»Censorship - Control or Protection«

Is censorship a form of control or a way to protect people from what (those doing the censoring beleive) they can't handle?

Simple enough question just wondered what people thought.

I'd be particularly interested to hear the opinions of the Mods on this one

I would definately say that censorship was a form of control...

I do believe that there should be censorship.

Many people would be unable to handle the truth.

I see,

In fairness I already knew what you're answer would be, you told me earlier today (or should that be earlier yesterday).

Censorship is one of those things that can be good and bad. there is certain things that should be censored. especially for children that are young and copy everything that they see. i think in the long term censorship is better for the masses. i agree with what smith said. they couldnt handle the truth. When it comes to people who are moronic about censorship, you know the type. the overly "dont censor me" types. they anoy me very much. i wish they would relaise that the stuff they dont want censored uis kinda wrong for children to see. you know what im saying!

Well the kids are gonna find out eventually. They can't live their whole live's oblivious and naive to some things.
A show put on at 12 am shouldn't be censored, but if it's a show like Jerry Springer that's on all day.... don't you think the content in that would be alot worse to a childs mind than swearing or violence?

so you think i should let a 2 year old watch anything and it wont hurt them? i think if there at a certain age you shouldnt hold them back but its the ages between being born and age 12 that they are the most um whats the word im looking for....curruptable? yah i think. but if i let a 2 year old watch a vilonet movie where blood and gore is everywhere i think it will seriously warp a kids mind, so they think that stuff is ok. when in reality its not. you gotta think more outside the box on this one.

Who the hell would let their two year old watch a violent movie (e.g. Natural Born Killers kind of violence) ? That's the age where you teach them the world is a happy, friendly place.

Censorship is something that should be practiced by the parent or the viewer only. Yes, children probably shouldn't watch violent films. But don't ban the film because it's not designed for a small % of the population. It IS and ALWAYS will be the parents responsibility to not permit the child to watch it. I know, I know... Some of are gonna say this... So let me chop your conservative, quaker-esqe arguement down before you even formulate it. "Some parents don't care." Well, that's why until a child or individual(in the US atleast) reaches 21, the parents are responsible for their actions and held accountable for them. They kill a bunch of people and then themselves. The parents do the time in jail. I'm all for that, it beats the alternative... Can you imagine if we weren't allowed to watch the Matrix because some mentally unstable person thought that they could jump 50 feet from rooftop-to-rooftop. Quite simply, why punish or deny the whole for the actions or sake of a few?

hmmm good question.

(this is the post I was typing when the board went down so might seem a little late)

Agent Zero wrote:

...you know the type. the overly "dont censor me" types. they anoy me very much. i wish they would relaise that the stuff they dont want censored uis kinda wrong for children to see.

I don't agree with censorship - so I guess I'm one of those types eh?

But your argument is irrelevant in some ways and straying from the point.

We have age classification systems to deal with the problems of corrupting or disturbing minors. Content is removed from films to allow them to meet a particular age range but this is the choice of the film producer.

I'd like to leave this kind of censorship out and look more at why some people have (after seeing it themselves) the right to decide that we can't handle something.

What are they genetically engineered to be able to handle anything?

I just find it a little odd in a society that preaches "free speech".

And short of "Morality enforcement" I can't see any other justification for restricting what is seen by Adults.

TheChosenOne wrote:

Censorship is something that should be practiced by the parent or the viewer only... ...Quite simply, why punish or deny the whole for the actions or sake of a few?

.
That's it in a nutshell.

If (as we are told) so many of our essential public services are able to "self-regulate" then why can't we?

I also don't see why recording or visual artists get angry when their materials are censored. I think that when an artist makes their work public, they are in a sense giving a part of it up. They are allowing their precious talents to be at the mercy of public opinion.

Censorship is oppressive. 5 year olds are not going to go on killing sprees if they find out that sex exists.

i'd say it's "a little from column A and a little from column B"

what i find really hilarious here in the UK is that at the age of 16 we're allowed to legally HAVE sex, but we can't legally WATCH it on video for another 2 years.