Censorship of Violent Content

[Brickjectivity]

But where are you trying get by merely pointing how it is ? I don't agree with every thing you have stated on this part but it is ultimately irrelevant because it has no bearing on how things should be.

How do you get from 'children have natural protectors' to 'therefore it is fine for their protectors to censorship whatever they want' ? Be mindful of appeals to nature.

How do you suggest children reach out for help if their parents can cut off any connections they want ?

Decisions should be made by those who know them personally and care about them -- not to strangers. That parents are the typical choice follows from the fact that the parents are irreplaceable and almost always supplied through nature. Exceptions should be rare.

I am not skipping it. I am just saying that it is inconsequential as far as determining how things 'should be' goes.

What actual problem is caused by children seeing naked people in a magazine ? Where is the harm ?

I would allow parents and guardians to assess that instead of ignoring them and disrespecting their responsibility. All that's needed is for grocery stores to show a tiny bit of restraint instead of stuffing skin mags into the aisles against the concerns of parents. Who cares for the children? Not the stores. The parents do. The parents are the ones to entrust with their care then.

 

[MonkeyFire]

Non-violence now. God not guns.

 

[Koldo]

Decisions should be made by those who know them personally and care about them -- not to strangers. That parents are the typical choice follows from the fact that the parents are irreplaceable and almost always supplied through nature. Exceptions should be rare.

1) Knowing a child doesn't entail that you have his best interest in mind, nor that you are able to figure out what is better for him. Therefore, this is in itself a poor parameter to use.

2) Depending on the circumstances, even a babysitter might know a child more than their parents. In that case, should the babysitter hold the utmost authority ?

I would allow parents and guardians to assess that instead of ignoring them and disrespecting their responsibility. All that's needed is for grocery stores to show a tiny bit of restraint instead of stuffing skin mags into the aisles against the concerns of parents. Who cares for the children? Not the stores. The parents do. The parents are the ones to entrust with their care then.

The problem is that parents might feel offended just because they are prudes even when there is absolutely no harm to the child. You are not able to tell me what is the harm in seeing naked people in magazines and that's because there really is no harm.

 

[Brickjectivity]

1) Knowing a child doesn't entail that you have his best interest in mind, nor that you are able to figure out what is better for him. Therefore, this is in itself a poor parameter to use.

2) Depending on the circumstances, even a babysitter might know a child more than their parents. In that case, should the babysitter hold the utmost authority ?

Admittedly knowing a child does not guarantee anything, neither superior judgment nor superior knowledge nor superior intentions. Even so the child is helpless and requires someone to take care of themselves, so someone is automatically going to be making decisions for them, automatically censoring them in many ways.

The problem is that parents might feel offended just because they are prudes even when there is absolutely no harm to the child. You are not able to tell me what is the harm in seeing naked people in magazines and that's because there really is no harm.

An ignorant person is nevertheless a person. I don't have to argue that seeing naked people is harm. Many parents think that it is. Their opinion should have mattered, but their opinion was outweighed and continues to be. The same goes for violence in video games. So what if its not harmful? It shouldn't be shoveled into the public sphere just because its not harmful. Farts are not harmful. Ugly wallpaper isn't harmful.

All over the world idiots are making children, children that will have to grow up with idiotic parents. There's little that can be done. People manufacture children through the simple action of having sex. Its an enormous power requiring very little skill or time. Teaching things to children takes time, and it takes energy and skill. That is the source of the many problems you are worried about. I don't think you have suggested anything that can repair this or make life easier for the kids.

 

[Koldo]

Admittedly knowing a child does not guarantee anything, neither superior judgment nor superior knowledge nor superior intentions. Even so the child is helpless and requires someone to take care of themselves, so someone is automatically going to be making decisions for them, automatically censoring them in many ways.

So, who should make those decisions and more importantly to what extent ?

I am not saying that parents shouldn't be making any sort of choices regarding their children because that is inevitable. I am questioning to what extent though. You also agree there should be a limit since you don't agree with parenting through beating, and that this line for obvious reasons can't be drawn by the parents themselves. So, where should this line be drawn and by whom ?

An ignorant person is nevertheless a person. I don't have to argue that seeing naked people is harm. Many parents think that it is. Their opinion should have mattered, but their opinion was outweighed and continues to be. The same goes for violence in video games. So what if its not harmful? It shouldn't be shoveled into the public sphere just because its not harmful. Farts are not harmful. Ugly wallpaper isn't harmful.

All over the world idiots are making children, children that will have to grow up with idiotic parents. There's little that can be done. People manufacture children through the simple action of having sex. Its an enormous power requiring very little skill or time. Teaching things to children takes time, and it takes energy and skill. That is the source of the many problems you are worried about. I don't think you have suggested anything that can repair this or make life easier for the kids.

Why should their opinion matter if it can't be substantiated ? Should they also be free not to vaccinate their children ? Should they also be free to feed them literally on just donuts ? Should they also be able to lock them up at home and not let them interact with anyone else ? At which point a parents opinion got to be completely disregarded ? Never ?

We can alleviate how much time, energy and skill is required to teach children by letting more people be involved in the process. It is the same principle of going to school. Just let children come into contact with multiple perspectives. This will widen their vision.

 

[Earthtank]

Personally, i think violent material and porn/nudity not only should be censored but, should not allowed to be filmed or shared with the public. What people do at in their privacy of their homes is their own business but, when they are airing it to the masses that's the problem. Nothing good ever came out of such violence, trash and filth.

 

[Milton Platt]

There are countries in which almost everything written or shown on TV is censored by government. On the other hand, there are countries that allows almost everything to be shown or posted uncensored..

It's clear to us why excessive censorship is bad. But there are so many people who don't see a problem in the complete lack of censorship. Thus, we see in abundance what the wise Louis in Family Guy calls "violence in movies and sex on TV". People killing each other with cold blood, dismembering body parts, torture, and rape are only normal scenes on movies and TV series nowadays.

However, especially after the rising number of teenage mass shootings, people have started to question the wisdom behind allowing so much violence.

Do you think the filters of censorship should be thicker, allowing for less violent content? Or do you thing it's actually better to have such freedom of movie and TV production?

I'm a bit confused by the OP. You address the problem of violence in media, but then ask about complete absence of censorship, which would leave other things uncensored as well. This would include such things as slander and libel. Are you meaning the complete absence of censorship for violence only, but forms of censorship for other things?

 

[SomeRandom]

Personally, i think violent material and porn/nudity not only should be censored but, should not allowed to be filmed or shared with the public. What people do at in their privacy of their homes is their own business but, when they are airing it to the masses that's the problem. Nothing good ever came out of such violence, trash and filth.

That pretty much renders all art toothless. Even Shakespeare was not above violence.

 

[Bird123]

There are countries in which almost everything written or shown on TV is censored by government. On the other hand, there are countries that allows almost everything to be shown or posted uncensored..

It's clear to us why excessive censorship is bad. But there are so many people who don't see a problem in the complete lack of censorship. Thus, we see in abundance what the wise Louis in Family Guy calls "violence in movies and sex on TV". People killing each other with cold blood, dismembering body parts, torture, and rape are only normal scenes on movies and TV series nowadays.

However, especially after the rising number of teenage mass shootings, people have started to question the wisdom behind allowing so much violence.

Do you think the filters of censorship should be thicker, allowing for less violent content? Or do you thing it's actually better to have such freedom of movie and TV production?

How about this: Do not shield your children from the evils of the world. Teach your children how to deal with the evils of the world instead.