Before anyone asks, no, this is not really related to current events on stickpage.

Since the charlie hebdo incident, I've been having prolonged thoughts about censorship. What if France had censored the comics, they might have saved the people who had died during the incident. (I know of the streisand effect and such, but hear me out.) Now this isn't going to be specifically about charlie, just think about any situation. China's censorship laws stopping google servers from being set up, the US office of censorship being set up to censor information pertaining to World War 2. I'm sure some of you have your own experiences with censorship too.

Ultimately, my question is, is censorship a good or a bad thing?

It depends on what the censorship is against. Censorship as a concept isn't bad or good, it depends on how it is used.

In Charlie Hebdo's case, I completely stand by a satirist's choice to portray things a certain way. However, lets say there was a movie or TV show that actually showed people how to make homemade bombs (the original draft of the Fight Club screenplay did this and they wisely decided against it). Or lets say a show marketed towards children suddenly had a turn of content and started showing nudity, of course it would be censored, and they would have a right to do so.

censorship should be imposed only for those who have infracted the rights or the legitimacy of another.

Quote from ArmyAnt

censorship should be imposed only for those who have infracted the rights or the legitimacy of another.

What about those who incite hate speed and actively goad people into violence?

I'm usually against censorship. It destroys any uniqueness/variety in human thoughts and ideas, even with controversial subjects like nudity or profanity. If something is censored because it may have a negative impact on people, then that's on the people who allow them to be negatively impacted. Everyone is responsible for their own actions and how beliefs and ideas affect them.

Quote from Preserve

I'm usually against censorship. It destroys any uniqueness/variety in human thoughts and ideas, even with controversial subjects like nudity or profanity. If something is censored because it may have a negative impact on people, then that's on the people who allow them to be negatively impacted. Everyone is responsible for their own actions and how beliefs and ideas affect them.

So you're entirely on the side of nurture, rather than nature.

Quote from Preserve

I'm usually against censorship. It destroys any uniqueness/variety in human thoughts and ideas, even with controversial subjects like nudity or profanity. If something is censored because it may have a negative impact on people, then that's on the people who allow them to be negatively impacted. Everyone is responsible for their own actions and how beliefs and ideas affect them.

Ok so if a movie showed how to make a petrol bomb, and someone actually made one and attacked an innocent family... then somehow the FAMILY is to be blamed for allowing themselves to be negatively impacted?

Also, ADULTS can be held responsibly for their own actions/beliefs/ideas. Children can NOT. They are still forming their view of the world and are curious about it. With NO censorship, which is what you're talking about, a SNUFF film could be shown on a children's TV show. You think that is fine?

Quote from Nish

Ok so if a movie showed how to make a petrol bomb, and someone actually made one and attacked an innocent family... then somehow the FAMILY is to be blamed for allowing themselves to be negatively impacted?

no, it's the society's fault for creating an environment where somebody feels the need to attack an innocent family. but the society cannot accept or admit that.

Quote from Nish

Also, ADULTS can be held responsibly for their own actions/beliefs/ideas. Children can NOT. They are still forming their view of the world and are curious about it. With NO censorship, which is what you're talking about, a SNUFF film could be shown on a children's TV show. You think that is fine?

i think that would be poor marketing and a bad choice of demographic

Quote from Scarecrow

i think that would be poor marketing and a bad choice of demographic

I'd grant your first point, and I certainly wouldn't say censorship is something we should blindly accept without scrutiny, but this looks like a desperate defence of a pretty blunt all-censorship-is-wrong-in-all-circumstances position. I'm guessing one of the arguments you'd accept against censorship (and a fairly good argument at that) would be that we can't trust the censoring party to only censor that which needs censoring and not everything which they might take offence at. But the same lack of trust in the judgement of the censor should surely apply to the judgement of corporate marketing departments. If people can't be trusted to censor the right things I don't think others can be trusted to target their materials properly.

And even if the corporate marketing departments were perfect at choosing demographics, what about addictive substances? Should we let cigarette companies advertise during Saturday morning cartoons to try to get people hooked before they have fully developed decision-making skills?

Quote from Zed

I'd grant your first point, and I certainly wouldn't say censorship is something we should blindly accept without scrutiny, but this looks like a desperate defence of a pretty blunt all-censorship-is-wrong-in-all-circumstances position. I'm guessing one of the arguments you'd accept against censorship (and a fairly good argument at that) would be that we can't trust the censoring party to only censor that which needs censoring and not everything which they might take offence at. But the same lack of trust in the judgement of the censor should surely apply to the judgement of corporate marketing departments. If people can't be trusted to censor the right things I don't think others can be trusted to target their materials properly.

And even if the corporate marketing departments were perfect at choosing demographics, what about addictive substances? Should we let cigarette companies advertise during Saturday morning cartoons to try to get people hooked before they have fully developed decision-making skills?

i don't think a snuff film on a children's television channel would get many views (kids would get bored or freaked out and change the channel, or parents would intervene), and would likely lead to a sharp decline in viewers (eg. parents boycotting the channel and not allowing their kids to watch it) so it wouldn't be profitable.

you bring up a valid point with the advertising, though. this is a difficult issue and i'll concede that it is necessary to have some restrictions in place there.

personally though, i'm against all forms of manipulation - censorship is one, and advertising is another.

Quote from Nish

What about those who incite hate speed and actively goad people into violence?

Then that violence should be less shocking and less punished socially.

In one of the trailer parks I lived in, if someone was talking smack and got punched out over it. No one was surprised and no one called the cops.

Don't get me wrong, a trailer park is far from an enlightened cultural nexus, but, people learned a certain level of respect.

Quote from Nish

Ok so if a movie showed how to make a petrol bomb, and someone actually made one and attacked an innocent family... then somehow the FAMILY is to be blamed for allowing themselves to be negatively impacted?

No, the person who bombed the innocent family is to blame, for having the desire to bomb someone. I remember watching a forensic files episodes and one of the people involved bought a book on how to get away with murder to commit his crime. They mentioned that they wouldn't name the book for obvious reasons. I was somewhat disappointed for a moment because I wanted to know the name of the book, not because I wanted to commit a crime and try to get a way with it, but because I was legitimately curious as to how someone can bypass the the forensic work of experts.

They are still forming their view of the world and are curious about it. With NO censorship, which is what you're talking about, a SNUFF film could be shown on a children's TV show. You think that is fine?

Yes children should be curious and seeking answers to life's tough questions. So they should be responsible to how they let images, videos and other things influence their beliefs and actions. If they see a snuff film and get disturbed by it, then they should question why they got disturbed or what's wrong with the snuff film.

Quote from Preserve

Yes children should be curious and seeking answers to life's tough questions. So they should be responsible to how they let images, videos and other things influence their beliefs and actions. If they see a snuff film and get disturbed by it, then they should question why they got disturbed or what's wrong with the snuff film.

you're making the baseless assumption that a kid is going to analyse the content he's watching the same way an older person would

kids don't think that way

Censorship =/= Sensitivity

A lot of people seem to get the two mixed up. A bomb tutorial does not belong on a children's show, and it's not because of censorship reasons, but because it's very insensitive to do that, as well as stupid.

When you get banned from playing snuff on TV, it's not really censorship, it's the station realizing that although there's nothing wrong with the material, (if the victim was willing) it's a very poor marketing decision to play that video on television.

A lot of reasons why you don't constantly see inflammatory comics in the newspaper about islam isn't because they're censored, but rather because the publisher acknowledges that the financial cost of printing such material in the form of lost support and boycott isn't worth the statement.

If you want to call that censorship on a smaller level, shure. That's just what I've noticed.

TL;DR
You should, and DO have the right to play bomb-making tutorials on children's TV, but the reason it's taboo is because it's a horrible business decision. You have the right to tell your boss to fuck himself, but it's a really bad idea if you want to keep your job.

Freedom of speech =/= uncontrolled ID

Quote from Captain Cook

Censorship =/= Sensitivity

If someone prevents distribution or expression of something because it's insensitive then it's still censorship.

Quote from Captain Cook

When you get banned from playing snuff on TV, it's not really censorship, it's the station realizing that although there's nothing wrong with the material, (if the victim was willing) it's a very poor marketing decision to play that video on television.

If it's an individual production team wanting to show the material and their station doesn't allow it, the station is censoring the production team.

If the station chooses not to show that material, it has nothing to do with censorship since there's no desire to carry out the act being censored in the first place. But if someone is actively trying to do so and they're blocked in some way, that constitutes censorship.

The fact that it's rejected because it's a bad business decision doesn't mean it's not censorship. In fact what you're talking about already has a name: corporate censorship.

Quote from Captain Cook

You should, and DO have the right to play bomb-making tutorials on children's TV

I seriously doubt that's true, the FCC doesn't allow indecent material between 6 am and 10 pm specifically because children might see it, I'm sure there's precedent for something like a bomb-making tutorial as well. Television writers need to submit their scripts for approval by the network censors. It's not like the only people deciding what makes it on TV are the people in charge of producing it.