The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
For some reason, I've found myself arguing with my friends about censorship recently. Seeing as I like few things better than a good and good-natured argument, I don't view this as a bad thing. Nor do I generally view it as a particularly noteworthy thing. But for some reason I've found the topic of censorship has tattooed itself onto my brain, and so it is that I'm sitting in front of a computer screen trying to put my thoughts in order about the subject. Hopefully it will provide an interesting read. I'm equally hopeful that it will help me settle on a firm opinion about censorship so that I no longer argue whichever point of view is the most likely to wind up the other person (What? Don't look at me like that; you know what I'm like...)
So then; is censorship a good thing or a bad thing? It has been with us since Roman times, where the office of Censor of Public Morals existed. It was, rather ominously for us, an office abused by successive Emperors who used the position to declare any point of view that conflicted with theirs as immoral. Unhappily, many countries use censorship in exactly the same way (Burma and Singapore spring immediately to mind, but just look at how often Blair or Dubya play the "moral high ground" card when faced with criticism.)
If, like me, you're a film, music, or literature buff, you'll almost certainly be inclined to say that it is a bad thing. The last 50 years has seen censorship of good films (A Clockwork Orange, though that was unusual in that it was Kubrick himself who ordered it's withdrawal from the UK. Numerous "video nasties" were also banned; The Evil Dead is my favourite among these.), good music (we are plagued with radio edits of songs in order to protect our delicate little ears from the trauma of hearing a swearword; why the hell we can't apply these same criteria to protect us from the anodyne earsmells that Stuttering Stanley of Pop Idol fame vomits out with alarming regularity I'll never know...), and good literature (Lady Chatterley’s Lover being the most famous casualty here).
However, you may just as easily be inclined to say that it is a good thing. I saw the Evil Dead when I was 8 and have been treated to a lifetime of nightmares about zombies ever since. Many of the video nasties that have now been freed from the thrall of the censors have turned out to be badly made and exploitative balls. I was as surprised as anybody to find myself thinking that I agreed wholeheartedly with the censors who wanted to ban Bad Lieutenant; it was the worst, most boring film I've ever seen. It consisted of a series of scenes that were designed to shock the viewer and...that's it. It's easier to find pirate treasure that it is to find the plot of this turgid lump of sensationalist rubbish. Obviously I'm being facetious when I say I wanted it banned, I merely wanted to stop watching it. Nevertheless, it is a film used by both the pro and anti censorship camps to justify why censorship should be increased or reduced. So who is right?
As we live in a relatively liberal western society (I'm talking only about Europe here; their are conflicting reports from the US that claim the current government are either the cultural equivalent of the Spanish Inquisition, or the last guardians of decency depending on your point of view.), there has been an increasingly relaxed attitude to censorship. Most people, if questioned, would probably say that censorship is not a good thing, or that censorship begins and ends in the home. To which the reply is "What about kiddie porn? If you don't believe in censorship at a government level then what is to stop this stuff being made?"
Well, sorry to rely on sophistry and nitpicking here, but I think that's rather a dishonest way to argue in favour of greater censorship. Child pornography is, first and foremost, a human rights issue. Children should not have to be forced into doing something that will be physically and psychologically damaging, and I'm pretty damn sure that I would want the government to do everything in their power to stop it's production (unless you live in Belgium, where it would appear that the government are the biggest consumers of child porn...). Again I must stress; that is not censorship, it is protecting the rights of the vulnerable.
Yet isn't that what censorship is about; protecting the vulnerable? Well, yes in theory that is exactly what it is for. But the fact is that our trust in the censors and that they will know what is best for us has been eroded considerably. I've already mentioned how Blair, and all politicians for that matter, use censorship for political reasons; the Brass Eye special concerning the media's hypocrisy in dealing with Paedophiles was condemned without having been seen because that is the sort of thing that middle england wanted to hear. But it's not just politicians that one should be wary of; it's not often that I will punch the air in delight at the news of someone's death, but that's exactly what I did when I heard that Mary Whitehouse had shuffled off this mortal coil. How DARE that self righteous cow tell me that she knows what is best for me, especially when she never used to watch most of the programs she condemned.
Michael Grade described her as "a bully in the guise of a victim", and I agree wholeheartedly with the description. Not just of her, but of pretty much every self appointed censor. Whether they argue for censorship on religious grounds (such as those peace loving Christians who hurled abuse and threats of violence at people who committed the cardinal sin of going to see "The Last Temptation of Christ"), or for moral reasons (the simpering titheads who constantly worry about the negative effects of any TV program racier than "Little House on the Prairie"), or simply for personal reasons (if there are any bigger morons in the world than the ones who signed the petition calling for the second Lord of the Rings film to change it's title from "The Two Towers" because they believed it was a clear reference to September 11th, then I have yet to be made aware of their existence), they are essentially trying to force their views on others. And if you don't accept their view, then you are the enemy and you are to be condemned for your sinfulness/immorality/insensitivity.
So what is it that I'm trying to say here? Well, I do believe that there are certain fundamental things that the government (or some public body) should concern themselves with in respect of censorship. Personally, I believe that anything that involves a lack of consent of one or more of the participants at any stage of the creation of a particular piece of work should fall under the governments censorship remit. As far as I can see, that takes care of the horror stories that certain pro-censorship advocates will have you believe we are on the slippery slope to (I have, and I swear to God this is true, heard someone say that if we were to revoke the blasphemy laws in this country then we will see an increase in things like snuff films because "sacrifice is always prevalent in a godless society"). Other than that...well, as far as I can see it's a matter of personal choice and parental control. I rather like organisations such the BBFC (who decide the ratings for films depending on suitability) because they are provide a useful guideline to parents who wish to ensure that their children don't watch anything unsuitable (such as The Evil Dead...). Yet even then, I don't think that their ratings should be anything more than guidelines, and not rules set in stone.
In short, my ideal is a world where the likes of Chris Morris can continue to produce programs such as Brass Eye and the people who dislike it will all remember how to change the channel of their television rather than writing foaming letters to their MP's demanding that the filth be stopped. If people want to be so egocentric as to believe that something that offends them must therefore offend everybody, then by all means let them carry on. Perhaps listen to them for a while, and even allow yourself a few cooings of sympathy. Then remind them that all they have to do is stop reading or watching whatever it is that is upsetting them and do something else. Failing that, you could always do what I do and start complaining bitterly to them that something that they like or enjoy is offensive to you. Trust me, there is nothing funnier than watching a tinpot 'moral guardian' being forced to argue against censorship when you complain to them about sexism in an Enid Blyton book.
So then; is censorship a good thing or a bad thing? It has been with us since Roman times, where the office of Censor of Public Morals existed. It was, rather ominously for us, an office abused by successive Emperors who used the position to declare any point of view that conflicted with theirs as immoral. Unhappily, many countries use censorship in exactly the same way (Burma and Singapore spring immediately to mind, but just look at how often Blair or Dubya play the "moral high ground" card when faced with criticism.)
If, like me, you're a film, music, or literature buff, you'll almost certainly be inclined to say that it is a bad thing. The last 50 years has seen censorship of good films (A Clockwork Orange, though that was unusual in that it was Kubrick himself who ordered it's withdrawal from the UK. Numerous "video nasties" were also banned; The Evil Dead is my favourite among these.), good music (we are plagued with radio edits of songs in order to protect our delicate little ears from the trauma of hearing a swearword; why the hell we can't apply these same criteria to protect us from the anodyne earsmells that Stuttering Stanley of Pop Idol fame vomits out with alarming regularity I'll never know...), and good literature (Lady Chatterley’s Lover being the most famous casualty here).
However, you may just as easily be inclined to say that it is a good thing. I saw the Evil Dead when I was 8 and have been treated to a lifetime of nightmares about zombies ever since. Many of the video nasties that have now been freed from the thrall of the censors have turned out to be badly made and exploitative balls. I was as surprised as anybody to find myself thinking that I agreed wholeheartedly with the censors who wanted to ban Bad Lieutenant; it was the worst, most boring film I've ever seen. It consisted of a series of scenes that were designed to shock the viewer and...that's it. It's easier to find pirate treasure that it is to find the plot of this turgid lump of sensationalist rubbish. Obviously I'm being facetious when I say I wanted it banned, I merely wanted to stop watching it. Nevertheless, it is a film used by both the pro and anti censorship camps to justify why censorship should be increased or reduced. So who is right?
As we live in a relatively liberal western society (I'm talking only about Europe here; their are conflicting reports from the US that claim the current government are either the cultural equivalent of the Spanish Inquisition, or the last guardians of decency depending on your point of view.), there has been an increasingly relaxed attitude to censorship. Most people, if questioned, would probably say that censorship is not a good thing, or that censorship begins and ends in the home. To which the reply is "What about kiddie porn? If you don't believe in censorship at a government level then what is to stop this stuff being made?"
Well, sorry to rely on sophistry and nitpicking here, but I think that's rather a dishonest way to argue in favour of greater censorship. Child pornography is, first and foremost, a human rights issue. Children should not have to be forced into doing something that will be physically and psychologically damaging, and I'm pretty damn sure that I would want the government to do everything in their power to stop it's production (unless you live in Belgium, where it would appear that the government are the biggest consumers of child porn...). Again I must stress; that is not censorship, it is protecting the rights of the vulnerable.
Yet isn't that what censorship is about; protecting the vulnerable? Well, yes in theory that is exactly what it is for. But the fact is that our trust in the censors and that they will know what is best for us has been eroded considerably. I've already mentioned how Blair, and all politicians for that matter, use censorship for political reasons; the Brass Eye special concerning the media's hypocrisy in dealing with Paedophiles was condemned without having been seen because that is the sort of thing that middle england wanted to hear. But it's not just politicians that one should be wary of; it's not often that I will punch the air in delight at the news of someone's death, but that's exactly what I did when I heard that Mary Whitehouse had shuffled off this mortal coil. How DARE that self righteous cow tell me that she knows what is best for me, especially when she never used to watch most of the programs she condemned.
Michael Grade described her as "a bully in the guise of a victim", and I agree wholeheartedly with the description. Not just of her, but of pretty much every self appointed censor. Whether they argue for censorship on religious grounds (such as those peace loving Christians who hurled abuse and threats of violence at people who committed the cardinal sin of going to see "The Last Temptation of Christ"), or for moral reasons (the simpering titheads who constantly worry about the negative effects of any TV program racier than "Little House on the Prairie"), or simply for personal reasons (if there are any bigger morons in the world than the ones who signed the petition calling for the second Lord of the Rings film to change it's title from "The Two Towers" because they believed it was a clear reference to September 11th, then I have yet to be made aware of their existence), they are essentially trying to force their views on others. And if you don't accept their view, then you are the enemy and you are to be condemned for your sinfulness/immorality/insensitivity.
So what is it that I'm trying to say here? Well, I do believe that there are certain fundamental things that the government (or some public body) should concern themselves with in respect of censorship. Personally, I believe that anything that involves a lack of consent of one or more of the participants at any stage of the creation of a particular piece of work should fall under the governments censorship remit. As far as I can see, that takes care of the horror stories that certain pro-censorship advocates will have you believe we are on the slippery slope to (I have, and I swear to God this is true, heard someone say that if we were to revoke the blasphemy laws in this country then we will see an increase in things like snuff films because "sacrifice is always prevalent in a godless society"). Other than that...well, as far as I can see it's a matter of personal choice and parental control. I rather like organisations such the BBFC (who decide the ratings for films depending on suitability) because they are provide a useful guideline to parents who wish to ensure that their children don't watch anything unsuitable (such as The Evil Dead...). Yet even then, I don't think that their ratings should be anything more than guidelines, and not rules set in stone.
In short, my ideal is a world where the likes of Chris Morris can continue to produce programs such as Brass Eye and the people who dislike it will all remember how to change the channel of their television rather than writing foaming letters to their MP's demanding that the filth be stopped. If people want to be so egocentric as to believe that something that offends them must therefore offend everybody, then by all means let them carry on. Perhaps listen to them for a while, and even allow yourself a few cooings of sympathy. Then remind them that all they have to do is stop reading or watching whatever it is that is upsetting them and do something else. Failing that, you could always do what I do and start complaining bitterly to them that something that they like or enjoy is offensive to you. Trust me, there is nothing funnier than watching a tinpot 'moral guardian' being forced to argue against censorship when you complain to them about sexism in an Enid Blyton book.
Page:
HalloHowArtThou wrote:
> Make this guy a Regular
>
>
> :-D
Another post or 2 and he will be.
> Make this guy a Regular
>
>
> :-D
Another post or 2 and he will be.
Light wrote:
> Kids use 'em cos they know that they are 'naughty' words.
> I'd propose that this wouldn't be the case if curses were accepted as
> words like any other.
>
> As you say, there will always be new words that come along and acquire
> the 'bad word' status of the our current swearing lexicon. But I still
> don't see why their use by anyone should be considered a bad thing.
>
Not sure about this to be honest. I hear small children swear using f***ing as a filler word while they search for the right word they are saying, or using f***ing every other word. However I think that this is probably more the fault of the parents, as you said. What I am saying is if swear words were comman place in media, tv and radio it makes the job far harder for the parent to instill the feeling of it being wrong. I understand that effectively you're saying "lets not make swearing wrong, and then no one will do it" (well, not quite but it's the gist) but I really can't see anyone pulling that off.
> Of course, just because one has the option to swear, that doesn't mean
> one should exercise it. And that brings me back to the crux of the
> original argument; self-censorship is far more effective than that
> imposed from without.
I think at the end of the day I agree the self-censorship is better than imposed censorship once the individual is responsible enough to know what is best for them, however censorship is necessary in order to protect those who do not fall into that category.
:)
> Kids use 'em cos they know that they are 'naughty' words.
> I'd propose that this wouldn't be the case if curses were accepted as
> words like any other.
>
> As you say, there will always be new words that come along and acquire
> the 'bad word' status of the our current swearing lexicon. But I still
> don't see why their use by anyone should be considered a bad thing.
>
Not sure about this to be honest. I hear small children swear using f***ing as a filler word while they search for the right word they are saying, or using f***ing every other word. However I think that this is probably more the fault of the parents, as you said. What I am saying is if swear words were comman place in media, tv and radio it makes the job far harder for the parent to instill the feeling of it being wrong. I understand that effectively you're saying "lets not make swearing wrong, and then no one will do it" (well, not quite but it's the gist) but I really can't see anyone pulling that off.
> Of course, just because one has the option to swear, that doesn't mean
> one should exercise it. And that brings me back to the crux of the
> original argument; self-censorship is far more effective than that
> imposed from without.
I think at the end of the day I agree the self-censorship is better than imposed censorship once the individual is responsible enough to know what is best for them, however censorship is necessary in order to protect those who do not fall into that category.
:)
There are times when a cursive works wonders.
If you're not the sort of person to continually use swearing, a well placed explosive expletive can let somebody know just how upset/angry/frustrated you are.
Or when you stub your toe, the pain can be lessened with a long, hissing, drawn out "fffuuuuuuuuuuu.....".
Men in lab coats have proved this
If you're not the sort of person to continually use swearing, a well placed explosive expletive can let somebody know just how upset/angry/frustrated you are.
Or when you stub your toe, the pain can be lessened with a long, hissing, drawn out "fffuuuuuuuuuuu.....".
Men in lab coats have proved this
Yeah, I agree; linguistic skills in general seem to have atrophied over the last 20 years or so (though I'm aware I may be harking back to a non-existant golden age). Swearing takes much of the flak, though overuse of swear words is symptomatic of the problem rather than it's major cause. Well...says me anyway.
Personally I'd like to see people lean away from swearing.
People use swear words too much, more often than not simply because it's either cool to swear around your mates, or because you simply lack any alternative way to verbally vent some frustration or other.
And everyone is guilty of it. How many times, instead of putting together a well structured rant about how something needs improving or isn't good enough insome way have we come out with something like "Oh for f***s sake, this is gay!" and left it at that.
If people could work on those communication skills a little more, perhaps there would be less to complain about.
Instead, we all get out lovely lingual delights watching action movies where the hero, and therefore model citizen finishes off the badguy after wittily giving the one liner "F*** you, d***head!"
Hmmmmmm.
People use swear words too much, more often than not simply because it's either cool to swear around your mates, or because you simply lack any alternative way to verbally vent some frustration or other.
And everyone is guilty of it. How many times, instead of putting together a well structured rant about how something needs improving or isn't good enough insome way have we come out with something like "Oh for f***s sake, this is gay!" and left it at that.
If people could work on those communication skills a little more, perhaps there would be less to complain about.
Instead, we all get out lovely lingual delights watching action movies where the hero, and therefore model citizen finishes off the badguy after wittily giving the one liner "F*** you, d***head!"
Hmmmmmm.
Y'see, I pretty much take the view that words have greater power when you keep them hidden, or somehow taboo. Like Lenny Bruce said; "If everyone said n******, then you wouldn't get some idiot making a black kid cry by calling him that name". Why should swear words be wrong? Kids use 'em cos they know that they are 'naughty' words. I'd propose that this wouldn't be the case if curses were accepted as words like any other.
As you say, there will always be new words that come along and acquire the 'bad word' status of the our current swearing lexicon. But I still don't see why their use by anyone should be considered a bad thing.
Of course, just because one has the option to swear, that doesn't mean one should exercise it. And that brings me back to the crux of the original argument; self-censorship is far more effective than that imposed from without.
As you say, there will always be new words that come along and acquire the 'bad word' status of the our current swearing lexicon. But I still don't see why their use by anyone should be considered a bad thing.
Of course, just because one has the option to swear, that doesn't mean one should exercise it. And that brings me back to the crux of the original argument; self-censorship is far more effective than that imposed from without.
Make this guy a Regular
:-D
:-D
Light wrote:
> Heh. Actually, I pretty much agree with you when it comes to
> protecting ones children, but we differ on two things. Firstly, almost
> all of what you talk about in relation to children; it's the parents'
> responsibility in my opinion. And swearing; in the words of a famous
> philosopher, "What's the big f*****g deal b!tch? It's only
> words."
>
I guess the issue of swearing depends on your out look. If you're willing to hear people f***ing every other word that's all well and good. The fact is when I was growing up it wasn't that I didn't know swear words, I was just told that using them was wrong. Some children (and come to think of it some adults) don't seem to share that opinion.
Maybe I'm being old fashioned. I'm sure that every generation becomes a little more tolerant of swearing. I even think that swearing has its place, but if you use these words all the time they no longer have any real meaning. For example, if I got angry with one of my friends, and I needed to let him know I might swear, but if I swore all the time the effect is dampened. Another great philosopher (Ben Parker) said "With great power, comes great responsibility". Okay, maybe being able to climb walls and shoot webbing from glands in your wrists is a far greater power than a few naughty words, but swear words must have some sort of power, like using the word "love" or "hate". Swearwords that are used as commanplace no longer have that power or meaning, because they trip off of the tongue so easily. As more and more extreme swearing becomes more and more acceptable maybe new words will be developed to replace the swear words of today.
What do you think of that you graturking tongroper ;)
> Heh. Actually, I pretty much agree with you when it comes to
> protecting ones children, but we differ on two things. Firstly, almost
> all of what you talk about in relation to children; it's the parents'
> responsibility in my opinion. And swearing; in the words of a famous
> philosopher, "What's the big f*****g deal b!tch? It's only
> words."
>
I guess the issue of swearing depends on your out look. If you're willing to hear people f***ing every other word that's all well and good. The fact is when I was growing up it wasn't that I didn't know swear words, I was just told that using them was wrong. Some children (and come to think of it some adults) don't seem to share that opinion.
Maybe I'm being old fashioned. I'm sure that every generation becomes a little more tolerant of swearing. I even think that swearing has its place, but if you use these words all the time they no longer have any real meaning. For example, if I got angry with one of my friends, and I needed to let him know I might swear, but if I swore all the time the effect is dampened. Another great philosopher (Ben Parker) said "With great power, comes great responsibility". Okay, maybe being able to climb walls and shoot webbing from glands in your wrists is a far greater power than a few naughty words, but swear words must have some sort of power, like using the word "love" or "hate". Swearwords that are used as commanplace no longer have that power or meaning, because they trip off of the tongue so easily. As more and more extreme swearing becomes more and more acceptable maybe new words will be developed to replace the swear words of today.
What do you think of that you graturking tongroper ;)
Heh. Actually, I pretty much agree with you when it comes to protecting ones children, but we differ on two things. Firstly, almost all of what you talk about in relation to children; it's the parents' responsibility in my opinion. And swearing; in the words of a famous philosopher, "What's the big f*****g deal b!tch? It's only words."
As to freedom of information as you suggested...to be honest, I hadn't really considered that. I don't view that as censorship as such (at least, not in the sense that I've talked about it so far). More to do with state secrets and so forth (which, technically I suppose, brings it under the remit of censorship).
As to freedom of information as you suggested...to be honest, I hadn't really considered that. I don't view that as censorship as such (at least, not in the sense that I've talked about it so far). More to do with state secrets and so forth (which, technically I suppose, brings it under the remit of censorship).
Look, I would argue with you but you are writing way too much for my attention span.Please make your messages shorter!
Page: