Censorship?

[TheEaterofWorlds]

As this is a board for writers, I've always assumed that there would be a strong anti-censorship feeling. I got to thinking, though... I really don't know either way how the people on this board feel.

So, do you believe in censorship? To what extent? Who should be in charge of setting the standards? Should public libraries be allowed to carry books like Lolita? What about school libraries? How do you feel about the government's definition of obscene material (That for something to be considered obscene, it must lack artistic merit)? What about sexuality, violence, and crude language in movies, or video games, or comics?

Please discuss! Don't forget to refference any sources, and no biting or hitting below the belt.

[Crystal]

Movie censorship here annoys the heck out of me. It's probably one of the reasons why the pirated DVD/VCD business is doing so well, aside from the crazy conversion-rate prices.

Book censorship isn't so bad though. Personally, I think that for a book to be good, it must have a good storyline, etc etc, and the graphic sex, violence and swearing musn't be taken too far. If it's been taken too far and banned, I couldn't care less because I wouldn't have wanted to read it anyway. So basically book censorship doesn't get in my way a lot.

...What's Lolita?

[aakfish]

I think violence is okay in films if it serves a purpose. I don't really agree with violence for the heck of it. Films like A Clockwork Orange and Battle Royale are very violent but the violence is for a reason.

[Tracy]

Depends. I can think of examples of most things where it's all very appropriate.

Violence: I likes me some film violence. It's exciting, great to watch and really can add to a movie. Even a little senseless violence is OK. Like The Matrix... what was that film made for, if not tons of scenes of beating people up? I don't like the really graphical stuff though, like decapitation and the likes. I don't mind story, comic or game violence either. I LOVE reading Johnny the Homicidal Maniac, and that's fairly violent. I don't have any paticularly violent games, just the regular run round and beat people up ones. Not like... losing arms or anything.

Swearing: Good again, but I'd say only in context. When it's not, it doesn't really do anything for the film, except limit the audience. Billy Elliot is the PERFECT example of a film where the swearing was necessary. You get a real feel for the sort of neighbourhood Billy lived in, and how things were in his childhood. Book, comics and games... once again, I don't really mind. Swearing isn't something that greatly bothers me.

[TheEaterofWorlds]

Crystal said:

Book censorship isn't so bad though. Personally, I think that for a book to be good, it must have a good storyline, etc etc, and the graphic sex, violence and swearing musn't be taken too far. If it's been taken too far and banned, I couldn't care less because I wouldn't have wanted to read it anyway. So basically book censorship doesn't get in my way a lot.

...What's Lolita?

If anything, I'd say that book censorship is the worst of all! It isn't just swearing, or violence that gets a book banned. It's ideas that someone disagrees with, and thinks that you shouldn't read. 'The Call of The Wild' has been a banned book (as well as one of the targets to be burned in Nazi Germany) , as well as 'Bridge to Terebithia', 'Twelfth Night', and many other books of incredible merit. Oh Crystal, these are exactly the books that you should be reading.

Lolita is a book by the Russian novelist Vladmir Nabokov, about an older man's attempts to seduce a twelve year old girl. Despite the subject matter, it is an incredibly well-written and I can only pray that someday I'll be able to right 1/3 as well as Nabokov.

[irishdragonlord]

Swearing: Mild. No sentences with three "f" words in them, every time. I can take the d,s, and a words, but so long as it's abused to excessiveness.

Sex: Hinjting at it is okay - showing it should not be allowed. I think Movies like Along Cam Polly overdo it with the sex scenes. So long as they dont get so out of hand I won't complain.

Violence: Ok, so long as it's not excessive gore.

Mainly, keep it reasonable.

[Buddy]

Personally, I don't really care about excessive violence/sex/drug use/swearing/whatever. If I think a movie has no substance, I won't watch it. Plain and simple.

However, I do not believe in stopping others from seeing it if they choose. I won't see it, and I won't encourage others to see it. But I won't stop them, just the same.

Although I do hold a few exceptions, I believe censorship - of any kind - is quite possibly the most destructive thing for any free society.

As for book censorships, some of the greatest books of all time have been the ones people have challenged the most. According to the ALA's 100 most challenged books, the Harry Potter series ranks 7th. "The Giver", possibly one of the greatest books ever written (by far, the best book I've ever read - which is saying a lot, as I rarely ever pick favorites as far as books, music, and movies are concerned) ranked 14th.

Check the list yourself - I'm sure you'll find at least one (and for many of you, I'm sure, more than one) familiar book. A book that, if some certain person or organization had had it's way with, you probably would've never read.

www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedbooksweek/bbwlinks/100mostfrequently.htm

"It's not just the books that are under fire now that worry me. It is the books that will never be written. The books that will never be read. And all due to the fear of censorship. As always, young readers will be the real losers."

- Judy Blume.

[Stal]

I wish there was more of an effort to stop the senseless use of things in movies and make things a bit more reasonable, and I'm very anti-pornography (heh. As if any of you guys didn't know that by now ) and think that should be taken care of...

But for book censorship and the stopping of ideas? No way.

And don't turn this into a slippery slope argument. Stopping one thing as being unreasonable (i.e. pornography, real excessive gratuity in any form...) will not cause the downfall of American culture leading to the censorship of our very ideas and thoughts.

Here's an Ironic fact...Fahrenheit 451 , one of all my all time favorite books...which deals with censorship....


heh....about 75 some sections of the book itself were censored and edited bu Ballantine books for awhile. Before Judy-Lynn Del Ray reset it.

Ironic, no?

What's even more so is how it's been on "banned" lists, as well...

[TheEaterofWorlds]

Buddy said:

Check the list yourself - I'm sure you'll find at least one (and for many of you, I'm sure, more than one) familiar book. A book that, if some certain person or organization had had it's way with, you probably would've never read.

www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedbooksweek/bbwlinks/100mostfrequently.htm

Son, that looks like my summer reading list. ;D

And don't turn this into a slippery slope argument. Stopping one thing as being unreasonable (i.e. pornography, real excessive gratuity in any form...) will not cause the downfall of American culture leading to the censorship of our very ideas and thoughts.

^_^ Very good Stal, very predictable. My sister now owes me Volume 2 of Transmetropolitan.

At any rate, let's say I want to go to my local comics establishment and purchase a brand new, naughty issue of Bondage Faeries. I'm a legal adult. I have my license right on me, proudly proclaiming me legal. I prance into the Adults only section, grab my smut, and prance up to the counter where I am carded, charged, and sent on my merry way. This, in my opinion, is a good and perfect set up. Noone involved is underaged, from the participants in the acts to the happy viewer. People who are offended by such product don't even have to see it, as it is kept seperately. (Now if only they also provided an automated checkout so nice old Frank didn't have to scan my copy of 'Boku no Sexual Harrasment'. )

However, in Texas, a comic book seller was sued for promoting obscenity by selling an adult comic to an adult in the depressing case of Texas v. Castillo.

This won't lead to the censorship of our thoughts and ideas? I say that it already has.

I am an artist. The quality of my work is debatable, however... I believe that I have a right to express whatever I want to express through my work. If I want to have two or three of my characters, at the end of a long and drawn out emotional development and courtship have graphic, headboard banging, screaming orgasmic sex I feel it's my right. And I don't think I should have to pay a 10,000 fine, do community service and (In a certain case I may discuss later) be forbidden from going within 100 feet of a minor for it.

You don't like pornography. (hereafter refered to as 'teh pr0nz') That is fine and dandy for you. I'd never in a thousand years make you look at it. However you'd very quickly make me *not* look at it.

Censoring anything employs this train of thought;

I don't want to look at it, so you can't either.

You are a Christian and object to pr0nz on a moral and religious level. You have a right to hate it and not buy it (You also have a right for it not to be pumped into your E-mail but that's another story.) However if I have no objections to it on any level, and considering that it's made and bought legally (No minors, and it's all consentual), why can't I have it? If congress decides to ban pr0n, they would be enforcing a religious veiw onto me. That's about as constitutional as saying that you have to be circumsized or go to church every Sunday or Pray towards Mecca three times a day.

Some people like to point to the existance of pr0nz as the reason our society is shooting downhill. Before the forties and fifties, so well loved as a bastion of American morality, there was pr0n. Almost as soon as the camera was INVENTED people were using it to take pictures of other people naked and sell them. Comic book indecency? Have you ever heard of a Tijuana Bible?

A ban on photographic pr0nz will lead to it's ban in other visual mediums like comics and animation. This is not even hypothetical. Comics (Which I mention over and over again because it means so much to me) have been heavily censored and the government's unclear definitions of obsenity has hurt the freedoms of comic artists and sellers.

I'm going to very, very gently go over a case in Florida. A man made a comic called 'Boiled Angel', it was sold and distributed by him as a 'Zine. It was ruled as indecent, it even failed the 'Miller test' caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=413&invol=15. If this man even tries to draw *anything* he is in violation of parole. Being legally unable to draw? That is... the ultimate punishment for an artist. Might as well cut off his hands.

(Yes, I have seen much of this mans work. I'm going to go ahead and not post a link. I want to keep the love of Patjade. I don't want to cause her undue stress or bleeding ulcers.)

What I feel it comes down to is if YOU don't like it, DON'T look at it, but if I like it and it's not hurting anyone, why can't I look at it? Make it? Sell it to other consenting adults?

Sex is a very natural thing. We're all here because of it. There may be some artificial insemination, but that's besides the point. Art reflects life, life includes sex. Heck, even if it's not art, even if it's just entertainment. You can ignore it's existance until you are firmly in the bonds of holy matrimony but I at least want the option open to go pick up a movie with as much wanton violence, graphic sex, and F-bombs being dropped like rain from the sky as I may feel the need to watch. Who are you to tell me I can't? What right does the government have to tell me what I can watch, read, or produce?

[Stal]

TheEaterofWorlds said:

Son, that looks like my summer reading list. ;D



^_^ Very good Stal, very predictable. My sister now owes me Volume 2 of Transmetropolitan.

At any rate, let's say I want to go to my local comics establishment and purchase a brand new, naughty issue of Bandage Faeries. I'm a legal adult. I have my license right on me, proudly proclaiming me legal. I prance into the Adults only section, grab my smut, and prance up to the counter where I am carded, charged, and sent on my merry way. This, in my opinion, is a good and perfect set up. Noone involved is underaged, from the participants in the acts to the happy viewer. People who are offended by such product don't even have to see it, as it is kept seperately. (Now if only they also provided an automated checkout so nice old Frank didn't have to scan my copy of 'Boku no Sexual Harrasment'. )

However, in Texas, a comic book seller was sued for promoting obscenity by selling an adult comic to an adult in the depressing case of Texas v. Castillo.

This won't lead to the censorship of our thoughts and ideas? I say that it already has.

I am an artist. The quality of my work is debatable, however... I believe that I have a right to express whatever I want to express through my work. If I want to have two or three of my characters, at the end of a long and drawn out emotional development and courtship have graphic, headboard banging, screaming orgasmic sex I feel it's my right. And I don't think I should have to pay a 10,000 fine, do community service and (In a certain case I may discuss later) be forbidden from going within 100 feet of a minor for it.

You don't like pornography. (hereafter refered to as 'teh pr0nz') That is fine and dandy for you. I'd never in a thousand years make you look at it. However you'd very quickly make me *not* look at it.

Censoring anything employs this train of thought;

I don't want to look at it, so you can't either.

You are a Christian and object to pr0nz on a moral and religious level. You have a right to hate it and not buy it (You also have a right for it not to be pumped into your E-mail but that's another story.) However if I have no objections to it on any level, and considering that it's made and bought legally (No minors, and it's all consentual), why can't I have it? If congress decides to ban pr0n, they would be enforcing a religious veiw onto me. That's about as constitutional as saying that you have to be circumsized or go to church every Sunday or Pray towards Mecca three times a day.

Some people like to point to the existance of pr0nz as the reason our society is shooting downhill. Before the forties and fifties, so well loved as a bastion of American morality, there was pr0n. Almost as soon as the camera was INVENTED people were using it to take pictures of other people naked and sell them. Comic book indecency? Have you ever heard of a Tijuana Bible?

A ban on photographic pr0nz will lead to it's ban in other visual mediums like comics and animation. This is not even hypothetical. Comics (Which I mention over and over again because it means so much to me) have been heavily censored and the government's unclear definitions of obsenity has hurt the freedoms of comic artists and sellers.

I'm going to very, very gently go over a case in Florida. A man made a comic called 'Boiled Angel', it was sold and distributed by him as a 'Zine. It was ruled as indecent, it even failed the 'Miller test' caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=413&invol=15. If this man even tries to draw *anything* he is in violation of parole. Being legally unable to draw? That is... the ultimate punishment for an artist. Might as well cut off his hands.

(Yes, I have seen much of this mans work. I'm going to go ahead and not post a link. I want to keep the love of Patjade. I don't want to cause her undue stress or bleeding ulcers.)

What I feel it comes down to is if YOU don't like it, DON'T look at it, but if I like it and it's not hurting anyone, why can't I look at it? Make it? Sell it to other consenting adults?

Sex is a very natural thing. We're all here because of it. There may be some artificial insemination, but that's besides the point. Art reflects life, life includes sex. Heck, even if it's not art, even if it's just entertainment. You can ignore it's existance until you are firmly in the bonds of holy matrimony but I at least want the option open to go pick up a movie with as much wanton violence, graphic sex, and F-bombs being dropped like rain from the sky as I may feel the need to watch. Who are you to tell me I can't? What right does the government have to tell me what I can watch, read, or produce?

TEoW, I'm choosing not to respond to this post not because of the fact I can't...

But because I won't. There was a pornography debate I do believe you missed.

Things...got out of hand. I was nearly banned, I do believe. Or at least nearly put on a probation but somehow redeemed myself (how, I do not know why...maybe just enough people decided against it)....

So, assume what you want about my views on it. Heh. All I'm saying is that by restricting the access to pornographic and certain other explicit materials we are not going to turn into a 1984/F451 society. Just like banning abortion isn't going to lead to the stripping of women's rights.

See what I'm trying to say? You make an assumption that once we start down the path, we can't turn back and we turn into a totalitarian society where every idea is banned and censored. I dispute that saying it would take an awful lot to take us there.

[TheEaterofWorlds]

Cloud said:

See what I'm trying to say? You make an assumption that once we start down the path, we can't turn back and we turn into a totalitarian society where every idea is banned and censored. I dispute that saying it would take an awful lot to take us there.

I am not saying that we are heading in this direction. I am saying that we are already there. In your previous post, you said 'Stopping one thing as being unreasonable (i.e. pornography, real excessive gratuity in any form...) ', but who deciedes what excessive is? What is your definition of excessive, and why should I cling to it? Just who gets to decide?

[Stal]

TheEaterofWorlds said:

I am not saying that we are heading in this direction. I am saying that we are already there. In your previous post, you said 'Stopping one thing as being unreasonable (i.e. pornography, real excessive gratuity in any form...) ', but who deciedes what excessive is? What is your definition of excessive, and why should I cling to it? Just who gets to decide?

Now while I understand the point about not drawing anything = really harsh punishment (that'd be like telling me not to write)...

Anyway, TEoW, who decides? When we got to that point of where something happens, I'm sure something would be set up. But as I said, I'm not talking about complete censorship. I used pornography as one extreme. *shrug* Yeah, a lot of that has to do with my beliefs and values. And you may say I'm imposing them, but in my opinion that's the way things should be.

Just like in your opinion they should not be and you're imposing those fews of openness to everything on me.

[TheEaterofWorlds]

Cloud said:

Just like in your opinion they should not be and you're imposing those fews of openness to everything on me.

Nope, nope, nope. That is not the inverse. The opposite of me not getting to see what I want to is you HAVING to see what you don't.

What it boils down to is options. If my beloved somethingsomething doesn't exist, I don't have the option of seeing it. If it exists I have the option of seeing it AND you have the option of not seeing it.

[Stal]

TheEaterofWorlds said:

Nope, nope, nope. That is not the inverse. The opposite of me not getting to see what I want to is you HAVING to see what you don't.

What it boils down to is options. If my beloved somethingsomething doesn't exist, I don't have the option of seeing it. If it exists I have the option of seeing it AND you have the option of not seeing it.

Ah, yes, but I said you're still imposing the views that the options should be there onto me. You can't deny it. Politics and laws is always about imposing one's view on another, it boils down to that at the fundamental core. Even if the choice of non-participation is there, the view that it is okay is still imposed upon the world. See what I'm saying? I'm talking in an abstract more philosophical sense here...

[TheEaterofWorlds]

The government strives to serve the majority and protect the rights of the minority. In your way, you may have the option to do as you please, but I do not. In my way, we both have an option. You may be the majority, but I still get my smut. I'm so sorry if the thought of someone somewhere doing something that has nothing to do with you but is hated by you anyway bothers you so much!

It's not like I'm making you have homosexual sex while watching the playboy channel and smoking a cigar wrapped in bacon. If it's outlawed you ARE making me NOT have homosexual sex, etc etc.