Is Censorship Constitutional?

Beyond the Grave · **Posted:** Wed Dec 15, 2004 5:37 pm

Does Censorship violate our right to free speech? If i am reading it correctly, then i should be able to say what i want when i want, right?

ramrod · **Posted:** Wed Dec 15, 2004 5:45 pm

It all depends on who's reading the Constitution. We do have freedom of speech, as long as it doesn't cause harm or potentially cause harm. You can critisize the Pres, but you can't say that you want to kill him. It all depends on what you say. But when it comes to things like swearing, then that is sometimes just stupid. I mean, who decided what words are 'dirty' and what aren't?

OK, time to step off the soap box.

TheNintenGenius · **Posted:** Wed Dec 15, 2004 7:20 pm

This is really a hard question to answer, since as ramrod said, it's all a matter of who's doing the interpreting. As it stands right now, I believe most speech is permissible, so long as the speech is not used to

1) Create panic which could cause potential harm (such as shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater)
2) Incite riots or other acts that people normally would not be prone to do.
3) Harm others in a libelous/slanderous fashion (such as claiming in a local election that my rival molests little boys when, in fact, he never did)

Of course, it's been a while since I last had a civics class of any sort, so my knowledge is probably pretty rusty. I'm sure someone else can tell me where I went wrong or add to what I just said.

sticklyman · **Posted:** Wed Dec 15, 2004 9:01 pm

Okay I WAS going to post an ASCII drawing of H*R standing on a box labelled "12 of them," but it didn't come out looking...natural. (The ASCII is for, um...A Stupid yet Cool Idiot, um, Idiot. Yeah.) Anyway, what I was going to type to follow it was that censorship should not be allowed in most cases. The only times when it should be legal are when people write threatening messages to others or when the message is a matter of national security. For example, if a person says "I hate this country," well then they can go join the majority of Europe, for all I care. However, if some oddball reporter *cough*Geraldo*cough* reveals where U.S. troops are stationed during a war, the broadcast should be banned.

Oh, and spammers like that guy in the "Back in Black" thread should be censored.

Dr. Zaius · **Joined:** Wed Nov 24, 2004 2:10 am **Posts:** 175

Hate speech should be censored, the KKK should not be allowed to host a show on a public access network...

But censorship on the ground of being "obscene" or "vulgar" is just a load of bullplop. What's offensive is relative, just because one person freaks out when seeing a boobie or hearing a four-letter word doesn't give them the right to make it so others can't hear it. That's why I hate the FCC with a passion. Even more to, the PTC (which submits over 98% of the total complaints the FCC gets)

StrongRad · **Posted:** Thu Dec 16, 2004 4:53 am

Dr. Zaius wrote:

Hate speech should be censored, the KKK should not be allowed to host a show on a public access network...

I really can't agree... So-called "hate speech" is usually labeled as such, just because it offends someone. The KKK, Nazis, and other related groups are morons. I think that, if anything, their practicting of free speech proves that.
I don't agree with them, but I really am not in favor of getting in the way of ANYONE'S free speech. The First Amendment doesn't say ANYTHING about freedom of speech being denied when someone disagrees with what's being said. One of the most important things to remember about freedom of speech is that, while you have the freedom to say anything you want, you have to respect other people's right to do the same, even if what they say is stupid, hate-filled, or just plain wrong.

Upsilon · **Posted:** Sat Dec 18, 2004 10:13 am

I'm largely against censorship. That includes all forms of free speech, whether I agree with it or not. Of course, I also believe in the right to use free speech to publically disagree with whatever "hate speech" is being spoken. Refuting it is better than banning it.

As for swearing and nudity, it's all social taboo really, isn't it?

thefreakyblueman · **Posted:** Sat Dec 18, 2004 7:06 pm

StrongRad wrote:

Dr. Zaius wrote:

Hate speech should be censored, the KKK should not be allowed to host a show on a public access network...

I really can't agree... So-called "hate speech" is usually labeled as such, just because it offends someone. The KKK, Nazis, and other related groups are morons. I think that, if anything, their practicting of free speech proves that.
I don't agree with them, but I really am not in favor of getting in the way of ANYONE'S free speech. The First Amendment doesn't say ANYTHING about freedom of speech being denied when someone disagrees with what's being said. One of the most important things to remember about freedom of speech is that, while you have the freedom to say anything you want, you have to respect other people's right to do the same, even if what they say is stupid, hate-filled, or just plain wrong.

This is exactly what I was thinking when I saw this. If you're going to have what we call 'free speech', we're going to need it to be free; and that's exactly the problem with it. This country declared freedom of speech so that we wouldn't be in a situation like Iran, where if a political rival speaks out, they're killed. It's obvious that the KKK and the ANP (American Nazi Party) are insane and (if you will) evil, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't have the same freedoms that we have. I recently saw a History Channel program about the KKK and ANP, and I was absolutely appalled. At the end, they had a clip of the chairman, Rocky Suhayda, saying "The revolution will be soon", complete with eerie music. This really annoyed me, but then I realized that every time someone mentions human rights, a Nazi believer is annoyed. This really shows that they're also thinking that people should not be allowed to preach on television; should that be so? The main thing that freedom of speech has shown me is that there really is a downside to everything, as the ability for Nazis to talk on radio and television is just that.

the_stolker · **Posted:** Sat Dec 18, 2004 8:12 pm

The truth is that the First amendment gurrentees(sp?)the right to Speak Freely But it dosen't give you the right to be heard,(People don't have to listen to you,) so I Find Sensorship Acceptable as long as it does not put someone down without reason.(ex. I don't like you because your shirt is not blue.) Or the thing the person is talking about is not obscene.

Dr. Zaius · **Joined:** Wed Nov 24, 2004 2:10 am **Posts:** 175

The Stolker wrote:

The truth is that the First amendment gurrentees(sp?)the right to Speak Freely But it dosen't give you the right to be heard,(People don't have to listen to you,) so I Find Sensorship Acceptable as long as it does not put someone down without reason.(ex. I don't like you because your shirt is not blue.) Or the thing the person is talking about is not obscene.

But who chooses what's obscene? I like violent video games and movies, the gorier the better. I like those Faces of Death tapes. I like porn. I'm jerk happy Joe, and I don't care who knows it. My point is, I'm not hurting anyone with what I find entertaining, so why the heck should some uptight blowhard say what I can or can't watch/play?

Upsilon · **Posted:** Sun Dec 19, 2004 2:16 pm

thefreakyblueman wrote:

StrongRad wrote:

Dr. Zaius wrote:

Hate speech should be censored, the KKK should not be allowed to host a show on a public access network...

I really can't agree [...] or just plain wrong.

This is exactly what I was thinking when I saw this. [...] as the ability for Nazis to talk on radio and television is just that.

I don't see that as a problem. If some white-power nut wants to go on the air and state his views, what difference does that make to the rest of us? If it really is insanity, sensible people aren't going to be taken in by it, and no-one has to pay attention. If anything, it'd make people more angry with the cause they support so that they want to make their point of view heard as well. It can't be a bad thing.

The Stolker wrote:

The truth is that the First amendment gurrentees(sp?)the right to Speak Freely But it dosen't give you the right to be heard,(People don't have to listen to you,) so I Find Sensorship Acceptable as long as it does not put someone down without reason.(ex. I don't like you because your shirt is not blue.)

But censorship isn't enforced to prevent people from listening, it's to stop people from speaking - it goes precisely against the First Amendment which you brought into play.

thefreakyblueman · **Posted:** Sun Dec 19, 2004 4:08 pm

Upsilon wrote:

thefreakyblueman wrote:

StrongRad wrote:

Dr. Zaius wrote:

Hate speech should be censored, the KKK should not be allowed to host a show on a public access network...

I really can't agree [...] or just plain wrong.

This is exactly what I was thinking when I saw this. [...] as the ability for Nazis to talk on radio and television is just that.

I don't see that as a problem. If some white-power nut wants to go on the air and state his views, what difference does that make to the rest of us? If it really is insanity, sensible people aren't going to be taken in by it, and no-one has to pay attention. If anything, it'd make people more angry with the cause they support so that they want to make their point of view heard as well. It can't be a bad thing.

Not to be nitpicky, but that's the point that I was trying to make. :mrgreen:

Upsilon · **Posted:** Mon Dec 20, 2004 2:33 pm

Eh? You said it was a problem that absolutely anyone is allowed to say what they like.

Prof. Tor Coolguy · **Posted:** Mon Dec 20, 2004 5:32 pm

you are totally missing the point people, censorship is for the minors. It dosn't matter if it's un-constitutional or not because technally all the rights and privalages stated in that document are for adults of concent (or over 18). It only applys to minors if you are violating a basic right like freedom of religion or freedom or freedom of speech and still that line is hazy.

the_stolker · **Posted:** Mon Dec 20, 2004 10:54 pm

The thing about censorship is that It is put in place to make sure you don't get hurt, example using free speach as an excuse I could call someone a really bad thing on telivision and they would not be able to do anything about it except
1. Hurt my body
2. Say something nasty about me
or I could say something totally bogus and bad and noone could stop me, I am just saying I think the government has every right to censor things except when it is unnesserry(sp?) like if they were to censor an opinion on sock color.

Dr. Zaius · **Joined:** Wed Nov 24, 2004 2:10 am **Posts:** 175

But again, what one thinks is "unessesary" another could not. Like some would people, namely the PTC, want EVERYTHING censored!

When we start to censor things, someone's gotta pick the standard. And that's just going to cause problems, because the people who WANT censorship are the ones who'll jump at the opportunity to fill that position, and they usually have high standards...

StrongRad · **Posted:** Tue Dec 21, 2004 7:30 am

Zaius brings up an interesting point about the "slippery slope" and "who determines what should be censored?" issues. We debated this in my writing class one week. Basically, we kind of decided, that any form of state sponsored censorship is totally unconstitutional, but any laws preventing private citizens censoring something (like a TV station that refuses to air a certain movie, like, say, Saving Private Ryan) would be unconstitutional, as well, because they would violate the station owner's freedom of speech (as well as being a form of gov't interference in private business, which is bad. That's another topic, for another time).

It was strange, in that class, to see people from complete opposite ends of the political spectrum, in complete agreement with each other over an issue that, apparently, polarizes the nation. We just decided that, as the constitution was written, any form of state sponsored censorship is wrong, but that there was nothing wrong with a TV or radio station owner, or a publisher (so long as they aren't recieving governmental funds) deciding what their station airs, or their presses print.

ramrod · **Posted:** Tue Dec 21, 2004 4:35 pm

What I don't get is all the censorship in the media. We have a choice to watch or not to watch something. We are not being forced to watch something, if someone doesn't like what's on, they can change the channel. Parents are worried about their kids watching South Park? Well, he's an easy solution, rather that trying to get the show off the air, monitor what your kid watches. Easy, ain't it?

And the parents that worry about the violent video games, who's buying the games for the kids? They sure aren't! I have never seen a ten year old walk up to the cashier with GTA Vice City. Those games are made for 17 and up. It says it on the game. You don't want your kid to play that game? Don't buy it!. Oh, and video games don't make kids violent, their bringing up does. Kids know that there is no cheat code to regain your health in real life.

Man, this is a long post

And....Off the soap box...

StrongRad · **Posted:** Fri Dec 24, 2004 5:45 am

ramrod wrote:

Well, he's an easy solution, rather that trying to get the show off the air, monitor what your kid watches. Easy, ain't it?

"But I'm too lazy to raise my kid and I don't want to be held responsible for my own actions, so why should I be responsible for another human being. When I get my money from suing the tobacco companies because I smoke and from suing McDonald's because I'm fat, I'll be able to hire a nanny to take care of my kids." -What seems to be the average american nowadays.

ramrod wrote:

Kids know that there is no cheat code to regain your health in real life.

I don't know, some of the kids I've seen probably are stupid enough to believe that one exists. :-)

ramrod · **Posted:** Fri Dec 24, 2004 6:11 am

StrongRad wrote:

ramrod wrote:

Kids know that there is no cheat code to regain your health in real life.

I don't know, some of the kids I've seen probably are stupid enough to believe that one exists. :-)

Isn't there something called survival of the fittest? I mean most kids, with at least half a brain know that there is no cheat code.

Dr. Zaius · **Joined:** Wed Nov 24, 2004 2:10 am **Posts:** 175

StrongRad wrote:

ramrod wrote:

Kids know that there is no cheat code to regain your health in real life.

I don't know, some of the kids I've seen probably are stupid enough to believe that one exists. :-)

Then they deserve the fate they suffer from their stupidity. Go ahead Timmy! play chicken with that train! Just recite in your head "up, down, up, left, X, square, circle, circle, left, right, triangle, X" and you'll be fine...

ramrod · **Posted:** Fri Dec 24, 2004 3:56 pm

It is truely sad when I hear about people raising discussions about violent games. People play games to get out of the real life, not to try and recreate the game in real life. And the whole FCC thing, I personally think that they are trying to supress everything that the Pres doesn't agree with. I mean, no-one is forcing me to listen to Howard Stern. If I don't like what he's saying, I change the channel. It's actually quite easy.

sticklyman · **Posted:** Fri Dec 24, 2004 9:31 pm

A new twist in the censorship issue. My grandmother told us that a local church in her area tried to launch commercials showing that it's open to everyone. One of the commercials had a gay couple attending church. NBC, among others, banned the commercial, yet NBC continues to air The Gay Slander Show...er, I mean, Will and Grace.

Clever Danielle · **Posted:** Fri Dec 24, 2004 10:38 pm

I don't like censorship. Really, I don't. I think we all heve the right to free speech. Enough said.

thefreakyblueman · **Posted:** Sat Dec 25, 2004 12:22 am

sticklyman wrote:

A new twist in the censorship issue. My grandmother told us that a local church in her area tried to launch commercials showing that it's open to everyone. One of the commercials had a gay couple attending church. NBC, among others, banned the commercial, yet NBC continues to air The Gay Slander Show...er, I mean, Will and Grace.

I heard about this exact thing! Though, it's not a local church, but the United Church of Chruist, which is, if you will, a chain of churches, much like Steak and Shake. CBS, though last year, wouldn't play a MoveOn.org commercial that they previously stated that they would play. The reason to which they wouldn't play it? It was apparently "too controversial". More information on this here.

ramrod · **Posted:** Sat Dec 25, 2004 3:25 am

Many stations like CBS and NBC won't play the "controversial" items because they don't want to lose viewers. Less viewers = less add revenue...Less add revenue = less money. You see, it's all about the money. That's what it's all about. Most news programs main priority is not to inform, but to have the most viewers, thus having more money.

StrongRad · **Posted:** Sat Dec 25, 2004 4:28 am

I don't see TV stations selectively airing material as being a form of censorship. I mean, TV stations are private companies (well, perhaps publicly held, but the point is, they're not government owned), and thus, should have the right to air material that they feel they want to air.

As for what was said earlier about the FCC crackdown being an attempt to enforce W's morals, the FCC was fining stations for airing stern for about as long as his program has been on the air. Also, wasn't Al Gore's wife a founding member of the PMRC, a group dedicated to "rating" music, a first step towards censorship? Holy CWAP! I linked to the ACLU (and agree with them on something)...As I type, Satan is building a snowman Just trying to debunk the notion of "All Censorship is George W Bush's fault, just like everyone else". I don't plan on starting a war here, or anything. :mrgreen:

Upsilon · **Posted:** Sun Dec 26, 2004 11:08 am

StrongRad wrote:

It was strange, in that class, to see people from complete opposite ends of the political spectrum, in complete agreement with each other over an issue that, apparently, polarizes the nation. We just decided that, as the constitution was written, any form of state sponsored censorship is wrong, but that there was nothing wrong with a TV or radio station owner, or a publisher (so long as they aren't recieving governmental funds) deciding what their station airs, or their presses print.

Legally, yes, but I think it's morally dubious not to air a programme because it contains the "f" word.

ramrod · **Posted:** Sun Dec 26, 2004 3:21 pm

Upsilon wrote:

I think it's morally dubious not to air a programme because it contains the "f" word.

What I don't get is who decides what words are 'bad' and what aren't. Is there some type of language rule book that points this out? If you think about it, anybody can be offended by anything. I could say that the word wiki offends me, like how people say that the f-word offends them.

Upsilon · **Posted:** Tue Dec 28, 2004 10:45 am

Like I said above: social taboo. In my opinion, saying "I hate black people" is just as bad as saying "I hate f'ing n'rs".

Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

Is Censorship Constitutional?

Who is online