All this talk is dependent though on being able to turn off or unplug the TV. What about the guy who decides it’s his business to personally stand in the town square and say things, or hold up pictures, or whatever? I think it’s really tempting to take a moral high ground and claim that all censorship is wrong while we live in a place where public expression is most definitely constrained within some admittedly nebulous rules of ‘decency’.
What it comes down to me is this: we’re an awful lot of people all crowded together trying to live together. Sometimes that means that I have to listen to you when I might not want to, but that also might mean that sometimes you have to shut the hell up when you’d rather not. I think it works both ways.
Well, sure it does - because I was directly answering a question about potentially offensive material on television.
I agree with **Rune’s **qualifications on public displays. I think public events that are televised as well need to follow the most restrictive conventions.
Sure, as long as there is some way for parents to prevent their children from watching it (something like ratings and the V-chip) and the broadcasters don’t try to circumvent that technology in any way. Throw the book at the ones who do try to circumvent the technology.
I do think censorship in the public square is more acceptable.
None. Zip. Nada. Zero. And zilch. Things like fraudulent advertising claims, slanderous and libelous statements, and direct incitements to violence aren’t applicable, since they’re already covered by criminal statutes.
An ex of mine (who was unduly influenced by the anti-pornography movement of the 1970s and '80s, and thus not at all opposed to censorship on principle) tried to challenge me on this once by asking “What if some jacket-job got a hate on for *you *and started distributing pamphlets saying ‘DLuxn8r-13 is a lowlife infidel faggot who should be hauled out and shot in the head!’ Wouldn’t you want that censored?” Once I’d given his most-unlikely hypothesis the horselaugh it demanded, I told him, “Well of course I wouldn’t like it, but as long as this theoretical anti-DLuxist wasn’t publishing my street address and offering to pay bounty on my scalp, he really wouldn’t be doing me any harm, now, would he?” The ex harrumphed and said free speech and censorship issues were middle-class liberal concerns anyway.
Seriously, as an adult that is MY job. As a parent, ditto. I regularly censor what I and my kids read/watch/are exposed to, and I do so based on my own beliefs, judgement, and opinions.
Standards vary so widely as to make any centralized censorship ridiculous and dangerous.
There is so much of value to be found in art/speech which could easily be censored based on its “offensive” nature, but so often, that “offensiveness” is what renders it meaningful.
I don’t support any censorship aside from the no-brainer “yelling fire in a crowded theater” scenario. Even so-called “hate speech” should, imo, be protected. Let them talk. Then talk back. Don’t attempt to make speech or even thought a crime.
Anne, out of interest, how do we decide what should be labeled and what does not have to be. If people who are not looking for porn shouldn’t find porn, should people who are not looking for, say, religious content find religious content?
I honestly don’t know where we draw a dividing line on this. On some levels I think that the “censorship” you are requiring can be enforced by sound business decisions - stores that choose not to sell pornography, or choose not to display it, are likely to get more family patronage than those that have it all hanging out. Such self censorship is largely what occurs on US cable TV. There is no legal requirement (short of obscenity law) to censor, but most cable companies do. And that is where the danger comes - when self censorship becomes de facto government censorship. If it is truly voluntary, then I have no problem. But where companies do it for fear of government imposed censorship if they don’t, we all suffer as a society.
I’m for as much labeling as we can get. We should label for porn, violence, blood/gore, religious content- I’d be for labeling anything that might be controversial or that might trigger a reasonably common phobia. The reason is that different people are upset by different things. I am very bothered by blood and gore, to the point that I feel nauseous if I watch a movie with a gory scene. I’d love to have movies and TV shows with gory scenes labeled, so I would know not to watch them.
But that self-censorship doesn’t work on the Internet. There are pornographic sites that try to fly under the radar, so you might find porn if you search for something completely unrelated to porn. I think that should be prohibited. If you want to avoid pornography, you should be able to do so.
Saying “anything that might be controversial” is avoiding the question, though. And your desire to have gory scenes labeled is suggestive that a voluntary system would work, if sufficient people felt like you do, and I think they probably do. In fact, TV guides often list that sort of thing, though it seems to be more for sex than violence, because God knows that seeing boobies is far worse for little Timmy than seeing someone’s head ripped off.
We still get down to the problem, if labeling is compulsory, of what to label. And that will entail a value judgment that is potentially antithetical to a strict interpretation of the First Amendment. I wouldn’t feel good, for example, about the government mandating that shows were required to list homosexual couples, but not straight couples. Or were required to label themselves as containing interracial dating.
It is certainly true that this happens (re the searches) - as I keep telling the IT Department at work. I don’t understand why as it seems to be a terrible business model, but it happens. I guess we have to decide if the cure (compulsory labeling) is worse than the disease (momentary exposure to nudity/sex).
IANAnne ;), but I’d say the usual suspects are adequate: sex, violence, language, “intensity”. I’d not be opposed to the addition of religion, pro and anti. I personally like the practice of putting the reasons for MPAA ratings on the ratings bar (although there are some unintentionally hilarious ones out there: “Rated PG-13 for intense depiction of very bad weather,” sounds funny, but *Twister *really is too intense for many young kids.)
After that, considering the space limitations on advertising and packaging, I think it’s incumbent on parents to do research to ferret out their personal bugaboos*. There’s certainly no shortage of research sites available for movies. I really like kids-in-mind.com, as they don’t seem to have an agenda or indoctrination scheme, just very explicit and comprehensive listing of possible landmines. And they generally manage to do it without even spoiling the plot for me, which is quite a trick! I’d love it if a similar service was available for television shows and for dinners with the in-laws.
*For example: *Shrek *makes me stabby. A movie about how we should all accept people regardless of their looks that’s chock full of short jokes? Ohhh…kay. But I get that most people don’t see the [del]hypocrisy[/del] [del] irony [/del] problem here, and it’s just my thing and not generally considered inappropriate for children. Since it’s a unique (or limited) foible, it’s up to me to do the sort of research I need to do decide if I want my kids seeing it, even if that means watching it on my own before letting them see it with me.
One reason, I suspect, is that the people who advertise on these sites pay by the number of visits to the site, whether that visit was intentional or not. There’s an incentive there to drive up the number of visits by any means possible. I think filtering software plays a role, too- your company’s IT department wants to prevent people from looking at porn while at work, but there might be people at your work who would like to look at porn while at work, so there’s a market for porn sites that circumvent the filters.
I think an IT department, a parent, or anyone who owns a computer has the right to say “I don’t want anyone to be able to see porn from my computer”. The sites that circumvent filtering deny that right to a computer owner, so I think circumventing filtering should be illegal.
But both Anne and WhyNot are missing, I think, the problem here, which is my huge problem with censorship (and to a lesser extent labeling - not wanting to get into the huge argument over whether labeling is per se censorship; I think it certainly has the potential to become censorship). Censorship can often be portrayed as reasonable when discussed in the abstract, because it is reasonable people who do the censoring in that abstract situation. The trouble is, in real life, it is the crazies who do it.
The question of what has to be labeled is very important. The usual suspects aren’t enough, unfortunately, because what “sex” is differs from person to person. A requirement that a TV show be labeled as including kissing would probably be laughed out. One that required labeling for two men kissing, unfortunately, would be supported.
As for avoiding filtering software, yes, it is a problem certainly. And I agree with Anne that…
But I would also say that an IT department, parent, or anyone who owns a computer has the right to say “I don’t want anyone to be able to see the Dallas Cowboys from my computer.” So again we get back to the problem of what has to be labeled. Should any “misleading” information on a web site that could lead to “incorrect” search results be illegal?
I want little. The problem is people have lost the concept of self-regulation. We’ve raised two generations of people who don’t understand OTHER PEOPLE COUNT.
Look at cellphone, a license to be rude and obnoxious. No one cares to hear what you have to say. But people now have themselves convinced they can’t live without being in constant contact. And if I am talking in the movie or library, YOU can leave.
Same for other things. People need to understand this.
No one wants you to stop cursing, but I don’t want to hear it. So if I ask you nicely you should know, I as a matter of being another person COUNT. So you should modify your behaviour.
The same way if I go into a strip club and am offended by people taking off their clothes I SHOULD leave.
Your rights should not be used as an excuse to steamroll other people’s rights
Would it? Has it? I’m not trying to be argumentative, I don’t know. FWIW, no, I would not (do not) support labeling homosexual acts differently from their identical heterosexual acts. If that’s being done, it’s not with my support.
Sorry - was away for NY. I’m certainly not suggesting that would be your intent. The problem I see is that censorship tends to be a majoritarian thing - it imposes the mores of the dominating group of the community. Often that isn’t problemmatic, but it certainly can be.
As for the labelling of gay acts and not straight ones I hope you are right, but I doubt it. I remember the fuss about a kiss in Will & Grace, for example.
