• Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!

    You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!

Censorship: How far should it go?

Status
Not open for further replies.

KrazyGlue

Smash Champion
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
2,302
Location
Northern Virginia
Now, just to clarify, I realize that there have been several other censorship threads. These, however, did not have very elaborate OPs and did not give enough of a base of opinions for good, healthy debate to start. I'd like to go more into detail and throw out some ideas that I think can cause some good discussions.

___________________


Censorship, as we all know, is to suppress speech or information that is considered to be dangerous or offensive.

I would like to make it clear right now that there are certain forms of censorship that I recognize to be necessary, while there are others I find to be unnecessary. I am not totally in favor of or against all forms of censorship.


Types of Censorship

Moral Censorship: Censorship due to obscene or otherwise "morally questionable" material (i.e. pornography, profanity, etc.)

Military Censorship: Censorship intended to keep critical military information/intelligence away from enemies.

Political Censorship: Censorship that occurs when the government holds back information from its citizens in order to prevent rebellions.

Religious Censorship: Censorship by a religious group that is intended to prevent information from circulating that might harm their religion.

Corporate Censorship: Censorship that occurs when a corporation attempts to prevent information or network programs in order to maintain the company's public image.




My Views on the different Kinds of Censorship


Corporate censorship: Corporate censorship is certainly something I don't like, but it's usually within a company's rights to only show things they want to show.


Religious Censorship: This is simply ridiculous, and obviously no longer exists at a large scale (if at all) in America, because we have the right to freedom of religion.


Political Censorship: COMMUNISM!!!!!!!!!!

Same as above pretty much. The right of freedom of speech and freedom of the press prevent political censorship from being in America.


Military Censorship: I don't see anything wrong with military censorship to be honest. If we just told everybody all of our military secrets, there would be chaos around the world.

Moral Censorship: I'm kind of on the fence on most of this issue. I'd like to see everyone else's ideas here.*

I think there needs to be some sort of compromise here: a compromise between giving the people the right to choose what media to use and protecting children from material that may negatively effect their growth.

I personally think the idea of parental control passwords is a good idea. It would work something like buying a video game at GameStop. From my personal experience, when I wanted a game rated "M", my mother needed to be there to give permission for me to purchase the game (I am only 15 and the consumer needs to be 17 or older to purchase it by themselves). Through this system, the M-rated games are restricted, not forbidden.

There are already systems like this for the television. When the television is turned on and the channel is switched to something with either a TV-14 or TV-MA rating, a screen opens up and asks for a passcode, which the parent then needs to put in. I personally believe any sort of material should be available on the television, including sexually explicit material. It's easy enough for someone to access this sort of material from their computer for free (probably even easier), so I don't see why it's not within an adult's rights to access it on television for free as well.

However, I would also agree that this material should at least be somewhat restricted, and require a passcode. We just have to put trust in adults that they will be able to make the right decisions of what programs they allow that are going to be viewed by kids; anything more than that is taking away the rights of those adults. I believe that televisions should come with this sort of system, as well as having uncensored material that adults can view if they choose to do so.

Now, we move on to the internet, which is almost completely uncensored. There is obviously no real way to "censor" the internet, without taking away the rights of those who post obscene material. I think the internet should stay the way it is. If parents want to know what their kids are looking at, there is all kinds of software that allows them to do that. **


*I'll come back with much more info later; first I'd like to put the first OP up so everyone can debate over what I have so far. I'll be spending lots of time on this one and I think it's better just to edit it over time.

**I'm currently working on getting some sources for the television and internet arguments.




SOURCES:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_censorship

3. http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/1997/06/4181

4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_by_religion
 

AltF4

BRoomer
BRoomer
Joined
Dec 13, 2005
Messages
5,042
Location
2.412 – 2.462 GHz
Wow, so funny you posted this. I was just considering something that would be a sub-topic of this.


Obviously, you'll find that myself and most people around here will be vehemently against censorship of nearly any kind. But I do have to use the restriction: nearly. There ARE kinds of speech which are off limits.

The obvious cases are things like inciting panic (the cliche: yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater) and child pornography.


But here I had an interesting conundrum: what exactly is it about child porn that requires it to be censored? Is it that it is obscene? Or is it that doing so necessitates the abuse of a minor who is unable to legally consent to such an action?

The latter I whole-heartedly agree with. But I don't like to say it is because of the former. It seems like an awfully slippery slope to begin banning expression on the basis of it being "obscene".

So then what of cases like this?

I'm really, genuinely torn. In case you didn't read the article, it's about Manga Porn depicting children. Owning, drawing, or reproducing these comics in no way abuses any children. Yet we ban it on the basis of being "obscene".

The Free Speech Libertarian in me wants to say that this sort of thing should be legal, and not censored. But for some reason I'm tempted to say that it's "over the line". I really don't know.
 

aeghrur

Smash Champion
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
2,513
Location
Minnesota
I don't understand the issue with Wal-Mart.
It's a business's right to sell what they would like within reasonable boundaries of law.
Why is it that they must whatever music artists want them to sell?
Corporations are not taking away your right to determine what is obscene or not, they're simply determining what they deem obscene.
I mean, by the same standard, Best Buy must have porn for rent...

http://library.findlaw.com/1997/Dec/1/131328.html Eh, the Canadian Supreme Court seems to have agreed. They allowed Newspapers to arbitrarily reject whatever ads they don't want.

:093:
 

KrazyGlue

Smash Champion
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
2,302
Location
Northern Virginia
But here I had an interesting conundrum: what exactly is it about child porn that requires it to be censored? Is it that it is obscene? Or is it that doing so necessitates the abuse of a minor who is unable to legally consent to such an action?

The latter I whole-heartedly agree with. But I don't like to say it is because of the former. It seems like an awfully slippery slope to begin banning expression on the basis of it being "obscene".

So then what of cases like this?

I'm really, genuinely torn. In case you didn't read the article, it's about Manga Porn depicting children. Owning, drawing, or reproducing these comics in no way abuses any children. Yet we ban it on the basis of being "obscene".

The Free Speech Libertarian in me wants to say that this sort of thing should be legal, and not censored. But for some reason I'm tempted to say that it's "over the line". I really don't know.
Interesting... I'm torn on this issue as well. It's true that the depiction doesn't harm children in any way. On the other hand, perhaps the government is worried about anything that condones child porn.

Then there's this:

The 39-year-old office worker was charged under the 2003 Protect Act, which outlaws cartoons, drawings, sculptures or paintings depicting minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct, and which lack “serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.”

I never like it when laws have text like this. It seems like there is always text like this added in order to give the government extra power to determine what has value.

Good find. :)


EDIT: @Aeghrur (sorry, I didn't see your post earlier :() I'm not saying they had to sell all the music, but it's wrong for them to tell artists to change their songs and then sell the altered CDs to their consumers! The customers would buy the incomplete CDs without knowing they were different, only to find out later that the CD they bough was missing lyrics or even whole songs!
 

x After Dawn x

Smash Master
Joined
May 6, 2008
Messages
3,732
Location
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
As with many other idealisms in our society, we have to consider that censorship should only go as far as its utility being worth more than its cons. The only problem with this is that we cannot determine the absolute values of this utility overshadowing its cons. We say that it should do its job to help benefit society as much as possible; but from what subjective view is this being considered? An example of this could be the days of Hitler's rule in Nazi Germany. The government was killing millions of Jews and other ethnic groups because they thought it would be "best for society." The flaw in this statement is that the "best for society" not only depends on what society it is being based upon but also the amount of objectivity in that statement.

To answer your question, we will never agree upon an absolute decision of "how far it should go" because there will always be differentiating opinions based on how much censorship is "good" for our society. We can eventually come to a conclusion based upon how objective our views are, and to what society this censorship is being brought forth to, but we will never fully agree upon what is best for society.
 

KrazyGlue

Smash Champion
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
2,302
Location
Northern Virginia
As with many other idealisms in our society, we have to consider that censorship should only go as far as its utility being worth more than its cons. The only problem with this is that we cannot determine the absolute values of this utility overshadowing its cons. We say that it should do its job to help benefit society as much as possible; but from what subjective view is this being considered? An example of this could be the days of Hitler's rule in Nazi Germany. The government was killing millions of Jews and other ethnic groups because they thought it would be "best for society." The flaw in this statement is that the "best for society" not only depends on what society it is being based upon but also the amount of objectivity in that statement.

To answer your question, we will never agree upon an absolute decision of "how far it should go" because there will always be differentiating opinions based on how much censorship is "good" for our society. We can eventually come to a conclusion based upon how objective our views are, and to what society this censorship is being brought forth to, but we will never fully agree upon what is best for society.
Well, did you agree with the opinions that I have expressed so far in the OP? The question wasn't really meant to be answered, it's just something to draw people in...

*moral censorship has been slightly updated*
 

aeghrur

Smash Champion
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
2,513
Location
Minnesota
Aeghrur (sorry, I didn't see your post earlier :() I'm not saying they had to sell all the music, but it's wrong for them to tell artists to change their songs and then sell the altered CDs to their consumers! The customers would buy the incomplete CDs without knowing they were different, only to find out later that the CD they bough was missing lyrics or even whole songs!
To me, it's not necessarily wrong as it was not forced upon artists to change their music.
It was more of a fake choice. It's we won't sell your music, so reedit or don't have us sell it, with the second option often times being unavailable seeing as artists rely upon retail stores' sales, as you stated. Does this prey upon the profits they give artists? Yes. Should this be illegal or not allowed? No, because it boils down to decision making upon the two parties as independent business trying to negotiate trade. One side doesn't want something they deem inappropriate to ruin the image of their store, and the other wants to gain the profit from being sold at the giant retail store. So, they have disagreements, and compromises so it comes down to "corporate censorship." There was no forcing of artists to alter their CDs, it was simply part of the "compromise."
And, if customers find they are missing lyrics or songs, they could choose to not shop for that artist at the said store, or find the songs on the internet instead. =/

:093:
 

KrazyGlue

Smash Champion
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
2,302
Location
Northern Virginia
To me, it's not necessarily wrong as it was not forced upon artists to change their music.
It was more of a fake choice. It's we won't sell your music, so reedit or don't have us sell it, with the second option often times being unavailable seeing as artists rely upon retail stores' sales, as you stated. Does this prey upon the profits they give artists? Yes. Should this be illegal or not allowed? No, because it boils down to decision making upon the two parties as independent business trying to negotiate trade. One side doesn't want something they deem inappropriate to ruin the image of their store, and the other wants to gain the profit from being sold at the giant retail store. So, they have disagreements, and compromises so it comes down to "corporate censorship." There was no forcing of artists to alter their CDs, it was simply part of the "compromise."
And, if customers find they are missing lyrics or songs, they could choose to not shop for that artist at the said store, or find the songs on the internet instead. =/

:093:
The store should have informed them that the CDs were altered. It's false advertising to say you have a product when in reality you have an altered one.
 

illinialex24

Smash Hero
Joined
May 23, 2008
Messages
7,489
Location
Discovered: Sending Napalm
Personally, I really dislike the military censorship. At the start of the Iraq War, I was on vacation in France and I saw all the more gruesome pictures that weren't allowed to be shown in the U.S. and I had a whole difference perspective of the war and it really changes the outlook. I think the main reason why censorship for war times is encouraged is because if it doesn't happen, the war is often looked negatively upon, like the Vietnam War, but we have a right to know what is going on and hiding pictures you feel will turn public opinion away from the war is just lying about the war.
 

:mad:

Bird Law Aficionado
BRoomer
Joined
Dec 14, 2008
Messages
12,585
Location
Florida
3DS FC
3351-4631-7285
Alex, I think people are fully aware of what's going on in Iraq. If people truly wanted to know and see more about it, they have plenty of resources available to them. I can't imagine the US is actually hiding any photographs, maybe France just has photographers at the right place at the right time.

As far as censorship goes in the newspaper on this same subject, the papers do report whatever they can. Just... they can only supply one or two photographs. Regardless of what you see, you get the same information.
 

aeghrur

Smash Champion
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
2,513
Location
Minnesota
The store should have informed them that the CDs were altered. It's false advertising to say you have a product when in reality you have an altered one.
Not necessarily. You have an altered one, but it still is the product. For example, Melee in Europe compared to Melee in America. Would it be false advertising for them to say it was Melee? No... but it's altered. =/

:093:
 

x After Dawn x

Smash Master
Joined
May 6, 2008
Messages
3,732
Location
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
"False advertising or deceptive advertising is the use of false or misleading statements in advertising."

If you say you have the CD, then it's not a misleading statement. You still have the CD. What you're thinking of is probably truth in labeling, but that's another can of worms, and doesn't have anything to do with censorship.
 

illinialex24

Smash Hero
Joined
May 23, 2008
Messages
7,489
Location
Discovered: Sending Napalm
Alex, I think people are fully aware of what's going on in Iraq. If people truly wanted to know and see more about it, they have plenty of resources available to them. I can't imagine the US is actually hiding any photographs, maybe France just has photographers at the right place at the right time.

As far as censorship goes in the newspaper on this same subject, the papers do report whatever they can. Just... they can only supply one or two photographs. Regardless of what you see, you get the same information.
Except this was a long time ago. Back when the Iraq War was popular in the U.S., albeit not anywhere else. Foreign news reports allowed much more gruesome photos to be shown, the difference between CNN in the U.S. and CNN abroad was astounding. Notice that the main war with much more open press was Vietnam, and look how unpopular that became. I believe its because of that most governments are afraid of showing what truly happens in war and it creates a false identity of the war.
 

KrazyGlue

Smash Champion
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
2,302
Location
Northern Virginia
"False advertising or deceptive advertising is the use of false or misleading statements in advertising."

If you say you have the CD, then it's not a misleading statement. You still have the CD. What you're thinking of is probably truth in labeling, but that's another can of worms, and doesn't have anything to do with censorship.
Hmmm... I suppose I'll give you that...
 

adumbrodeus

Smash Legend
Joined
Aug 21, 2007
Messages
11,322
Location
Tri-state area
Another thread which I've been meaning to respond to for basically forever.



Wow, so funny you posted this. I was just considering something that would be a sub-topic of this.


Obviously, you'll find that myself and most people around here will be vehemently against censorship of nearly any kind. But I do have to use the restriction: nearly. There ARE kinds of speech which are off limits.

The obvious cases are things like inciting panic (the cliche: yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater) and child pornography.


But here I had an interesting conundrum: what exactly is it about child porn that requires it to be censored? Is it that it is obscene? Or is it that doing so necessitates the abuse of a minor who is unable to legally consent to such an action?

The latter I whole-heartedly agree with. But I don't like to say it is because of the former. It seems like an awfully slippery slope to begin banning expression on the basis of it being "obscene".

So then what of cases like this?

I'm really, genuinely torn. In case you didn't read the article, it's about Manga Porn depicting children. Owning, drawing, or reproducing these comics in no way abuses any children. Yet we ban it on the basis of being "obscene".

The Free Speech Libertarian in me wants to say that this sort of thing should be legal, and not censored. But for some reason I'm tempted to say that it's "over the line". I really don't know.
I'm gonna have to say that I absolutely know where I stand, while I find it digusting, I refuse to let my personal opinions about whether a work is "over the line" influence what should be applied to everyone.


Ultimately, I see no reason to restrict it. Is it disgusting? Sure. Have actual people been harmed? No, not at all.

Honestly, I'm a surprised Alt, I never expected you to consider letting disgust override your libertarian ideals.



So, let me ask the pro-censorship crowd this? Can you give me a reason why this should be illegal beyond "it's disgusting" or it's equivalents?

After all, honestly, how many important works have been banned for just as primative gut reactions?


Personally, I really dislike the military censorship. At the start of the Iraq War, I was on vacation in France and I saw all the more gruesome pictures that weren't allowed to be shown in the U.S. and I had a whole difference perspective of the war and it really changes the outlook. I think the main reason why censorship for war times is encouraged is because if it doesn't happen, the war is often looked negatively upon, like the Vietnam War, but we have a right to know what is going on and hiding pictures you feel will turn public opinion away from the war is just lying about the war.
Honestly, I this is an actual difficult issue, because while it certainly can push people to oppose an unjust war, it causes gut reactions that can do the same for a just war.

What about if these sorts of pictures were available in WWII?
 

Mewter

Smash Master
Joined
Apr 22, 2008
Messages
3,609
Censorship in the forms of religious, political, and to an extent , moral (to an extent) are impractical anyways because of free speech/religion (and the internet).

Military censorship in the form of war information (pictures, horrific events) is dumb. Seriously, if a country's population can see that information and decide to end the war, then why not let them? It's dishonest to withhold military information for the sole reason that it doesn't support what the military wants you to believe.

Corporate censorship is a bit confusing. On one hand, you have the public, who would like to know what exactly is going on within a company, but corporations also have the right to refuse disclosure of information, even if nobody likes it.
 

adumbrodeus

Smash Legend
Joined
Aug 21, 2007
Messages
11,322
Location
Tri-state area
Military censorship in the form of war information (pictures, horrific events) is dumb. Seriously, if a country's population can see that information and decide to end the war, then why not let them? It's dishonest to withhold military information for the sole reason that it doesn't support what the military wants you to believe.
Information I agree, I'm far more concerned with photos.


The problem is information can be rationally argued about, photographs often have a built in appeal to pity effect, which will bring public opinion against the war, regardless of whether it's justified or not.

Honestly, respond to my objection, there were plenty of opportunities for gruesome photos in WWII, what if they came out?


That's the problem, people can talk rationally about information, but photographs, they immediately personalize the situation, making it often impossible to rationally discuss the issue at hand.
 

Mewter

Smash Master
Joined
Apr 22, 2008
Messages
3,609
Information I agree, I'm far more concerned with photos.
Honestly, respond to my objection, there were plenty of opportunities for gruesome photos in WWII, what if they came out?
Lol, yeah. I forgot about the scenario where the war is justified. The photographs would only make the people demoralized.

What would happen if those WWII photos were released to the public during WWII? And I assume we aren't talking about Holocaust photos...
Yeah, it probably would demoralize the people at home and cause them to back off a bit, which wouldn't be good, at least, in the case of a justified war that should be won.
I see what you mean there. People have a right to see those photos, but is it really the right thing to let them do that? And who decides if they are allowed to see them or not?
It's probably a good thing to sometimes censor those kinds of things, but I can see how that can be abused.
 

x After Dawn x

Smash Master
Joined
May 6, 2008
Messages
3,732
Location
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
It's probably a good thing to sometimes censor those kinds of things, but I can see how that can be abused.
Yes, but this is where the line needs to be drawn. In practice, it would be abused without a doubt. There's a reason why everybody says communism is the best system in theory, but fails when put into practice. Humans, as nature, aren't perfect and I suppose get power-hungry far too easily. Corruption in the levels of government is not uncommon in our world (every government is corrupt in some way, minuscule or not), but it certainly gets extreme when you give the power of the people in the hands of the government.

People should always have a right of whether or not to see these photos. Censoring the extremities and realism of a war isn't going to help demote fear in parents and adults across the country (well, perhaps to an ignorant collective), but it's most likely going to instill more fear because we wouldn't know the scale of the war we would be fighting. I don't see what's wrong with this idea except for the fact that children might see these photos, in which case it wouldn't be difficult at all to put a law into practice that requires a warning before the photos are displayed in the media somewhere. These kinds of laws are already put into place for TV shows and movies, so I doubt they wouldn't be able to do this for photos.
 
D

Deleted member

Guest
I was just thinking that in a truly free society, nothing would be censored and we would take that for granted. However, I realize that there probably exist things that need to be censored. Actually, the only thing that probably needs to be censored is some sort of illegal pornography that has no positive outcome if it were uncensored. There may exist more things that people should not be allowed to see, but for the moment, I can't think of anything.

So then it becomes obvious that there needs to be some sort of censorship - but where you draw the line starts getting arbitrary and subjective.

Ugh, this is tough.
 

adumbrodeus

Smash Legend
Joined
Aug 21, 2007
Messages
11,322
Location
Tri-state area
Lol, yeah. I forgot about the scenario where the war is justified. The photographs would only make the people demoralized.

What would happen if those WWII photos were released to the public during WWII? And I assume we aren't talking about Holocaust photos...
Yeah, it probably would demoralize the people at home and cause them to back off a bit, which wouldn't be good, at least, in the case of a justified war that should be won.
I see what you mean there. People have a right to see those photos, but is it really the right thing to let them do that? And who decides if they are allowed to see them or not?
It's probably a good thing to sometimes censor those kinds of things, but I can see how that can be abused.
Yes, but this is where the line needs to be drawn. In practice, it would be abused without a doubt. There's a reason why everybody says communism is the best system in theory, but fails when put into practice. Humans, as nature, aren't perfect and I suppose get power-hungry far too easily. Corruption in the levels of government is not uncommon in our world (every government is corrupt in some way, minuscule or not), but it certainly gets extreme when you give the power of the people in the hands of the government.

People should always have a right of whether or not to see these photos. Censoring the extremities and realism of a war isn't going to help demote fear in parents and adults across the country (well, perhaps to an ignorant collective), but it's most likely going to instill more fear because we wouldn't know the scale of the war we would be fighting. I don't see what's wrong with this idea except for the fact that children might see these photos, in which case it wouldn't be difficult at all to put a law into practice that requires a warning before the photos are displayed in the media somewhere. These kinds of laws are already put into place for TV shows and movies, so I doubt they wouldn't be able to do this for photos.
Ah, but understand the problem I'm really alluding to. Why are photos different then statistics?

The answer is because people respond to photos irrationally, it doesn't really do anything except bring the realities of war "home" so to speak. It's a need to fullfill an emotional response that is unrelated to the actual issue at hand, namely whether the war itself is justified.


The fact that gruesome photos have the same type of effect whether or not the war is justified should illustrate this fact.
 

ArcPoint

Smash Lord
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
1,183
Location
NorCal, California.
While it may be an emotional response, the people are the ones voting, they have every right to those sorts of photographs.

It is not the photos themselves that cause disapproval, it is the people's reactions to them. And as far as I'm concerned, people have complete control over their reactions (unless they're drugged/mentally incapable/what have you). In America you have the right to be stupid and ignorant, if people are not finding out the whole story and basing their opinions off of photos, then I'd say it's the person's responsibility, which is where the power should be.

As to the whole moral censorship, I think that for the vast majority of cases it shouldn't be allowed to censor things unless it's trying to protect the law (IE pornography on a channel where people under 18 might view). But then I'd better hope lawmakers don't make bad laws that might allow for further types of censorship to happen, so vote wisely people.

Obviously if there's national security at stake, I wouldn't mind giving up the knowledge of what new weapons the military has developed.

Corporate...a business shouldn't be forced by any entity under penalty of law to disclose any information that they don't want to, unless of course the information goes towards consumer safety (FDA stuff)

------------------

On a side note, sorry for my inactivity, I kinda took a break from Smash for a good month or two, and subsequently stopped browsing Smashboards, so glad you guys didn't purge me yet =) At any rate, I've regained interest in both smash and the debate hall, so you guys should expect more posts from me =D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom