Censoring the Entertainment Industry.

[sun]

Recently, there have been huge fines for bad words on the radio..Ok Is it the role of government to censor the Entertainment Industry? Yea, that includes radio, TV, movies, toons, etc..I was searching and saw in a thread that they took out a 2 second view in a toon, with someone's rear end showing.. .In Europe, there is very little censorship in sexual matters, I undersand, their censorhip is in the area of violence. What do you think? Should the FCC go after just the radio, and leave the rest alone. There was huge fine in the Jackson thing, because one quarter of second, viewed most of a breast. Is this something A) right or wrong B) something we should disucss here? I went back as far as February, and found a thread on "censoring the closed captions shows." In the film the Windtalkers, starring Nick Cage, the violence was so real, that you really thought you were on that island fighting the war.It was almost unbelieveable..On the net, I will not even go into what has been sent, and can be found? Isn't the net, part of the media? I have been told that Saving Private Ryan was also violent,and very real looking, not censord ...Censorship is growing it seems, what are its limits, and who should censor who? Well? any takers on this. Stuart

[Slane]

There was a thread in the Entertainment Forum a while ago about all this. Might want to read through that for some more opinions (as well as mine).

Censorship should not be allowed on the grounds of offensiveness; it is impossible to determine every last little thing that MOST people would be offended by. If I put nudity in a TV show, that could be for artistic taste (such as the small bit in As Good as It Gets), comedy (people mooning other people...if that's even comedic), or drama (such as a censored episode of ER involving an old woman), but someone could be offended and order that I remove it. Why should I? What if I'm offended by a bottle of Mrs. Butterworth's? Why should I whine about it when I could just change the channel or deal with? This is free speech, not injuring our children; nudity, coarse language, and even violence do not harm the youngsters IF someone if there with them to teach them about the hazards and insults of such actions.

The only limits for censorship are for national security, and I'm sorry for this vague description; after all, we want to know the information leading to our military actions around the world, but we also don't want Robert Novak exposing undercover CIA agents. I can argue that the latter is against national security, but perhaps someone could argue the above also pertains to security because it would reveal this nation's informants. Perhaps the FCC could work at monitoring this (as well as media ownership, but that's another topic) instead of Janet-freaking-Jackson, Howard-freaking-Stern, and all this other freaking load of garbage.

So...yeah, all media should be censored the same amount: little to none.

[Check out the link.]

[SirLemming]

I won't make a definite judgment, but I think it's much easier to understand edits for CONTENT as opposed to edits for basic "offensiveness". I understand why they don't want to air explicit nudity, explicit violence, and explicit language on public TV/radio broadcasts when kids can see/hear it (also consider a situation in an electronics store where people are trying stuff out).

What should definitely NEVER be censored is opinion. THAT is true freedom of expression. I'm sick of people being all like "We should be allowed to use the F-word on TV because it's freedom of expression!" Not necessarily. You can still get your ideas across without being explicit, 99% of the time. I might not want to see some guy talking about how Hinduism is the one true path, but I also wouldn't want anyone censoring my own religious beliefs, and so I understand that a compromise must be made so we all have the same rights to expression.

The only case where censoring an OPINION could be considered justified is in the case of hate speech (which is a term whose scope is growing too broad lately). This gets confusing in the case of Satanism and KKK and stuff, where a religion/sect is by its nature hateful of another religion or group of people (like, if you believe in Satan, you also believe in Jesus, because Satan is the anti-Jesus).

Also, I don't mind if an awards show decides to forbid rebellious speech (like with Michael Moore at the Oscars), because the network's intent is to put on a pleasant presentation and that's just not the place to start an uprising. It's the network's decision and they have every right to say they don't want that kind of stuff going on in THEIR show.

[Tapout]

I don't think anything should be censored. The only unacceptable speech is that which could directly lead to people being hurt. (The good ol' "Fire in a crowed theater" argument.) I am a firm believer in the free market and if people want to run around saying the F-word on TV or radio all day, so be it. Their consumers and sponsers will deside how wise a decision that is with their wallets. The only hate speech that should be censored is that which directly incites people to do violence. If some scumbag Klansman can convince (or pay) someone to actually let him on TV to spew his venom, I don't care. He's entitled to his beliefs, no matter how ignorant they may be. As long as he's not telling people to go around bombing black churches or abortion clinics and the like he can say what he wants.

As far as protecting children, let me just sum it up this way: I. Don't. Care. It's not up to entertainment (or the government for that matter) to keep them out of harms way. It's the responsibility of the parent. On the Opie & Anthony show a few years back Jim Norton went on the greatest rant ever about some tool whining about "comedy gone too far." It's available at Jim Norton Fans (http://www.jimnortonfans.com/) if anyone's interested.

Edit: Oh, fiddlesticks. I guess the site's down. Too bad, because not only is it dead on IMO, it's funny as hell.

[ClockStomper]

I hate censoring for it's own sake. Sex and the City on TBS? They could have just slapped a TV-MA on it and aired it uncut. VH1? They censor Chef's "Choclate Salty Balls" in "I love the 90s" yet aired the whole thing uncut three months earlier in a "Funniest Musical Moments Ever" special.

[cross blues]

I don't think anything should be censored. ...As far as protecting children, let me just sum it up this way: I. Don't. Care. It's not up to entertainment (or the government for that matter) to keep them out of harms way. It's the responsibility of the parent. people should be able to choose what they see. it should not be chosen for them. what's all this freedom of speech about? I have never seen or heard a Howard Stern show without something being cut out. And the main reason: someone finds it offensive. they always have the choice of not listening. I, on the other hand, do not have the CHOICE to listen to it unedited. make any sense? violence and sex both happen in the real world... so what's the point of trying to hide them? The incident at the Super Bowl (with JJ) is the stupidest thing ever. She was fined and in all sorts of trouble for showing as much of her breast as is visible when a woman wears a bathing suit. what kind of prude would find that offensive?

not only is it not the role of the government to censor tv/radio, it's not their right either.

[SirLemming]

violence and sex both happen in the real world... so what's the point of trying to hide them?So are you going to take your (current or eventual) children to a bad neighborhood and show them people getting their heads blown off? Are you going to invite them into your bedroom when you're having sex?

I'm not making an argument for censorship, exactly, but you have to understand where people are coming from when they say they want to protect children. There are some things that parents just don't want kids to see because they can't handle it. There's a desire out there to let kids retain their innocence, which is gradually being taken away from them by an increasingly terrible world. This is why people want censorship, and you can't say there's NO reasoning behind it.



On the topic of "freedom of speech"... I've heard that Linda Rondstadt made anti-Bush comments at some recent Las Vegas show and was booed offstage. So now Michael Moore wrote a letter to the owners of the place demanding that they apologize to her and let her come back, and said he'll show Fahrenheit 9/11 for free to anyone in Las Vegas.
Is this guy becoming a parody of himself or what? I hope the owners turn him down cold and hard. Linda Rondstadt exercised her freedom of speech against Bush, and the audience exercised THEIR freedom of speech by booing the crap outta her. Everybody wins.

The moral of the story is, if you're gonna have freedom of speech, then don't go whining when someone opposed to you has their freedom of speech.

[Eddie G.]

Pleople need to use the V-chip, it is a great invention. I think they need to use the V-chip and then calm down about content in shows... forever.... end of story.

[Funkatron]

When it comes to the whole "freedom of speech" thing, I put it this way: My Freedom ends where the next guy's Rights begin and vice versa

[Enrique]

...I've heard that Linda Rondstadt made anti-Bush comments at some recent Las Vegas show and was booed offstage....
That's not quite right. The reports I've read say that at the concert, Ronstadt told people to watch 9/11. Yes, she did get a few boos (but also cheers), but it wasn't the crowd that booted her, it was hotel management, who not only booted her from the concert, she was thrown out of the hotel completely. Moore's demand that Ronstadt get an apology was directed at the hotel owner.

That said... we've tackled this issue over and over and it turns out the same way... no one can agree on anything. I believe there should be censorship on certain fronts, such as senseless violence, nudity, and language (keyword being senseless). However, ONLY in the free markets, such as broadcast TV/radio. If you're paying to watch a movie, you should know what you're buying. If you don't like it, you voice your opinion by not buying it again, at which point you must shut up and stop complaining.

[ClockStomper]

I think all the complaints by parents to the FCC for censorship are more than a little ridiculous. Your children will never see objectionable content if you put them to bed at a decent hour and have them watch only appropriate material. None of the FCC's actions since nipple-gate have been nessesary. There's nothing wrong with the way TV is set up today...if your kids see something inapropriate on TV, it's your fault. When I was growing up, we didn't watch anything outside of Nikelodeon and Disney Channel unless our parents had checked it out first. It's not rocket science, people.