NationStates Jolt Archive

Oh like hell we need a new topic to discuss!

Tommorrow at Language Arts we'll be discussing censorship. The whole idea behind it and its role today in America and American culture.

So, hey, why not extend the discussion to General?

What are your thoughts on censorship and its role today in your country and in your culture?

Personally I'm against the entire concept of censorship amongst civilians. Citizens of a nation should be able to communicate to each other freely (As in, writers of Family Guy having a joke of theirs aired to viewers) without restriction on what they can and cannot say.

What gets me too is that parents and the government think that it is the role of the government to parent the children. No, our government's role is to run society so that we may function freely, not say they cannot say this over a broadcast or that they cannot show that or whatever. If a parent expects the government to do their parenting for them, then I don't think anyone can hesitate to call them a bad parent.

Whether or not the parent is able to control their kid (Keyword, THEIR kid, not the state's or the nation's kids), is another story.

It's a Pandora's Box.
There are a few situations in which it could be excused, but even then only in very rare cases.
I'm talking about the anti-Nazi laws in Germany, which only work because of Germany's unique relationship with the subject. Plus they are very precisely worded, so it is very difficult to misuse them.

In most other cases, I think it's a bad idea.

D**'t w***y a***t C**s*rs**p.

I* C**'t h**p*n h*r*.

I think censorship is a bad idea. You should be allowed to say whatever you want, however you want. You also better be prepared to take the consequences of what you say, or you shouldn't be saying it. Shouldn't be going around and saying too many stupid things or you might just be called stupid.

It does require a bit of responsibility to have free speech and if you don't have that responsibility, you could be hit again and again with the law until you learn that, although you can say anything you want and it may be heard and never censored, that doesn't mean that nobody will care about what you say and that you can say whatever you want without any consequences.

D**'t w***y a***t C**s*rs**p.

I* C**'t h**p*n h*r*.

*this post has been censored*

Censorship specificaly in the civilian world should not be tollerated

I am all for rating public broadcasts and such to make sure that people know what they are geting into so they can adjust their viewing for their kids and such

But no actual limitations on speach without a VERY clear proof of imidiate harm being caused (such as reporting something that puts someone in imidiate danger ... such as broadcasting the location of people in the witnessprotection program)

What are your thoughts on censorship and its role today in your country and in your culture?

Censorship is just another example of our culture (both in the US and in Europe) falling into a nanny-state mentality. Aside from censorship being a natural enemy of liberty, it just doesn't work. In a time when information is moving quickly and anonymously, it is very hard to keep an idea under wraps. Printing and publishing technology has become cheap, the internet allows print to be widely distributed without ever having to worry about a hard copy or even distribution time outside of how long it takes you to type a screed, even the advent of cellular phones and text messaging, all of these things lead to a greater flow of ideas and information. Clearly, this is a good thing. When nothing is censored, ideas are allowed to evolved and refine. No position can be taken for granted, everything is discussed and debated. This dialogue leads to good ideas surviving and bad ones dying.

Wow, I agree with all posts so far. A first for me.

I agree that censorship is a "nanny-state" phenomenon -- or rather a "daddy-state" phenomenon. It requires the citizens to give up control and responsibility for their own speech, thoughts, and actions to the state. The result is almost always some useless monster hashed out in successive committee meetings.

For instance, in the US, the so-called regulations on obscenity make no sense at all, the parameters keep changing, the rules for how to enforce the rules keep changing, and there are no rules at all for how a complaint gets made. The state decided to leave it up to "the people," so the FCC responds to complaints from the public about this or that show or performer, but there are no rules for the FCC to determine what's a legitimate complaint and what is just trouble-makers making trouble. For instance, in the past year, something like 9 tenths of all obscenity complaints sent to the FCC came from a single organization (who acknowledge this freely). Yet the FCC still acted on their complaints and levied fines against broadcasters. Is this really the voice of the people?

Fuck censorship… in the ear!:eek: :p

Censorship of the news media and written word should be strictly forbidden. Censorship of non-news broadcasts is and should be fair game for censorship. Censorship of the spoken word should be extremely rare (slander laws are good as are laws against picking a fight, disturbing the peace, shouting fire! in a crowded theater, etc.).

Everyone should be allowed to say what they want, as long as anyone else is allowed to throw tomatoes at them when they're speaking nonsense.

I think censorship can go too far at times, but I think it's necessary to some degree. It's one of those things where you need to reach a happy medium. For example, who here would approve of beastiality movies being shown when all the kids TV is on?

I think censorship can go too far at times, but I think it's necessary to some degree. It's one of those things where you need to reach a happy medium. For example, who here would approve of beastiality movies being shown when all the kids TV is on?I'd like to think parents wouldn't program such a channel on their TV, and that regular channels, especially kids channels, wouldn't change their programming to include it.
Most channels cater to their public.

Of course there should be censorship. The question isn't 'do or do not', but 'how much and when'. That is a question that is tricky to answer, perhaps because I haven't put a '?' at the end of it. I'm in favour of as little censorship as possible, usually, but for some reason whenever I visit this forum I feel there should be more, as I come to realise just how abusive people can be when they're not moderated.

Fuck censorship… in the ear!:eek: :p

Set it on fire, cut the head off the dead body, and fuck it in the eye socket until stuff comes out the ears, you mean. http://img42.exs.cx/img42/3897/DancingBananaIcon.gif

Properly on topic, there are occasions where it is necessary; for example, child pornography.

bump

As you know, I'm against censorship. But if my entire class is also against it, I shall take a position in favor of it.

Let me try out something I'll try in the class in a couple of hours:

Our society is losing its moral values. We are slowly becoming decivlilzed as we fall into a world where we have no idea of what is right and wrong, what is appropriate and inappropriate. What kind of future will we have if we allow people to run around cursing on television, exposing themselves, and saying whatever sick thing they take pleasure in saying? Nay, we need to grow up to be a little more mature than that and make sure that what we install into the next generation is appropriate and that it will make them a better society than we once were.

I mean, should we let people run around promoting hate speech? No! Why? Because we have moral values against hate! Moral values are the core of society and it is what keeps us together. To lose that is to devolve.

Censorship should not be allowed except in certain extremely limited cases. National security is one (though "national security" must be carefully defined, so that it is not taken to mean "things that could be embarassing to the party in power", which is an all-too-common usage of it.) Criminal activity is another.

And, of course, by "censorship" I mean specifically government-ordered censorship. Privately-owned media outlets can still restrict their own content as much as they wish. Max Barry, for example, can put whatever restrictions on NationStates he wishes, because Max is not a national government. (Maxtopia and his super-secret puppet Barrystan don't count. ;))

bump

As you know, I'm against censorship. But if my entire class is also against it, I shall take a position in favor of it.

Let me try out something I'll try in the class in a couple of hours:

Our society is losing its moral values. We are slowly becoming decivlilzed as we fall into a world where we have no idea of what is right and wrong, what is appropriate and inappropriate. What kind of future will we have if we allow people to run around cursing on television, exposing themselves, and saying whatever sick thing they take pleasure in saying? Nay, we need to grow up to be a little more mature than that and make sure that what we install into the next generation is appropriate and that it will make them a better society than we once were.
If you really want to take the opposing side, I wouldn't take this approach. In essence you are saying that without censorship, human beings are incapable of telling right from wrong, and are incapable of morality. I think even you can find more compelling reasons to support some forms of censorship. Some good points have been brought up. Why don't you focus on some of the things that currently ARE censored, both in your country and mine:

- child pornography
- pornography featuring violence (rape) or degradation

You could also discuss the censorship of hate:(from the Canadian Criminal Code mind you, but consider the point...speech is included as are other forms of expression)

"Every one who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years."

"Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of.....(snipped)*"

Do you think (arguing for some censorship) that it is reasonable to prevent people from, through words or actions, encouraging the extermination of a particular group of people?

These might be your best points to focus on if you want to support censorship .
I mean, should we let people run around promoting hate speech? No! Why? Because we have moral values against hate! Moral values are the core of society and it is what keeps us together. To lose that is to devolve.But doesn't that contradict your position above?

Oh, Colodia...you might also point out that the freedom of speech and expression sometimes contradict existing criminal laws...for example, you do not have the right to 'express yourself' as being someone you are not in terms of assuming someone's identity. Impersonators are a different issue altogether:p As well, advertisers are limited in the claims they can make about their products...you might call this censorship, but it prevents them from using complete fabrications in their ads. Libel laws prevent people from making unwarranted, unproved accusations against others. This is also a form of censorship...you might really think so and so is a dog-raper, but unless you have proof, you don't have the right to call up the media and tell them so.

What gets me too is that parents and the government think that it is the role of the government to parent the children. No, our government's role is to run society so that we may function freely, not say they cannot say this over a broadcast or that they cannot show that or whatever. If a parent expects the government to do their parenting for them, then I don't think anyone can hesitate to call them a bad parent.

Whether or not the parent is able to control their kid (Keyword, THEIR kid, not the state's or the nation's kids), is another story.
Precisely. If they can't be arsed to pay attention to what their kid is reading or watching, then they shouldn't be trusted to raise children in the first place.

Oh, Colodia...you might also point out that the freedom of speech and expression sometimes contradict existing criminal laws...for example, you do not have the right to 'express yourself' as being someone you are not in terms of assuming someone's identity. Impersonators are a different issue altogether As well, advertisers are limited in the claims they can make about their products...you might call this censorship, but it prevents them from using complete fabrications in their ads. Libel laws prevent people from making unwarranted, unproved accusations against others. This is also a form of censorship...you might really think so and so is a dog-raper, but unless you have proof, you don't have the right to call up the media and tell them so.
Doesn't the fact that legal procedures already exist to prevent this sort of thing happening make make any attempt at censorship redundant? The same argument also goes for child pornography.

I support one kind of censorship. Self censorship.

If you want to argue FOR censorship, I suggest you look at the text book industry. Text books are not supposed to use the phrase "founding fathers" because it offends those without fathers. Instead, they are to use framers. While that is a mild version, there are countless examples.

If you really want to take the opposing side, I wouldn't take this approach. In essence you are saying that without censorship, human beings are incapable of telling right from wrong, and are incapable of morality. I think even you can find more compelling reasons to support some forms of censorship. Some good points have been brought up. Why don't you focus on some of the things that currently ARE censored, both in your country and mine:

- child pornography
- pornography featuring violence (rape) or degradation

You could also discuss the censorship of hate:(from the Canadian Criminal Code mind you, but consider the point...speech is included as are other forms of expression)

"Every one who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years."

"Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of.....(snipped)*"

Do you think (arguing for some censorship) that it is reasonable to prevent people from, through words or actions, encouraging the extermination of a particular group of people?

These might be your best points to focus on if you want to support censorship .
But doesn't that contradict your position above?
These are all excellent points for consideration. I'm not Canadian, but these quotes from the law sound similar to the "political correctness" debate here in the US. I'm of the opinion that such laws cross a boundary from maintaining public order/peace into unwarranted limits on free speech. We may argue for censoring speech/writing/broadcast/art that is specifically intended to incite violence or panic in an audience or is only intended to offend/attack a particular person/group, but is it good to squelch all mention of such ideas, even in private or academic communications? I don't think so, because it stops the public from being aware of such things and from speaking out against them. Democracy and freedom protect themselves by confronting their enemies, not by ignoring them. I'd be happier if, rather than a jail term, the offense carried a nominal fine -- so, if someone sends the cops a recording of someone else advocating genocide, the speaker will then receive in the mail a ticket for $50, or something like that. Or maybe a rule that, if you say one of the specified things, and someone else punches you in the mouth once, you can't take any action against them, and you can't hit them back. But they only get to hit you once. One free punch. Any more and it's assault. And only one person gets the free punch. No dog-piling on the racist/nazi/etc.

As for illegal porn, such things obviously should be illegal because the activities in them are illegal -- people are being hurt, especially people who are not in a position to protect themselves -- and it should be equally illegal to make money off such activities, even indirectly. But there are plenty of examples in which censorship of "obscenity" harms academic, medical, scientific, artistic, and historical communications (because all nude images of minors are filtered as porn). Is it porn to publish a paper analyzing child prostitution in the 19th century, for instance? Obviously not, but censorship can set precedents that would stifle legitimate work.

Doesn't the fact that legal procedures already exist to prevent this sort of thing happening make make any attempt at censorship redundant? The same argument also goes for child pornography.
It makes further censorship redundant...but laws can be revoked, and the child pornography laws in particular have been challenged many times. (for example...child pornography involving animations...should that count too?) Laws are not written in stone...they can be changed, struck down etc. Certain laws enforce censorship. Whether or not you agree with them is moot...it's still censorship.

Oh, Colodia...you might also point out that the freedom of speech and expression sometimes contradict existing criminal laws...for example, you do not have the right to 'express yourself' as being someone you are not in terms of assuming someone's identity. Impersonators are a different issue altogether:p As well, advertisers are limited in the claims they can make about their products...you might call this censorship, but it prevents them from using complete fabrications in their ads. Libel laws prevent people from making unwarranted, unproved accusations against others. This is also a form of censorship...you might really think so and so is a dog-raper, but unless you have proof, you don't have the right to call up the media and tell them so.
This is an area where confusion can occur. All these things are and should be illegal, but are they censorable? Identity theft is fraud. It has financial and other practical results that have nothing to do with social morals. Same for libel/slander, truth in advertising, etc. Just like illegal porn and incitement. The laws are about the results of the speech/etc., and it matters how the speech/etc. is used. In private conversation, I can call my enemy a "filthy, lying, dog-raper who should only drop dead," but I can't publicly state "so-and-so has raped dogs on five separate occasions, and if he denies it, he's lying" unless I have proof that it is true. The first is just my opinion. The second is libel/slander.

Censorship is just about the content of the speech/etc. and has a much broader application. Censorship might make it a crime to say the phrase "dog-raper" so that under those rules I couldn't even do a news report on whether there is such a thing as a dog-raper or why people go about accusing each other of it. Just talking about dog-rapers does not cause dogs to be raped, nor does it cause harm to anyone, nor does it bring down the morals of society.

I think censorship can go too far at times, but I think it's necessary to some degree. It's one of those things where you need to reach a happy medium. For example, who here would approve of beastiality movies being shown when all the kids TV is on?

I would. Although, I wouldn't watch it and I definitely wouldn't allow my children(if I had any) to watch it. It's my right to choose what I will or won't watch. Of course, I'm pretty sure beastiality is illegal anyway, so any one actually fucking an animal should be charged, the same way any one actually doing cocaine on TV would be.

I would. Although, I wouldn't watch it and I definitely wouldn't allow my children(if I had any) to watch it.
I dont have children.

Censorship of the news media and written word should be strictly forbidden. Censorship of non-news broadcasts is and should be fair game for censorship. Censorship of the spoken word should be extremely rare (slander laws are good as are laws against picking a fight, disturbing the peace, shouting fire! in a crowded theater, etc.).

Define news broadcast please. Does a blog count? What about The Daily Show or The Colbert Report? How about an HBO comedy special where the commedian provides contextual analysis of the news while peppering his commentary with four letter words spoken in a welsh accent? Censorship is wrong. Trying to limit the public discourse because some prude doesn't have thick enough skin not to faint like a victorian debutante at the utterance of a dirty word is rediculous. Who decides what to censor and at what level? Are we to limit it to the crudely sexual? What about political satire? Social satire? How about Larry Flint saying filthy things about a public figure's mother? Censorship in general seems like a knee-jerk response to me, filled with emotional.moral outrage but lacking any real reason. *kiss kiss* ;)

Oh, and incedentally, your example of shouting fire in a crowded theater, that was first mentioned by Oliver Wendell Holmes, in 1919, in the majority opinion for a case called Schenck v. United States. It was a censorship case, but it had nothing to do with fire or theaters. It had to do with the US arresting someone for producing a pamphlet during WWI that advocated resisting the draft. Not violently, just resisting.

I think censorship can go too far at times, but I think it's necessary to some degree. It's one of those things where you need to reach a happy medium. For example, who here would approve of beastiality movies being shown when all the kids TV is on?

If you disapprove you can always change the channel. You do not have a right to not be offended, and if you dislike something you see, it is your responsibility to look away. At least, thats the position the Supreme Court took in Cohen v. California when a young man was arrested for having a vulgar four-letter word written in huge letters on his jacket when entering a courthouse.



I've noticed a few people talking about slander, libel, child pron, and porn featuring rape or violence as examples of acceptable forms of censorship. I'd like to point out, these are not realy cases of censorship. In every case except libel and slander, these forms of speech are outlawed because they come in direct conflict with the constitutional rights of others. You cannot produce real child porn without abusing a child and infringing upon that child's rights. You cannot make a snuff film without killing someone. You cannot make rape porn without filiming a rape. These are competing rights issues, not issues of censorship. In the united states, you can produce any of those disgusting products artificially (CG, illustration, written word, actors, etc) and, with the exception of artificial child porn, the courts have yet to establsh a strong precedent as to whether they are illegal or not. Libel and slander are also examples of competing rights, though they are slightly more abstract issues. The right to make a living and protect one's reputation is at the core of these laws, and constitutionally libel or slander can only be proven if a "reasonable person" would believe the speech in questions (see Hustler v. Falwell).

But if you did have children, it would be your responsibility to be sure they aren't exposed to harmful material. If one doesn’t want the responsibility one should not have children.

I'm an artist. Here are some examples from my life:

1. I did an illustrated book that was exhibited at an event. A couple of the images included mild nudity. It was not a children's story, but there was nothing overtly sexual in it. I watched two children looking at the book, one about 9 and the other maybe 6. The older one was turning the pages for the younger one. When she got to the page that included a topless mermaid in the picture, she (the little prude) quickly slapped her hand over the entire mermaid figure to keep the younger kid from seeing the naked fish-lady. I defended my work by playfully scolding her, saying that she didn't have to block out the whole figure; she could have used just one finger to cover the lady's boobies. By blocking out the whole mermaid, she had wiped out the meaning of the picture. It was a funny, cute moment, but I mention it as an illustration of how actual censorship affects content.

2. Another artist story: I am currently working on an interactive project for an event with another artist that involves the invention of a fictional artist. We are building this character; we are inviting the public to vote on parts of his biography, and he is listed in the event calendar as if he is a real person. Within the context of this project, this is art, but if we push the fiction too far, we could commit fraud. No documents can be signed or art sold in this person's name, including the art that is being presented as being his work, for instance. If we did that and got punished for it, that would not be censorship.

3. I turned down a lucrative commission from a corporation because they insisted on putting into the commission contract a clause saying that in order for me to include the work I did for them in my portfolio and web site I had to promise never to do any other work that contained sexual, political or any other controversial kind of content, ever, so that they could protect their corporate image. I called this the "Ancient Mariner" clause, under which I got to have them hanging around my neck like a dead albatross for the rest of my career. The fact that it would be completely unenforceable was beside the point; I would have been insane to sign a contract containing it, and they would not back down. This would have been censorship in advance to control what another person would be allowed to say. You see businesses and governments trying this on every now and then.

3. I turned down a lucrative commission from a corporation because they insisted on putting into the commission contract a clause saying that in order for me to include the work I did for them in my portfolio and web site I had to promise never to do any other work that contained sexual, political or any other controversial kind of content, ever, so that they could protect their corporate image. I called this the "Ancient Mariner" clause, under which I got to have them hanging around my neck like a dead albatross for the rest of my career. The fact that it would be completely unenforceable was beside the point; I would have been insane to sign a contract containing it, and they would not back down. This would have been censorship in advance to control what another person would be allowed to say. You see businesses and governments trying this on every now and then.

It's perfectly legal for a corporation to do this.

They are the customer, paying you money. They should expect you to provide them with the product they specify - not anything else.

If you were hired to paint a picture of a mountain, and decided to paint a picture of a disembodied colon instead, do you think you should be paid for completing the contract if it specified that the picture must be of a mountain?

I see a great many people saying we should be able to say "whatever/whenever".

Really?

SO as a matter of self expression I should be allowed to stand in front of a kindergarten shouting how I like to sodomize all the lovely young kiddies?

Thats ok right? You would want your son, daughter, brother or sister exposed to that?

As a Television commercial maker I realize I can sell more Moutain Dew in Iowa if I show some pre-teen kid smoking crack and "simulated" rape of women at 3:30pm in the afternoon. Thats OK right.

Censorship can be abused, and often is.
However the very idea that anything goes any time isnt stupid--it is childish.

If everything is ok, the you will get everything.

Maybe I am just Old.

Sorry if this is a little disjointed, I've been writing for the past 30 minutes in between an essay so it's all over the place.

It depends on what sort of censorship you are talking about. I mean the censorship of factual information is indefensible even where it could harm state interests. For example, glasnost in the Soviet Union contributed to leaving the former USSR in a quagmire from which it is only beginning to recover, however only the Old School Communists argue that allowing more social and media freedoms were unjustified.

However if you are talking about child pornography for example, you have to consider that the original act of creating and distributing the pornography was illegal in the first place, in which case censorship is understandable and justified.

I hate the argument that people make when defending censorship of art, TV ect 'It offends my beliefs, therefore I should not be put into contact with it'... Yeah well don't come into contact with it then, nobodies forcing you to watch it. Jerry Springer the Opera is the most recent thing that comes to mind.

Simply: Censorship of art and factual information is wrong. Banning of illegal materials is not censorship in the same sense, it is upkeep of the law.

3. I turned down a lucrative commission from a corporation because they insisted on putting into the commission contract a clause saying that in order for me to include the work I did for them in my portfolio and web site I had to promise never to do any other work that contained sexual, political or any other controversial kind of content, ever, so that they could protect their corporate image. I called this the "Ancient Mariner" clause, under which I got to have them hanging around my neck like a dead albatross for the rest of my career. The fact that it would be completely unenforceable was beside the point; I would have been insane to sign a contract containing it, and they would not back down. This would have been censorship in advance to control what another person would be allowed to say. You see businesses and governments trying this on every now and then.

I'm a musician and I've run into similar clauses myself. It is unfortunate that a company would be concerned that your later work might somehow make them look bad, it is worse that the concern likely stems not from any corporate opinion, but from the opinions of some prude who would write a complaint and organize a boycott. That said, your story is a perfet example of how non-government censorship should work. You were offered a job in a market that had certain terms, you disliked the terms, so you passed on the job. The company got to keep it's image, you got to keep your integrity, and no one went to jail.

I'm a musician and I've run into similar clauses myself. It is unfortunate that a company would be concerned that your later work might somehow make them look bad, it is worse that the concern likely stems not from any corporate opinion, but from the opinions of some prude who would write a complaint and organize a boycott. That said, your story is a perfet example of how non-government censorship should work. You were offered a job in a market that had certain terms, you disliked the terms, so you passed on the job. The company got to keep it's image, you got to keep your integrity, and no one went to jail.
It's perfectly legal for a corporation to do this.

They are the customer, paying you money. They should expect you to provide them with the product they specify - not anything else.

If you were hired to paint a picture of a mountain, and decided to paint a picture of a disembodied colon instead, do you think you should be paid for completing the contract if it specified that the picture must be of a mountain?

I see a great many people saying we should be able to say "whatever/whenever".

Really?

SO as a matter of self expression I should be allowed to stand in front of a kindergarten shouting how I like to sodomize all the lovely young kiddies?

Thats ok right? You would want your son, daughter, brother or sister exposed to that?

As a Television commercial maker I realize I can sell more Moutain Dew in Iowa if I show some pre-teen kid smoking crack and "simulated" rape of women at 3:30pm in the afternoon. Thats OK right.

Censorship can be abused, and often is.
However the very idea that anything goes any time isnt stupid--it is childish.

If everything is ok, the you will get everything.

Maybe I am just Old.


The current caselaw would argue that you are wrong. Yelling in public is a very different thing from displaying a sign, printing a book, wearing a slogan, or providing something in a market. Parents cannot "look away" from your screams, and they cannot have their children look away either. In effect, you are forcing something on them without giving them any reasonable means of avoiding it. As for television, we have three distinct things to consider. The first is premium cable (HBO, Showtime, Pay-per-view, etc). These are services that are directly requested. No one gets HBO if they don't want it (even free trials can be refused). The next layer down is basic cable/dish. Again, even basic cable is the same thing as HBO. You have to request it. Yes, you get alot of channels bundled but virtually all markets allow you to lock channels. If that isn't good enough, you're free to not buy cable. Then comes network television. While you do not have to pay for network television, there is an off button, and TVs do cost money. You have the choice to only watch channels you find acceptable, you do not have to watch, and you do not have a constitutional right to watch. When you talk about censorship on the airwaves, you need to be clear that what you are proposing is a curtailment of a first ammendment right so that someone can enjoy a modern privilage without having to pay attention.

Incedentally, anything does not go. Television, like anything else, is governed by market forces. What you see on the television is there not because some evil executive forces it upon you, but because it is what people want to see. PAX and Public Television are channels engineered to offend no one, and they have a rather small viewership. Why does it bother you if someone else wants to watch something you dislike? With pay cable there are enough channels for everyone to get what they want. If I want raunchy comedy, crime dramas, cooking shows, 24 hour news, and spanish midget wrestling, I can get them all with the click of a button. The same button could bring me Oprah or televised sessions of the Brittish House of Commons, but if I don't want to see that, I don't have to watch that channel. If I don't want my children to see something (like Dog the Bounty Hunter), I lock the channel. Its really very easy.

It's perfectly legal for a corporation to do this.

They are the customer, paying you money. They should expect you to provide them with the product they specify - not anything else.

If you were hired to paint a picture of a mountain, and decided to paint a picture of a disembodied colon instead, do you think you should be paid for completing the contract if it specified that the picture must be of a mountain?


Umm...thats basically what I said. I dislike what the company did, but thats the world we live in. My point was that in a free market there exists choice (what standards you set for employees, what jobs you will take, etc.). This is important in relation to censorship because censoring material removes choice from the equation, it is an attack on the liberty of not only the individual producing the censored material, but all the individuals who would have liked to view it but are now unable. Government censorship treats citizens like children.

It makes further censorship redundant...but laws can be revoked, and the child pornography laws in particular have been challenged many times. (for example...child pornography involving animations...should that count too?) Laws are not written in stone...they can be changed, struck down etc. Certain laws enforce censorship. Whether or not you agree with them is moot...it's still censorship.
No, I don't think child pornography involving animations or illustrations should count: it doesn't involve the abuse of real kids for a start.

Information Wants To Be Free.

And if people have to die so it can be liberated...so be it. No double standards.

:p