American Censor Laws are Ridiculous

[Riviera de la Mancha]

remourleia

Riviera de la Mancha

remourleia

Riviera de la Mancha

remourleia

Does anyone else not see a problem with this?

How is it ok to tell children that guns are good, shooting people is ok, let them play violent video games, but then if someone says the word "********" near a child, then that person is terrible, and awful.

It's a word. It can cause no harm. What kind of place lets anyone buy a gun, but bans words?

I'll watch American tv, and people are getting murdered in kids movies, yet the word "********" gets censored on cable.

Oh, and Canadians, don't act like your so great in this matter. I'm mean you have better gun laws, but when it comes to censoring words over violence in tv, you're just as bad as USA(with the exception of APTN and IFC who give no ******** and censor nothing)

I really don't get what makes the sensors messed up to you. Like, is it simply that they censor words you don't like? That they show images you don't care for?

If that's the case, I don't know what to tell you other than that that's what censors do. If you don't like that, then it seems your position is that nothing should ever be censored.

No, I don't get why it's ok to show someone's head being blown off, but saying "********" is such a sin.

The "get" is easy; censors reflect the values of the society at large. We as a society have generally concluded that we are more uncomfortable with sex than violence.

Its that simple. A more interesting question is why this might be the case.

That's ridiculous.
Regardless the etymology of "********", saying "It's ******** cold outside!" isn't even sexual!
omg. our society is so stupid.

That is why I said that you may be of the position that you don't like censoring at all. If the foundational premise is ridiculous to you, then censorship is ridiculous to you. Censors are nothing more than societal expressions of values.

And the etymology of "********" is sexual. I think you mean its USAGE is not so limited.

[My Dog Mr. Kitty]

Yoshpet

My Dog Mr. Kitty

Yoshpet

My Dog Mr. Kitty

I've never seen Bambi, so I can't comment on that, even though that's well in the past and so different standards apply. But Nemo's family being eaten wasn't actually shown, and it wasn't really murder because they're just fish eggs. That's like saying it's cannibalism because they show people eating caviar

Bambi's mother's death is off-screen too, but you hear a gunshot and even a child can figure out why she doesn't return as he calls out for her. She is dead and he is alone in the snowy forest as a mere child.

Nemo's mother wasn't an egg, and the eggs of his siblings were also alive, unlike caviar. They even do a closeup and show the fetuses squirming inside the eggs. It would also help to remember that these are anthropomorphic animals that a young audience is meant to relate to and feel emotionally about, which is the entire point of that scene. It has a profoundly different affect on the mind than watching someone eat salty, black balls on a cracker, especially to a child.

No idea why you mention cannibalism. That would be people eating people.

Murder is a human intentionally killing a human. For a fish/shark/whatever it was to be committing murder by eating them, it'd also have to count as cannibalism
Whether you understand my points or not is irrelevant, because the fact remains the deaths pointed out are not shown and are not murder

You overlooked the anthropomorphism entirely, and it's obvious why. These are fictional animals who can speak and think like humans and have etiquette and motives like humans. Intelligent baracuda eating talking clownfish that the audience sympathizes with reads as murder, whether you choose to admit it or not. The group of sharks who view fish as "friends not food" hammers this point in pretty clearly, even if for comedy purposes.

Cannibalism is eating one's own species, particularly humans. Baracuda and clownfish are not the same species, and murder, killing, etc. does not necessitate cannibalism. It's understood why one preys on the other, but as these are human-like animals we are meant to relate to, their deaths are seen as unfair and tragic by the audience.

Any more hairs you want to split?

So you're saying the two types of fish are considered human enough to fit the thin definition of murder but not human enough to fit the definition of cannibalism? You can't have both

[My Dog Mr. Kitty]

remourleia

My Dog Mr. Kitty

remourleia

My Dog Mr. Kitty

remourleia

Suicidesoldier#1

Well not just anyone can buy a gun, you have to be over 18 or 21 depending on the type of gun, have no criminal background, history of mental illness, and a host of other things.

Excessive or realistic violence is often banned from children's view as well, with death only be implied or non-graphic. Graphic or vulgar content is what's banned for children, not really the implication of something happening. If two people are married and had kids later in a movie, it's implied they had sex, but not shown; a gun shot off screen in a disney movie about a deer implies the parents were shot, but doesn't show excessive gore or violence to get that message across.


And it's not really banned, since such mediums exist, such as porn, they're just regulated to what's on public access, or given a rating for parents to know about before they let their children watch.

The real point on my thread isn't that violence shouldn't be allowed on tv. . .it's more so that swearing should be, and for the reason that swearing is completely harmless, and violence is not

Well, swearing in any professional setting is very looked down upon and can be damaging to a career. It's not like everyone's fine with it everywhere

Also, in another post you said they show murders in childrens shows/movies. Got any examples of that? Because even smoking keeps nearly all movies from being PG or G. Rango was called PG, and just because it had smoking in it people got really upset

Bambi's mom was killed
Nemo's family was eaten

I've never seen Bambi, so I can't comment on that, even though that's well in the past and so different standards apply. But Nemo's family being eaten wasn't actually shown, and it wasn't really murder because they're just fish eggs. That's like saying it's cannibalism because they show people eating caviar

Still violence; and apparently traumatizes kids according to that sketchy Metro paper.

And when human eat fish it's different, because we are human living in human life.

On Finding Nemo, it's about cute fish, so when other cute fish are getting murdered in a fish life world, then it becomes a problem.

Again, still doesn't show murder like you claimed, even if they were humans

[vegan shrimp kabob]

Riviera de la Mancha

remourleia

Riviera de la Mancha

remourleia

Riviera de la Mancha

remourleia

Does anyone else not see a problem with this?

How is it ok to tell children that guns are good, shooting people is ok, let them play violent video games, but then if someone says the word "********" near a child, then that person is terrible, and awful.

It's a word. It can cause no harm. What kind of place lets anyone buy a gun, but bans words?

I'll watch American tv, and people are getting murdered in kids movies, yet the word "********" gets censored on cable.

Oh, and Canadians, don't act like your so great in this matter. I'm mean you have better gun laws, but when it comes to censoring words over violence in tv, you're just as bad as USA(with the exception of APTN and IFC who give no ******** and censor nothing)

I really don't get what makes the sensors messed up to you. Like, is it simply that they censor words you don't like? That they show images you don't care for?

If that's the case, I don't know what to tell you other than that that's what censors do. If you don't like that, then it seems your position is that nothing should ever be censored.

No, I don't get why it's ok to show someone's head being blown off, but saying "********" is such a sin.

The "get" is easy; censors reflect the values of the society at large. We as a society have generally concluded that we are more uncomfortable with sex than violence.

Its that simple. A more interesting question is why this might be the case.

That's ridiculous.
Regardless the etymology of "********", saying "It's ******** cold outside!" isn't even sexual!
omg. our society is so stupid.

That is why I said that you may be of the position that you don't like censoring at all. If the foundational premise is ridiculous to you, then censorship is ridiculous to you. Censors are nothing more than societal expressions of values.

And the etymology of "********" is sexual. I think you mean its USAGE is not so limited.

no, read again. i said it right.
I said the etymology was sexual, but usage in that sentence wasn't

[Yoshpet]

My Dog Mr. Kitty

Yoshpet

My Dog Mr. Kitty

Yoshpet

My Dog Mr. Kitty

I've never seen Bambi, so I can't comment on that, even though that's well in the past and so different standards apply. But Nemo's family being eaten wasn't actually shown, and it wasn't really murder because they're just fish eggs. That's like saying it's cannibalism because they show people eating caviar

Bambi's mother's death is off-screen too, but you hear a gunshot and even a child can figure out why she doesn't return as he calls out for her. She is dead and he is alone in the snowy forest as a mere child.

Nemo's mother wasn't an egg, and the eggs of his siblings were also alive, unlike caviar. They even do a closeup and show the fetuses squirming inside the eggs. It would also help to remember that these are anthropomorphic animals that a young audience is meant to relate to and feel emotionally about, which is the entire point of that scene. It has a profoundly different affect on the mind than watching someone eat salty, black balls on a cracker, especially to a child.

No idea why you mention cannibalism. That would be people eating people.

Murder is a human intentionally killing a human. For a fish/shark/whatever it was to be committing murder by eating them, it'd also have to count as cannibalism
Whether you understand my points or not is irrelevant, because the fact remains the deaths pointed out are not shown and are not murder

You overlooked the anthropomorphism entirely, and it's obvious why. These are fictional animals who can speak and think like humans and have etiquette and motives like humans. Intelligent baracuda eating talking clownfish that the audience sympathizes with reads as murder, whether you choose to admit it or not. The group of sharks who view fish as "friends not food" hammers this point in pretty clearly, even if for comedy purposes.

Cannibalism is eating one's own species, particularly humans. Baracuda and clownfish are not the same species, and murder, killing, etc. does not necessitate cannibalism. It's understood why one preys on the other, but as these are human-like animals we are meant to relate to, their deaths are seen as unfair and tragic by the audience.

Any more hairs you want to split?

So you're saying the two types of fish are considered human enough to fit the thin definition of murder but not human enough to fit the definition of cannibalism? You can't have both

Yes, you can. Because this is a fictional setting where animals are capable of abstract thought, in-depth communication, morality, etiquette, etc. but are still disparate species that naturally prey upon each other.

Like I said, the fish are friends not food scene defines the phenomenon clearly. I'm sorry you're not capable of understanding the complex intricacies of a children's comedy animation. lol

[Lord of the Vine]

remourleia

Mayor of Murderwood

remourleia

Mayor of Murderwood

remourleia

then uncensor the language.

Actually, I do enjoy the censor bleep that they have with some shows. It adds more emphasis on the emotion. Whereas in Game of Thrones, where there's a curse every other sentence, it gets lost.

Granted, this is a personal preference.

Quote:

no, as a kid, I wasn't allowed to watch violence stuff, but i could watch stuff with bad language

I could watch cartoon violence, Power Rangers (as well as the spin-offs [Ah, VR Troopers and BeetleBorgs]), and pro wrestling (dad was a fan at the time), but nothing that looked realistic.

See, there's a difference between language and what is appropriate for children.

How is watching people beat each other up better than hearing the word "********]

Example A: Bugs Bunny gets hit in the face with a frying pan.
Example B: Thug A shoots up Thug B.

Which one is better suited toward children?

A.
But what is worse for children:
Example A: Bugs Bunny gets hit in the face with a frying pan.
Example B: Bugs Bunny says, "It's ******** hot out today!"

B.

I'll let you figure out why.

[Chainsaw Samurai]

remourleia

Does anyone else not see a problem with this?

How is it ok to tell children that guns are good, shooting people is ok, let them play violent video games, but then if someone says the word "********" near a child, then that person is terrible, and awful.

It's a word. It can cause no harm. What kind of place lets anyone buy a gun, but bans words?

I'll watch American tv, and people are getting murdered in kids movies, yet the word "********" gets censored on cable.

Oh, and Canadians, don't act like your so great in this matter. I'm mean you have better gun laws, but when it comes to censoring words over violence in tv, you're just as bad as USA(with the exception of APTN and IFC who give no ******** and censor nothing)

First, there are rating systems designed to tell parents about the content in all television, movie, and video game entertainment.

With that said parents are responsible for monitoring their children's activities. Some parents do a great job at this, some use the tv as a baby sitter. Whatever the reason may be parents want(at least good ones) want to know what kind of content their children are accessing so they can better control what they feel is appropriate to watch.

In order to have a rating system you need to have regulations. In order to have regulations you need to have some form of censorship.

Second, if you are watching something on television that has been edited or censored. It is most likely because cable, television, satellite programming are very easily accessible and hard to monitor who is accessing and when.

Thirdly, there are options out there for people who want the raw un-edited as intended versions.
I'm not an expert in the area, but I think a movie or television show is allowed one F-bomb and can still receive a pg-13 rating.

Finally those other avenues that allow you to access uncensored content are not very hard to get a hold of provided that you:

-are at least 18 years of age
-have some kind of income(pay per view)

If you don't have this you are probably an adolescent bitching because mom/dad said no to you. If so, good job mom and dad!

[SchizoSpazz]

America was founded on puranical views. They weren't ok with all the sex and swears around it all around their children. That's why they left England and Holland in the first place. And it carries over.

And our constitution guarantees us the right to bear arms (own guns), because it saved us during the American Revolution.

These two things are why our censorship system is so '******** up' as you said. (I don't agree, but to each their own).

And I'm someone who can't really watch violent movies (it's weird. I have this thing where if I see someone in serious pain or getting shot, I feel it also. It's like there's a disconnect with the fourth wall. I know it's fake, but I still feel it.) Or at least if the violence is more realistic.

[Yoshpet]

Mayor of Murderwood

remourleia

Mayor of Murderwood

remourleia

Mayor of Murderwood

Actually, I do enjoy the censor bleep that they have with some shows. It adds more emphasis on the emotion. Whereas in Game of Thrones, where there's a curse every other sentence, it gets lost.

Granted, this is a personal preference.



I could watch cartoon violence, Power Rangers (as well as the spin-offs [Ah, VR Troopers and BeetleBorgs]), and pro wrestling (dad was a fan at the time), but nothing that looked realistic.

See, there's a difference between language and what is appropriate for children.

How is watching people beat each other up better than hearing the word "********]

Example A: Bugs Bunny gets hit in the face with a frying pan.
Example B: Thug A shoots up Thug B.

Which one is better suited toward children?

A.
But what is worse for children:
Example A: Bugs Bunny gets hit in the face with a frying pan.
Example B: Bugs Bunny says, "It's ******** hot out today!"

B.

I'll let you figure out why.

Because a child would sooner repeat curse words than pick up a frying pan to bash their sibling in the face?

B seems way more likely to happen, but A would be infinitely worse if mimicked. Should children really be exposed to either, I wonder?

[SS_ShitStorm]

How about instead of complaining about what your kid sees on TV you shut the ******** TV off and provide them with a wholesome source of entertainment?

It's not the FCC's fault you are a s**t parent.

[vegan shrimp kabob]

Chainsaw Samurai

remourleia

Does anyone else not see a problem with this?

How is it ok to tell children that guns are good, shooting people is ok, let them play violent video games, but then if someone says the word "********" near a child, then that person is terrible, and awful.

It's a word. It can cause no harm. What kind of place lets anyone buy a gun, but bans words?

I'll watch American tv, and people are getting murdered in kids movies, yet the word "********" gets censored on cable.

Oh, and Canadians, don't act like your so great in this matter. I'm mean you have better gun laws, but when it comes to censoring words over violence in tv, you're just as bad as USA(with the exception of APTN and IFC who give no ******** and censor nothing)

First, there are rating systems designed to tell parents about the content in all television, movie, and video game entertainment.

With that said parents are responsible for monitoring their children's activities. Some parents do a great job at this, some use the tv as a baby sitter. Whatever the reason may be parents want(at least good ones) want to know what kind of content their children are accessing so they can better control what they feel is appropriate to watch.

In order to have a rating system you need to have regulations. In order to have regulations you need to have some form of censorship.

Second, if you are watching something on television that has been edited or censored. It is most likely because cable, television, satellite programming are very easily accessible and hard to monitor who is accessing and when.

Thirdly, there are options out there for people who want the raw un-edited as intended versions.
I'm not an expert in the area, but I think a movie or television show is allowed one F-bomb and can still receive a pg-13 rating.

Finally those other avenues that allow you to access uncensored content are not very hard to get a hold of provided that you:

-are at least 18 years of age
-have some kind of income(pay per view)

If you don't have this you are probably an adolescent bitching because mom/dad said no to you. If so, good job mom and dad!

Yo, I'm talking about cable tv, not video games and movies.
Like when I flip through basic cable and there's people getting their heads blown off, but then someone says "********" and they run that godawful beep over it!

[vegan shrimp kabob]

Mayor of Murderwood

remourleia

Mayor of Murderwood

remourleia

Mayor of Murderwood

Actually, I do enjoy the censor bleep that they have with some shows. It adds more emphasis on the emotion. Whereas in Game of Thrones, where there's a curse every other sentence, it gets lost.

Granted, this is a personal preference.



I could watch cartoon violence, Power Rangers (as well as the spin-offs [Ah, VR Troopers and BeetleBorgs]), and pro wrestling (dad was a fan at the time), but nothing that looked realistic.

See, there's a difference between language and what is appropriate for children.

How is watching people beat each other up better than hearing the word "********]

Example A: Bugs Bunny gets hit in the face with a frying pan.
Example B: Thug A shoots up Thug B.

Which one is better suited toward children?

A.
But what is worse for children:
Example A: Bugs Bunny gets hit in the face with a frying pan.
Example B: Bugs Bunny says, "It's ******** hot out today!"

B.

I'll let you figure out why.

No, A is worse.
You actually think swearing is bad, but beating the s**t out of someone is ok?
Are you that brainwashed by your shitty American media?

You have a ******** violence problem in USA. The European Union is doing a Human Rights investigation into your police force because of how it goes around killing children and teenagers with guns!
And you're saying that causing physical harm to someone is better than saying "It's ******** cold outside!"

[Faustine Liem]

LoveLoud837

I personally believe children need to be taught the etiquette of dialogue, and that throwing a bunch of curse words together doesn't gain you brownie points. It doesn't show passion. True orators are able to show their abilities without their use.

Did you know that people who swear when hurt tend to rate their pain LESS then those that do not swear? Swearing is an outlet, it is a way to show feeling in a way with words. Like for instance... s**t. Can mean MANY different things depending on the context used within the sentence. It can be a similar word to damn, or actually used to describe feces. I think that curse words should be allowed in oratory. In particular debates, but just to keep it fair only five can be used. Because using a curse word, a word we deem 'bad' in such a way to bring attention to a sentence you want to, to make that more poignant.
"I'm very mad, and I can not take it anymore."
"I'm mad as hell, and I can not take it anymore."

Both are very similar, and basically exact, but one can argue the one with the curse word has more of a punch because of the 'stigma' attached to the CURSE word. You brain pays more attention because it heard something that has been taught that it is BAD. Like hearing gunshots. You learn that is fairly BAD and thus pay attention to things that even just SOUND like it and take notice. Curses are only bad because WE say they are bad. I don't see a problem with cursing and swearing like a sailor.

I told a little cousin that he could swear in front of me but don't do it in public or at school. ((And got chewed out by his mother for allowing him to swear.)) I don't see swearing as BAD, I don't see it as something that should be punished. society is what it is and wont change on this topic anytime soon. Swearing is seen as a 'bad' thing, even when really it is just WORDS.

[black_wing_angel]

remourleia

Does anyone else not see a problem with this?

How is it ok to tell children that guns are good,

Because they're not bad? They're an inanimate object who's application is up to the person applying them. They can be used for good, just as easily as for bad.

Quote:

shooting people is ok,

Sometimes it is.

Quote:

let them play violent video games,

Most children know and understand the difference between fantasy and reality. Only people like Jack Thompson think otherwise.

Quote:

but then if someone says the word "********" near a child, then that person is terrible, and awful.

Got me there. I agree with you.

Quote:

It's a word. It can cause no harm. What kind of place lets anyone buy a gun, but bans words?

The words aren't actually "banned". They're just heavily scrutinized.

Quote:

I'll watch American tv, and people are getting murdered in kids movies, yet the word "********" gets censored on cable.

Oh, and Canadians, don't act like your so great in this matter. I'm mean you have better gun laws, but when it comes to censoring words over violence in tv, you're just as bad as USA(with the exception of APTN and IFC who give no ******** and censor nothing)

Actually, there are channels in the US that do not censor. And some that are slowly ( or not so slowly ) relaxing those restrictions. In fact, often enough, you can find ******** content on Comedy Central, and even Cartoon Network's Adult Swim block is no longer censoring "s**t". Which has long been the "2nd worst" behind "********". Although you could argue that "c**t" is actually the first, and "********" the 2nd.

[black_wing_angel]

SS_ShitStorm

How about instead of complaining about what your kid sees on TV you shut the ******** TV off and provide them with a wholesome source of entertainment?

It's not the FCC's fault you are a s**t parent.

Actually, the FCC only has jurisdiction on public access ( free ) media. Like local TV channels and local radio broadcasts. Hence why "paid subscription" media sources such as Sirius XM radio and Cable / Satellite TV channels, don't have to censor. Most just choose to, out of a sense of normalcy and avoiding controversy.