Censorship: when is it acceptable? (1 Viewer)

[tattoodguy]

pussies.

There should be no censorship at allllll.

porn, even child porn etc etc should be legal, but i mean to apppease all the scum bag womens right whingers in society id compromise and ban it.

Well it should be banned i guess, but you shouldnt go to jail for having it.

you should have a right to read about how to make bombs etc. But the government shoudl restrict dangerous products and ingredients etc which it already does.

If you want to encourage people to commmit suicide bombs etc - u should have a right tooo.

Any one who blows themselves up because they read a boook - there just nut cases anyways - someone who would be so easily influenced is a moron and i doubt they would have the brain capacity to carrry out a terrorist attack.

you should have a right to say whatever you want, share your opinions and read others opinions - with no restrictions.

our government only lets us hear one side of the story.

Why not let "our enemies" or who ever publish boooks, and then we read them and make our own decisions.

Why should everyone only hear what our government wants? i want to hear both sides of the arguements.

Why dont they let osama bin laden have his say? We take snippets of information from his speaches.

our government stops us hearing the truth.\ Our government should not have a right to censor information for its own selfish purposes.

The other problem with trying to censor information is, it usually only censors unpopular spech.

We are allowed to talk about killing or torturing pedofiles etc, but we cant talk about raping women.

The government has or is going to make it illegal to have information about suicide? What do you think about this?

The government shouldnt treat us like children or prisoners.

Things should have warnings, but nothing should be censored, except childrens stuff, and maybe child porn stuff but thats just because i respect the rights of children to have privacy etc. Like no ones genitals and pics etc should be on the net etc, without the persons permission and children are too young to consent to having their pics on the net.

If you were molested as a child and you have pictures of it, when ur an adult u should be able to sell them.

i do think pedofiling is wrong though, touching kids and being a sick fuck. looking at pics of them is sick too, but it doesnt hurt anyone i guesss. its not my cup of tea, and i think something is wrong with u if you look at it, but if you just look at pics, but dont touch kids - i dont think u should be in jail.

 

[LadyBec]

my god tattooedguy you've stooped to an all time low.
I honestly thought you couldnt get any worse, silly me.




If I was molested as a child I seriously doubt that Id want anyone looking at pictures of it for fucking PLEASURE.

 

[adambra]

He has a point though. I agree censorship in all its form is wrong. Come people may find a book on how to make a bomb interesting and should be allowed to read it. It's not for anyone to determine what is art, what has value. Once you start banning books you are controlling the freedoms of society. Reading Islamic extremist literature has value in understanding their cause and perhaps combating terrorism effectvely as opposed to the way ignorant Americans have attempted to. And if after reading such a book someonebecome a suicide bomber then they were already mentally fragile or disillusioned in some way. These books are not the root of terrorism merely a catalyst.

It reminds me of that Rage Against the Machine song,
"They don't gotta burn the books, they just remove them."

 

[LadyBec]

He has a point though. I agree censorship in all its form is wrong. Come people may find a book on how to make a bomb interesting and should be allowed to read it. It's not for anyone to determine what is art, what has value. Once you start banning books you are controlling the freedoms of society. Reading Islamic extremist literature has value in understanding their cause and perhaps combating terrorism effectvely as opposed to the way ignorant Americans have attempted to. And if after reading such a book someonebecome a suicide bomber then they were already mentally fragile or disillusioned in some way. These books are not the root of terrorism merely a catalyst.

It reminds me of that Rage Against the Machine song,
"They don't gotta burn the books, they just remove them."

it's a touch different when you're talking about child porn, and encouraging people to become sucide bombers though isn't it?

 

[adambra]

it's a touch different when you're talking about child porn, and encouraging people to become sucide bombers though isn't it?

Yeh sorry, that part of his post was stupid and added nothing to his argument.

 

[tattoodguy]

for example though, if you ban say osoma bin ladens speaches etc.

im not necccesarily on his side, but i do want to know what he thinks and why.

if he is willing to die, because our government is shit, maybe he has a point. i want to hear his point.

I think if you plan with an individual with a real intention of carrrying out an attack - i concede thats a crime. but making very general statements etc expressing ur opinions to the masses is absolutely fine.

How often do you seee people like in editorials etc, saying - like that academic and some of you saying how its ok to torture people, or if we are talking about gang rapists etc - u talk about how they should be kiled etc etc?

If someone killed a pedofile because one of you made one of those statements should u be punished????????????????


On the news there is heaps about terrorism all the time - i watched the news and i learnt if you fly a plane into a building - u can kill alot of people? Should we also censor the news? should we hide away from reality?


building a bomb is about science - we have a right to know about science. But as i said, the government should and does restirct our ability to get dangerous materials and bomb ingredients.

The government should restrict some of our actions, but shouldnt restrict how we think, what we know etc etc.

 

[poloktim]

The second the government brings in restrictive things, such as censorship, to combat the war on terror is the second we lose the war on terror. The increasing need for security is often being spoken about. It's used as an defence for these restrictions. But as restrictions get tougher, big brother will keep his eyes peeled on us. We, as citizens, lose out.

These books are awful. I've no problem with shop owners refusing to sell, but I do oppose the government bringing in censorship.

To tell the terrorists that we won't lose, we need to continue as we normally would. Think of them as whinging children, all they want is attention.

 

[adambra]

I agree with tattoodguy.

 

[santaslayer]

Baise-Moi?
FYI, it wasn't that great - sure, there was sex and violence, but it was a grungy girl-power sorta affair.

When they don't let you have something, you start wanting it. I doubt i would ever have wanted to watch Ken Park if they hadn't banned it.

Yeah, that was it.


Now why the fuck did they have to go and ban that if it wasn't that great?






oh wait...do u mean the story line wasn't that great?
coz i was referring to the bits where action takes place...screw the plot...LoLz

 

[katie_tully]

I think we have a right to view what we want....however
In response to those books, there was one that said "to be called Australian is something to be ashamed of". We do not need material like that in our country, especially when it is promoting a hatred of Australians and its "lack of culture". If that is the case, please, by all means leave our uncultured country

In regards to television, free to air has guidelines that should be respected. Whilst we have a right to watch whatever we want after certain times, they should adhere to the guideline. That said, perhaps it needs a revamp? The argument that children might see it is irrelevant. Children should not be up at 9:30pm (in the case of BB).
In regards to movies ... I've seen two movies that were banned. Ken Park and Irreversable. Irreversable was a French/Italian movie with a graphic 9 minute rape scene, Ken Park was incest, drugs and violence. I was totally disgusted with Ken Park and with Irreversable somewhat, but I don't regret watching them and I don't feel that mature adults should be told what they can and cannot watch.

Whilst we have a predominantly conservative population we will still have censorship.

 

[katie_tully]

The people who get these movies censored are the first people to blame graphic movies and games for school shootings and adeloescent violence. Personally I think if you're going to murder somebody or shoot up a school, you're going to with or without inspiration from a movie. They've tried to link several shootings to movies such as Natural Born Killers. Because of the actions of a handful of deluded people, should the rest of world suffer.

Are these movies making us, as a population in general, de-sensitised to violence? That said shouldn't we then censor the news? Censor the current affairs. Replace the word "bomb" with "small explosion"?

 

[katie_tully]

Un releated.

But I think the violence in Cinema is more distasteful than the sex.

I cant believe how uptight Hollywood is with sex compared to violence. Or at least KILLING.

Then again I guess hollywood expresses its sexual tension through blowing crap up and killing people.

Well isn't it anything that shows a males penis is automatically MA? Anything that shows actual penetration has to be R-XXX? You're right though.

 

[ogmzergrush]

Everyone keeps saying "Books on the effectiveness of suicide bombing". Could anyone fill me in as to what this is? As far as I can see they result in (relatively) minimal, though tragic consequences, leading to a whole lot of people having the shits, proceeding to wage war on terror chainsaw:, ), leading to more of the people they're apparently fighting *for* dying needlessly?

I guess if they're trying to alienate certain cultures by proliferating unfair stereotypes, then they're doing a good job, but apart from that I don't see any real outcomes. Some stepped up security measures, lots of political wankery (Then again, that always happens so we can't link it just to terrorism), etc. So, if people want to sell books about how effective suicide bombing is, I say go ahead, unless there's hidden effectiveness somewhere that I'm yet to notice (Which again would suggest that it's just not that effective, unless they're trying to achieve subtle outcomes by subtle methods such as blowing themselves up, which would be devious indeed!).

Also, I don't agree with censorship, and it's no more fair to blame a book for someone wanting to blow themselves up to further a ridiculous cause than it is to blame a video game for a misguided child blowing away kids at school.