Lain

Hey there!

Well, after an amount of searching, I found the old thread of the Censorship Debate (as well as the issue of the media and racial discrimination) we had before the FF crash. Unfortunately, all the recent posts from both of those threads are gone.

So basically it's a debate on whether censorship is actually worth it. It could be in the media, on the internet, etc.

Here are some censorship examples:

(Fr. the Movie board)

This version for the movie poster from The Road To Guantamano was considered offensive:



Although the image pales in comparison with those published in the press and shown on TV of Americans torturing prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, a poster for a semi-documentary film about the Guantánamo prison in Cuba has been rejected by the Motion Picture Assn. of America. The poster, for the award-winning The Road to Guantánamo, showed a man hanging by his wrists with a burlap sack over his head. In an interview with today's (Wednesday) Washington Post, Howard Cohen, co-president of distributor Roadside Attractions, said he was told that a poster depicting torture was not appropriate for children to see. Gayle Osterberg, a spokesperson for the MPAA, further explained: "If it's a poster that's hanging in a theater, anyone who walks into that theater, regardless of what movie they've come to see, will be exposed to it." However, Cohen observed that some posters for horror movies were far more disturbing. "This is a film with a serious purpose, and this is the subject of the film itself, and the marketing materials were appropriate to the subject," he told the Post.The film is now due to open on June 23 with a poster showing only shackled hands and arms.

Why would someone consider that poster offensive? The article makes a good point on how horror movie posters and even "romance" movies depict a lot more graphic scenes. It's just shows a guy with a sack over his head being shackled. It's not like he was being tortured or whipped. And obviously the movie is Rated R. Of course that poster is not intended for an all audiences. It's not intended for little kids nor aiming towards them. One shouldn't be taking their kids to watch this sort of movie as much as you would let them sit down and watch Schindler's List.

Anyway, here's a "sanitized" version of the movie poster:


Take your pick.

Also, here's another nifty article I found about profanity and explitives and what the FCC approves and doesn't approve (exception: Saving Private Ryan)

FCC Explitives

Here's a tidbit from their site (had to censor some words):
---------------------------------------
Permissible Expletives. The commission held that the following words or phrases were not indecent or profane in the contexts at issue (and also not presumptively profane): "poop," "kick-ass," "sex with a dog," "singers that suck," "a lot of crap," "my a**," "you suck," "dick," "dickhead," "hell," "damn," "b**ch," "pissed off," "up yours," "a**," "for Christ's sake," "kiss my a**," "fire his a**," "a** is huge," "wiping his a**," "sucked" and "sit their a**es down."

In reaching its decisions, the commission noted that "a**" was "used in a nonsexual sense to denigrate or insult the speaker or another character" and that "piss" was "used as part of a slang expression that means 'angry.'" It is not clear why the same sort of analysis could not have been used in evaluating use of the word "bulls**t" or calling someone a "bulls**ter."
-----------------------------------------

This seems more like hypocrisy from the FCC as b**ch would easily raise their ire, no matter what show somebody said it from.

What really gets to me is how the expletive "singers that suck" could possibly be considered mildly profane in some sense.

Well, I said in the old thread, I'll say it again. I don't believe in censoring. What do you guys think?

Lexis

I don't see the issue with the poster - surely anyone who pays any attention to the media saw the Abu Ghraib pictures or some of the horrific images coming out of Iraq. As images go, the poster is pretty tame.

Lain

A guy with a sack over his head and being chained? Reminds me of The Phantom of the Opera.

I have yet to see what's so offensive about the "offending" poster.

86amanda86

I have a question. Here on FF, why is writing the word 'ass' permitted but assh*** is not?

Lain

Good question. Maybe they might refer to an ass as a donkey.

86amanda86

Yeah that'll be it.

barbeegurl00

I think it's that was on prime time television as well... You can only say ass.

86amanda86

Yeah...I remember once on letterman they accidentally bleeped out the ass and left in the hole...

sum1

I tell you what offends me, censorship here on FF, all the screening out "swear" words etc.

goodnightboy

The censorship here on FF is rather strange - the F-word is censored, but the C-word isn't, when the latter is a much more insulting term than the former (to me anyway).

I don't see what's so offensive about the poster - children get exposed to much more in the media, and it's just a a guy with a sack over his head.

Lexis

I think its because we get a wide age range on the boards in general and bad language is probably not appropriate. Furthermore, on a board that is about discussing the issues, swearing lowers the tone of the debate.

As for the C word - I don't think I've seen it on these boards, thank God.

sum1

Swearing doesn't lower anything, censorship lowers things. And so called bad language is perfectly appropriate for all ages, a bit of swearing never hurt kids at all.

UnsilentMajorty

This coming from someone who has been banned numerous times before for not showing restraint

Swearing and cursing reduces discussions to nothing but e-thug posturing which I am sure you are familiar with. Granted, this is the interweb and debating and arguing on it is futile, but if you can't express yourself like a mature adult then maybe you (people in general) shouldn't be participating in adult discussions?

Lexis

I just don't think you need to swear to make a point. And I think young people should learn how to express their opinions without resorting to insults and swear words which contribute nothing to the debate.

Do we want the next generation of leaders to be baffled about arguing their side of an issue without using swear words?

Ms Carolyn

Well, all arguments on whether or not swearing hurts children aside, if we're going to allow young people to participate here, there are certain rules that apply. I don't think it hurts anyone that certain words are automatically starred out -- if nothing else, it sharpens cognitive skills figuring out what the stars replace!