PDA

View Full Version : censorship.....your views



luciferchrist
04-07-2004, 07:29 AM
so what's everyone opinion?

Personally I would like to see the end to censorship, I am not offended easily. :D

AnabolicBMX
04-07-2004, 07:53 AM
what's the point of censorship? controlling what one says doesn't change the way one feels. everyone is entitled to their own opinion or way of life and if someone else doesn't like it, too bad.

luciferchrist
04-07-2004, 07:57 AM
Originally posted by AnabolicBMX
what's the point of censorship? controlling what one says doesn't change the way one feels. everyone is entitled to their own opinion or way of life and if someone else doesn't like it, too bad.


blasphemy :D

don't you know? If we don't think like our politicians and religious groups we are evil. People should be told what to think and say, so they can be saved .
:rolleyes:

CerealKiller
04-07-2004, 08:36 AM
Censorship is a complicated mix.

I do not in any way support political censorship.
I do support "other" censorship.

BuckWyld
04-07-2004, 08:58 AM
what do you mean by other censorship? as far as I can tell all censorship is political, it is the people with political power deciding what they think is not good for others to see, hear, or read. IMO censorship is ALWAYS wrong.

CerealKiller
04-07-2004, 09:03 AM
Originally posted by BuckWyld
what do you mean by other censorship? as far as I can tell all censorship is political, it is the people with political power deciding what they think is not good for others to see, hear, or read. IMO censorship is ALWAYS wrong.

Sorry. I should have clarified that more.

I would favor any censorship that would protect children and the mentally incapable from being victimized by predator types like child abusers,****philes,and ripoff artists.

BuckWyld
04-07-2004, 09:07 AM
I am still not quite understanding what sort of thing you have in mind. Child abuse, molestation and that sort of thing are already against the law where does censorship come in to the picture? could you give an example of somehting you think is acceptable to censor?

CerealKiller
04-07-2004, 09:10 AM
Originally posted by BuckWyld
I am still not quite understanding what sort of thing you have in mind. Child abuse, molestation and that sort of thing are already against the law where does censorship come in to the picture? could you give an example of somehting you think is acceptable to censor?

The NAMBLA website comes to mind.

They are hiding behind the first amendment in the name of ****philia.

BuckWyld
04-07-2004, 09:22 AM
Originally posted by CerealKiller
The NAMBLA website comes to mind.

They are hiding behind the first amendment in the name of ****philia.

I understand now, but I still dissagree, you child molestation is already a crime, I don't see how stopping people from talking about it is going to help. also where do you draw the line, I would assume that you would be ok with a medical website discussing ****philes? how about someone a parody website of some sort? how about a website with stories by/about people who were victims? I think, if you dont like it, turn off the tv/radio don't visit the website etc. I dont trust anyone else to decide what i can hear or say.

BTW what do you think of the steroid forum here? steroids can harm children, but does discussing them on the internet?

luciferchrist
04-07-2004, 09:23 AM
Originally posted by CerealKiller
The NAMBLA website comes to mind.

They are hiding behind the first amendment in the name of ****philia.

yes, I agree with this. Similarily, it would be morally wrong to allow a teacher to call their first grade class they are worthless pices of ****. IMO, as long as you don't intefere with the personal freedom of others, you should be able to do as you please.

The problem with this philosophy, is where do we draw the line? If tits are shown on TV, there are plenty of people who would claim it is intefering with their personal freedom due to their belief system

amrbassiouny
04-07-2004, 09:24 AM
everything in moderacy. not too much freedom of speech...i disagree with papparazi type of things. gossip should not be allowed.

luciferchrist
04-07-2004, 09:27 AM
Originally posted by BuckWyld

BTW what do you think of the steroid forum here? steroids can harm children, but does discussing them on the internet?

I dont see how people would have moral issues in the context steriods are discussed here. Their are clear rules posted saying no one endorses the use of steriods to minors, nor anyone in general. These goes hand-in-hand with personal beliefs and universal human rights. If you are not interfering with the personal freedom of others, you should be able to express yourself as you please. If parents do not want their children participating in these things, they have the freedom to control what their children think, say, do, feel (despite how much I oppose this personally).

luciferchrist
04-07-2004, 09:28 AM
Originally posted by amrbassiouny
everything in moderacy. not too much freedom of speech...i disagree with papparazi type of things. gossip should not be allowed.

what do you mean? like the national enquirer spreading rumours about people?

BuckWyld
04-07-2004, 09:34 AM
Originally posted by luciferchrist
yes, I agree with this. Similarily, it would be morally wrong to allow a teacher to call their first grade class they are worthless pices of ****.

A first grade teacher is allowed to call their class anything they want, they will just probably lose their job, but there is no law against it.


Originally posted by luciferchrist

heir are clear rules posted saying no one endorses the use of steriods to minors, nor anyone in general. These goes hand-in-hand with personal beliefs and universal human rights. If you are not interfering with the personal freedom of others, you should be able to express yourself as you please.


this is contrary to your beliefs about NAMBLA, i have never seen their site, but I am willing to be that they have some sort of disclaimer about things being said on the board are fictional etc. the people on the NAMBLA website, no matter how distasteful the things that they are saying are, should be allowed to say it otherwise it is interfering with their personal freedoms. on the other hand if any of them act on their sickness, they should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

bgzee
04-07-2004, 09:43 AM
Originally posted by BuckWyld


this is contrary to your beliefs about NAMBLA, i have never seen their site, but I am willing to be that they have some sort of disclaimer about things being said on the board are fictional etc. the people on the NAMBLA website, no matter how distasteful the things that they are saying are, should be allowed to say it otherwise it is interfering with their personal freedoms. on the other hand if any of them act on their sickness, they should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

I've seen the NAMBLA site, and here is my take on things.

From what I understand, you can be prosecuted for writing about certain things, like assassinating the president.

I believe there have also been cases where students have been prosecuted for writing about shooting other students at their school.

The NAMBLA situation sits on a very fine line between freedom of speech and either of the situations listed above.

CerealKiller
04-07-2004, 09:45 AM
Originally posted by BuckWyld
I understand now, but I still dissagree, you child molestation is already a crime, I don't see how stopping people from talking about it is going to help. also where do you draw the line, I would assume that you would be ok with a medical website discussing ****philes? how about someone a parody website of some sort? how about a website with stories by/about people who were victims? I think, if you dont like it, turn off the tv/radio don't visit the website etc. I dont trust anyone else to decide what i can hear or say.

BTW what do you think of the steroid forum here? steroids can harm children, but does discussing them on the internet?

I don't disagree with many of your points. I think it's a complicated issue where freedom of speech ends and the advocation of criminal activity begins. Where I or anyone draws that line comes down to a judgement call.

I'll clarify my point this way: Anyone should be able to look at or read anything they want as long as it doesn't harm,victimize, or advocate harm to another person particularly children and the mentally incapable.

On the issue of steroids ... they are illegal by law without perscription so I'm surprised websites freely pander to their usage.

Personally I feel it's another stupid law aimed at protecting people from themselves and I think adults should be able to make that decision without any reprisal from the government or law enforcement.

BuckWyld
04-07-2004, 09:52 AM
Originally posted by bgzee

From what I understand, you can be prosecuted for writing about certain things, like assassinating the president.

I believe there have also been cases where students have been prosecuted for writing about shooting other students at their school.



I don't see how either of these should be illegal either. Doesnt Tom Clancy or some other author have a book where the president is killed? Does that make them a criminal? And IIRC all the kids who were prosicuted for writing stories were basically rail roaded based on fear after columbine, that is not right eitherI think that you should be allowed to write what ever you want.


Originally posted by CerealKiller

Anyone should be able to look at or read anything they want as long as it doesn't harm,victimize, or advocate harm to another person particularly children and the mentally incapable.



what about a novel like "Silence of the Lambs" or a war movie, or a cowboy movie. All of these arguably advocate violence, but that does not mean that they should be taken off shelves.

luciferchrist
04-07-2004, 10:00 AM
Originally posted by BuckWyld
A first grade teacher is allowed to call their class anything they want, they will just probably lose their job, but there is no law against it.



this is contrary to your beliefs about NAMBLA, i have never seen their site, but I am willing to be that they have some sort of disclaimer about things being said on the board are fictional etc. the people on the NAMBLA website, no matter how distasteful the things that they are saying are, should be allowed to say it otherwise it is interfering with their personal freedoms. on the other hand if any of them act on their sickness, they should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.


yes, a first grade teacher can do what ever they want, but they will lose their job if they call their class such things. That is pretty obvious, but I am saying they would loose their job if they did call the kids a bunch of names, based on the principle that parents should are the ones who raise their kids, if they don't want other people to influence their kids negatively, they should have the right.

Again, this is a subject where it is hard to draw a line, because almost anything negative you say will surely harm someone.

I have never been to the NAMBLA website, but from what I believe..

1. It is illegal to molest children, the long term reprucusions can be severe for the children involved.

2. For a person to have a sexual relationship with a child they would be infringing the parents right to raise their kids as they please. I have yet to meet a single person who wants their child molested.

3. If they are providing information and a haven for ****philes to thrive, they are providing a place for harm to be done. period.

steriod and drug use is justifiable because you are putting these things in your own body. Website that grow weed can be justifiable under the premise that you are growing weed for personal use. Pornography on TV between two consenting adults is justifiable on the premise that if you don't like it....change the channel to something else. These things might be illegal, but ehy only "hurt" the people that partake in these activities directly.
Child molestion is not justifiable under any circumstance. If so, please tell me why....

luciferchrist
04-07-2004, 10:05 AM
Originally posted by BuckWyld
I don't see how either of these should be illegal either. Doesnt Tom Clancy or some other author have a book where the president is killed? Does that make them a criminal? And IIRC all the kids who were prosicuted for writing stories were basically rail roaded based on fear after columbine, that is not right eitherI think that you should be allowed to write what ever you want.




what about a novel like "Silence of the Lambs" or a war movie, or a cowboy movie. All of these arguably advocate violence, but that does not mean that they should be taken off shelves.

these are fictional depictions of events. If someone writes a book about a fictional relationship with a 7 year old, fine. Suffer the consequences of this action from society. A website like NAMBLA suggests an act that is not only illegal, but morally wrong in everyones minds except the few individuals whom partake in it. ****philia hurts everyone involved, from not only the child, but the childs family, and even the person whom commited the act, as they face social and legal repruccusion. I cannot think of a single reason for ****philia to exist at all, exept to harm people.

CerealKiller
04-07-2004, 10:47 AM
Originally posted by BuckWyld
I don't see how either of these should be illegal either. Doesnt Tom Clancy or some other author have a book where the president is killed? Does that make them a criminal? And IIRC all the kids who were prosicuted for writing stories were basically rail roaded based on fear after columbine, that is not right eitherI think that you should be allowed to write what ever you want.




what about a novel like "Silence of the Lambs" or a war movie, or a cowboy movie. All of these arguably advocate violence, but that does not mean that they should be taken off shelves.

I see your point. These should not be censored. This is where good parenting comes into play. Unfortunately not all kids have that.

BuckWyld
04-07-2004, 10:47 AM
Originally posted by luciferchrist

Child molestion is not justifiable under any circumstance. If so, please tell me why....

Child molestation does not come in to the picture, because disscussion is not the same as action. The founding fathers clearly stated in the bill of rights that we as americans should have the freedom of speach, and that does not mean the freedom of speach that the majority agrees with, it does not mean freedom of speach execpt for a couple of things, It means freedom of speach for everybody and every topic.

CerealKiller
04-07-2004, 10:49 AM
Originally posted by luciferchrist

3. If they are providing information and a haven for ****philes to thrive, they are providing a place for harm to be done. period.


Child molestion is not justifiable under any circumstance.


BUMP

BuckWyld
04-07-2004, 10:56 AM
I could see the argument, for conspiracy to commit statitory rape or something, assuming there were posts like

where : Washington elementary school, boys locker room
when : 12:15
dress code : cowboy hats and assless chaps


but if they are not activly plotting a crime i do not see how their writing can be seen as harming anyone.

bts327
04-07-2004, 11:13 AM
No censorship of any kind. Who are we trying to protect, the children? Proper education is what children need, not sheltering.

LordNeon
04-07-2004, 11:42 AM
Originally posted by CerealKiller
The NAMBLA website comes to mind.

They are hiding behind the first amendment in the name of ****philia.

I don't see how that's the case. What they preach may be disgusting, but they are permitted to TALK about it. They just aren't permitted to play with little kids.

Freedom is speech is meaningless if you only allow "acceptable" ideas to be discussed.

CerealKiller
04-07-2004, 12:16 PM
Originally posted by LordNeon
I don't see how that's the case. What they preach may be disgusting, but they are permitted to TALK about it. They just aren't permitted to play with little kids.

Freedom is speech is meaningless if you only allow "acceptable" ideas to be discussed.

I know you're right. You can't stop them until they commit the crime or you violate their rights.

I just feel something needs to be done against them before it gets to that point. If I'm not mistaken I believe they have been censored to some degree because I think it's illegal in the US to access their website.

BuckWyld
04-07-2004, 12:19 PM
Originally posted by CerealKiller
If I'm not mistaken I believe they have been censored to some degree because I think it's illegal in the US to access their website.

when NAMBLA came up in a previous thread a link was posted and I think people in side the US were able to get to teh site, i did not try, so I am not sure. But I don't see how they could stop people. I think they would need a warrent to watch what web pages you were going to, and I dunno what they would charge you with, or if they could even prove that you were the only one able to access that page through that computer and IP address.

CerealKiller
04-07-2004, 12:26 PM
Originally posted by BuckWyld
when NAMBLA came up in a previous thread a link was posted and I think people in side the US were able to get to teh site, i did not try, so I am not sure. But I don't see how they could stop people. I think they would need a warrent to watch what web pages you were going to, and I dunno what they would charge you with, or if they could even prove that you were the only one able to access that page through that computer and IP address.

I don't know. I was trying to do a google search on NAMBLA and the first amendment and I continually got knocked off the system.
I remember reading somewhere you couldn't link to them in the US.

Bakira
04-07-2004, 12:41 PM
Originally posted by CerealKiller
I just feel something needs to be done against them before it gets to that point. If I'm not mistaken I believe they have been censored to some degree because I think it's illegal in the US to access their website.

Don't see why it should be illegal to visit their website. I just may visit it to see the messed up ideas they are stating on it. Does that mean I should go to jail for doing so?

BigKazWSM747
04-07-2004, 02:12 PM
absolutely not. Read the quote by Chomsky in my sig.

irpker
04-07-2004, 02:22 PM
I feel it's a problem when censorship is used to enforce morals, like no titties on tv, rather then safety, like the man who shouted fire in the theater when there was none.

JonZ
04-08-2004, 01:37 PM
The other day I saw clips for a TV show,. During the commercials I saw a bunch of peopel hit by cars, sliding off motorsycles, attacked by animals, etc

How is that less offensive than Janets boob?

Its the same old story - sex is bad, violence is ok.

Im a adult, and Im tired of everyone else trying to decide for me what I can or cant say/watch/listen to/do/think without being harassed about it.

I really sick of it.

Jcfreak_02
04-11-2004, 02:31 AM
For me a sticky situation. I think people should not have the government to tell them what they can say and cannot do, but at the same time I do not support what people have done with the freedom of expression. I support good taste, problems are that might taste differs from your taste... thus the sticky situation.

luciferchrist
04-11-2004, 08:47 AM
Originally posted by Jcfreak_02
For me a sticky situation. I think people should not have the government to tell them what they can say and cannot do, but at the same time I do not support what people have done with the freedom of expression. I support good taste, problems are that might taste differs from your taste... thus the sticky situation.

I had a similiar situation yesterday.

For me it's a problem when people can't acknowledge that there is another side to every story. This is the problem with censorship; what might offend you, might provide joy to me, and vice versa.

Last night my girlfriend and her friend were up here and one of them asked the other one what they thought of gay marriage. Her response was, "The bible says it is wrong, so I believe it should be illegal. It is unnatural." Needless to say, this almost sent me over the deep end.

I asked them, "lets switch it up real quick, so lets say that Christianity is banned and it is illegal to go to church for now on. How would you feel? Would you like it if a group of people who did not represent you told you how you had to live your life?"

They responded with, "Christianity will never be illegal, it was the first religion and it is the truth."

(obviously it was not the first religion)

They could not even fathom a world that was not conducive to their own personal beliefs system. It was also obvious they (like most Christians I have come in contact with) did not believe in the seperation of church and state.

Moral of the story:
Most people aren't even aware that issues they stand on offer another side that have contradictory or opposing evidence against their own side. (see Slife & Yanchar, 2000). Regardless of personal taste, or beliefs, to impose your beliefs on other is straight up ignorance. Even if it is the Christian belief to not allow things like gay marriage to be illegal, it is none of your business what other people do as long as they aren't hurting you. IMO nobody has the right to tell another man who they can ****, what they can put in their body, and how they can live their life- as long as they aren't putting someone elses freedom in danger.

Moral of the story:

Heavily Armed
04-11-2004, 09:52 AM
Originally posted by CerealKiller
Censorship is a complicated mix.

I do not in any way support political censorship.
I do support "other" censorship.

Bump.