Does Censorship...

[Sinister]

Work?
Promote Rebellion?
Stifle Creativity and Creative Thinking?

I'm running this thread to understand what people think Censorship does to a community... Are there some things that MUST be censored? Should Censorship be an all or nothing campaign? Is it really necessary in the first place?

I'm a neutral, although, it would only be fitting for me to admit that the usual Taoistic take on life does not view Censorship as natural or necessary. But then, all things that exist are in nature and therefore natural.

What I'm trying to ask folks, is, in the context of morality and society... Does it mother****ing help or mother****ing hurt?

-Sin

[Alpha]

I think we could do with a working definition of censorship. Could you clarify what you would like discussed? Are we talking banning under-18s from renting pornographic films, or the banning of pornographic films entirely?

To some extent I think 'censorship' (broadly defined) has a legitimate purpose, though it is never easy determining the extent to which a given authority should be pushing a given morality. I'd say I am certainly pro-censorship in the context of children; keeping children separate from violence and nudity, especially. The thing about censorship is that it is never effective, in that no matter how much one tries, the content will get through. I doubt there are many ten-year-olds who haven't seen naked people.

This begs the question: what's the point of shielding them from it in the first place? That's a good question. I think it's more or less a pre-emptive form of damage control. I readily accept that a given censorship is not going to work; 'we all see naked people' -- but how often, and how extreme it is, is the important aspect.

And then there's the question of who or what censors what is deemed worthy of censorship. Are parents responsible? The State? Television networks? This question surely comes down to personal perspective and indeed ideology. I'd argue for the State, as, assuming it's democratic, it ideally follows a majoritarian perspective of what requires censorship. If the majority of parents think that pornographies should not screen on TV at 4pm, then that's what should happen. But again; personal perspective.

So,

Does Censorship...
Work?
Promote Rebellion?
Stifle Creativity and Creative Thinking?

-Censorship does not work completely, but that's not the point
-[In my conceptualisation of censorship, rebellion seems distant]
-[I may get on to this point at a later date]

[Heartless Angel]

All things in moderation. I don't believe in mandated censorship, like government controlling what can and can't be shown. That's just gay. But like, a parent keeping their 9 year old kids from Googling porn, yeah, that's perfectly reasonable. Censorsip isn't nescessary for adults in any way. I've heard alot of people bitching about shit on TV being too violent, or movies showing too much gore, and that they 'need' to be censored. Bullshit. I have a better idea, pick up the remote and change the ****ing channel. Don't like seeing naked people on TV? Change the channel, or turn the TV off. Don't like curse words in your music? Listen to a different artist. Quit whining and let the rest of us enjoy our naked actresses on TV and random F-bombs in our music.

[Sinister]

I think we could do with a working definition of censorship. Could you clarify what you would like discussed? Are we talking banning under-18s from renting pornographic films, or the banning of pornographic films entirely?

I refuse to define Censorship. This is an informal and generic discussion of the concept. To say nothing of limiting the discussion, I refuse this also because I want to see what people freely associate with Censorship. Feel free to provide your own definition, if you care to.

As for Censorship's capacity for inciting rebellion...all rules, strictly applied, incite some form of rebellion, even if only in individual cases. The only question is to what degree. What will the majority of people voluntarily bear.

-Sin

[Alpha]

I refuse to define Censorship. This is an informal and generic discussion of the concept. To say nothing of limiting the discussion, I refuse this also because I want to see what people freely associate with Censorship. Feel free to provide your own definition, if you care to.

How very frustrating admirable. Fair enough I suppose, but surely you must recognise that this is an incredibly broad topic that could go in innumerable directions according to whim. Which is what my last post was. I could have discussed Australian Internet censorship. Or the (worse?) forms of it in China. But instead I chose to generically discuss the light censorship of pornography -- hardly controversial. But if you want whim; here's whim. How about the 'censorship' of non-sponsored brand logos at the FIFA World Cup in South Africa? Is it even censorship? Do corporations have the right to dictate what people wear (or wear on their clothes)?

Specifically, I'm referring to this event, but it is not the only instance of this occurring at this World Cup.

The 36 girls - three Dutch and 33 South African - were wearing orange mini-dresses designed by Dutch brewing company Bavaria. The three Dutch girls were held and questioned for three hours.

Fifa ordered the girls, which it first described as a group of students from the same sorority, to be removed because they wanted to protect the official beer sponsor Budweiser of this World Cup.

Is it 'censorship' to be told that you can only drink Budweiser within 1km of a football stadium associated with the World Cup (another instance of brand 'protection' at this event)? I can't see why not, if one is allowed to define censorship this broadly. One's actions (drinking beer that is not Budweiser) are 'censored' according to the dictates of an authority (The State of South Africa, enforcing the will of FIFA, which in turn has been paid large sums of money to ensure sole advertising rights to certain corporations.

What about the brand of the 2012 London Olympic games? Shop owners in London have been told which terms and expressions they are allowed to use in advertising during the Olympic Games. If one is not an official sponsor, the 'censored' terms include 'London 2012', 'gold', 'silver', 'bronze', and so on. Guttered if you were a London jewellery/bronze statuette seller.

You can help support London 2012 by understanding and respecting the need to protect the brand, and by not using our emblems or otherwise creating an association with the Games unless you are sure you are entitled to do so.

Why is protecting the London 2012 brand so important?
The hundreds of millions of pounds necessary to organise the Games must be raised by the London 2012 Organising Committee from the private sector – by selling sponsorship, official merchandise and tickets.

To raise the necessary revenue, the London 2012 Organising Committee must be able to give its sponsors an exclusive association to London 2012 and the Olympic and Paralympic movements in the UK. As such we must prevent other companies undertaking unauthorised activities which damage our sponsors’ exclusive rights.

The following are some of the current items that make up the Games' Marks:
The Olympic symbol
The Paralympic symbol
The London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic emblems
The words ‘London 2012’ and ‘2012’
The words ‘Olympic’, ‘Olympiad’, ‘Olympian’ (and their plurals and things very similar to them – eg ‘Olympix’
The words ‘Paralympic’, ‘Paralympiad’, ‘Paralympian’ and their plurals and things very similar to them – eg ‘Paralympix’
The Olympic motto: ‘Citius Altius Fortius’ / ‘Faster Higher Stronger’
The Paralympic motto: ‘Spirit in Motion’
The Team GB logo
The Paralympics GB logo
The British Olympic Association logo
The British Paralympic Association logo
London2012.com (and various derivatives)

(Emphases (bold; underline) added)

Are the 'interests' of the London Olympics 'brand' and the rights of an exclusive group of (very wealthy) corporations equivalent to a form of 'censorship'?

As for Censorship's capacity for inciting rebellion...all rules, strictly applied, incite some form of rebellion, even if only in individual cases. The only question is to what degree. What will the majority of people voluntarily bear.

I see. In this situation, I'd be very surprised if business owners didn't take on the right to be able to refer to the year (2012).

[Sinister]

I like that. A non-standard use of the term Censorship, but an important observation. I find that this sort of corporate/private sector censorship is just as potent as governmental censorship and the direction you took that in was not lost on me. In these times, corporate censorship and governmental censorship seem to correspond all too well. Well done.

Indeed, one may say that this sort of limitation puts our freedom in more of hazard than ever these days. It's within my profession that I am in contact with GM patents, but you may be familiar with it. I'm unsure if you've seen the documentary and work of Robert Kenner called "Food Inc." Suffice to say that one of the many instances it details is a type of Soy seed developed by the company Monsanto. The seed is a GM(genetic mod) with a "Roundup Ready" gene that allows farmers to bomb their crop with roundup without actually killing the soybeans. Naturally this means more carcinogens and toxicity for everyone, but then...something awful happened. The gene crept into 90% of all soybean seeds. The problem with this? Monsanto has a patent on this gene and all crops carrying it. Farmers are not allowed to reseed their fields with the seeds of last harvest. Many farmers who have tested their seeds to make sure they do not carry this gene are still subpoenaed into court and forced into submission of buying Monsanto products and paying an outrageous settlement and sometimes court fees. This is in response to these farmers blatantly "encouraging other farmers to violate patents". Governmental rulings on these proceedings seem tellingly consistent in backing Monsanto, it is worth noting.

This may sound gloriously unimportant, but to me, a student of horticulture and a philosophical Taoist, it is painfully disturbing. All the more so as all attempts at rebellion consistently fail.

Admittedly, this is molding censorship into a wide target, but I'm enjoying the discussion.

-Sin

[Dynamo]

Censorship depends completely on where, how and when you were brought up. As if your brought up in an area where everything that can possibly be censored is, then changes are you will believe that those things are bad/wrong. Yet if your brought up somewhere where anything goes, then you will believe those things which someone else see as wrong as ok.

Personally i beleive most places go a little too far when it comes to censorship and just because another place does things differently doesn't make them strange or wrong or in some cases people may say Sick, it just makes them different

[Furore]

I am against all forms of widespread censorship (though do feel direct censorship of the young can be beneficial for their development in some cases).
Historically censorship has lost us knowledge of our past in some places when records have been destroyed and has taken away the freedoms of some people to do things that mightn't really effect others for the worse. It has possibly lost us different aesthetics that weren't to the tastes of people in power though may have been art appreciated by others.

I do not feel that anyone else should have the right to regulate what they feel we should be exposed to as full grown adults, instead feeling governing bodies should target the sources of where some of the admittedly less desirable material comes from. And I feel the biggest danger of censorship is wondering where it will end if it picks up momentum.