What is your stand on television censorship?

Should t.v. be censored?

Total Votes:

[ 0 ]

This poll closed on January 6, 2005.
No longer accepting new votes.

[Usurper]

[.citrus_apple.]

there should be some limits to the t.v for young impressionable children their parents dont want them doing stupid stuff but the parents should just call the cable network supplier and have them cut off certain channels

Most television sets, in America, are equipped with V-Chips. These devices allow the parental figure to set a password and block any channel that they wish.
It just seems that, instead of actually taking responsibility for their chidlrens' viewing, these parents would rather attack the FCC and other such government entities. Demanding that they censor the television, or at least take away certain elements, so as not to offend those poor childrens' eyes.
It's just lack of personal responsibility, I think.

[DookiNoodles]

I think there's much more than a fine line to tread when it comes to censorship of tv - what we don't see of violence and horror in films we get to watch happily with the whole family on the news reports instead.

Games are given age ratings for having guns in them, episodes of cartoons have been ripped from airing due to the same thing yet every single day we can sit down with our 6 and 8 year old children to watch the morning news and watch that very same age group fight for their countries with assault rifles.

Turning the programmes off isn't usually an option any more - almost every time slot is owned by one of three companies and the independants are declining by the second.

Essentially, censor what you will but make damn sure you censor everything if this is going to continue. Myself, I'm in favour of completely re-writing the board for this and starting all anew, preferably using some contemporary references and correcting all of the mistakes that have been made.

[N3bu]

what kinda censorship are you talking abou like military censorship stoppping freeflow of information or like TV veiwing restricion on cirtain things like sex.

[Avice]

Usurper

Most television sets, in America, are equipped with V-Chips. These devices allow the parental figure to set a password and block any channel that they wish.
It just seems that, instead of actually taking responsibility for their chidlrens' viewing, these parents would rather attack the FCC and other such government entities. Demanding that they censor the television, or at least take away certain elements, so as not to offend those poor childrens' eyes.
It's just lack of personal responsibility, I think.

Exactly.

Television should not be censored. If parents do not want their children watching something, it should be up to them to control it--cancel the channels, put parental controls on the television, and tell their children what they may and may not watch.

[chaoticpuppet]

kevvo66

chaoticpuppet

kevvo66

chaoticpuppet

kevvo66

chaoticpuppet

I don't like censorship, I find it appalling to say the least. It is the parents duty to monitor their own children until they reach a maturity level where the parent believes the child can make their own decisions.

"I may not like what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it."
Voltaire.

I completely agree with you. xd

How far do you go on freedom of speech?
all the way (e.g. yelling FIRE in a theater when there is no fire)
some(e.g. not able to yell FIRE in a theater when there isn't)

i think people should just use their common sence when they are talking. Its morons that ruin freedom of speech for other people.

(i'm a n00b and i was wondering ho fast people usually respond to these things)

I agree that people should use common sense, however, not everyone has it. I think if we had complete freedom of speech there would be a few of those FIRE in a crowded theater, anyway, freedom of speech is a lost cause, there will never be complete freedom of speech.

secondly don't bump.

Besides shouting fire in a theatre, what do you think of say, nudity, or swearing on t.v?

On nudity: I believe that if you have money you can buy it, there should be no age limit as maturity often times has little to do with age. I am all for a 5 year old walking into a store and buying a porno, it is not my responsibility to stop him. If his parents don't find that he is mature enough to make his own decisions, then they should not let him buy the porno. If things like nudity are shown on t.v. and you don't want to see it, don't watch it, find another show, or do something else, just don't hinder my right to watch it.
side note: nudity is allowed on t.v., government plays a very small role in t.v., most cable channels have sponsors, and its the sponsors who say no nudity (it would probably give them a bad image). HBO, and other such channels are allowed to show nudity because they either don't have sponsors, or there sponsirs don't care as much.
On swearing: same as previous (without sidenote).

When we come to the question of off the t.v. and put into the practice of our daily life, things like swearing for example, it is important to keep in mind that I have the right to swear, coupled with the right to not hear swearing. Lastly, obsceneties are not protected under freedom of speech currently, I find this incredibly absurd.

[kevvo66]

ironman_mendez

what kinda censorship are you talking abou like military censorship stoppping freeflow of information or like TV veiwing restricion on cirtain things like sex.

I think that it's acceptable for military censors on information that would hurt people or our country. The type of censorship i'm talking about is blocking sexuality, nudity, swearing, and violence. I'm not saying that I would really like to see some of these things,(extemely gory violence xp ) but if it's acceptable for the govenment to controll the media, they might slowly try to tweak and change our ideals, or other things.

[chaoticpuppet]

kevvo66

ironman_mendez

what kinda censorship are you talking abou like military censorship stoppping freeflow of information or like TV veiwing restricion on cirtain things like sex.

I think that it's acceptable for military censors on information that would hurt people or our country. The type of censorship i'm talking about is blocking sexuality, nudity, swearing, and violence. I'm not saying that I would really like to see some of these things,(extemely gory violence xp ) but if it's acceptable for the govenment to controll the media, they might slowly try to tweak and change our ideals, or other things.

what kind of information could hurt a country?

[kevvo66]

chaoticpuppet

side note: nudity is allowed on t.v., government plays a very small role in t.v., most cable channels have sponsors, and its the sponsors who say no nudity (it would probably give them a bad image). HBO, and other such channels are allowed to show nudity because they either don't have sponsors, or there sponsirs don't care as much.

Do you have any information on what the government does and does not find acceptable on tv? Seriously- If a t.v. channel wanted to make a ton of money, why wouldn't they just make a 24/7 porn channel?

[chaoticpuppet]

kevvo66

chaoticpuppet

side note: nudity is allowed on t.v., government plays a very small role in t.v., most cable channels have sponsors, and its the sponsors who say no nudity (it would probably give them a bad image). HBO, and other such channels are allowed to show nudity because they either don't have sponsors, or there sponsirs don't care as much.

Do you have any information on what the government does and does not find acceptable on tv? Seriously- If a t.v. channel wanted to make a ton of money, why wouldn't they just make a 24/7 porn channel?

most of the cable channels today are purchased in households that have families with little children. If there were a 24/7 porn channel on cable t.v. it wouldnt work out so well, again, most cable subscribers have little children. It would be better for the channel to provide entertainment that could be open to as many people as possible

Besides, all porn channels are run by that porn company, e.g. plaboy t.v. and others. They themselves have to be there own sponsors.

As for what the government finds acceptable on t.v.: probably between a pg-13 to R rated movie.

[N3bu]

kevvo66

ironman_mendez

what kinda censorship are you talking abou like military censorship stoppping freeflow of information or like TV veiwing restricion on cirtain things like sex.

I think that it's acceptable for military censors on information that would hurt people or our country. The type of censorship i'm talking about is blocking sexuality, nudity, swearing, and violence. I'm not saying that I would really like to see some of these things,(extemely gory violence xp ) but if it's acceptable for the govenment to controll the media, they might slowly try to tweak and change our ideals, or other things.

Well in that case for basic view like movie etc. i think its was originally the people who wanted a system in place that would stop for example little kids see things that could disturb them example extreem violence but the news however is by under law i believe unable to be controlled by the government execpt in cases of something like a war and like a WWII scale to stop spies and stuff.

[olmana]

Freedom of speech...freedom _from_ speech. If there was to be censorship, they'd have to either censor all or none. Yes I agree that changing the channel if one doesn't want to see something is good, _however_ I find that many programs are soo similar and debasing anyway that it doesn't matter whether you change the channel or not.
Children can find a way around the parental control especially if the parents are always working. How can they instill in a child values when they aren't around to monitor that child?
Learning morals and _values_ start at a very young age and if there was no censorship (or common sense) then that child will watch these debilitating shows and have a perverse sense of ideas.

[chaoticpuppet]

olmana

Freedom of speech...freedom _from_ speech. If there was to be censorship, they'd have to either censor all or none. Yes I agree that changing the channel if one doesn't want to see something is good, _however_ I find that many programs are soo similar and debasing anyway that it doesn't matter whether you change the channel or not.
Children can find a way around the parental control especially if the parents are always working. How can they instill in a child values when they aren't around to monitor that child?
Learning morals and _values_ start at a very young age and if there was no censorship (or common sense) then that child will watch these debilitating shows and have a perverse sense of ideas.

what you say is very true, however, it should not be the governments job to raise the child, it is the parents job. Since it is the parents job to raise the children, it is not the governments job to place restrictions on the t.v. that I watch. Things get very messy at this fine line of freedom of speech and freedom from speech.

[Trafalga]

chaoticpuppet

I agree that people should use common sense, however, not everyone has it. I think if we had complete freedom of speech there would be a few of those FIRE in a crowded theater, anyway, freedom of speech is a lost cause, there will never be complete freedom of speech.

secondly don't bump.

Freedom of speech was never meant to grant COMPLETE freedom of speech. There's a reason why langauge that causes danger, fighting words, libel, slander, and lies are not protected by the Constitution. And with freedom of speech comes the responsibility to speak well/reasonably/honestly, whatever you want to call it.

Besides, didn't you know television IS censored (to a slight degree). There is some content that just isn't allowed on network television. Cable isn't restricted as much, but people have to request the channels with the content they want, rather than accidentally stumbling upon it.

I'm actually glad that there is some minimal "censorship." Yes, I can change the channel, but I don't want to run into something accidentally, either. Besides, the FCC's regulations are meant to keep things to a minimum standard (the lowest common denominator). I find that most people forget about that middle word--common. The lowest denominator of public taste is not the lowest common denominator. That standard is a little higher.

[Ananel]

kevvo66

I personally believe that it should be up to the people watching t.v. to decide what, if anything, should be censored. In the first ammendment to our constitution, it says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Do you think that this applies to t.v censorship?

Where do you stand, and how would you solve the problem of public censorship?

Personalized parental controls have some value, but frankly I am not much of a fan of censorship in general. I think the rules are poorly orchestrated, the principle behind them is generally flawed and the whole system is in need of a vast overhaul in the states.

[Shada Dukal]

Trafalga

chaoticpuppet

I agree that people should use common sense, however, not everyone has it. I think if we had complete freedom of speech there would be a few of those FIRE in a crowded theater, anyway, freedom of speech is a lost cause, there will never be complete freedom of speech.

secondly don't bump.

Freedom of speech was never meant to grant COMPLETE freedom of speech. There's a reason why langauge that causes danger, fighting words, libel, slander, and lies are not protected by the Constitution. And with freedom of speech comes the responsibility to speak well/reasonably/honestly, whatever you want to call it.

Besides, didn't you know television IS censored (to a slight degree). There is some content that just isn't allowed on network television. Cable isn't restricted as much, but people have to request the channels with the content they want, rather than accidentally stumbling upon it.

I'm actually glad that there is some minimal "censorship." Yes, I can change the channel, but I don't want to run into something accidentally, either. Besides, the FCC's regulations are meant to keep things to a minimum standard (the lowest common denominator). I find that most people forget about that middle word--common. The lowest denominator of public taste is not the lowest common denominator. That standard is a little higher.

AMEN!! 3nodding People should know that if you claim total "Freedom of speech", then SOMEone's rights are gonna get trampled anyways. The same with freedom in general. Just because you live in a "free" country (for all you Americans out there) doesn't mean you can do whatever you want. If you do, for example, claim all diamond necklaces as your own and rob a jewlery store, you are certiantly gonna face consequences. Ditto goes with speech. Speech can be a very powerful thing, and to say that everyone can say ANYthing is giving the population power they really can't handle. Say a person goes around bashing women. You just KNOW he/she is gonna get in trouble. But if people use the definition of "free speech" that others argue for, then that person can't be held liable at all.
Here's a worse example of free speech gone bad. Someone running around threatening to harm/maim/kill someone. Nowadays, this person will be arrested on the spot, because there's no telling whether or not he's really gonna do it. We need some form of censorship to keep things like this at bay.