What Would You Censor On Television?

[MrPresident]

I stumbled onto a website about US television and there was an article about how US prime-time shows have become more adult. I began to wonder about this and I compared typical British prime-time shows with American prime-time shows. I noticed that there is a lot more swearing in British TV. Over here we have something called the "Watershed". The watershed is 9pm which means that anything after that time is subjected to different broadcasting standards, which are obviously more adult. This has lead to shows such as The Sopranos and Sex In The City being broadcast at 11pm and 10pm respectively on terrestial TV (that is channels open to anyone with a tv), generally uncut/censored. I know that they are in different situations but the different between what is allowed on British tv compared to American tv is quite staggering. So this ultimately led me to question Do you think swearing, acts of violence etc should be allowed on mainstream television in your country?

 

[Lab Monkey]

I remember when Sex in the city was first broadcast in the UK, it was probably just publicity, but we were bombarded with reports that it was massively contraversial in the US, but everyone I knew who watched it agreed with me that it was nothing special. Is there really such a difference in the level of conservatism between the two countries?

Also, I've noticed that the watershed only seems to apply now to explicit adult content, eg. scenes of full sex, and harsh use of swearing. Pre 9pm, though, there is still allowance for non-graphic 'adult' themes. It's subtle, but especially with the rise of reality TV, censorship seems to be reserved for more serious taboos. Lets face it, look how much sex and violence has been going on recently in soap operas that certainly would have been questioned only a few years ago.

Censorship of TV seems (to me) to go hand in hand with whatever is in the tabloid, or lifestyle press. Magazines have no age limits, so any young girl could read about sex or whatever in a magazine like Cosmo, and most young boys can easily get a copy of Loaded when they can't get hold of a porno mag. The mass media is basically able to constantly push back the barriers because more and more issues are coming to be discussed openly.

The only serious recent issue of censorship I can think of is that Brass Eye spoof on paedophilia. From what I've seen of it, it was a genuinely satirical look at the subject, but it was one of societies taboos (albeit a very nasty one, and one that I DO NOT TRIVIALISE, sorry for shouting, but I don't want to be flamed here). I guess there is room for argument here, what should be banned; mindless sex and swearing, or a legitimate political and social satire?

 

[amadeus]

I say block some violence, sex, etc.

Television should at least offer something for everyone, and small children shouldn't have sex thrust in their faces.

 

[Hitro]

I think nothing should be censored/banned on TV as long as it is according to the law (which means for example paedophilia must not be shown of course). But sex in general is (fortunately) not forbidden (yet) and therefore I think it should be allowed to show it on TV, which may include hardcore porn.
But rmsharpe is right in saying that children shouldn't be exposed to that. So I would suggest that it should be allowed to show such stuff at certain times of the times, meaning the evening and night. At these times children shouldn't watch TV at all, and it's their parents duty to prevent it and not the government's.

The same applies to violence pretty much, and the current way it is done in most countries is simply disgusting. Violence seems to be far more pc than sex, in other words: is a naked woman really worse than a dead one?

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by Lab Monkey
Is there really such a difference in the level of conservatism between the two countries?

Yes.

Originally posted by rmsharpe
Television should at least offer something for everyone, and small children shouldn't have sex thrust in their faces.

That is up to the parents to control, not the broadcasters or the government.

If you want to protect your children from TV, don't own one... sheesh...
But from what I've heard, American TV is more violent and European TV has more 'adult' type content.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Dependent on the situation, gratiouitous sex, violence and swearing should be censored. If it has a place in the program, and in the view of the Ministry of Truth and Propaganda, then it should be screened at an appropriate time, with appropriate warnings.
The violence in Platoon is well justified in the plot. The violence in Invasion USA is not, for the good reason that there isn't really a plot.
Sexual activity should be limited to that which is plot related, rather than put there in order to titilate the baser sections of the audience.

But, censorship must include a great proportion of SENSE.
In this, I subscribe to the views of Professor Donald Trefusis.
Obedience to the law and societal norms is not really a condition of television censorship at the moment, as can be seen from depictions of murder, glorifications of crime and hooliganism, drug use, rape, rapine, pillage, and lawyers. These activities are allowed, and generally pass without comment from the current censors, apart from a slight snipping at the heels. Thus, we have the vast proportion of the televisual waves filled with shallow and ridiculous nonsense, with the potential for brain frying of the youth and the aged alike.
Even more insidious and damaging is the violence and depravity of gameshows, "reality" televison, and an array of other mentally decrepit displays.
These two categories pass through fine, regardless of whether the go along with popular morality, legality or social mores.
Yet, it is virtually impossible and unheard of to have an excellent, challenging and different film such as L.I.E screened on television, or even in a cinema, because part of its subject matter being somewhat beyond the pale (pedophilia, with the character in question played by Brian Cox, being shown as more than a one dimensional monster)

My point is that censorship should be carried out sensibly on the correct targets instead of the simple and popular ones.

 

[ainwood]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
...... small children shouldn't have sex thrust in their faces.

Literally!!!!



The context should also be looked at; is the sex / violence gratuitous? Eg. All Quiet on the Western Front needs violence for the message it is trying to put across, although young children would probably not appreciate it for the deeper meaning. Censorship (removing content) vs age limits (restricting audience) is something that should be clear.

 

[damunzy]

They should blur the area around the nipple but let the nipple be visible....now that would be different!

j/k, I don't want to have to worry about nudity being thrown around during daylight hours. I can agree with after 9 or 10 pm more "adult" being shown since the children should be in bed. For those of you that say don't let them watch TV with out seeingwhat they are doing....well if commercials were allowed to show nudity anythime they wanted how would we know when to tell our children to look away? Also, most people in the US of A agrees that no nudity is the standard so why should we have our TV infriged apon b/c you want nudity? Go rent a tape!

 

[damunzy]

Also, "acts of voilence" does that include cartoon violence?

 

[Lab Monkey]

Sorry to butt in again.

I wouldn't want my children to grow up on a diet of graphic sex or violence, but what about TV that references such subjects in a way that is not for gratuitous purposes?

Incidentaly, my English teacher wanted the book (NOT the film) of A Clockwork Orange to be a set text for 14 - 16 year olds to study. Trust me, as a piece of literature it has a great deal to say about modern youth, and the ending (glossed over in the film, you have to read it) is very knowing. Sadly, he was not allowed to release this book to us. Though I would bet a lot that the parents who would protest would be those who had never read it, but who had just heard about it through tha Daily Mail.

Referring this to our topic of TV censorship, both the film and the book are 'texts' which, I believe, analyse issues of violence, evil, etc, without reveling them. I felt a great deal of distress when reading the book and when watching certain scenes from the film, something that I have never felt when watching other 'explicit' or 'violent' material.

Before we censor something we should first look at who it is aimed at, and for what purpose.
An ultra-violent action movie, or a porn movie is smply designed to titilate the viewer, it trivialises the subject matter, and this is what is most likely to cause 'damage'.
But there are films and programs that use explicit content, or references to such content as devices for other purposes, and often, after watching them, we feel that we have benifited from the statement of whoever had created them.

I guess it could boil down to the diference between Art, Education, and pure, mindless, entertainment.
Of these, only the first two can guarantee the offer of enlightenment for the viewer.

Lab Monkey is preaching again. Pardon the cliches.

 

[King of England]

I say none of it should be censored. It's the individual parents responsibility to decide what they think is best for their kids. I for one want to see more violence and gore on TV. There ain't enough of it.

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by Lab Monkey
I guess it could boil down to the diference between Art, Education, and pure, mindless, entertainment.
Of these, only the first two can guarantee the offer of enlightenment for the viewer.

And what makes you sure enlightenment is universal? I was bored to tears by the movie version of "A Clockwork Orange", so I obviously missed the great artistic content.

Art is subjective. So is education for that matter since what we 'need' to know is based on a whole lot of opinions and very little agreement. Its a waste of time to censor based on those standards since they're completely subjective to the person calling the shots. If I was in charge and said Platoon is a piece of drivel but Invasion U.S.A. is an artistic classic, there are likely to be people agreeing with me (scary, ain't it?).

Censorship is a waste of time. And age discrimination is rampant you oppressive bastards

Rant #2: I remember when I needed to be protected from the thought of sex, and so did all the other neighborhood kids. And what did we do? Spent countless hours trying various schemes to get our hands on pornographic material. And we eventually succeeded!
Its ironic, but as soon as I became old enough to buy the stuff with no big deal I lost all interest in it. The censorship created the appeal for me. Not that I'm suggesting it is a society wide phenomenon, but I know I'm not the only one.
And I don't buy that curiousity leads to sex; hormones do. You're telling me teenagers don't have sex in European countries because its on T.V., you are fooling yourself. There are many, many places where 'Puritan' America has no reach. I was in Panama City during Spring Break last week; trust me, the Romans had NOTHING on those people.

 

[MrPresident]

I was in Panama City during Spring Break last week; trust me, the Romans had NOTHING on those people.

Did you know something like 25% of the girls sent away to Hitler Youth camps came back pregenant. This was the Hitler Youth! As I allows say (and I believe a major film copied from me) "Life always finds a way". If you want teenagers to stop having sex you don't lock them away from the real world with your fantasies about "family values". Let them discover it for themselves because an idea that you think you thought of is far easier to believe then someone just telling it to you. Also don't expect teenagers to act differently from adults. If you have sex then don't be shocked if teenagers are too. The same could be said of smoking, illegal drugs, alcohol, the list goes on.

 

[knowltok2]

Now I'm not currently a parent, so my perspective may be a bit limited, but a question popped in my head while reading the above posts. Many of you have stressed parents' responsibility in keeping their children from watching 'bad' TV. Now I know there are some TV's and systems that can place a lock on some programs and or stations, but is there anything that can make this easier for parents? The car has keys, why not the TV?

Of course all this discussion about what children see on TV is rather pointless. Fire up the good ol' ISP and type in penthouse.com and young children can get an eyefull.

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by knowltok2
Many of you have stressed parents' responsibility in keeping their children from watching 'bad' TV. Now I know there are some TV's and systems that can place a lock on some programs and or stations, but is there anything that can make this easier for parents? The car has keys, why not the TV?

The problem is really with parents being too overprotective, too lazy to enforce it, or both. Not owning a TV would go miles to prevent children from watching bad TV... of course, some people might freak out, but I haven't had a TV in 3 years and I still don't miss it.

But they'll find a way if they really, desperately, horribly want to. I'm sure some child psychologists know better, but from what I've heard by the time they're old enough to be interested they're either set on the right path or you've got a lot of work to do.

Originally posted by knowltok2
Of course all this discussion about what children see on TV is rather pointless. Fire up the good ol' ISP and type in penthouse.com and young children can get an eyefull.

See, I think the internet is much more dangerous than anything on TV because it is uninhibited, interactive, and twice as easy to access secretly. This is why you need 15 passwords just to get online

How can kids survive the oppressive lack of electronic entertainment? Give them all the video games they can get their hands on. Those are infinately easier to censor.

 

[CurtSibling]

I don't have a TV,
but I think the UK could do withouts it's current regime of
sadcase voyeur shows...like "big brother."

 

[Panda]

I don't watch much TV, mainly News, Football and Formula I, but I see no point in sensoring anything. However, I find the 9 PM tide break feasible. Most adults don't have that much time to watch TV before 9 anyway.

And to censor TV to 'protect children' most be the lamest reason there is. The average news edition contains about as much gore as an average Hollywood movie.

Maybe parents these days should spend less time on their hobbies and more time with their offspring to explain life to their kids... But that seems to be too much to ask for these days...

 

[Vrylakas]

I remember some American friends' eyeballs popping out and and rolling around the floor a bit when they saw an ad on Polish TV, for some German bath cream I think, that had a topless blonde woman jogging down a beach...

American television is much more conservative than European, as I think American society has a conservative streak that runs much deeper that most others' in the West. The exception may be political content; the Americans aren't afraid of ruffling feathers there but when it comes to sex or violence, they're quite prudish.

Panda wrote:

I don't watch much TV, mainly News, Football and Formula I, but I see no point in sensoring anything. However, I find the 9 PM tide break feasible. Most adults don't have that much time to watch TV before 9 anyway.

And to censor TV to 'protect children' most be the lamest reason there is. The average news edition contains about as much gore as an average Hollywood movie.

Maybe parents these days should spend less time on their hobbies and more time with their offspring to explain life to their kids... But that seems to be too much to ask for these days...

I'm with Panda on this one. We need less censorship, not more. Good parenting will take care of the rest.

 

[CornMaster]

I think everything should be allowed....except maybe extreme violent acts. Like cutting off of limbs and watching someone twitch around until they blead to death, etc....

I don't want to see that on TV. Might give people ideas.

 

[sysyphus]

I'm not particularly big on censorship, but I would suggest that those who produce movies and television consider the implications of what they show and the impact it may ultimately have.

As well, it's difficult to say what should and shouldn't be shown.

Take violence for example, perhaps your action hero type violence may ultimately glorify violence, but what about historical dramas? People should have a good understanding of history and editing out the violence in historical dramas to avoid having it on TV would simply be a ridiculous idea. In fact it would be dangerous, sheltering people from the cold harshness of reality is counter-productive.

And of course, if violence was completely eliminated from TV, I wouldn't get to watch hockey.

As for sex, simple nudity is not a problem. It's the human body, plain and simple. To what level is appropriate, that depends on time of day.