I’m hoping to hear some viewpoints about censorship. This is an issue which has more than one aspect to it. So I’m hoping to get certain “facts” accepted as givens for purposes of this debate.
Having no censorship will lead to the degradation of society. The lowest common denominator will appeal to people’s basest instincts, and will influence society as a whole in a negative manner. Over time, morality, ethical behaviour, personal responsibility and the like will decline.
On an individual level, most people are not negatively affected by the lack of censorship. Most people will chose to ignore what they find offensive/corrupting, and will not be negatively affected by what they do see. But the minority who are negatively affected will, in turn, negatively influence society as a whole. This may ultimately impact people who shielded themselves, or were not directly affected.
Suppose these givens are accepted, the issue seems to me to be a straightforward one. The rights of society vs. the rights of the individual. What do you say?
(The issue of who gets to censor what is another matter).
This is baloney. I’d like to see support for it before we go any further.
Again, I’d like to see support for this. The first part is true, but the second part looks like we should blame the people who print something because some yo-yo somehow “negatively influences society” because of it. Sounds rather ominous, frankly.
Suppose they aren’t…
“Society” doesn’t have rights. “Society” is made up of individuals. Individuals have rights that should be protected.
[shameless advertiser hat on]
Anyone interested in censorship should listen to Jello Biafra’s spoken word albums, specifically “From Beyond the Valley of the Gift Police” and “If Evolution Were Outlawed, Only Outlaws Will Evolve”
[shameless avertiser hat off]
There are many aspects to censorship, all of them bad, in my opinion. The worst kind is when the corporate media doesn’t print articles or show stories for reasons such as, but not limited to:
Their advertisers might get offended. (e.g., an article about Nike child labor in Asia not printed because Nike is an advertiser of the newspaper/magazine.)
It is decided not interesting enough. (e.g., “We’ve decided to scale back the politics coverage because we get better ratings when we talk about Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston getting married.”)
Then there’s music censorship. The Tipper Sticker (Parental Advisory: Explicit Lyrics) is the first example that comes to mind, and not carrying albums with Tipper Stickers has become common in national chain stores like Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart wouldn’t even carry a Sheryl Crow album that criticized Wal-Mart for selling guns. “So you can’t buy a CD that mentions guns…but you can actually go across the store and buy the actual gun and shoot people with it!” (Jello Biafra said that, hence the quotes)
And on having no censorship leading to the degradation of society: I see no reason why the things mentioned above will harm society. Instead of censoring seven of the 50,000 words in the English language on radio and televison, we can always…change the channel! Just hearing words deemed harmful can’t really hurt the fragile little eggshell minds of children.
Frequently, debates about censorship evoke the argument that no one has a right to tell another person what to read/view/say etc. This is frequently accompanied by the idea that the unfettered expression of views/interests etc. will not harm society, or will be beneficial overall. I am wondering about how much the first point can stand on its own. if it does not, than the debates over censorship should not include this argument. The debates should mostly concern whether or not there will be a negative impact on society. For this reason, I suggested accepting, for purposes of debate, that the second was false. Obviously I do not expect anyone to truly accept it - just to discuss whether the first issue is, on its own, a reason to disallow censoship.
Izzy: What do you think about the type of censorship (a means by which the range of legitimate opinions and viewpoints are limited) detailed in Jello’s post?
Hi, Just thought I’d drop in and throw in my two cents about this particular censorship debate.
cent 1. As far as age ratings on video’s and films go I think that it’s a good idea. If I had kids there are some films which I would DEFINATELY not want them to get access to until I think that they are old enough. However I don’t think that if they did get access to them it would negatively influence them to act out of character, rather it would scare them and might give them nightmares or something.
Cent 2. As far as censoring things (lets say movies) to the point of banning them I think that nothing should be banned unless the making the movie infringed on the rights of an individual in the film, thus making it an illegal act to both make and watch the film. For example snuff movies represent one bigassed infringement on somebodies rights so they should be banned investigated by the police. Now you may think that there are still some “films” which are too violent and shocking to be put out on video and display a total lack of artistic merit. I think that they still shouldn’t be banned because I believe that they are not hurting anyone (I know that there is a wholly separate debate about this but my view on that particular hornet’s nest quickly summed up is that violent movies do not a violent society make, anyway back to the OP)
I wholly oppose any types of censorship except of the kind I illustrated above because I think in this case, the rights of the individual to enjoy films which are to his taste, even if they are not particularly edifying films, do not conflict with the rights of the society in anyway. Just as someone has the right to choose whether to watch some obscenely violent horror movie (for example) others have the right to ignore it if they feel they will not enjoy it.
Also I think that Jello Biafra makes an excellent point when he says:
"“So you can’t buy a CD that mentions guns…but you can actually go across the store and buy the actual gun and shoot people with it!”
I think that it is disgusting to ban the sale of an album from a store chain just because of the artists reputation or by looking at the back cover to check for swearwords, which is basically all they do. I sincerely doubt that Walmart executives gather round and actually listen to a controversial album and then engage in any sort of focussed debate as to the artistic merits of an album before deciding to barr it from the shelves. I think that Wal-mart needs to seriously consider it’s priorities before continuing to pursue this controversial policy.
(I also think that aritsts should specifically request for their album not to be stocked at Wal-mart if they don’t agree with what the store is doing but that’s something different entirely)
Okay, even assuming that some (say five percent) of the population will go evil and icky on us if we let them read what they want, it stands to reason that another equal percentage will absorb and be lifted up by other media offerings. so things will stay the same, if not get better.
also, nothing is really ever said or shown in the media which hasn’t been done before for real. So how will a record containing swears or a movie depicting a bank robbery affect people any more than what’s happening in real life? And even if for some reason the media did have an impact, once you remove it you still have to deal with the influence of real life. How are you going to get rid of that?
My main problem with censorship is centered on the fact that it always has an ulterior motive. If you sincerely believe that the government or a corporation will refuse to allow something to be said merely for the good of the people, you are considerably deluded and/or stupid (not slurring you; ‘stupid’ fits nicely w/ ‘deluded’). they will censor to strengthen their power, and for no other reason.
Ok, people. Lets get our facts straight.
It wasn’t Wal-Mart that banned The Sheryl Crow album, it was K-Mart. Unfortunately I can’t remember the song, so I can’t find the offensive lyrics.
Secondly, it wasn’t the fact that she sang about buying guns at Kmart. She sang about buying guns from Kmart, and then using it irresponsibly. I’m not surprised Kmart was upset about that. I mean, Kmart has a negative enough image w/o people singing about how they killed someone with the gun they bought from Kmart.
Now, I’m not defending Kmart, and I think they were probably wrong. But that’s what was going down.
My source was, as always, a Jello Biafra spoken word track. He didn’t cite his source, so I don’t know where to check back. Sorry about that. I ought to get a second opinion at least every once in a while.
Isn’t K-Mart (or anyone else) entitled to sell any legal thing they want, for whatever reasons they like? Does it matter at all if their decision NOT to sell something doesn’t produce an effect satsifying to someone else? If K-Mart won’t sell something for which there is sufficient demand, won’t it be purchased elsewhere? Or won’t some other profit-seeking entity emerge to fill the void? Even if none does, is that K-Mart’s problem? This is way different from the government banning something, isn’t it?
Put another way: I’m not sure it’s censorship at all if I refuse to provide you a medium to communicate your views. You may say whatever you want. I don’t have to be a conduit for your message. To the extent that you force me to be (hey, Wal-Mart, you must sell products you find morally offensive), isn’t that the true free speech issue?
Also, I think I’m OK with warning stickers for the same reason I’m OK with keeping kids out of x-rated movies. What adult is prevented from making or buying an album by this practice? Am I missing some key point?
Lastly, is there actually some form of “censorship” afoot in the U.S. that doesn’t fall into one of the above categories? Government bodies banning Huckleberry Finn, for example. I see this as true censorship, but I’m not sure I’m being consistent. Any thoughts?
Some chain stores don’t sell Tipper Stickered albums. Others get protested by the Christian Right and then stop selling them or only sell edited versions.
Government censorship is just as bad. For some reason I didn’t include that in my earlier post. ::hits self in forehead::
Oklahoma City, for example, banned the Oscar-winning The Tin Drum because it supposedly had pedophilia in it, and that wasn’t even pictured on screen. The Diary of Anne Frank has been banned by schools for some sexual themes in parts of the books. A teenager in my state (Georgia) was suspended from school for creating a web site that was critical of his school…a web site that he made on his home computer and did not disrupt class in any way, although disruption was promoted on the website. In a worse case, in Evans, Georgia, a high school student was suspended for wearing a Pepsi T-shirt on Coca-Cola day.
Censorship is a function of a government–whether or not a private individual/corpoation wants to sell something has nothing to do with it. Snopes summed this up brilliantly–Freedom if speech guarentees your right to speech, it does not guarentee you an audience. Wal-mart is choosing to provide a service to the parents of middle America–they promise that if you restrict your kids to the albums they carry, your kids will not listen to anything you disapprove of. It is a marketing ploy, not an attempt to moralize or repress anybody.
Censorship is when it becomes illegal to print, distribute, and/or own an item (or to say things). No corperation in the world has the power to do any such thing. A paper not printing an article about Nike because Nike has paid them not to is not cersorship. When the governemnt tells the paper they will be fined/shut down if they print an article about Nike because Nike has paid the government off, that’s censorship (not that this has happened, mind.)
100% serious and positive that it is true. It got the front page of our newspaper a few years back. Coke Day was a day when the school participated in a contest to try and win some money from Coca-Cola for the school. Everyone was supposed to wear Coke t-shirts for a group photo, but this kid wore a Pepsi one and was suspended.
OK, this isn’t exactly true. They didn’t ban the album because it mentioned guns, they banned it because they felt the album defamed them. WalMart doesn’t sell guns. You can’t shoot up a school with a gun you bought at WalMart if WalMart doesn’t sell guns, can you?
If I want to stock only Jazz records in my store, am I censoring Gospel music? If you put out an album saying Lemur866 is a punk, do I have to sell it at my store? It’s your right to make such an album, but what are my rights? No, Walmart has the freedom to buy and sell whatever records they want. Whether their policy is smart is another issue.