NationStates Jolt Archive

"Description: I propose that all forms of bias in censorship must be outlawed. Any social, religious or political beliefs must not influence censorship laws in media.

Religious beliefs (including athiesm) must not affect the censorship. However, we must censor what would anger or offend a religion but we cannot use the media to promote a relgion or a religious belief.

The same goes for social beliefs and/or political beliefs.

Citizens must be trusted to make their mind up what is right and what is wrog. They cannot be brainwashed by a biased opinion.

All media must be impartial and view all race, belief, sexuality on equal terms."

Hopefully, you guys will find this a little less "left"

"Description: I propose that all forms of bias in censorship must be outlawed. Any social, religious or political beliefs must not influence censorship laws in media.
Religious beliefs (including athiesm) must not affect the censorship. However, we must censor what would anger or offend a religion but we cannot use the media to promote a relgion or a religious belief.
The same goes for social beliefs and/or political beliefs.
Citizens must be trusted to make their mind up what is right and what is wrog. They cannot be brainwashed by a biased opinion.
All media must be impartial and view all race, belief, sexuality on equal terms."
Hopefully, you guys will find this a little less "left"


Bad idea here. As in a Theocracy the political beliefs are based on the religion that set up the government which in turn establishes in most the media. Thus as all are one to ban it in any part is banning it in the hole.

This would prevent a Theocracy from functioning on equal terms with any other such government that might control the media as it does it's politcal structure and even it's religion.


This is another of those issue that make certain groups not equal thus causes more problems to impliment than just let fokks do what they are doing now. If you don't like something about nation A go to nation B or C where you find what you like. The problems always comes when one person or group starts to step on the toes of another person or group. Here you would be stepping on certain nations way of doing things that by doing so would end the form of government.

Also who sets the rules on what angers another person. You take about little cats and you might make some angry because they don't like cats. Thus if you find out they get violent over an issue then don't bring it up when you are with them... or just stay the heck out of their way.... give them the respect you want for yourself... don't go stepping on their toes by bringing up an issue they don't like..... that would force them to change their ways..

Horible idea. The media is a free instituition (I believe this has been written in a past proposal, but I could be wrong) and thus should have the right to write anything they want.

"Description: I propose that all forms of bias in censorship must be outlawed. Any social, religious or political beliefs must not influence censorship laws in media.

Religious beliefs (including athiesm) must not affect the censorship. However, we must censor what would anger or offend a religion but we cannot use the media to promote a relgion or a religious belief.

Fundamentally wrong on the grounds that no one has the right not to be offended nor to have their views censored purely on the grounds that it may cause upset to certain groups. A free society depends on an honest and open press that does not flinch away from difficult issues and even if one was to impose unbiased censorship it would still be censorship.

The same goes for social beliefs and/or political beliefs.

Citizens must be trusted to make their mind up what is right and what is wrog. They cannot be brainwashed by a biased opinion.

All media must be impartial and view all race, belief, sexuality on equal terms."

Hopefully, you guys will find this a little less "left"

With regards to these points, how does this encourage openess if you are advocating censorship and why would the citizen be prohibited from insulting religions if they "must be trusted to make their mind up what is right and what is (sic) wrog".

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Oxymoron of the day: unbiased censorship.

I not only agree with the previous comments, but add a minor concern of my own: the title is misleading. Even if this proposal were crafted in such a way that it made your idea appealing, I doubt anything close to a majority would vote FOR something actually called a "Cultural Censorship Act." Open advocation of censorship of most kinds, let alone "cultural", isn't terribly popular. Or at the very least, would be unlikely to win support of the sizeable number of title-based voters.

This proposal is astoundingly self-contradictory. You say that "social, religious or political beliefs must not influence censorship laws", but the very presence of censorship shows a social/religious/political belief that censorship is permissible. You say that "religious beliefs [...] must not affect the censorship" but that "we must censor what would anger or offend a religion". You say that "citizens must be trusted to make their mind up what is right and what is wrong" but don't allow citizens exposure to what you call "biased opinion".

Hopefully, you guys will find this a little less "left"
Left?! It's one of the most authoritarian proposals I've ever seen.

Oxymoron of the day: unbiased censorship.

OOC: Do I get a reward?

Only if Plageland declines the award... ;)

you guys really are a hoot:rolleyes:

Left?! It's one of the most authoritarian proposals I've ever seen.Nah. It's stifling free speech in the name of "increased awareness" and in the spirit of keeping people from having their feelings hurt. Sounds very leftist to me. :p

you guys really are a hoot:rolleyes:

OOC: Don't take it personally Plageland, we're just messing around a bit. Besides, the idea of 'unbiased censorship' was rather amusing for Fonzoland and I.

Peace pipe?

Ok.....three words. FREEDOM OF SPEECH. I know its annoying when you hear people who don't agree with you, or nazis or KKK on the radio, but it is their right. Whether we like it or not to prosecute people for what they say, or stop them from saying it is wrong. The second they start physically hurting people wipe 'em out, but until then, just switch the channel if you don't like what their saying. Censorship is wrong, the only thing I would censor is child porn, because it promotes the abuse of children and feeds pedophelia, and thats about it. No censorship man.