" or not. This is part of the social contract I mentioned in post #12.


			
				lauranazario said:
			
		

> But as a society, we must define and defend basic standards of decency... raising our voices when someone breaches those standards and objecting to the infringement of what I regard as a social contract/_un contrato social_.


This is just an example: I cannot tell the people in Holland that I agree with legalized prostitution or not. What for? What weight should my words carry? I'm not a member of their society... As an outsider, I have no bearing upon their own _social contract_. It's entirely up to ther members of their society to come to the agreement of what they can tolerate/deem appropriate or not. In the US, only one society --the people who live in Reno, Nevada-- have reached that same level of tolerance. Why not neighboring cities or states? Their societies have come to other types of agreements.

But going back to TV... I cannot ask TVE (Televisión Española) or Antena 2 to operate under the same standards the Federal Communications Commission upholds in the US and PR --and I never said so. I am speaking only from my own perspective as a member of MY society. A society that does not deem nudity or foul langage to be "fit" for general broadcast.

Uncensored regards, 
LN


----------



## Artrella

Everness said:
			
		

> But what if a 13-year-old loves the kinky show that's on tonight at 10? What are the chances that he/she is going to change channels and watch instead the documentary on WWII on the Discovery channel? Do teenagers have the same capacity than adults to make sound moral judgments? Let's not forget that there are many grown-ups in this world whose moral conscience is underdeveloped, to put it mildly!  (Ah, and some live next door)




A 13-year-old does not decide which channels he would watch after 10 pm.  That is their *parents* task.  If a teenager is *neglected* by their parents, watching a porn picture on TV is the least problem he has.  Poor boy!


----------



## cuchuflete

Laura,

I like the intent, but worry about the 'tyranny of the majority'.  What if the 51% of the US population that voted for W wants to tell me what I am allowed to listen to on the radio?  There is a clear danger in that application of 'local standards'.

Cuchu


----------



## Everness

lauranazario said:
			
		

> Who defines it? The standards of morality in "XYZ" are defined by the members of XYZ society. What is accceptable in one country and its society may very well be deemed unacceptable by the people across the border. And that may happen at a regional level as well... what may be permissible in the south may be taboo in the north --all within the same country. It all depends of what members of each and every specific society deem "fit" or not. This is part of the social contract I mentioned in post #12.



Laura, maybe what's acceptable to you isn't acceptable to your neighbor, that is someone who lives just a few yards away. Two individuals might live in the same neighborhood  and share the same cultural background (race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, etc), but be at odds when it comes to defining what's right and what's wrong, what's obscene and what's not, etc. 

My rule of thumb: If something isn't *illegal *(e.g.: downloading child porn), it shouldn't be censored by a government agency. Government should refrain from telling individuals what type of *ethical values* should inform their lives.  It's up to us, members of society, to determine what's ethically right or wrong, decent or indecent, etc. How?  Through the principle of supply and demand applied to cultural products. All of these topics should be discussed in our homes, schools, communities of faith, and neighborhood organizations. Unfortunately, our governments love to impose certain values on us and we seem to be okay with such interference.


----------



## Helicopta

Why, if they are shown at an appropriate time and adequate warning is given, should programmes containing bad language, violence or nudity not be screened on public broadcast networks?

If someone makes an adult-orientated film, drama or even a documentary in which they want to portray real life and real situations, they can’t always do so without including some of the less palatable aspects of life.

People offended by such material can exercise their right of choice by watching another channel or by doing something else instead. Just as the people who _do_ want to see some of these programmes, exercise their rights by tuning in, in their millions, to watch them. Why should all of these people be forced to pay for additional satellite/cable channels simply because others don’t like the same things they do?

I’m not talking about pornography here, I’m sure the makers wouldn’t be too happy at the loss of revenue if that became freely available, just shows made by adults, for adults and shown at a time when children are in bed.

I don’t watch programmes _because_ they contain ‘offensive’ material but I’ll happily watch them if they’re well written, well acted, engaging, funny, thought provoking or whatever. I find the banality so prevalent in television these days far more offensive than any amount of sex, violence, drug use or bad language.

As for children seeing unsuitable material, well, no matter how good or responsible a parent you may be, you can never stop your children from coming into contact with it. Whether it’s a grubby, dog-eared ‘jazz mag’ being passed around and sniggered over at school or a horror film, secretly watched at a friend’s house when their parents are out, they _will_ see it.

This happened when I was growing up and I see no reason to suspect that things have changed, especially now that we live in the age of the internet. Taking it off of the television won’t make any difference. Oh, and the language of the playground is some of the worst you’ll ever hear.


----------



## JLanguage

Everness said:
			
		

> Laura, maybe what's acceptable to you isn't acceptable to your neighbor, that is someone who lives just a few yards away. Two individuals might live in the same neighborhood and share the same cultural background (race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, etc), but be at odds when it comes to defining what's right and what's wrong, what's obscene and what's not, etc.
> 
> My rule of thumb: If something isn't *illegal *(e.g.: downloading child porn), it shouldn't be censored by a government agency. Government should refrain from telling individuals what type of *ethical values* should inform their lives. It's up to us, members of society, to determine what's ethically right or wrong, decent or indecent, etc. How? Through the principle of supply and demand applied to cultural products. All of these topics should be discussed in our homes, schools, communities of faith, and neighborhood organizations. Unfortunately, our governments love to impose certain values on us and we seem to be okay with such interference.


 
Everness, I strongly agree. While there is much crap on TV, sometimes sex, nudity, or profanity can enhance a show. These are things that some might consider obscene, while others are perfectly fine with them. As to whether or not they are appropriate for the younger demographic, that is a matter for parents to decide. If you are strongly opposed to everything on TV, then it's really quite simple, don't own a TV. I find that most stuff on TV isn't worth watching, anyway.


----------



## te gato

Isn't being human wonderful..and deciding for ourselves what we like or do not..I do not agree that anyone should make the choice for me..I am an adult...ok sometimes I am an adult...I can choose what is appropriate or not..FOR ME...
I do not like the show..I shut it off...and the hard thing to define on an issue such as this...what is appropriate and what is not?...I might not like shows that others do..how do you decide?...
And after TV..then what?..Radio..Computer..What I drive..What I read..yadda,yadda...It is called Choices..and I think it is wonderful!!..because it is mine!!

te gato


----------



## Everness

JLanguage said:
			
		

> I find that most stuff on TV isn't worth watching, anyway.



Yes. Besides the Brazilian soap operas (I think that the adult entertainment industry will soon sue the producers of these soaps because they are driving away traditional customers), the rest of the stuff isn't worth watching.


----------



## Everness

te gato said:
			
		

> Isn't being human wonderful..and deciding for ourselves what we like or do not..I do not agree that anyone should make the choice for me..I am an adult...ok sometimes I am an adult...I can choose what is appropriate or not..FOR ME...
> I do not like the show..I shut it off...and the hard thing to define on an issue such as this...what is appropriate and what is not?...I might not like shows that others do..how do you decide?...
> And after TV..then what?..Radio..Computer..What I drive..What I read..yadda,yadda...It is called Choices..and I think it is wonderful!!..because it is mine!!
> te gato



But some of us need someone to think _for _us and not think _with _us. Then these old dudes in Congress decide to investigate pornography, create new laws and regulations, and save us from eternal damnation. I think they just want to have a chance to watch some porn and not feel guilty about it.


----------



## te gato

Everness said:
			
		

> But some of us need someone to think _for _us and not think _with _us. Then these old dudes in Congress decide to investigate pornography, create new laws and regulations, and save us from eternal damnation. I think they just want to have a chance to watch some porn and not feel guilty about it.


 
Putting porn on the back burner...
You would have someone take away your choices????   Sorry not me....

For the people that can not think FOR themselves...maybe they should have their mommies do it for them... 

I tend to make good choices...and the scary part...once started where will it end?? As for porn..I say it is that persons choice...who is to decide what is porn? Everyone has different views on everything!!....humanity... What one person conciders porn..might not be by someone else....

te gato


----------



## Everness

Helicopta said:
			
		

> Why, if they are shown at an appropriate time and adequate warning is given, should programmes containing bad language, violence or nudity not be screened on public broadcast networks?
> 
> If someone makes an adult-orientated film, drama or even a documentary in which they want to portray real life and real situations, they can’t always do so without including some of the less palatable aspects of life.
> 
> People offended by such material can exercise their right of choice by watching another channel or by doing something else instead. Just as the people who _do_ want to see some of these programmes, exercise their rights by tuning in, in their millions, to watch them. Why should all of these people be forced to pay for additional satellite/cable channels simply because others don’t like the same things they do?
> 
> I’m not talking about pornography here, I’m sure the makers wouldn’t be too happy at the loss of revenue if that became freely available, just shows made by adults, for adults and shown at a time when children are in bed.
> 
> I don’t watch programmes _because_ they contain ‘offensive’ material but I’ll happily watch them if they’re well written, well acted, engaging, funny, thought provoking or whatever. I find the banality so prevalent in television these days far more offensive than any amount of sex, violence, drug use or bad language.
> 
> As for children seeing unsuitable material, well, no matter how good or responsible a parent you may be, you can never stop your children from coming into contact with it. Whether it’s a grubby, dog-eared ‘jazz mag’ being passed around and sniggered over at school or a horror film, secretly watched at a friend’s house when their parents are out, they _will_ see it.
> 
> This happened when I was growing up and I see no reason to suspect that things have changed, especially now that we live in the age of the internet. Taking it off of the television won’t make any difference. Oh, and the language of the playground is some of the worst you’ll ever hear.



What's with your nick? On a serious note, the best thing I've read in a long time about this prickly issue: realistic, balanced yet passionate, witty, thorough, and, above all, iconoclastic! I wonder if The Times or The Guardian would be interested in publishing your piece in their op-ed page? Thank you. 
J.


----------



## temujin

Everness said:
			
		

> My rule of thumb: If something isn't *illegal *(e.g.: downloading child porn), it shouldn't be censored by a government agency.


 
But isn´t that excactly what a government does in order to censor things? What I mean is that a government can simply invent laws making this and that illegal and then censor it? And then it would be ok?
(I´m not talking about the example of child-porn, strictly speaking that is not to censor either...)

t.


----------



## Artrella

I see that this discussion is biased towards porn, child-porn.  Porn is no problem for me, as long as those movies are done and acted by people who agree in doing that and are paid for that job.  As regards children, what government should do is not to censor, but to take care of its people, by not allowing children on the streets... how?... well providing their parents with job.  There are lots of "missing children".  What does the government do?  Do you know that some of the people who want and watch that kind of aberration are the most prominent tycoons and politicians? The same ones that consume drugs and that make the biggest business with them?
What about the images that CNN and other channels show about the war? The Irak war.  Those pictures in Time magazine?  It is more probable that children browse that magazine in a dentist's waiting room, and that they watch a news programme than that they watch TV after 10 pm.
There are many things other than porn that had to be considered before censorship, which by no means is the solution to anything.  At least what I think is that freedom is the best thing that a human being could have.  Governments should be working in the welfare of the peoples, providing decent jobs and not allowing children and people to live on the streets.


----------



## Helicopta

Everness said:
			
		

> What's with your nick? On a serious note, the best thing I've read in a long time about this prickly issue: realistic, balanced yet passionate, witty, thorough, and, above all, iconoclastic! I wonder if The Times or The Guardian would be interested in publishing your piece in their op-ed page? Thank you.
> J.


Thank you so much for the compliment, that's the first time I've ever been associated with the word 'iconoclastic'!
There is a story behind my nick but it's too long and off topic for this thread!


			
				temujin said:
			
		

> But isn´t that excactly what a government does in order to censor things? What I mean is that a government can simply invent laws making this and that illegal and then censor it? And then it would be ok?
> (I´m not talking about the example of child-porn, strictly speaking that is not to censor either...)


Sorry T, Please explain if I’ve missed something but I’m afraid I don’t understand your point. What could a government make illegal in order to censor it?

Murder, rape, kidnapping and torture are already illegal but are all shown with varying degrees of gratuitousness on television. Even the topic of child abuse, if handled well, can make good, thought-provoking television but some people think we need to be protected from even seeing the depiction of such activities. That’s where the issue of censorship comes in.



			
				Artrella said:
			
		

> I see that this discussion is biased towards porn, child-porn. Porn is no problem for me, as long as those movies are done and acted by people who agree in doing that and are paid for that job. As regards children, what government should do is not to censor, but to take care of its people, by not allowing children on the streets... how?... well providing their parents with job. There are lots of "missing children". What does the government do? Do you know that some of the people who want and watch that kind of aberration are the most prominent tycoons and politicians? The same ones that consume drugs and that make the biggest business with them?
> What about the images that CNN and other channels show about the war? The Irak war. Those pictures in Time magazine? It is more probable that children browse that magazine in a dentist's waiting room, and that they watch a news programme than that they watch TV after 10 pm.
> There are many things other than porn that had to be considered before censorship, which by no means is the solution to anything. At least what I think is that freedom is the best thing that a human being could have. Governments should be working in the welfare of the peoples, providing decent jobs and not allowing children and people to live on the streets.


Well said, Artrella (as usual).
What sets a worse example to children?
Two people having sex together (real or acted) or real life, government-sponsored, death and destruction ?


----------



## Everness

temujin said:
			
		

> (I´m not talking about the example of child-porn, strictly speaking that is not to censor either...)
> t.



I'm interested in listening to your rationale about the legality of child porn. Do you think it's legal if a child is used to shoot a porn movie? As Artrella said, if you are an adult and you really really want to become a porn star that wouldn't be illegal. Some people might find it unethical and your parents might find your vocational choice a mistake, but that's another story. But to use still pictures or produce movies of real boys and girls engaging in sexual acts, it's not only illegal but despicable.


----------



## temujin

Helicopta said:
			
		

> Sorry T, Please explain if I’ve missed something but I’m afraid I don’t understand your point. What could a government make illegal in order to censor it?
> 
> Murder, rape, kidnapping and torture are already illegal but are all shown with varying degrees of gratuitousness on television. Even the topic of child abuse, if handled well, can make good, thought-provoking television but some people think we need to be protected from even seeing the depiction of such activities. That’s where the issue of censorship comes in.


Hi

Well, what I meant was that in order to censor something, it must first be made illegal. Right? I don´t think any democratic government could just censor anything they without a legal basis.

When you say that murder, rape and torture are shown do you mean real murders and rapes or staged ones?

Murder and rape is illegal, yes, but should the depiction of such be illegal as well? Should the movie "trainspotting" be banned because the characters are using heroine?

t.


----------



## temujin

Everness said:
			
		

> I'm interested in listening to your rationale about the legality of child porn. Do you think it's legal if a child is used to shoot a porn movie? As Artrella said, if you are an adult and you really really want to become a porn star that wouldn't be illegal. Some people might find it unethical and your parents might find your vocational choice a mistake, but that's another story. But to use still pictures or produce movies of real boys and girls engaging in sexual acts, it's not only illegal but despicable.


 
Noooooooo!!!!! I think you misunderstood!!!

What I meant was that the activity of even making such a thing is and should be illegal. And that´s why I don´t think banning this from television could be considered censorship. And I don´t think it makes sense to talk about it in relation to censorship either.
Censorship is normally carried out in order to "protect" the viewers. In the case of child-porn, it is illegal, not in order to "protect" the viewers but in order to avoid child abuse. It is a clear difference here.


Hope I managed to make myself understood. I had to write this post really fast so that others wouldn´t misunderstand me as well  

t.


----------



## Helicopta

temujin said:
			
		

> Well, what I meant was that in order to censor something, it must first be made illegal. Right? I don´t think any democratic government could just censor anything they without a legal basis.


Do you mean the act must be made illegal or the depiction of the act? Sex is not illegal but some would like to see all depictions of it, real or otherwise, made illegal. That is censorship, not telling you what you can or can't do but what you can or can't see, hear or read.



			
				temujin said:
			
		

> When you say that murder, rape and torture are shown do you mean real murders and rapes or staged ones?.


Generally speaking I was talking about staged murder etc. although I have seen footage of real muders and excecutions shown in televised documentaries which I found very disturbing (I would not want it to be censored though).



			
				temujin said:
			
		

> Murder and rape is illegal, yes, but should the depiction of such be illegal as well? Should the movie "trainspotting" be banned because the characters are using heroine?


To censor films or programmes that show illegal activity would be like shutting your eyes and pretending it doesn't exist. I personally think Trainspotting is a wonderful film that carries a powerful anti-heroin message. When it was released, there were people who claimed that it promoted the use of heroin. I can only assume that they didn't watch it. I fail to see how AIDS, infant death and excruciating withdrawal symptoms encourage heroin use!


----------



## temujin

Helicopta said:
			
		

> Do you mean the act must be made illegal or the depiction of the act? Sex is not illegal but some would like to see all depictions of it, real or otherwise, made illegal. That is censorship, not telling you what you can or can't do but what you can or can't see, hear or read.


 
I meant the depiction of the act.
And I also said (like I think you meant) that censorship is carried out in order to prevent people from seeing and hearing things, not to prevent people from doing things.
Thats why I meant that the topic of chil porn did not belong in a discussion about censorship. Hope I´m making myself clear and that nobody thinks I´m in favour of such a thing. 


t.


----------



## Everness

Artrella said:
			
		

> What about the images that CNN and other channels show about the war? The Irak war. Those pictures in Time magazine? It is more probable that children browse that magazine in a dentist's waiting room, and that they watch a news programme than that they watch TV after 10 pm.



I disagree. The problem is that the footage and the pictures we get from the war zones (e.g. Iraq) are edited. Kids are already watching too much violence on TV, even in cartoons for crying out loud! Let's not be hypocritical and naive. I think that TV stations should air raw, unedited footage of what goes on at war. Parents should then watch the footage with their children and discuss it. If kids are going to get traumatized, let's use the real stuff and not Hollywood's rendition of what violence is all about.


----------



## Helicopta

I'm sorry T, I think we've just proved that a little misunderstanding can go a long way!  

I'm afraid that when I read your original post, I thought you meant this:
If a govenment made an act or behaviour illegal, they would then be in a position to be able to censor it.

I now believe that I should have read it to mean this:
You can't simply say that if something isn't illegal it shouldn't be censored, because if a government introduced strict censorship laws that made the depiction of certain behaviour illegal, the very depiction of these acts would become just as illegal as child porn.

Am I on the right track now?


----------



## Everness

Helicopta said:
			
		

> Sex is not illegal but some would like to see all depictions of it, real or otherwise, made illegal.



Shhhhh, helicopta! Don't put ideas into people's heads. Some repressed congressman in England or the US could be reading this and pass legislation that would make sex illegal! Now wouldn't that be a pity!


----------



## Artrella

Everness said:
			
		

> Shhhhh, helicopta! Don't put ideas into people's heads. Some repressed congressman in England or the US could be reading this and pass legislation that would make sex illegal! Now wouldn't that be a pity!




Yes, it would be a pity!


----------



## Artrella

temujin said:
			
		

> I meant the depiction of the act.
> And I also said (like I think you meant) that censorship is carried out in order to prevent people from seeing and hearing things, not to prevent people from doing things.
> Thats why I meant that the topic of chil porn did not belong in a discussion about censorship. Hope I´m making myself clear and that nobody thinks I´m in favour of such a thing.
> 
> 
> t.




You are right, child abuse is the most despisable act in this world!! It is not about censorship but taking care of the most valuable treasure we have: childhood.  

_It's important to distinguish between child pornography, which is illegal, and adult pornography or sexually explicit material that is protected by the First Amendment. Web sites, newsgroup and even unsolicited e-mail messages that are sexually explicit -- even if you find them offensive -- aren't necessarily against the law. There are plenty of Web sites that claim to have sexually explicit pictures of ``teens'' who are ``barely legal,'' but often the models used are over 18. While many people find such material objectionable, it is not illegal. _ 

_Our laws against child pornography are designed to protect children from exploitation, but the practice doesn't only affect the children who are depicted. The increasingly widespread distribution of child pornography increases risk for all children because, in the minds of some people, it legitimizes both the pornography itself and abuse of children. People who collect or frequently view child pornography, according to experts, begin to see the practice as ``normal.'' After all, ``lots of people do it, so it can't be all that perverse.''_
*source* 

*BBC* 
_ The freedoms offered by the internet should never extend to protecting those who derive pleasure from harming the most innocent section of our society 
Simon Gawne, StreamShield_


----------



## cuchuflete

Helicopta said:
			
		

> Hi Cuchu.
> My sincere apologies for jumping to conclusions, your reasons for non-TV-ownership now make perfect sense. I agree with you that most TV is awful, despite the good content that is on, some night's it's impossible to find anything, that's why my DVD player is indispensable to me (along with my computer and shelves full of CD's and books).



Hi Helicopta,

I think I've found the solution: recycling of garbage TV:



> *¡Sorprendente          invento!*
> *Descubren como reciclar la telebasura**
> **Goyo          Wasson .* Científicos y demagógos del Instituto          Dinámico Internacional Oriundo de Talavera y Ávila (I.D.I.O.T.A.)          han dado a conocer hoy a las tres (Hora de Zimbawe) su reciclador de telebasura.          En palabras a este periódico, su creador, Abraham Burguesa ha señalado          que "es la leche, le metes Crónicas Marcianas por un lado          y te sale Pueblo de Dios por el otro". Tras una serie de pruebas          fallidas, en las que al introducir "Aquí hay tomate"          salía "¡Qué me dices!" y al meter "Pecado          Original" resultaba "El Informal"


 the rest of this fascinating article is at..

http://www.elexpecial.tk/

un gran abrazo, sin censura alguna
Cuchu


----------



## Helicopta

*Wow, thanks Cuchu! What a revelation! Where can I get one?*

It took me a while to understand it and I didn't get some of the references but I've had a go at translating this article so that any non-Spanish speakers can enjoy it, and hopefully make this machines inventor the millionaire he deserves to be!

_Scientists and demagogues</SPAN> of the Institute Dynamic International Native of Talavera and Ávila (I.D.I.O.T.A.) have unveiled today at three o'clock (Zimbabwe time) their recycler of crap television._

_In a letter to this newspaper, its creator, Abraham Middle-Class told us "It’s the greatest! You feed the Martian Chronicles into one side and City of God comes out of the other!"_
_After a series of failed tests, in which they introduced "Here there is tomato" and were left with "What do you tell me!" and putting in "Original Sin" resulted in "The Informal one" (But without Florentine, the Captain, or even the first blonde) the researchers hit upon the key: A capsule of the uncontaminated urine of Saint Job between the two crapometers._
_The results have caused a commotion in the television world, most of all because they will be able to continue churning out "Big Brother" and those that have the machine will be able to enjoy their "Networks", but with a lot more people represented._
 
Corrections welcome!
 
Moderators, please delete some or all of this post if you feel I've over-stepped the copyright boundries.


----------



## Agnès E.

Thank You Helicopta !!!!!!!!!!!!!!​ 


Where can I subscribe ?


----------



## cuchuflete

Helicopta said:
			
		

> *Wow, thanks Cuchu! What a revelation! Where can I get one?*
> 
> It took me a while to understand it and I didn't get some of the references but I've had a go at translating this article so that any non-Spanish speakers can enjoy it, and hopefully make this machines inventor the millionaire he deserves to be!
> 
> _Scientists and demagogues</SPAN> of the Institute Dynamic International Native of Talavera and Ávila (I.D.I.O.T.A.) have unveiled today at three o'clock (Zimbabwe time) their recycler of crap television._
> 
> _In a letter to this newspaper, its creator, Abraham Middle-Class told us "It’s the greatest! You feed the Martian Chronicles into one side and City of God comes out of the other!"_
> _After a series of failed tests, in which they introduced "Here there is tomato" and were left with "What do you tell me!" and putting in "Original Sin" resulted in "The Informal one" (But without Florentine, the Captain, or even the first blonde) the researchers hit upon the key: A capsule of the uncontaminated urine of Saint Job between the two crapometers._
> _The results have caused a commotion in the television world, most of all because they will be able to continue churning out "Big Brother" and those that have the machine will be able to enjoy their "Networks", but with a lot more people represented._
> 
> Corrections welcome!
> 
> Moderators, please delete some or all of this post if you feel I've over-stepped the copyright boundries.



Beautifully rendered Iaian!!  Thanks.  No if only we could install it here in the forums, to filter excessive smilies and convert them into meaningful words........


----------

