TV/literature censorship

[Furry Spatula]

You know what, TV shouldn't be regulated for kids. If a show isn't directed for kids, well the TV stations wont get child advertising in. I find it a pain in the ass when parents B***h b***h and b***h. If parents are upset with whats on TV, then the solution is simple. DONT LET YOUR KIDS WATCH IT. TAKE RESPONSIBILITY. After all thats what my parents did. Im 18 now by the way. When i was about 12 my parents let me watch pretty much whatever i wanted. However, when it comes to stuff being shown at school, or books at school, i think that it should be regulated, as parents are not able to supervise the children there. But again. If you dont like something on the radio, or on TV, why are you complaining? In this day and age there are literally hundreds of channels and radio stations to listen to or watch. If you dont like it, turn the knob, let those of us who like it watch it. Ugh i remember the South Park outcry. It obviously isn't a little childrens show, you didn't see childrens advertising during it either, thus it isn't aimed at children.

So Parents, take responsibility, don't make networks raise your children, you birthed them, you raise them.

So to conclude, There shouldn't be forced censorship on TV or in public libraries, bookstores etc. However in school things should be controlled. BUt it is up to the parents to decide what is allowable for their children to watch. After all there are channels that show hard core porn all day long. So it is up to the parents, not the government.

Note, when i say school i mean Elementary school and possibly Middle school

EDIT: I'm 18 and childless

 

[amadeus]

Doesn't the government have any responsibility, though, to keep television safe from certain material? Like child pornography, death threats, credibility in news, etc.

 

[Furry Spatula]

Rm, yes the government must make sure that stuff such as Child Porn, isn't shown. But since when does the government care about credible news? Tabloids aren't illegal, and 99% of the stuff in there is complete BS thought up when a writer was on the crapper, yes i gave them a 1% accuracy rating, they're bound to get something right. Yet Taboids push themselves as credible news. However what do you mean by death threats? You can argue that Ussama Bin Laden makes death threats against citizens of the Western World. Also, death threats are broadcast, If someone leaves a threatening message to a politician, it is reported.

However, people should not be allowed to do things that are illegal on the TV. Such as making a death threat on TV or dipicting illegal ponorgraphy.

And i just read that comment about GTA3. its funny, people are in a hissy fit about this game, But if you are a parent and you see your kid playing this game, dont let them play it, Just throw it out, hide it etc. if your kid buys another copy, then simply throw it out again, He/she can't keep buying it, the monatary restraints are too much for a child. But I played many many many violent games. I haven't gone on shooting spree's nor comprehended going on them. I am not overly agressive. I am a normal 18 year old. And its better that kids release anger on games rather than in real life. I dont see whats wrong if kids do that? If the game helps people release stress, it means it wont cause it.

And another thought has popped into my head. Violence can be good. I mean onscreen violence. Black Hawk Down, one of the best movies ever made, for instance is bloody as hell. But after seeing that movie, it shows the horrors of war. Movies can be good tools. Just because something depicts violence doesn't mean that it promotes it.

 

[omichyron]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
Doesn't the government have any responsibility, though, to keep television safe from certain material? Like child pornography, death threats, credibility in news, etc.

I would say no. Credibility is already ignored by news networks very often. The act of producing child pornography is not excercising freedom of speech. Since you can't legally produce it, any attempt to air it will simply result in your arrest.

Please elaborate on "death threats" if you want me to respond to this part of your post.

 

[Pillager]

I have no problem with censorship. I don't agree with the liberal argument of no restrictions.

There are some things that are unsuitable for a general audience at a certain age and certain time, and the laws should reflect that. I think the system we have in the UK is on the right basis - a 9pm watershed on the TV - 12, 15, 18, X for films, but I would tighten it up a bit.

I've seen things on TV pre-9pm that I wouldn't want children to see. I think society has a responsiblity to children, not just their parents, and I think that censorship is one of the few ways in which the State can justifiably influence what is available for general viewing.

What I would prefer is that society recognised this more, and toned down some advertisements, for example FCUK, or the Sophie Dahl thing a couple of years back.
I don't particularly want to see naked women and crude and not-too-subtle references to sex wherever I look when I'm going shopping, and I'm a 22-year old male. I certainly wouldn't want my children to see it constantly, either.

If people want cheap titillation then they should buy a magazine, or the Sun.

People talk about free choice, but I have no choice. Having the option to buy cheap numbskulled titillation whilst not having it permanently on display should be the choice.

(22, g/f, no children)

 

[Pongui]

Gr8ful wes said everything I would. I've pretty well shunned TV since one summer when I was 12, and watched too much. After we got internet access, my wife and I decided to stop paying for TV cable service we scarcely used anyway. We rent many videos. Our 13-month-old son is now easily glued to the screen whenever Pingu (the penguin) is playing. That's sometimes useful for us, but it's also ominous. We don't want our wide-eyed darling poisoned by lovely televised garbage, so we're keeping the cathode-ray-tube strictly for video.

I'm 31. I favor some kinds of censorship.

 

[MrPresident]

What I would prefer is that society recognised this more, and toned down some advertisements, for example FCUK, or the Sophie Dahl thing a couple of years back.

I agree that advertisements should be toned down but not the ones you mentioned. I think that it is the advertising aimed at children that should be heavily regulated.

I've seen things on TV pre-9pm that I wouldn't want children to see.

I bet that is mostly from soaps. I would censor them but not because they show unsuitable material but because they, along with reality tv, are destroying the quality of TV.

But since when does the government care about credible news?

When it is about them.

but kids and adults are exposed to a lot more profanity

I don't see a problem with profanity. A kid can just look them up in a dictionary. They are only words taken out of context. I mean what makes S**t a swear word but not dung?

 

[Rodgers]

What makes for a well brought up and properly balanced child is responsible parenting. This should involve restriction of what the child sees and watches to "appropriate" images and information.

What is "appropriate" will obviously differ from household to household but even quite strong (sexual) stuff can be shown to children if it is properly explained to them first (eg pictures of naked people - we've all been naked in front of our parents/children anyway so it's not something new to them).

I was about 6 when my mother told me the "facts of life" and there was never any problem about nudity in the house either - so seeing anything like that on tv or in a book/mag was never something scary or weird to me but I was pretty suprised by other kids at school and what they knew/thought of it all.

So I'd say no to censorship for kids and would encourage parents to explain things more to their kids - things are always much more frightening if we dont understand them.

 

[Xiahou-Dun]

Originally posted by Sean Lindstrom
I'm 31. I favor some kinds of censorship.

Like Sean, I'm 31 and agree some kinds of censorship are needed.

I would say it would and needs to be based on the morals of the society.

 

[drake]

No regulation = anarchy = doesn't work.

People can say don't let your kids watch it and all, but kids are kids, and you can't watch them 24/7. They're going to be exposed to things whether parents want them to or not.

 

[gr8ful wes]

We can't regulate decency, we shouldn't have to any way. The sad truth is that many children do not have the extended families and close knit communities that were prevalant even 30 years ago. People supported each other more and looked after each others children. Now we are continually bombarded with sexual and violent images, and parents are expected to go it alone much more. What I would prefer to see is citizens refusing to accept all the garbage that is so prevalant and redily accessible. If folks need titilation or violence, let them have to seek it out, rather than having people who want decency seeking it.

 

[Perfection]

TV must not be regulated.
tv............

TV..............

TV!!!!!..................

GOTTA GO MY TV ADDICTION IS KICKING IN

 

[Pillager]

Originally posted by MrPresident



I don't see a problem with profanity. A kid can just look them up in a dictionary. They are only words taken out of context. I mean what makes S**t a swear word but not dung?

I'm sorry but that argument doesn't stick. **** is a swear word because society defines it as such. You wouldn't tell your mother to **** off would you? Why not? It only means go away. You wouldn't say it because it's not appropriate, and you have respect for your mother. Just as **** is inapproporiate in most cases and you should have respect for society, and not, for example, shout it in a public place.

Why do we wear clothes? Because society has defined nudity to be inappropriate for public places.

 

[gr8ful wes]

I thought we wore clothes to protect ourselves from the elements. Did you ever shovel snow naked? Bad IdeaLOL

 

[Pillager]

You know what I mean.

 

[Akka]

I support total censorship of TV by the simple fact of having no TV at all

Computer can read movies, can have access to news, can entertain and can play music. More than that, it allows the person using it to act at least a little rather than being wallowed in her seat and looking blankly at the screen for hours without moving a finger.

And yes I'm a not-so-old geek

 

[Pillager]

Originally posted by Akka
I support total censorship of TV by the simple fact of having no TV at all

Yup, I'd settle for that.

 

[Switch625]

Originally posted by Akka
I support total censorship of TV by the simple fact of having no TV at all

I own a TV, but I almost never turn it on. Every once in a while I'll turn it on to watch the local news, but that's it.

 

[MrPresident]

I'm sorry but that argument doesn't stick. **** is a swear word because society defines it as such.

Yes but society's definition of a swear is constantly changing and so what you consider a swear word may not be what I consider a swear word. So censorship of profanity doesn't work. Why should someone else restrict what words I can say because they deem it 'inappropriate'? If I said that I though that 'pebble' was a swear word, would you stop saying it? Of course not. In a free society there must be a very good reason for restricting/censoring something.

 

[Perfection]

I have a TV next to my computer (Yes I know the radiation does affect my moniter) I stare at both all day, I'm watching JEOPARDY right now........... I should enter.