Lain

Ah censorship. I read a local article in my newspaper recently and saw a debate whether censorship was a good thing.

IMO, in one way, censorship may be a good thing, especially when it comes to the media (TV, Newspaper articles, and Music) since it won't attract kids as much but in another way, it's as if they're trying to hide something from all of us. You know, like what really went on in the 9/11 attacks (There's always something in the news that the governement is hiding something from us) or why singers, at times are looked down upon for their ways of expressing themselves (Say like Eminem).

I know you guys won't agree with my points but don't you feel like at times, there's more to a story than what we are told? What ever happened to the first amendment in which we have freedom of speech and all the other issues like religion? But in my opinion, censorship rots.

What do you guys think of censorship?

TokyoNiGHTS

I'm completely against censorship for teh most part. I think its more up to the parents to keep their kids away from seeing stuff, than it is to the networks. Like the Monday Night Football incident. I don't really want to hear people going off about seeing a womans back while there are lots of viagra ads running during the same game. Or when they've got women dancing around in skimpy clothes in beer commercials. It's completely hypocritical.

Alot of people are too sensitive to certain issues. If I see something I don't like, I simply turn the channel.

mh67511

I don't think much censorship happens in this country to be honest. Eminem can say what he wants, but putting a "Parental Advisory" label on it isn't preventing him from saying what he wants to. I think those ratings help parents make educated decisions. It's unreasonable to assume that parents are able to monitor what their children are listening to, watching, etc. 24/7, so having ratings I think helps parents, who care, make a somewhat educated decision.

Now as far as TV, I read somewhere that the reason broadcast TV has standards is because ABC, for example, does not own the airwaves. I believe the government does, therefore ABC would have to follow the governments standards. I'm not sure if it's true. I don't mind having standards on TV, but so often the standards are not known and are usually addressed when there is some sort of publicity.

I don't like the TV ratings though. I think they are totally ridiculous. CSI is rated TV-14 and some episodes of The Amazing Race were rated TV-14! How TAR got a TV-14 rating for some episodes, I swear it did last season, is beyond me. I don't even think you can compare CSI to TAR.

LUSH

Watch some european television and see if you come to the same conclusion.

From what I've heard and read censorship has been a huge problem in the States after the boob was exposed. Commercials for the Super Bowl couldn't be racy or controversial in any way or they were turned down, all live television shows (daytime and late-night) are on at least a 5 second delay (which sort of defeats the purpose of 'live' television does it not?). Didn't Robin Williams wear tape over his mouth when he first came out to present at the Academy Awards after the producers told him he couldn't say certain things for whatever reason? Everyone is so afraid of offending someone and getting in ****. (And, yes, I'm putting the blame on both the government for encorcing these ridiculous fines and the networks for giving in.)

Lain

I definintly agree. Anyone watch Whose Line is it Anyway? (Both British and American version)? I think you'll notice the difference.

Here's a link to the ongoing debate of American T.V vs. Britan T.V. Actually, the posters on this site have a love for bantering how much Drew Carey sucks but you'll find the debate going on here.

Link: http://jumptheshark.com/w/whoselineisitanyway.htm

TokyoNiGHTS

Alot of things are censored, you just don't really know about it. Several shows hold back on the scenes they're showing because they don't know if it'll go against FCC guidelines. That's the problem with them. They aren't really specific. They've actually gone as far as to make rules in the present, and then go back years before that and fine people who's broken any of those new rules they've made. The Janet Jackson incident has had lots of people running. Remember when ABC was running Saving Private Ryan and several of the channels nation wide refused to air it out of fear of backlash from family groups and the FCC? That's how bad it is.

In Fair Verona

According to my US History teacher, the version of Saving Private Ryan they aired had so much of the scenes taken out of it which actually made the movie what it was that it was a pointless movie in the end. The reason it's a good movie is because of the profound effect it had and by taking away the intense and gory scenes apparently it failed in its purpose.

I think there is a censorship issue in America. I know that the intentions behind it are good but in America it's gotten a little too crazy. There are obviously things out of reason for airing on TV, but we go a little overboard. I'll always be amused at how much censorship attempts to shelter the youth of America and then the same kids go to school and hear things much worse than anything aired on television right from the mouths of their peers.

Elizajoey

There is a lot of censorship in the US.

It has even got to a point that whenever my family and I or my friends watch television and a show does have something that you wouldn't see on US networks, we get quite proud, "You wouldn't see that if you were watching TV in the US".

You simply have to speak to some of the producers of shows in the US - how much they edit and how much worse that it has gotten since the Superbowl incident.

When you watch European television, they have no issue with showing naked bodies etc because the naked form is natural and there is nothing wrong with that but they have an issue with violence - the level of violence is quite different on European television, however, with US television, there is not much issue showing people blowing each other brains out but as soon as you show a small part of a body, all hell breaks loose.

Censorship of a political form is also much greater and it exists at astronomical levels which I think is horrible.

I don't believe in censorship because if you allow it in one form, well than why is it wrong in other forms. If YOU have an issue with things, don't watch, it's as simple as that.

pacifierrocks

I don't like censorship for the most part. I really don't think it does much. I've grown up out of country (America) and i often watch shows from England and such places. I love them. To me there's something about them that just American TV can't recreate which is why when we take a lot of shows from other countries and try to put air our own version of it here, it doesn't work. (i.e. Coupling, and probably The Office).

I sometimes think that we keep too much of our Puritan culture with us. As much violence as you want on tv is fine, but one little boob for half a second is just blasphemy. The uproar that came from that was just ridiculous.

Lain

I don't see what the big deal was with that Super Bowl incident. She had a nipple ring that actually covered the nipple so technically, she wasn't really showing off her boob.

I remember a few years back during an MTV Movie Awards. I'm not sure but I believe it was Lil' Kim. I don't know. Anywho, she wore a light purple dress and one side...maybe a fourth, exposed one breast but the nipple was covered with a flower and nobody complained...

dyxlecis gril

the censorship over there is insane. and it makes people way too sensitive, i think. my host father's sister's little girls had to leave the room because my host mother was changing her 6 month old boy's diaper. i mean, my god, people. seeing sex on tv and naked bodies doesn't make you promiscuous or "deviant" or whatever, being denied the right to see or learn about it, does.

TokyoNiGHTS

There reasoning for that being a big deal and the Lil Kim thing not is that you expect that sort of thing from MTV, but not from mainstream channels. My question is, why not all the complaining about viagra commercials? That's a product that's used for 1 thing, and that's sex. You've also got commercials running on loop showing women running around half naked in beer commercials.

I think they blew it way out, but I can understand them being a bit upset. But all the stuff that followed it just crazy. There's supposedly and investigation going on with the FCC after a recent CSI episode (King Baby) where a grown man basically had a fetish to be a baby. Alot of people complained about it being too indecent. I think there are some reasons why people should be upset over things, but people are getting way too sensitive now. Instead of simply not tuning into the show or movie they watch and then complain about having to see it. No one forces anyone to watch anything, so if you don't like what you're seeing turn the channel.

Eddy

http://www.nypost.com/entertainment/43961.htm

JAIL TIME FOR INDECENCY?


April 6, 2005 -- A major Congressional leader now says he wants to make broadcast indecency — the smutty talk that gets Howard Stern and Opie and Anthony into trouble — a criminal offense.
Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner III (R-Wis.) says criminal prosecution would be a more efficient way to enforce the indecency regulations.

"I'd prefer using the criminal process rather than the regulatory process," Sensenbrenner said this week at the National Cable & Telecommunications Association conference in San Francisco.

The current system — in which the FCC fines a station for violating the regulations — isn't working, he said.

"People who are in flagrant disregard should face a criminal process rather than a regulator process," Sensenbrenner said. "That is the way to go. Aim the cannon specifically at the people committing the offenses, rather than the blunderbuss approach."

Cress

Another example of censorship was shown on Chuck Lorre's vanity card. (It's the message that he puts at the end of his shows on TV, and he has them archived on his website http://www.chucklorre.com/text/.) Look at vanity card #133 under Two and a Half Men.

I'm sure this stuff goes on all the time without us knowing about it.

Lain

Eddy- Thanx for the interesting article. If this means that if T.V Shows have those kind of things that Howard Stern had in his radio show, that means they could face Criminal charges.

Cress- Interesting...and so true. The media is comfortable with dead nude bodies then live nude ones...