Censorship?

[Stal]

TheEaterofWorlds said:

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.

And I refuse to get into my feelings for which I feel it should be banned anyway. I realize the "freedoms" are a bit restricted that way. But honestly, I don't care as I feel it's wrong. Although I do see where you're coming from, don't think I don't. I just disagree that it should be allowed period. These are for my own reasons, which I will NOT get into.

[TheEaterofWorlds]

Cloud said:

And I refuse to get into my feelings for which I feel it should be banned anyway. I realize the "freedoms" are a bit restricted that way. But honestly, I don't care as I feel it's wrong. Although I do see where you're coming from, don't think I don't. I just disagree that it should be allowed period. These are for my own reasons, which I will NOT get into.

These are for your own reasons, which are Christian. To say that your Christian veiws should be used in the governing of a population with Non-Christians and differing sects of Christianity... it doesn't fly.

A non secular government such as ours allows Christianity to exist, but a Christian government could not possibly allow for the rights of non Christians.

The government is not to rescrict or promote a religion. Just like it can't get rid of Christianity, Christianity can't get rid of 'heathens'.

It's okay to hate something, to disagree with it. There's a thing called tolerance. This is not the same as condoning it, it is just tolerating it. I tolerate you, as hard as that can be. You will tolerate me, and hard as that unquestionably is. That is how it works. We are humans, we tinkle each other off and we cut each other's sides like the thorns we are.

People will put up with my 'perversion' and I will put up with their evangelism. It is not fair for people to ask me to put up with them and then not put up with me. The end.

[Crystal]

TheEaterofWorlds said:

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.

I HAVE read the Bridge to Terabinthia. It's in my school library. ^^ Although Lolita is probably banned.

[TheEaterofWorlds]

Crystal said:

I HAVE read the Bridge to Terabinthia. It's in my school library. ^^ Although Lolita is probably banned.

Heh, probably. If you think you want to try out some of Nabokov's work, I'd start with something lighter and fun like 'Pale Fire' or 'Transparent Things' (Still some mild adult themes in them, I think, but I'm not sure.) That way you could experiance his beautiful writing in a more comfortable setting. It's nicer to see some of his work outside of the realm of controversy. There's a huge book of his short stories for sale at Borders... I want it so bad...

He was a really neat guy! He loved butterflies and even discovered several species. He would even make up imaginary ones and draw them in the covers of his first editions. His prose is very warm, and he's very playful with the English language. I imagine he's equally as playful in Russian but I can't read that. ^^;; His Russian work has been translated though.

I personally fell in love with his work after Lolita, but it is a very hard read! I don't mean it's hard to understand, I mean that it's very disturbing at times. Always beautiful, but sometimes... it makes you wince.

But now I'm rambling... Eh heh heh...

[Crystal]

TheEaterofWorlds said:

Heh, probably. If you think you want to try out some of Nabokov's work, I'd start with something lighter and fun like 'Pale Fire' or 'Transparent Things' (Still some mild adult themes in them, I think, but I'm not sure.) That way you could experiance his beautiful writing in a more comfortable setting. It's nicer to see some of his work outside of the realm of controversy. There's a huge book of his short stories for sale at Borders... I want it so bad...

He was a really neat guy! He loved butterflies and even discovered several species. He would even make up imaginary ones and draw them in the covers of his first editions. His prose is very warm, and he's very playful with the English language. I imagine he's equally as playful in Russian but I can't read that. ^^;; His Russian work has been translated though.

I personally fell in love with his work after Lolita, but it is a very hard read! I don't mean it's hard to understand, I mean that it's very disturbing at times. Always beautiful, but sometimes... it makes you wince.

But now I'm rambling... Eh heh heh...

Hmm, I'll certainly think about it! I dislike erotic stuff, however, it just kind of makes me really uncomfortable and disturbed, so I just avoid it. However, books are very expensive over here, so even though I have a huge list of books I want I just can't afford them! ^^ Heh. Reading's no problem, since I phagocytosise (if there's such a word, why am I using it? ) about 700 pages of a normal novel on a schoolday. I've never tested holidays yet.

*adds Nakobov to the list of authors to check up on*

[Stal]

TheEaterofWorlds said:

These are for your own reasons, which are Christian. To say that your Christian veiws should be used in the governing of a population with Non-Christians and differing sects of Christianity... it doesn't fly.

A non secular government such as ours allows Christianity to exist, but a Christian government could not possibly allow for the rights of non Christians.

The government is not to rescrict or promote a religion. Just like it can't get rid of Christianity, Christianity can't get rid of 'heathens'.

It's okay to hate something, to disagree with it. There's a thing called tolerance. This is not the same as condoning it, it is just tolerating it. I tolerate you, as hard as that can be. You will tolerate me, and hard as that unquestionably is. That is how it works. We are humans, we tinkle each other off and we cut each other's sides like the thorns we are.

People will put up with my 'perversion' and I will put up with their evangelism. It is not fair for people to ask me to put up with them and then not put up with me. The end.

In most cases, life isn't fair. You can assume my views come from Christianity, only. That's fine. But as a few people know, I have more than just that for which I desire the ridding of pornography.

Oh, and actually, it's just that the government is not allowed to force you to be one religion or another. Accepting views/laws according to one religion and basing their country off of it, though still leaving you the freedom to worship as you choose of any religion? That's what the Constitution originally said (go read it). It was only "changed" (as in interpertation wise) to promote this supposed "Wall of Seperation" in about the mid-1960s, IIRC.

Buddy can claim all he wants that adopting the views of one religion over another (all ready been done, as well, as I've previously shown that the Supreme Court ruled Secularism/Athiesm/Non-Religion and so forth as a religion "to protect their religious rights" ) can make it impossible for this country to run as it does today. But the funny thing is, that's what it did for a very long time. Worked just fine.

You can get upset all you want that it'd be restricting your rights. Uhm, so? Christian's today have their rights restricted. Saying the name of God (or in one case I remember someone mentioning, the handing out of Bibles) on any state property will upset groups like the ACLU and so forth SO MUCH that the Christians are almost effectively censored as that goes, and has their rights restricted. But I don't see you mentioning that. No, it's only things that'd restrict your rights.

EDIT -- By the way, when I say I don't care, I should probably make it clear that it is mostly on this subject (and a few others) that I feel so strongly about that I honestly do not care what the others say. These don't come from being close-minded/bull-headed. These come from things that I know to be true and feel so strongly about that I don't care how great and wonderful one situation sounds when I know that the only resolution is another one altogether to which many people disagree.

[william]

I've read The boy who lost his face, it's in the school library. What's so bad about it that it's on the list that buddy posted?

[TheEaterofWorlds]

Cloud said:

You can get upset all you want that it'd be restricting your rights. Uhm, so? Christian's today have their rights restricted. Saying the name of God (or in one case I remember someone mentioning, the handing out of Bibles) on any state property will upset groups like the ACLU and so forth SO MUCH that the Christians are almost effectively censored as that goes, and has their rights restricted. But I don't see you mentioning that. No, it's only things that'd restrict your rights.

I do believe that, while I didn't mention that specifically, I did make it pretty clear that I think everyone INCLUDING Christians should be tolerated and have rights. You just assume, like many people, that people who don't agree with Christianity want to see it just go away.

I want the rights for EVERYONE no matter how far out they seem or how much I disagree with them to say whatever they want. I don't think it's fair that Christians can't say what they want, when they want. In fact, I think it's BULLsteamy dung. It's about rights for everyone, not just rights for people I agree with. Christians being treated badly by stupid people doesn't make freaks like me being treated badly by stupid people any better or any worse. And vice versa.

Saying that not wanting my rights damaged is a 'so what?' matter just because yours have been? I want us to BOTH NOT HAVE OUR make sea monkeysING RIGHTS TRAMPED ON.

Yes, I want you to be free to express your opinions just like I'd doing mine. I want to paint what I want to paint no matter how sick and perverted you think it is. If I want to paint a giant penis on a porch swing, if I want to paint puppies and kittens, if I want to paint the Pope, Bhudda, and Jhonny Carson in a boat made out of steamy dung, then I will do it. I'd really rather not go to jail for it, thank you. However, if I have to, I will.

I want to be able to dance down the street proclaiming broccoli as my personal deity, be able to say that I think what this or that government person is doing is stupid/wonderful/an alien conspiracy, I don't care how much it tinkles you or anyone off. I don't even intend to do most of that, but I want the option open.

I should never have to go to jail for art. I should never have to pay a fine for what I decide to express in words or pictures. I want to do these things because they are the only things I am capable of doing, that I have any intentions of doing, that I can make myself give half a darn about.

It is hard and even painful sometimes to let people have the basic human right to say what they want. Even poor facimilies of humanity like Klan members have the right to *say* what they want. They can go ahead and have thier hearts full of hate and think thier vile little thoughts until they die. I am a very bad person. I would like very much to say "Well, you're just a big racist uranus. make sea monkeys you and whatever you think." A part of me thinks about how nice it would be to make these people not exist. Then there is the part of me that realizes if I act to take the rights away from others, I do not deserve them myself. Democracy hurts. It is a painful process and it rips the very soul out of you. Such people, as terrible as they are, have the right to say terrible things. They do not have the right to do terrible things. They didn't have the right to burn a cross on my neighbor's lawn, and to slaughter their dalmations.

All I want is the right to live. I live through my art and through my word. In fifty or a hundred years after I die, my words and my work will be all that's left of me. If I cannot say the words I want, I have been murdered. I, as I am now, as I think and feel, will be dead to the future people who will read my words across the sea of time. We will reach out and try to touch each other, and our hearts will never meet. As bitter and black as it may be, I want to show people my heart.

[irishdragonlord]

Ok, on big factoid here:

TEOW, IF it was only adults who looked at the porn, IF there were people who could not be harmed by it, it should be okay.

But, point is, it's not.

Did you know about 80% of underage kids can get M rated games? Did you know their are video games that show uncensored sex and porn and are Not rated Adults Only (18+), but Mature? Mature is 17+. Not 18, the 'legal' age. Which means, legally, an underage person can buy porn. Which is illegal. Oxymoronic, no?

And some things are HARMFUL. People's beliefs and wants can be HARMFUL. No censorship = a heck of a lotta harm.

Also, I am a Christian. But unlike a lot of Christians, I realize sayng "the Bible says so" won't sway that many people. And since God isn't arbitrary, I think, WHY does the Bible say it's bad? Because it's harmful. Why? I go find out. And things like porn and censorshiplessness CAN BE VERY HARMFUL INDEED.

Yes, I agree Christians and everyone should have their rights. But I DONT believe in getting rid of censors.

[TheEaterofWorlds]

It may be ironic, but it is not oxymoronic. I'm very tired. Mostly of how all these threads degenerate into two people arguing against me. Since no one really cares what I say, and since no one will agree with it anyway, I'll make a stupid yet vaguely apt analogy that will be either misconstrued or ignored.

Peanuts. Peanuts kill people. They are very, very, dangerous to some people. Just because some people find it harmful, should everyone have to stop eating them? For as long as we cultivate peanuts and use them in food, someone will accidently ingest them or trace amounts of them and will have an alergic reaction. Maybe even die. I don't even like peanuts, but it would be silly that people who might want them can't have them just because some people may be harmed.

Warnings, ratings, etc, are like the bit on the wrapper that says 'May contain trace amounts of peanuts' that no one even reads anyway.

When I worked a place that I worked and will not name for reasons that are probably legeal. I could not stop a child from buying an M rated game. I litterally, as much as I wanted it stopped, could not refuse sale. This changed a few months later but for a while it was a problem. It happened one of two ways; the kid was sent in by himself with the cash and bought the game, which I could not stop. Senario two; The kid came in with a parent, I let the parent know it was an M rated game and what that meant, and the parent would proceed to tell me in the most colourful language you can imagine how I had no right to tell them how to raise their kids, etc, etc. Not once in six months did one single parent decide not to buy the game once they found out about it's content. It's easy to buy these games because people don't care. Should I not be able to shoot pixilated zombies because some ovestressed housefrau doesn't want to bother to take an active role in their child's activities?

Most censoring does more harm then good anyway. It's not like it makes the topics go away, it just makes it harder to learn about them. When I was very young, I was and in fact remain the type of person who would read something just because I was told I couldn't. There are a great many 'damaging' books that have only become famous because people made a big deal about them. Catcher in the Rye was a book I wouldn't have bothered to read if it weren't banned.

I will agree that on the internet it's hard to not stumble upon porn. However every video store, book store, rental place with adult material has some sort of system set up to keep minors out. Many impressionable minors are not innocent cherubs, but go out looking for the smut. Like my friend's thirteen year old brother... He was caught looking at porn. He didn't find it by accident, and he saw the eighteen and over warning on the sites main page- and entered anyway.

But I'm done talking about this anyway. I'm tired of this and you are all invited to exercise your right to keep talking while I'll exercise my right to go watch Knight Rider and stop beating my head against the brick wall of this discussion.

[Stal]

One final thought before you go, TEoW...

I posted something one time where I had warnings set up about it's contents and so forth. That it was not something someone who's squeamish should read.

My post was edited with all the parts that made it a post worth posting taken out.... It happened on this very forum, by GMOD I do believe.

Did they have the right to censor me in such a case?

[althechia]

*is looking at the banned books*
Maya Angelou is up there. She's a widely celebrated poet. And poetry, as it is today, should be the least censored art form, I think. Shel Silverstein, there's one I don't understand. He's funny, and his poems are really unoffensive, in fact, written for children.

Heh. Heather has Two Mommies. I can see why people would want that banned, but that's not profane or sexually suggestive at all, simply a different perspective. That ban's unconstitutional, I'd say. Most of these are.

Goosebumps? Are they serious? Julie of the Wolves? What's bad in that? ROALD DAHL? Of Mice and Men...Oh, murder. These are meant for children to enjoy. Some of these books are older than the people who want them banned. I'll eat whoever made this list.

Save, the Anarchists' Cookbook. That's something I understand.

Aaanyways, America has freedom of expression. When artists leave people alone, you leave the artists alone. I'm understand that I'm not going to be allowed to stab someone and paint puppies on the wall with their blood and say it's art, but I don't want my drawings chopped up because they're too 'phallic' in someone else's eyes.

Quentin Tarantino should be allowed to spray his orange blood and dismember his characters all over his cameras, because it expresses something. I found Kill Bill to be a masterpeice of cinematography, and it's etched with deep meaning that's amplified with graphic violence. It's a deep story about revenge and balance, and very symbolic. Especially when she plucked out that one chick's eye...heh heh...

What I find disgusting is when censors use their powers to maim others artistic or social endeavors for their own gain. Gay characters are a big example of this. For many years, particularly the 20s, they were simply clowns, to be laughed at onscreen. This was tormenting, because many actors at that time WERE actually gay. When books featuring gay characters, or well-known people-of-questionable-sexuality were depicted onscreen, they were always turned 'straight.' Or, gays were villians, and usually ended up commiting suicide or getting killed. This was also the case for most minorities. Even today, this trend continues, and it's really wrong. The movie 'Saved!' was pretty refreshing in this respect.

Anyone who is a censor should put their biases and beliefs aside and focus on the message of the work rather than the initial appearance of the work itself.

[althechia]

IDL said:

Ok, on big factoid here:

TEOW, IF it was only adults who looked at the porn, IF there were people who could not be harmed by it, it should be okay.

But, point is, it's not.

Did you know about 80% of underage kids can get M rated games? Did you know their are video games that show uncensored sex and porn and are Not rated Adults Only (18+), but Mature? Mature is 17+. Not 18, the 'legal' age. Which means, legally, an underage person can buy porn. Which is illegal. Oxymoronic, no?

And some things are HARMFUL. People's beliefs and wants can be HARMFUL. No censorship = a heck of a lotta harm.

Also, I am a Christian. But unlike a lot of Christians, I realize sayng "the Bible says so" won't sway that many people. And since God isn't arbitrary, I think, WHY does the Bible say it's bad? Because it's harmful. Why? I go find out. And things like porn and censorshiplessness CAN BE VERY HARMFUL INDEED.

Yes, I agree Christians and everyone should have their rights. But I DONT believe in getting rid of censors.

How exactly is it harmful to explore one's sexuality? Despite common belief, it won't fall off if you touch it, you know.

And, since you pointed out that beliefs can be harmful, perhaps yours can be as well.

[TheEaterofWorlds]

Cloud said:

One final thought before you go, TEoW...

I posted something one time where I had warnings set up about it's contents and so forth. That it was not something someone who's squeamish should read.

My post was edited with all the parts that made it a post worth posting taken out.... It happened on this very forum, by GMOD I do believe.

Did they have the right to censor me in such a case?

While I think that the warning should have been sufficiant, there is a differance between general freedom of speach, and what you are allowed to say in a privately owned forum. When you signed up here, you submitted your consent to abide by the laws of the board. Wherein I didn't choose to be born in this country or othewise and most certiantly didn't submit consent or a desire to join this, our human race. I have not read the user agreement, I have not agreed to follow the rules.

It's like hearing those Neoboard people whine. You signed up for it, you have to obey the rules. As it is, I don't think it should have been censored but that's what you singed up for.

[Stal]

Classic said:

How exactly is it harmful to explore one's sexuality? Despite common belief, it won't fall off if you touch it, you know.

And, since you pointed out that beliefs can be harmful, perhaps yours can be as well.

That mostly comes to matter of opinion there. :x