Censorship, how much is too much?

[killbot1000]

Hi, I thought this would be an interesting topic, let me explain the ground rules

 

No censorship means exactly that, none, the market will decide censoring

 

Very light regulation means that there would be less restrictions on censorship than there is right now, radio and TV would be allowed to SAY whatever they wanted, and do whatever they wanted (nudity), the only things that would be restricted is say "hardcore porn" or "disembowlment", etc.

 

Medium regulation is the status quo.

 

Heavy censorship would be more censored than things are now, everything on tv and radio would have to be family friendly

 

And the last one speaks for itself,

 

What do you guys all think?

 

 

Personally, I would have to go with the very light regulation, because honestly, when people swear on tv, and it bleeps it out, you KNOW what they are saying anyway, so whats the point, also, its not the governments job to raise your children through TV, tv's and digital cable boxes have the ability to promote self censoring, you can set the settings to not let your kids see what you dont want them to see. Plus, on another note, ive never felt that whats being shown on tv actually hurts kids in any way.

 

Also, if its so bad, dont buy a tv, thats all I have to say.

 

Also, I make the argument that the intense push for ratings that all these networks have would force them to make programming that is suitable for as many people as possible, showing hardcore porn on ABC would probably not get a lot of people watching, as people would be avoiding it to "shield" their families.

 

I just wanted to get some thoughts on the whole censorship thing?

[wildcat69410]

Personally, I would have to go with the very light regulation, because honestly, when people swear on tv, and it bleeps it out, you KNOW what they are saying anyway, so whats the point, also, its not the governments job to raise your children through TV, tv's and digital cable boxes have the ability to promote self censoring, you can set the settings to not let your kids see what you dont want them to see. Plus, on another note, ive never felt that whats being shown on tv actually hurts kids in any way.

 

Also, if its so bad, dont buy a tv, thats all I have to say.

 

You may have never felt, but apparently there have been studies linking teenage violence to violence on TV. Now, no, I'm not for crazy senators promoting video game censoring from GTA because of random crimes. To a certain level, censorship like that is insane. However, you can't deny that when a child sees violence, they're more likely to repeat it.

 

And is it really fair to say that if you don't like what's being shown on TV that you just don't buy one? We all have wants and needs of what type of programming is on TV, and it certainly isn't right to tell a large group of people that it's tough that the censorship they want isn't available. I'd say that the censorship offered now is right. You get censorship on the majority of curse words during R rated movies on cable, yet you still have enough channels offering uncensored programming to provide a balance for both worlds.

 

Also, I make the argument that the intense push for ratings that all these networks have would force them to make programming that is suitable for as many people as possible, showing hardcore porn on ABC would probably not get a lot of people watching, as people would be avoiding it to "shield" their families.

 

In reality, if left to the networks, they'd just put things on that give themselves the most ratings. Sure, some programming is likely to offend some viewers, but so what? We've already had it happen to the news media, who the majority of the time report stories that would provide the greatest ratings no matter the controversy. You'd end up isolating a group of viewers for no reason. That's not right.

[killbot1000]

You may have never felt, but apparently there have been studies linking teenage violence to violence on TV. Now, no, I'm not for crazy senators promoting video game censoring from GTA because of random crimes. To a certain level, censorship like that is insane. However, you can't deny that when a child sees violence, they're more likely to repeat it.

 

And is it really fair to say that if you don't like what's being shown on TV that you just don't buy one? We all have wants and needs of what type of programming is on TV, and it certainly isn't right to tell a large group of people that it's tough that the censorship they want isn't available. I'd say that the censorship offered now is right. You get censorship on the majority of curse words during R rated movies on cable, yet you still have enough channels offering uncensored programming to provide a balance for both worlds.

In reality, if left to the networks, they'd just put things on that give themselves the most ratings. Sure, some programming is likely to offend some viewers, but so what? We've already had it happen to the news media, who the majority of the time report stories that would provide the greatest ratings no matter the controversy. You'd end up isolating a group of viewers for no reason. That's not right.

 

Actually I can deny that watching violence makes somebody more likely to repeat it, the studies that have been done on this are conflicting at best, and contradictory at worst. I argue that there is no difference, heres why, how do you suppose that these studies get children as ginnea pigs? well, if youve ever taken in intro psych class, they tell you, its usually done by advertising. Now if a number is given to you on the effects of violence in the media, who do you think is going to call the number? The person who has a problem with their kid? or the person whos chuggin along just fine? I would have to go with the former.

 

 

This argument of violent things affecting childrens behavior has been used all throughout history, in the 1800s it was violent novels, but we shake that off and laugh, when the next level comes (example: virtual reality) we will say that causes violence and then laugh that we ever thought videogames and movies caused violence, its seriously just the next step. Killing somebody in a videogame is NOTHING compared to killing somebody in real life, there is just...no comparision, im sorry.

[wildcat69410]

Actually I can deny that watching violence makes somebody more likely to repeat it, the studies that have been done on this are conflicting at best, and contradictory at worst. I argue that there is no difference, heres why, how do you suppose that these studies get children as ginnea pigs? well, if youve ever taken in intro psych class, they tell you, its usually done by advertising. Now if a number is given to you on the effects of violence in the media, who do you think is going to call the number? The person who has a problem with their kid? or the person whos chuggin along just fine? I would have to go with the former.

 

 

This argument of violent things affecting childrens behavior has been used all throughout history, in the 1800s it was violent novels, but we shake that off and laugh, when the next level comes (example: virtual reality) we will say that causes violence and then laugh that we ever thought videogames and movies caused violence, its seriously just the next step. Killing somebody in a videogame is NOTHING compared to killing somebody in real life, there is just...no comparision, im sorry.

 

Really? How about this? This study clearly shows a link between TV, which has about 4-5 violent acts per hour, to violence in later life. I'm not crazy here, there are tons of studies that support this claim, very few that contradict it.

 

As for killing someone in a video game, of course it's nothing like real life. But you can't deny the fact that some sick people out there use video games to set up their own killings. Seeing someone kill another person can be proven to affect a person later in life. There have been many studies showing that a child that witnesses a violent act, or is the victim of a violent act at a young age are much more likely to commit a violent act later.

[OryHara]

NO censorship. If a person doesn't want to watch it. Turn the damn thing off. But don't tell me what I can and cannot say. Because I WILL SAY IT. And ONE way or another I WILL BE HEARD.

 

I ran into problems months pasts where TWTelecom, the upstream to my provider didn't like what I say on some of my sites about an Australian company. Tough f***ing luck TW. take your trademark treaties and blow it out our ass sideways, then stick it back in. TW backed down after I threatened to get the EFF involved.

 

After that, to {censored} them off even more, I setup a Tor server.

f*** TWTelecom. f*** 500 sons of {censored}.

[killbot1000]

Really? How about this? This study clearly shows a link between TV, which has about 4-5 violent acts per hour, to violence in later life. I'm not crazy here, there are tons of studies that support this claim, very few that contradict it.

 

As for killing someone in a video game, of course it's nothing like real life. But you can't deny the fact that some sick people out there use video games to set up their own killings. Seeing someone kill another person can be proven to affect a person later in life. There have been many studies showing that a child that witnesses a violent act, or is the victim of a violent act at a young age are much more likely to commit a violent act later.

 

 

Seriously, I really just think youre wrong here, nobody uses videogames to set up their own killings, talking like that is crazy talk (you sound like jack thompson...ugh...), there might be one or two cases of it, but it has nothing to do with videogames and more to do with the f***ed upness of the person, honestly, people dont set up their own little killings in videogames and then do it later in real life, do you realize how ridiculous this sounds?

[OryHara]

http://rvb.roosterteeth.com/archive/

[wildcat69410]

Seriously, I really just think youre wrong here, nobody uses videogames to set up their own killings, talking like that is crazy talk (you sound like jack thompson...ugh...), there might be one or two cases of it, but it has nothing to do with videogames and more to do with the f***ed upness of the person, honestly, people dont set up their own little killings in videogames and then do it later in real life, do you realize how ridiculous this sounds?

 

Okay fine, I don't like Jack Thompson either, primarily because I am an avid gamer myself. However, you left out from your response anything about my main point that there are indeed studies that prove that young children subjected to violence on TV are more likely to commited a violent act later in life. Videogames were never exactly my point, and imo really aren't a major part of censorship.

 

NO censorship. If a person doesn't want to watch it. Turn the damn thing off. But don't tell me what I can and cannot say. Because I WILL SAY IT. And ONE way or another I WILL BE HEARD.

 

Is that fair though? Not about your opinion, you have a right to be heard, but is it fair to force people to either watch uncensored {censored} that isn't suitable for some or watch nothing at all? You're sort of taking a selfish attitude at all of this. The way it currently is, a majority of it is automatically censored due to language, and in some instances content. However, the current system offers several channels that provide uncensored content. Both parties are satisfied.

 

I don't really see the problem here.

[killbot1000]

Okay fine, I don't like Jack Thompson either, primarily because I am an avid gamer myself. However, you left out from your response anything about my main point that there are indeed studies that prove that young children subjected to violence on TV are more likely to commited a violent act later in life.

 

As I already said in my first post, there are just as many studies that prove that videogames DONT cause violence, i could just pull one out of my ass if you want, but I dont think it would matter, use your brain, use logic, obviously it doesnt CAUSE people to be violent.

 

Perfect example:

 

If you do a study on people who wear hats, youll find that if somebody wears a hat, they are more likely to have skin cancer, does this mean that there is a cause and effect relationship between the hat and the skin? Of course not. Most people who wear hats, wear them to keep the sun out of their eyes, which means they are in the sun more on the average, so while the sun is actually causing the skin cancer, one can think the hats are causing skin cancer when in reality its the sun.

 

Videogames are the same way

 

Just because point A connects to Point B which connects to Point C, doesnt mean that Point A connects to point C.

 

kids who like to play violent videogames might already be violent, they might just seek it out, but if you only look at the surface, its easy to THINK that theres a cause and effect relationship when in reality, there probably isnt.

[wildcat69410]

As I already said in my first post, there are just as many studies that prove that videogames DONT cause violence, i could just pull one out of my ass if you want, but I dont think it would matter, use your brain, use logic, obviously it doesnt CAUSE people to be violent.

 

Perfect example:

 

If you do a study on people who wear hats, youll find that if somebody wears a hat, they are more likely to have skin cancer, does this mean that there is a cause and effect relationship between the hat and the skin? Of course not. Most people who wear hats, wear them to keep the sun out of their eyes, which means they are in the sun more on the average, so while the sun is actually causing the skin cancer, one can think the hats are causing skin cancer when in reality its the sun.

 

Videogames are the same way

 

Just because point A connects to Point B which connects to Point C, doesnt mean that Point A connects to point C.

 

kids who like to play violent videogames might already be violent, they might just seek it out, but if you only look at the surface, its easy to THINK that theres a cause and effect relationship when in reality, there probably isnt.

 

That's all nice, but you've still forgotten my studies on how violence on Television can cause Violence in later life. It was my understanding that the majority of this debate would be about TV and Radio Censorship, as you specifically mention those in your first post. I agree that the media for sure overplays Videogame violence and teenage violence. However, we can't deny studies that show the connection between Television violence and teenage violence.

[killbot1000]

That's all nice, but you've still forgotten my studies on how violence on Television can cause Violence in later life. It was my understanding that the majority of this debate would be about TV and Radio Censorship, as you specifically mention those in your first post. I agree that the media for sure overplays Videogame violence and teenage violence. However, we can't deny studies that show the connection between Television violence and teenage violence.

 

 

so yorue saying that watching TV can make you violent but playing games cant make you violent? Im sorry...thats just strange.

 

Personally I think the idea that TV makes you violent or videogames makes you violent are both rubbish, but if anything id think videogames would be more likely, again, I go back to my previous point, maybe kids who watch 3 hours of tv a day have something wrong with them in the first place unrelated to the tv, and there really is no cause and effect relationship, my point is still valid

[wildcat69410]

so yorue saying that watching TV can make you violent but playing games cant make you violent? Im sorry...thats just strange.

 

Personally I think the idea that TV makes you violent or videogames makes you violent are both rubbish, but if anything id think videogames would be more likely, again, I go back to my previous point, maybe kids who watch 3 hours of tv a day have something wrong with them in the first place unrelated to the tv, and there really is no cause and effect relationship, my point is still valid

 

Not really, your point is just a stubborn opinion that defies countless studies. You just completely ignored the article I brought up, pointing out the relationship between TV and Violence. You can't claim that every single kid in there had problems with them already, that's just insane.

[killbot1000]

Not really, your point is just a stubborn opinion that defies countless studies. You just completely ignored the article I brought up, pointing out the relationship between TV and Violence. You can't claim that every single kid in there had problems with them already, that's just insane.

 

not every kid has these problems though, thats my point.

 

At best, tv doesnt have any bearing on somebody being violent

 

at worst, it doesnt have enough of a bearing to matter. Honestly, its a piddly issue.

[gwprod12]

Censorship sucks. If parents dont want their children watching "violent" or "obscene" TV, they should unplug it.

 

I watch a lot of violent TV. I watch Cardassians vaporizing Romulans, Detectives finding dead bodies, Cops shooting Robbers, Cowboys shooting Indians, UFC (on Spike), etc etc etc. And as much as I've thought about shooting someone I dont like, or putting poison in their chocolates, I never have. And I never will.

 

TV doesnt create criminals. Parents create criminals.

[lord_muad_dib]

censorship in videogames is stupid, you can disallow a child to use certain apps or games if you don't wanna to. but on tv... light censorship is ok(only in day time... when child usually are watching tv), anyway it's all up on paren's shoulders, to keep an eye on 'em.

[wildcat69410]

censorship in videogames is stupid, you can disallow a child to use certain apps or games if you don't wanna to. but on tv... light censorship is ok(only in day time... when child usually are watching tv), anyway it's all up on paren's shoulders, to keep an eye on 'em.

 

To a certain extent, I agree with you. A majority of the time, it is the Parents' responsibility to take care of the child, and to make sure the child is doing nothing wrong. However, if you look at it from the other perspective, is it really 100% the Parents' fault that the child does drugs, shoots someone, etc if all this stuff is being offered to him freely? In other words, I don't think it's fair to put all of the responsibility onto the Parents. There should be some decent censorship on TV to prevent that kind of stuff.

 

I don't exactly see what's wrong with what we have now.

[killbot1000]

But thats the point, TV is just a scapegoat for our society's problems, it has nothing to do with tv, thats just an excuse, its something for all of us to point to and say "LOOK at that, THAT is the root of all our problems" when in reality it has nothing to do with our problems. Parents are 100% of everything, but i doubt that the TV has much to do with it, censoring drugs and violence on tv isnt going to make people less violent and crave drugs less. The popularity of violence on tv is a symptom of another problem in our society, but the violence on TV isnt the problem itself, am I making any sense here?

[rollcage]

But thats the point, TV is just a scapegoat for our society's problems, it has nothing to do with tv, thats just an excuse, its something for all of us to point to and say "LOOK at that, THAT is the root of all our problems" when in reality it has nothing to do with our problems. Parents are 100% of everything, but i doubt that the TV has much to do with it, censoring drugs and violence on tv isnt going to make people less violent and crave drugs less. The popularity of violence on tv is a symptom of another problem in our society, but the violence on TV isnt the problem itself, am I making any sense here?

 

Seems like everyone here is either trying to blame the parents, or violence on tv as to how a perons is going to turn out. It's really a combination of those two, along with many other factors. It has a lot to do with the society that we live in today. While parents do have a lot of control, they aren't with the kid 24/7. They still have to go to school (unless they're homeschooled, but I've never thought of that as a good option). They will interact with other people, whose actions will affect the behavior of the child. They are influenced by their teachers, friends, good experiences, and bad experiences.

 

Now for the TV/radio as it is the main subject here. When a kid watches tv, they subconsciously look at what is going on as socially acceptable behavior. We all know the kid that repeats his favorite saying of his favorite tv/movie/videogame character. If a small child continually sees violence on tv, he/she is going to become conditioned to that action and it won't seem as bad because it's happening all over tv. Now you can say, "so keep your kid from watching it.", but you can't be with the child every single second and if you just happen to be flipping through the channels and come to someone's head being blown apart, it's going to traumatize the poor kid. and as he/she sees more and more of this, they are going to learn it as socially "acceptable" behavior. I use "acceptable" in quotes because i can't think of a better word at the moment. anyway, the kid is going to realize that it is essentially wrong, but it that guy can do it and get away, why can't i?

 

so i think that the violence, drugs, sex, and language should be kept for when kids probably aren't going to be watching tv or listening to radio. and even i don't want to watch something too graphic, how about a good storyline instead? i don't need to watch people do it on my tv screen every 30 seconds (that's what the internet is for, right?).

[wildcat69410]

Seems like everyone here is either trying to blame the parents, or violence on tv as to how a perons is going to turn out. It's really a combination of those two, along with many other factors. It has a lot to do with the society that we live in today. While parents do have a lot of control, they aren't with the kid 24/7. They still have to go to school (unless they're homeschooled, but I've never thought of that as a good option). They will interact with other people, whose actions will affect the behavior of the child. They are influenced by their teachers, friends, good experiences, and bad experiences.

 

Now for the TV/radio as it is the main subject here. When a kid watches tv, they subconsciously look at what is going on as socially acceptable behavior. We all know the kid that repeats his favorite saying of his favorite tv/movie/videogame character. If a small child continually sees violence on tv, he/she is going to become conditioned to that action and it won't seem as bad because it's happening all over tv. Now you can say, "so keep your kid from watching it.", but you can't be with the child every single second and if you just happen to be flipping through the channels and come to someone's head being blown apart, it's going to traumatize the poor kid. and as he/she sees more and more of this, they are going to learn it as socially "acceptable" behavior. I use "acceptable" in quotes because i can't think of a better word at the moment. anyway, the kid is going to realize that it is essentially wrong, but it that guy can do it and get away, why can't i?

 

so i think that the violence, drugs, sex, and language should be kept for when kids probably aren't going to be watching tv or listening to radio. and even i don't want to watch something too graphic, how about a good storyline instead? i don't need to watch people do it on my tv screen every 30 seconds (that's what the internet is for, right?).

 

Exactly! One main point here that a lot of people seem to skip over, is the fact that there have been several conclusive studies linking violent TV, or even TV in general to violence later in life. You can disagree with those studies, sure, but a lot of people responding seem to act as if the studies were never performed.

[gwprod12]

More science from the creationist? pass.

[wildcat69410]

More science from the creationist? pass.

 

Thank you for proving my point. At least I respond to your arguments in a sensical manner, analyzing what you say and provding alternatives. If you can't, or in this case won't look at the proof I've provided, then you are in just as much of a "scientific denial" that I am. Real smooth there...

[killbot1000]

More science from the creationist? pass.

 

I will also have to second that motion.

[wildcat69410]

I will also have to second that motion.

 

Wow... I thought at least Killbot was above making a petty comment without referring to proof. Oh, whoops, I guess not...

 

But seriously, how much science is involved in simply performing a study, and analyzing the statistical results? That's logic. Of course, I wouldn't expect either you or gwprod to understand that either...

[killbot1000]

there is science in it, but its less reliable than an experiment, theres more than one way to do science, but theres a hierchy of validity in science, studies and surveys are among the least reliable science out there, one can notice corraletions from surveys and studies, but one cannot draw conclusions from them. Thats all im saying.

 

Its not petty to say that, I dont really have a problem with you or your beliefs, but when every aspect of your life is governed by the supernatural, it makes it pretty hard to see an ordinary, natural explanation to problems. In certain instances creationists say something is science when its not even close, thats all.

[wildcat69410]

Its not petty to say that, I dont really have a problem with you or your beliefs, but when every aspect of your life is governed by the supernatural, it makes it pretty hard to see an ordinary, natural explanation to problems. In certain instances creationists say something is science when its not even close, thats all.

 

Could you please explain to me how believing that Children often emulate what they see has anything to do with my religious beliefs.

 

there is science in it, but its less reliable than an experiment, theres more than one way to do science, but theres a hierchy of validity in science, studies and surveys are among the least reliable science out there, one can notice corraletions from surveys and studies, but one cannot draw conclusions from them. Thats all im saying.

 

You can draw conclusions from studies, people do it all the time. For example, the FDA uses studies to determine (That's draw a conclusion), that a certain drug is safe for use or accomplishes the goal it claims to do. In this case, we can draw a fairly accurate conclusion that when Children witness violence, they are more likely to commit this violence themselves.