Politics Censorship

xdancer

Cadet
So, I wanted to start a topic to talk about censorship. This is kind of consolidating a lot of different topics that have been floating around the Serious Discussion board.

In a country like America that so values free speech, to what extent is censorship acceptable? in the media? in school? what about in internet forums like these?
 
So, I wanted to start a topic to talk about censorship. This is kind of consolidating a lot of different topics that have been floating around the Serious Discussion board.

In a country like America that so values free speech, to what extent is censorship acceptable? in the media? in school? what about in internet forums like these?
i think this is a very good issue to bring up. for schools (like elementary, middle, and possibly high school) there should definitely be a limit on free speech, because people that age arent really socialized and dont understand the idea that you just cant say whatever the heck you want (well, that applies to some adults too).

at college, i totally think that free speech ought to be unrestrained. well, i DO have a bias since the whole Free Speech Movement started from my university a few decades ago.

then there's the obvious paranoia about "threats". i agree that people shouldnt be allowed to yell "fire" in a theatre unless there is one. but the whole "bomb" at the airport or "i wanna kill the president" is just paranoia.

as for internet forums, like this one, the message im getting from a couple admins is "My way or the highway". if (as users) we cant abide by the forum laws, then we need to find another forum.

The rest of this post has been
censored2.gif
 
as for internet forums, like this one, the message im getting from a couple admins is "My way or the highway". if (as users) we cant abide by the forum laws, then we need to find another forum.

Which is as it should be. AA was created by Charlie. Thus, any rules he chooses to use (and has the staff members enforce) are his right. Posting on this board is not governed by freedom of speech. Rather, it is a privilege. If members choose to not follow Charlie's policies, it is his right to warn/ban/edit/otherwise punish members however he sees fit.

on these forums, your liberalness has to be just the right amount. you cant be too liberal (as i was) or too conservative (as i tried to be).

Sorry, that just amuses me. A lot. As a firm conservative, I don't even go into most threads in this section because I know my beliefs and posts will be attacked. Charlie, Kewii and 90% of the staff, meanwhile, are liberals. They're as liberal as I'm conservative! (I'm a Pastor's granddaughter who voted, proudly, for Bush. Draw your own conclusions).

Politics play no role in moderation, and to imply otherwise is a gross attack on the entire staff. And on AA, personal attacks are against Charlie's rules. You may continue with this topic, but it might be wise to leave complaints (especially specific ones) of AA's governing policies out of things for this very reason.
 
xdancer, my point illustrated in Exhibit A

Exhibit A said:
Politics play no role in moderation, and to imply otherwise is a gross attack on the entire staff. And on AA, personal attacks are against Charlie's rules. You may continue with this topic, but it might be wise to leave complaints (especially specific ones) of AA's governing policies out of things for this very reason.
 
You guys need to lighten up. Jinnie cares about AA and she's just trying to defend the staff here. There's no need to try to attack her over it.

If you persist, I will close this thread.

AA is a privately run forum. Which means we can apply our own rules. And yes, to put it simply, it is 'My way or the highway' because they are our rules.

We don't stop people from stating their opinions or arguing their point--as long as it is done in a respectful manner. Attacking Jinnie is not respectful and I wouldn't allow you to attack any other member that way.
 
i agree. it's interesting that the mod who rarely comes here, by her own words, posted so quickly to a thread on censorship.
how does the old saying go? "It's a strange world of language in which skating on thin ice can get you into hot water."

anyway...censorship...i think what they want us to talk about is something like Fahrenheit 451 or stuff like that.
 
Trust me, I know that arguing with the mods and disagreeing with their course of action does nothing. I've just come to realize that on this board I've have to try to be very measured in what I say and even careful of the smilies I use. No other way around it, I'm afraid...that's just how it is.


That being said, let's get back on topic. I do think there have to be limits to free speech. We can't have people yell out threats in public places and cause mass chaos.

There was an issue about this the other day about a women who wore an anti-Bush shirt on a plane and was asked to either change or leave. She ended up being kicked off the flight for her shirt (granted it did have a 'curse' word in it). Still, isn't it her right to wear a shirt that depicts Bush in a negative light? In all honesty I'm more offended by those shirts that a lot of guys wear that have half naked women plastered all over them (a lot of "cowboys" at my high school wore them). But they're allowed, as they should be.

I do think, that especially in your early years of schooling, free speech needs to have limits (even though that sounds like an oxymoron). Someone shouldn't be allowed to come into class and damn every child their to hell because they don't believe the same thing. On the flipside someone shouldn't be able to come in and say that all religious people are a bunch of idiots because they believe in a God. Young kids might not see the difference between fact and extremism. Older kids/young adults can see a difference. I mean if someone told me in the 5th or 6th grade that I was going to hell because I wasn't religious, it would probably have really bothered me. And now in college I actually had that happen...and it just made me laugh.

While you will always find people who take offense to anything you say, I think that as long as you aren't like truly hurting someone, especially just out of the sake of being hurtful, then it shouldn't matter what you say. Look at Bill Bennett's remarks about how to reduce crime we should abort all black babies. Is that appropriate? Of course not, and it was very offensive to many. But the argument exists that it's his right to say remarks such as that. Same with Barbara Bush. He remarks after Hurricane Katrina were appalling...but she had the right to say them.

Free speech can certainly hurt you though...like the two cases above. They were just executing their right to free speech, but there were backlashes to their comments. That's the way I look at it. If someone says something that is completely untrue or completely stupid, odds are it'll come back to hurt them.

I think I should be able to talk on the phone and be able to say something negative about the President without having to wonder in the back of my mind if my call is being monitored...though I'd hope they'd have more important things to do than monitor my call.

As far as the media goes, they are limited in their free speech. You look at something like the debates or President Bush's press conferences. All the questions had been approved ahead of time. In the debates Kerry and Bush knew what they were going to be asked for the most part. Most of Bush's press conferences are the same way. And sadly, nobody in the media stands up to ask a question that wasn't approved, because then they probably won't be invited to anymore press conferences. It seems crazy that everything has to be pre-approved and if they don't like it, they don't have to answer it and it's not even asked.

Rather long post of ramblings...hope they made some sort of sense though.
 
Trust me, I know that arguing with the mods and disagreeing with their course of action does nothing. I've just come to realize that on this board I've have to try to be very measured in what I say and even careful of the smilies I use. No other way around it, I'm afraid...that's just how it is.
That being said, let's get back on topic. I do think there have to be limits to free speech. We can't have people yell out threats in public places and cause mass chaos.

There was an issue about this the other day about a women who wore an anti-Bush shirt on a plane and was asked to either change or leave. She ended up being kicked off the flight for her shirt (granted it did have a 'curse' word in it). Still, isn't it her right to wear a shirt that depicts Bush in a negative light? In all honesty I'm more offended by those shirts that a lot of guys wear that have half naked women plastered all over them (a lot of "cowboys" at my high school wore them). But they're allowed, as they should be.

I do think, that especially in your early years of schooling, free speech needs to have limits (even though that sounds like an oxymoron). Someone shouldn't be allowed to come into class and damn every child their to hell because they don't believe the same thing. On the flipside someone shouldn't be able to come in and say that all religious people are a bunch of idiots because they believe in a God. Young kids might not see the difference between fact and extremism. Older kids/young adults can see a difference. I mean if someone told me in the 5th or 6th grade that I was going to hell because I wasn't religious, it would probably have really bothered me. And now in college I actually had that happen...and it just made me laugh.

While you will always find people who take offense to anything you say, I think that as long as you aren't like truly hurting someone, especially just out of the sake of being hurtful, then it shouldn't matter what you say. Look at Bill Bennett's remarks about how to reduce crime we should abort all black babies. Is that appropriate? Of course not, and it was very offensive to many. But the argument exists that it's his right to say remarks such as that. Same with Barbara Bush. He remarks after Hurricane Katrina were appalling...but she had the right to say them.

Free speech can certainly hurt you though...like the two cases above. They were just executing their right to free speech, but there were backlashes to their comments. That's the way I look at it. If someone says something that is completely untrue or completely stupid, odds are it'll come back to hurt them.

I think I should be able to talk on the phone and be able to say something negative about the President without having to wonder in the back of my mind if my call is being monitored...though I'd hope they'd have more important things to do than monitor my call.

As far as the media goes, they are limited in their free speech. You look at something like the debates or President Bush's press conferences. All the questions had been approved ahead of time. In the debates Kerry and Bush knew what they were going to be asked for the most part. Most of Bush's press conferences are the same way. And sadly, nobody in the media stands up to ask a question that wasn't approved, because then they probably won't be invited to anymore press conferences. It seems crazy that everything has to be pre-approved and if they don't like it, they don't have to answer it and it's not even asked.

Rather long post of ramblings...hope they made some sort of sense though.
speaking of censorship, this is crazy.
 
speaking of censorship, this is crazy.


Wow...why does it seem that everytime North Carolina is in the news it's for something absolutely ridiculous like this (and no, I'm not bashing NC or it's people...I happen to be one of them)?

That is absolutely ridiculous! The funny (or ironic) thing about it, is the fact that the project was illustrated the Bill of Rights, this kid was just exercising his freedom of speech. How utterly horrible and terrifying. I feel so sorry for him, that must've been pretty scary. You'd think the secret service would have better and more important things to do then investigate whether this student was going to kill the President...give me a break.

On a side note, this is a great argument for digital cameras ;)
 
I never stood the outrage about the Terrell Owens and Nicollette Sheridan, was it racy..a little bit, but all we saw was her back and legs! Even my 8 year-old niece was like, "I don't get, why is everyone mad, all they show are her legs and back?" That's pretty bad when a child can absurd it was.


How about Mischa Barton and her nipple slip on a recent episode? Has Fox been fined for that?


Am I the only one that thinks it's sad when the very few shows on tv that allow freedom of speech are on cable premium networks? I understand why, but there aren't any shows like Tough Crowd or the late Politically Incorrect where the debates/conversations about current events/politics were frank and funny on netowrk tv.
 
in regards to Misha's Nip/Untuck, i think that Fox ought to be fined. The OC is pretty racy as it is and we need to draw the line somewhere. if showing a little boob isnt where we draw the line, then where do we draw it? The OC promotes drug use, premarital sex, blah blah blah.
 
in regards to Misha's Nip/Untuck, i think that Fox ought to be fined. The OC is pretty racy as it is and we need to draw the line somewhere. if showing a little boob isnt where we draw the line, then where do we draw it? The OC promotes drug use, premarital sex, blah blah blah.
so? if you don't want to watch it, don't watch it and don't let your kids watch it. at least, that's my opinion.
 
in regards to Misha's Nip/Untuck, i think that Fox ought to be fined. The OC is pretty racy as it is and we need to draw the line somewhere. if showing a little boob isnt where we draw the line, then where do we draw it? The OC promotes drug use, premarital sex, blah blah blah.

Why should they be fined for something that was accidental? She popped out of her pajama top briefly. I guarantee you that 99.9% of the people watching didn't notice it. It wasn't until people enhanced the video on the internet that people found out.

so? if you don't want to watch it, don't watch it and don't let your kids watch it. at least, that's my opinions.

Exactly. If you don't like the show don't watch it. It's not meant for young children, and if any parent thinks that it's appropriate viewing for their young kids, then they're not right.

I'm sorry, but there's got to come a time where we stop blaming the networks and put more responisbility on the parents. If parents find the show to be inappropriate, then that's fine. Don't let their children watch it, if they are unable to be there, then put a block on the show. But don't take it away from the people who are mature enough to watch it.

I feel very strongly about this as a huge fan of Nip/Tuck. There is a pretty large campaign to get it taken off the air. The fact is that it is not a show for children, or a show for a lot of people. But nobody is forcing these people to watch it. If you don't like it, then don't turn it on. But don't ruin it for those of us who do enjoy it, and are mature enough to realize that it's purely fiction.
 
Another Nip/Tuck fan here to say that the Parent's Television Council and their ilk need to back off my show. If they don't like it, then they don't have to watch it. They can even cancel their cable subscription if FX offends them that much. But they can't stop me from watching what I want to watch. It's called the 1st Amendment.

Also, I find it a little ridiculous that while we're in the middle of a war, people are getting all worked up over TV. There are much more serious issues in the world.
 
Another Nip/Tuck fan here to say that the Parent's Television Council and their ilk need to back off my show. If they don't like it, then they don't have to watch it. They can even cancel their cable subscription if FX offends them that much. But they can't stop me from watching what I want to watch. It's called the 1st Amendment.

Also, I find it a little ridiculous that while we're in the middle of a war, people are getting all worked up over TV. There are much more serious issues in the world.


Exactly! I am so with you :D

As to the war thing, I have this great quote from Neil Gabler. It's about the "war" on Christmas, but I feel the same way with the "war" on tv. "We're at war, there's Darfur, there's an AIDS crisis and you're worried about whether people should say Merry Christmas? What world do you live in?"

People need to take a long hard look at their priorities. It'd be really sad if people are truly more concerned with whether or not there is programming out there that they don't approve of and if the "war" on Christmas is that important.
 
Back
Top