[Studies That Show Childhood] Censorship Better for Society?

Post Reply New Topic

I don't believe in censorship. I think people should be able to use their own discretion as to what is offensive or not.

I think nowadays people are censoring things too much, but I don't think a censorship-free society would be good, either. If I had a 4 year-old child, I wouldn't want him/her to watch hardcore porn or decapitation, but I also think Janet Jackson shouldn't have been sooo bashed for showing a boob either.

I would like my children (when I have them) to be able to protect themselves from violence, sexual abuse and insulting - by giving them the right information and allowing them to see that there are good and bad things in this world, but not exposing them to EVERYTHING right away. Children with access to violence and stuff without proper supervision can end up doing things like killing people or end up in drugs (yes, that's happened).

I'm also a very impressionable person, and I appreciatte the ratings and warnings, so I know beforehand if I want to see something or not.

I didn't have a problem with my family, they actually encouraged me to defend myself. I think it's all about knowing how to handle information.

Children that are going to commit unspeakable violent acts are probably already in need of psychiatric help with or without certain "materials" aiding them...

But don't you think the reason that certain images might have a large emotional/psychological effect on a child might be because they were censored from that stuff when they were younger?

Moderation is the answer to everything. Censorship is the answer to nothing.

I guess I'm the only Non-Free thinker amongst you folks. I believe censorship has its necessity. Obviously censoring a parody, or insensitive material would be ridiculous, but things that can cause a people to riot against others, extremely offensive works, and indecent images to children, should be quickly censored.

I'd ban many of the things that are popular today (music/tv shows/movies) as it contains a crapload of garbage. No explanation.

lulz, look into China, guy. They censor the crap out of everything.

Here's the problem: who determines what is capable of starting riots, extremely offensive, or indecent? If you say it's ok to censor based on those lines, someone will find a way to use them to silence people for no reason other than they disagree with what's being said.

Penn and Teller were right when they said there's no reason to censor when people can just turn the channel or stop reading.



I rest my case.

Who determines? Well, there are such things as charged words and certain things that are too damn obvious to not even doubt it will cause a disturbance.

Insulting religion: Check

Pornography shown to, or containing, children: Check

Call to arms against a people or government: Check

These things will bring about a certain reaction from the people. You'd be stupid not to believe it. I laugh at people who claim the US government is too oppressive and censoring, like we are living in Cuba.



About the second part, well, I guess I can see the benefit in censorship. Frankly, I don't need a couple of comedians to help my point of view. It's the same for people that quote George Carlin. I couldn't care less what they think as they are comedians. Am I going to quote Plato to help my argument of finding what tastes better?


Flawless Victory!

My mom almost never curses. I think I heard her let out a reluctant and regretted "sh**" once or twice when she stubbed her toe, and she ended up apologizing forever about it. My mom would turn anything on TV with cursing in it. We walked out of a PG-13 movie once. We'd leave stores/move seats in a restaurant if someone was speaking about "obscene" things. I wasn't allowed to associate with people who used that kind of language, but that wasn't hard because I was only allowed to spend quality time with people of our church.

Anyway, what I wanted to mention is this: from the age of about 13 (when I got into middle school) I had to train myself to not get this huge knot in my stomach every time I heard cursing. It actually affected me physically. Absolutely everyone swore, and I had next to no way of controlling that sick feeling for quite a while. I had all these really negative responses and feelings inside me all because of words. Just words. I don't wish that my mother would have went the opposite direction, swearing up a storm and letting me watch porn. I just wish I hadn't been raised as if I was going to stay in her perfect little world forever.

Just asking, but, what is this "certain reaction" from people and why is a "disturbance" call for censoring? Just trying to get a clearer picture of what you're saying exactly.

I just don't see how picking a few key things to censor is going to change anything, because we have a huge variety of people watching television and listening to the radio, and anyone can be offended by anything. All things will cause a disturbance for someone, somewhere. So where is the line drawn? Are we only going to censor things that are offensive to specific people or what? What about the people who are offended by censorship? I mean, seriously offended. You don't think censorship causes outrage and riots?

I'd much rather hear another bad Jehovah's Witness joke (my mom is one) on Family Guy, than to be made to feel like I'm not mature enough to handle it, that big brother has to protect me from it. Screw that.

So people should be censored because their words will "cause a disturbance"? There goes my freedom of speech. No matter what you say, someone out there will be offended by it.

Censorship is based on the delusion that we have a "right" to not be offended, we do not have that right.



I am part of a student organization that routinely does what many would consider just that, such as giving people porn magazines in exchange for religious scripture. Recently I posted a sign on our board saying that people who believe in Jesus would be considered clinically insane if Jesus wasn't part of an accepted religion. Most of what we do is to provoke people to think about the faith they were taught and whether or not it's really what they've been told it is.

If you and people like you had your way, we would be silenced because the controversial things we do to challenge religion offend people, think about that.



Child pornography is a crime because it actually hurts children, there is no debate about that. As for showing porn to children, they really wouldn't know what it was until they hit puberty. Children go through a time of sexual latency up until that time, until their bodies send out the hormones for sex they don't give a damn about sex.



Even if there was a just cause for such a call?



No one forces us to watch a certain TV channel, read a certain newpaper, or access a certain webpage. If you don't like it, DON'T READ IT. The government has no business telling people not to say things because people might be offended.

I cited work done by A. S. Neill. Someone else cited another study. Our opinions are well and good but maybe more appropriate for PPR. Is anyone else aware of studies that show that exposing children to these things does any harm or no harm?

Maybe the thread title should be a little more specific. I think I'll fix that.

Last edited by MrMark on 15 Feb 2008, 8:22 am, edited 1 time in total.

I find violence in media more offensive than sexual material. That, and violent sexual material I also find offensive.

I dont see anything wrong with children seeing what the human body looks like, but I wouldnt want my child if I had one to be sexualised at a young age.. this can happen not only through media influence but also through peers.. I kind of think it is nice for childhood to retain a bit of innocence. But maybe I am old fashioned.

I think a lot of the graphic violence seen in popular culture is something that indicates that society has a fascination with people being hurt, which raises questions.

I think moderation is the key to this kind of thing. Some exposure to the way life is but not too much for the child.

Last edited by zen_mistress on 15 Feb 2008, 8:23 am, edited 2 times in total.

Amen, brother.

IMO most censorship based out of a desire to "protect the children" is nothing but a taboo with no objective merit, it is based on the nonsensical notion of "childhood innocence."

That idea seems to be supported by Neill's work.