Really, it comes down to the harsh truth of "Well, you can have all the nudity in your show that you want, but unless you let us censor it, you won't have any way of broadcasting it, so there!
"
| Homestar Runner Wiki Forum http://forum.hrwiki.org/ |
|
| Is Censorship Constitutional? http://forum.hrwiki.org/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=1517 |
Page 2 of 3 |
| Author: | Professor No [ Fri Dec 31, 2004 7:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
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.
Lets make something clear the Constitution does not give us our rights, it prevents the government from takeing those rights away. Our rights come from our very existence, our natural rights. On, censorship: The government is not permited to stop free speech in a place the government does not own but even when your on government property your speech can't restricted except for things that are obsence. |
|
| Author: | ramrod [ Fri Dec 31, 2004 8:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
If the Constitution makes sure that the government can't restrict or right to speech, than how can the FCC censor shows? To me, that makes no sense. |
|
| Author: | fahooglewitz1077 [ Fri Dec 31, 2004 8:39 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
The FCC works in mysterious ways. Believe me. I know all about the FCC, mainly because I'm an Amateur Radio Operator. Anyway. If the FCC didn't censor anything than parents and priests, etc. would probably be offended in some way and hold a mass protest. |
|
| Author: | Professor No [ Fri Dec 31, 2004 11:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Thats my point the FCC is wrongly censoring shows, content on the airwaves should be decided by the free market. If your offended by something on tv, you can use your power of choice and turn off the tv or change the channel. |
|
| Author: | InvaderTK [ Sun Jan 02, 2005 9:33 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Now, for those of you who believe that censorship protects our youth from doing evil and violent things, well...read this quote. Cookie for whovever guesses what it's from. Quote: Interveiwer guy: Sure. MM...so, what do you think of the idea that violence on television and other media, have a negative effect on kids other impressionable minds?
Guy: Ooh..any pile of stunteed growth unaware that entertainment is just that and nothing more, deserves to doom themselves to some damk cell, somewhere for having been so stupid!! Movies, books, T.V., music-they're all just entertainment, not guidebooks for damnig yourself! It may seem a little extreme, but hey, what can you say? It's true. |
|
| Author: | Didymus [ Sun Jan 02, 2005 9:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I was a humanities major in college, and I'll say this: art reflects life, but art also shapes life. It shapes the way people think, whether they are willing to admit it or not. Entertainment that promotes violence and hedonism ultimately shapes people into violent and hedonistic people. A good example from history would be the late Roman Empire. Entertainment from that period was extremely violent and hedonistic, and this led to the drastic decline of Roman culture and discipline. I will grant you this: a normal person watching a violent movie is not likely to run out and commit a murder. However, a proliferation of violent movies, TV shows, and video games does sensitize those who watch and play them. This, in turn, creates a culture that is no longer sensitive to violence, and in this atmosphere, people are more likely to act out violently. So yes, there are effects, even if indirectly. |
|
| Author: | Beyond the Grave [ Tue Jan 04, 2005 4:00 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
The problem with this country is that we have this "We know what is good for you" idea. In other countries if is in the script is on the screen. I was in England this spring and i saw Scarface and Braveheart uncut, unsensored on the BBC, in primetime no less, heck even our friendly nieghbor's to the north (Canada for the geographical inept) they show porn on national television. (ask ramrod he knows all about it). We are the only country in the world that rates our entertainment. one thing that i will give our media is that they are slowly loosening there grip on what is appropriate to watch. Back in the seventies a young comic by the name of George Carlin, told us seven words (you will have to find that out yourselves, i don't want to get blocked) that could not be said on TV, well that list is down to four. and we are allowed a little nudity (though Dennis Franz is not what we had in mind). so things are getting better but we still have along way to go. So, in closing, I look good in red. |
|
| Author: | Dr. Zaius [ Tue Jan 04, 2005 4:33 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
England still censors stuff though. Like WWE broadcasts, that are aired hours after they are in the states. One good example was last year-ish, when one Randy Orton gave his finisher to an 80 year old woman. That was cut from the UK showing. Also, from what I understand, much of Europe censors video games. Australia is infamous for their banning of violent games... Does violent entertainment make people more violent? No. It does desensitize our culture though. And if one is not taught the difference between entertainment and real life, then they are more indeed more likely to hurt others and themselves. But that is not the fault of the entertainment, but rather their upbringers. It disgusts me when angry parents target video games or professional wrestling when kids imitate what they see, and maim or kill others. But wait, more kids die each year playing football, baseball, basketball, hockey, and all those other sports each yeah. But if someone would go after the NFL, NBA, NHL, or MLB they'd be ridiculed to the point where any and all credibility they had would be gone. But not if they went after the WWE or video game makers, because it's "the thing" to demonize those forms of entertainment, much like comic books in the 50's... |
|
| Author: | Beyond the Grave [ Wed Jan 19, 2005 1:56 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
here is the example of the FCC at work: Fox Blurs Cartoon Rear End on FCC Worries LOS ANGELES (AP) - Fox says it covered up the naked rear end of a cartoon character recently because of nervousness over what the Federal Communications Commission will find objectionable. The latest example of TV network self-censorship because of FCC concerns came a few weeks ago during a rerun of a ``Family Guy'' cartoon. Fox electronically blurred a character's posterior, even though the image was seen five years ago when the episode originally aired. Come on, it's a cartoon folks, it ain't real. |
|
| Author: | ramrod [ Wed Jan 19, 2005 1:57 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Wait, they show Dennis Franz's butt on NYPD, but not someone from Family Guy? Now that's just messed up. |
|
| Author: | Beyond the Grave [ Wed Jan 19, 2005 2:07 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
a cartoon butt look a heck of a lot better than dennis franz's. |
|
| Author: | ramrod [ Wed Jan 19, 2005 2:29 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
There's a lot of things that are better than Franz's butt. Anywho, They weren't fined when it first showed, and it's probably been shown a few more times since then, so why now? That's what doesn't make sense. |
|
| Author: | Beyond the Grave [ Wed Jan 26, 2005 1:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
enough talking about butts lets get back to the matter at hand: Is Censorship Constitutional. |
|
| Author: | ModestlyHotGirl [ Wed Jan 26, 2005 2:56 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Being from Canada, I think we have slightly less strict rules when it comes to censorship. For example, on CityTV when movies are aired, they often leave the swear words in, rather than replacing them with "Judas Priest" or "@$$-can" (what does that even mean?). Also, CTV was airing The Osbournes completely uncensored at 10pm for a while. I don't think it's on anymore, but it was on for quite some time, and I never heard any controversy about it. Anyway, I personally think that censorship has its place. You ought not air a TV show or movie with foul language in the afternoon, or early evening when kids are likely to be watching. In fact, so far as TV goes, I think pre-show warnings are enough. Referring back to The Osbournes, CTV preceded the show with a big warning saying that "even some adults may be offended by the language". For me, that's enough. If you are prone to be offended by swearing, or butts, or whatever, just don't watch. And if you've got kids, don't let them watch. There are plenty of children's channels out there and if you have a satellite dish, block the "shifty" channels. With regard to books and magazines, etc. Say whatever you want, so long as it isn't hate literature. I know there's a fine line there, but society will easily acknowledge when someone has crossed that line. Anyway, this is coming from a province where going topless outdoors in public is legal, but doing the same with a cigarette soon won't be. |
|
| Author: | ramrod [ Thu Jan 27, 2005 2:04 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
StrongZysk wrote: heck even our friendly nieghbor's to the north (Canada for the geographical inept) they show porn on national television. (ask ramrod he knows all about it). red. Hey, don't get me involved in THAT! Anyways according to someone's post up above, they said (in a nutshell) if the FCC did not fine people for airing 'obscene' items, then there would massive protest. I say, let them protest. It's their right to. Another right that's protected by the Constitution.
|
|
| Author: | Beyond the Grave [ Tue Apr 05, 2005 5:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Here is something new on video games, now they have a new rating it's called E-10, which means it is ok for people ages ten and up. |
|
| Author: | Simon Zeno [ Tue Apr 05, 2005 11:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
The FCC? I thought they were dead. That's what Howard Stern said anyway... As to the topic at hand: No, it's not constitutional... however, just as you have the right to say whatever, the network has a right to what they show. So until you have your own TV network... you're somewhat at the "mercy" of the network. A good example would be this forum. I could type all manner of profanity in here, but would just get banninated. |
|
| Author: | Beyond the Grave [ Wed Apr 06, 2005 12:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Simon Zeno wrote: The FCC? I thought they were dead.
No there are still very much alive. And their pockets are getting deeper. You know from all the record breaking fines. |
|
| Author: | Simon Zeno [ Wed Apr 06, 2005 9:56 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I know. I should have put a [sarcasm][/sarcasm] around it... |
|
| Author: | Ungurait#7 [ Fri May 20, 2005 5:15 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I say, no cencorship unless there is a viable, tangible threat that it creates, such as in issues of national security or public disorder. As to vulgarity, for instance on TV, I think social pressures will decide how far things can go. If a TV station broadcasts raunchy stuff no one wants, it will fail when people refuse to watch it. The amoral force of the media is thus counterbalanced with the moral/immoral conscience of the masses. Or something. |
|
| Author: | Simon Zeno [ Sun May 22, 2005 12:45 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Really, it comes down to the harsh truth of "Well, you can have all the nudity in your show that you want, but unless you let us censor it, you won't have any way of broadcasting it, so there! "
|
|
| Author: | TURKEY [ Sun May 22, 2005 5:02 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I am in favor of at least the old style of BBC censorship. The deal was, they aired the episode unedited. If they got overwhelming complaints, they would edit those parts out and not any others. Unlike the censorship in the US, the people decided what they watched. That's the way it should be, at least in my opinion. |
|
| Author: | Simon Zeno [ Sun May 22, 2005 4:33 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
That actually makes sense, so therefore our government can't do it. |
|
| Author: | ramrod [ Mon May 23, 2005 4:11 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
TURKEY wrote: I am in favor of at least the old style of BBC censorship. The deal was, they aired the episode unedited. If they got overwhelming complaints, they would edit those parts out and not any others. Unlike the censorship in the US, the people decided what they watched. That's the way it should be, at least in my opinion. Wow, that makes sense. Now I wonder why it can't happen here....
|
|
| Author: | Beyond the Grave [ Mon May 23, 2005 4:23 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
ramrod wrote: TURKEY wrote: I am in favor of at least the old style of BBC censorship. The deal was, they aired the episode unedited. If they got overwhelming complaints, they would edit those parts out and not any others. Unlike the censorship in the US, the people decided what they watched. That's the way it should be, at least in my opinion. Wow, that makes sense. Now I wonder why it can't happen here.... |
|
| Author: | Anarchy_Balsac [ Mon May 23, 2005 5:27 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Is Censorship Constitutional? |
Beyond the Grave wrote: Does Censorship violate our right to free speech?
Absolutely. Freedom of speech mean just that, freedom of speech, not freedom of speech except in cases x, y , and z where you must censor. |
|
| Author: | The Cup of Coffee [ Mon May 23, 2005 9:25 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
All of yous wrote: the constitution in reference to a particular conan o brian episode," CYBER CLONES EAT CONSTITUTIONS!" well it sorta does violate our free speech,but rules are rules! those people make,you gotta stick to e'm![/quote] |
|
| Author: | Queenie-C [ Fri Jun 03, 2005 11:45 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Didymus wrote: I was a humanities major in college, and I'll say this: art reflects life, but art also shapes life. It shapes the way people think, whether they are willing to admit it or not. Entertainment that promotes violence and hedonism ultimately shapes people into violent and hedonistic people.
A good example from history would be the late Roman Empire. Entertainment from that period was extremely violent and hedonistic, and this led to the drastic decline of Roman culture and discipline. I will grant you this: a normal person watching a violent movie is not likely to run out and commit a murder. However, a proliferation of violent movies, TV shows, and video games does sensitize those who watch and play them. This, in turn, creates a culture that is no longer sensitive to violence, and in this atmosphere, people are more likely to act out violently. So yes, there are effects, even if indirectly. As a film major, I could list innumerable ways in which the media DOES indeed act this way. It's really quite staggering, in fact. However, I recently thought on something which really set my mind a'thinking. Japan can not only be considered a country which produces FAR more violent video games than almost every other one, but it also gets every single one of our films, ever-imported due to Hollywood's vise-like grip on the world's film industry. (Which has been going on, steadily and without any end in sight, pretty much since the end of WWI.) And yet Japan has a jaw-droppingly lower rate of crime, particularly of gun deaths, than America does. Food for thought, eh what? Not that I know what to do about any of it, that is. Just something to think about. |
|
| Author: | IantheGecko [ Fri Jun 03, 2005 9:02 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
In America, we do not literally have freedom of speech. Like all rights, we can abuse the right to free speech, so there are limits to it: [list=1] [*]Speech must be at an acceptable place, time of day, and manner. For instance, running onto a football field, drunk, in the middle of a game, is not a good time to give a political speech. [*]Fighting words, such as "I'm going to kill you", are clearly not free speech; someone's life is in question. [*]Yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre also puts people's lives at risk, so safety is a factor. [*]Some speech may threaten national security, such as leaking intelligence. [*]Obscenity: Given. [*]Libel & slander: You can't write or say anything untrue about someone to intentionally harm them. As was the decision in Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, parody & satire are neither of these, since its intention is not to harm or demean. |
|
| Author: | TURKEY [ Fri Jun 17, 2005 2:20 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Beyond the Grave wrote: ramrod wrote: TURKEY wrote: I am in favor of at least the old style of BBC censorship. The deal was, they aired the episode unedited. If they got overwhelming complaints, they would edit those parts out and not any others. Unlike the censorship in the US, the people decided what they watched. That's the way it should be, at least in my opinion. Wow, that makes sense. Now I wonder why it can't happen here....Yep. Especially (arguably) after the Regan administration. Which still doesn't explain to me why we have a liberal media.... |
|
| Page 2 of 3 | All times are UTC |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|