Censorship

[Beastt]

Perhaps I'm off the mark but it appears to me that, in the U.S., at least, censorship of the people at the will of the people is on the rise. To me this appears to be a forfeiture of our first amendment rights and therefore, a very undesireable thing. When anything a group finds offensive can become the target of censorship, can restrictions on religious beliefs be far behind?

Should people begin to exercise more caution before attempting to silence those with offending views or is this the way to a more civilized society?

Before posting, I would warn those who haven't, to find and read rule #7 of the forum. I believe discussion can be lively, intelligent and purposeful without over-stepping this rule.

 

[Havoc]

Censorship happens when the unfounded opinions of a majority overrule the rights of a smaller group.

Religious Morality is the most common means for censorship, and the least defensible.

 

[Lifesaver]

The OP touches a very relevant point. We are being (well, this isn't as strong in my country as it seems to be in USA and Europe, but is present nonetheless) increasingly censored in our freedom of speech. There always seems to be some little group offended about anything we say.
More often than not, the parties concerned aren't even offended. Rather, it's the sensitivities of people who do not belong which were offended, and make a point of silencing any voice that doesn't accept the dogmas of political correctness.

In his speech at Harvard University, Charlton Heston put it all very well:
http://www.russgranata.com/heston.html

 

[MysteryProf]

Censorship continually concerns me -- I feel really protective of the rights I have as an American. The way I see it, as long as no one's rights are being violated (as in, no one is being physically harmed, etc.), people should be able to express any viewpoints they may have, no matter how wrong or offensive.

That's the good part about being here -- you have the right to declare your beliefs about anything. Of course, that doesn't make those beliefs right, but that's not the point.

(Note: I'm not discussing the issue in terms of family-hours TV or anything -- I'm still being theoretical at this point.)

~MysteryProf

 

[Beastt]

Perhaps I'm not taking all variables into account but it seems to me that anytime a person in control finds it necessary to stop a person with less control from expressing their views, the person in control is doing something they know they shouldn't be. In this light, it would seem that censorship is an admission of wrong-doing. Hitler seemed particularly fond of censorship as many of his more famous quotations demonstrate. I think it's quite safe to say that he was guilty of wrong-doing.

Societies do tend to accept constraint. Usually gradually in the beginning but with time, it becomes the socially accepted method. As an example; who in America would think for a moment about lifting censorship from the airwaves? The censorship applied to radio and television were not part of the Constitution. They were levied upon the people by the FCC, which, isn't even an elected body. It's a body of federally appointed individuals who took it upon themselves to decide that these two extremely important mediums were the only two parts of American life not protected by the first amendment. I can't imagine that there was a great deal of acceptance at the time, but eventually, you find the people strongly backing the loss of that portion of freedom. They have accepted that the loss of that freedom is there for their safety and especially, the safety of their children. The safety of children is always an easy target when governing bodies wish to do something not readily accepted by the populace. And of course, there are many, many arguments for the other side. Some quite valid.

It seems the founding fathers of the U.S., and perhaps others since them saw this coming. No doubt because they had seen it happen before in other countries.

·"[An] act of the Congress of the United States... which assumes powers... not delegated by the Constitution, is not law, but is altogether void and of no force." --Thomas Jefferson: (Draft Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. ME 17:383)

·"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve and receive neither liberty nor safety..." -- Benjamin Franklin

·"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power." -- Abraham Lincoln

·"The natural progress of things is for government to gain and for liberty to yield." -- Thomas Jefferson

·"The man who would choose security over freedom deserves neither." -- Thomas Jefferson

Such a shame that men 200 years ago could see it coming and that so many today don't notice that it has arrived.

 

[Jeremiah the Bullfrog]

[font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][font=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]The people cannot delegate to government the power to do anything which would be unlawful for them to do themselves.

-- John Locke, "A Treatise Concerning Civil Government"

[/font][/font]That quote just seems to fit in here extremely well.
[font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][font=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][/font][/font]

 

[transientlife]

I'd rather reserve my right to be offended by what someone might say or do, then to never be offended because everything is so sanitized.
Besides, someone will ALWAYS be offended by SOMETHING, no matter how benign it may seem. To achieve this "utopia" where everyone is happy and not offended by anything...I shudder to think what life would be like. We'd never be able to express anything for fear of someone not liking it.

 

[Prometheus_ash]

There is a wonderfull book, called "project censored" that comes out each year. It containes a list of news articles that were censored by the GOvernment, the Press itself (or rather, the companies that own the media) and a few other sources and reasons. It also does more than list the articles, it has them there for you to read. It comes out each year, and you can find the editions in any Book store, such as Barnes and Noble or Borders (those are the two big ones in my area that I have seen carying it).

Hope that helps

 

[InnerPhyre]

[font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][font=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]The people cannot delegate to government the power to do anything which would be unlawful for them to do themselves.

-- John Locke, "A Treatise Concerning Civil Government"

[/font][/font]That quote just seems to fit in here extremely well.
[font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][font=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][/font][/font]

Amen

 

[Beastt]

And yet we are faced with censorship every day and everywhere we go. People blatantly admit that they know they are doing wrong by silencing those who would point that out. When you find the need to censor intelligent comments, you're stating that you believe the censored person is promoting a more correct side of the issue and realize that if not silenced, they will sway majority opinion away from your desired path.

It's simply never correct and should never be tolerated.

 

[Archivist]

One of the "Where's Waldo" book has been banned in some libraries because on one page that depicts a beach scene you can see, if you look very very closely, the breasts of one of the female cartoon characters. I guess that some people find cartoon boobs to be offensive! Some other public libraries have removed the dictionary because it contains "dirty words."

Absolutely ridiculous!

 

[flicka]

More often than not, the parties concerned aren't even offended. Rather, it's the sensitivities of people who do not belong which were offended, and make a point of silencing any voice that doesn't accept the dogmas of political correctness.

I agree with Lifesaver...and i hardly ever agree with Lifesaver

 

[Beastt]

(Snip...)
That's the good part about being here -- you have the right to declare your beliefs about anything. Of course, that doesn't make those beliefs right, but that's not the point.
(...snip)
~MysteryProf

I'm curious as to which "here" you're referring. Are you speaking of a particular country, the internet or the forum?

From my viewpoint, and of course, that's all it is, just my viewpoint; but all three seem to be heavily infected with censorship. Perhaps there is a "here" I didn't consider.

 

[transientlife]

Perhaps I'm off the mark but it appears to me that, in the U.S., at least, censorship of the people at the will of the people is on the rise. To me this appears to be a forfeiture of our first amendment rights and therefore, a very undesireable thing. When anything a group finds offensive can become the target of censorship, can restrictions on religious beliefs be far behind?

Scary thought...I'm sure it's possible. But probable? Freedom of speech is regularly infringed upon, so I could see some powerful religious group trying to get some 'offending' religion censored. Hopefully they'd be laughed out of the courtroom (under the pretext that the US does not have an official religion and I would think favoring that religious group's stance would be stepping the bounds), IMO.

Should people begin to exercise more caution before attempting to silence those with offending views or is this the way to a more civilized society?

Before posting, I would warn those who haven't, to find and read rule #7 of the forum. I believe discussion can be lively, intelligent and purposeful without over-stepping this rule.

The whole problem with censorship is that people are afraid to be offended. In a sense, being offended is a good thing, because it's a testament to the freedom of speech we hold so dear in this country.
If we continue to censor every little thing that might offend that one person in the middle of Idaho (just a random guess) the list would be never ending because some are easily offended and others are not, and the country would be so stifled as the freedom of speech was chipped away at bit by bit.
I'd rather reserve my right to be offended by something that somone says than to have the government (or fellow citizens) censor them before they have a chance to say it. If what you are saying is malevolent and intended to bring harm upon a person, or infringing upon their rights...then I think that is grounds for censorship, otherwise, for the most part - step off.
If you don't like what's on TV, don't watch it. TV is a privilege, not a right. If you don't like what you're hearing on the radio, change the station. If you don't like what you're reading, don't read it. If you're a parent, MONITOR what your kids are watching, listening to, reading and playing on Playstation, Xbox, etc. That's just my general idea.

 

[jingwei]

I think the current cencorship of the media is not based upon the religious groups in America, but because of political reasons. The whole "Patriot Act" is an act regulating limited cencorship of political ideals. Ever heard of the "free speech zone"? when Bush visited some city the protesters were kept outside a radius of about a couple of miles, dubbed free speech zone. Also, I have noticed that many news articles on American news websites have "mysteriously" been removed just a few days after their publishments.
I think this is happening because of the ungratefulness many young Americans have of their freedoms. The U.S. government is taking advantage of this by using isolationism and the latest techonlogy in media propaganda.

 

[Beastt]

Scary thought...I'm sure it's possible. But probable? Freedom of speech is regularly infringed upon, so I could see some powerful religious group trying to get some 'offending' religion censored. Hopefully they'd be laughed out of the courtroom (under the pretext that the US does not have an official religion and I would think favoring that religious group's stance would be stepping the bounds), IMO.
(...Snip)

I guess this just goes to show the power of labels. Certainly if any government segment were to attack a religion the uproar would be deafening. But all you have to do is label it a "cult", and almost nobody will care what is done to it.

Look at the other labels we have today to discredit ideas and organizations; "extreme", "radical", "terrorist"... once the label has been applied the average citizen loses all interest in preserving rights.

 

[katherinethegreat]

cenorship has gone crazy now a days..i mean now if you criciticize the pres you get shot done as being "unamerican" i think censorship is bad for everyone should be able to say anything they want be it rude, crude, but please not ignorant!

 

[Beastt]

cenorship has gone crazy now a days..i mean now if you criciticize the pres you get shot done as being "unamerican" i think censorship is bad for everyone should be able to say anything they want be it rude, crude, but please not ignorant!

No ignorance? However will the prez deliver his speeches about spreading freedom in Iraq?

 

[katherinethegreat]

No ignorance? However will the prez deliver his speeches about spreading freedom in Iraq?

how true my friend, but then we cannot sit here and laugh at them!

 

[Invader Pichu]

Censorship offends me. Seriously.