Censorship: when is it acceptable? (1 Viewer)

[townie]

Two articles in today's Herald

http://www.smh.com.au/news/film/fil...-reviews-rating/2005/07/18/1121538903576.html

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/bin-laden-book-ban-not-an-option/2005/07/18/1121538901095.html

Two different examples, a book about suicide bombings, and a film about abuse.

With the book, i can see some calls for censorship, but without any1 reading the book, i think it's hard to say whether it should be censored, espescially if it doesnt incite violence, people may not like it's content, but they dont have to buy it.

I am completley against censoring films (by film i mean a film that would be shown at a cinema/film festival or legal pornography). if appropriate warnings are shown why should a film be censored.


So my broader question is, when do u think censorship is acceptable??

 

[Slidey]

I am fine with violence being censored, as is the case here.

Overall I am opposed to censorship.

 

[santaslayer]

Anything that goes beyond legal.

Films, more importantly, pornos should NEVA be censored. What's that French film they censored before I could get my arse into a cinema??

Suicide bombings...in this day and age...yeah...i wouldnt be agaist banning material like that...but now tattodguy is gonna say its a fucking violation on our rights...lol

but generally, most things should NOT be censored.

 

[Xayma]

Censorship of books, if they have graphic images or violent ideas they should be restricted to adults and have warnings present. Calls to break laws or language that encourages such (such as saying suicide bombers are brave men who are doing Gods will) should probably be banned.

For films I think the current guidelines are good. We don't need films about young girls being in sexual relationships with adults (like the one santaslayer wanted to see )

Internet censorship will be dependent upon the servers wishes (being private companies). Messages between two people should never be interfered without consent from the reciever.

 

[tempco]

Suicide bombings...in this day and age...yeah...i wouldnt be agaist banning material like that...but now tattodguy is gonna say its a fucking violation on our rights...lol

and why shouldn't he? well, ok more like the violation of the author's rights.

i'm opposed to censorship.

I am fine with violence being censored, as is the case here.

Overall I am opposed to censorship.

and what if the message that was being put across required violence? i mean, the reality of suicide bombing is that people are killed, and are hurt. the reality of abuse is that people are killed and hurt too. this applies only to "mature" audiences, of course.

 

[Rafy]

I agree with censorship in some instances, but the cases where the Office of film and literature classsification BANS movie for being overly sexual etc, i am bitterly opposed too.

such rulings infringe on an adults right to watch what they want. The OFLC says that such material could be offensive, but people have the choice to watch what they want. If they dont like it just dont watch it. no reason to ban anything. Of course movies showing things like child porn etc should be banned.

 

[tempco]

thats the problem, some people will never be 'mature.' The audience for books on how to undertake terrorist attacks is, as far as i can think of, for terrorists themselves. I don't care about their rights.

erm, i think i've misunderstood the contents of the book. if the book is a commentary on suicide bombings, then no censorship is necessary. if it is a manual of some sort, then obviously, it should be banned. but then again, they wouldn't have to be banned since who would stock/publish the book anyway?

 

[LadyBec]

I'm against censorship, particulary in movies. Sure, make them 18+ but adults have a right to watch what they want, as long as they're not breaking the law.
With books, i'm also against it as a general thing. There, of coures some things that I feel shouldn't be freely avaliable - books that encourage one to break the law, become a terrorist etc. But books that deal with these issues as part as a wider story, rather then saying "this is how you plant a bomb" should be acceptable.

 

[Slidey]

and what if the message that was being put across required violence? i mean, the reality of suicide bombing is that people are killed, and are hurt. the reality of abuse is that people are killed and hurt too. this applies only to "mature" audiences, of course.

By the time one is an adult ("mature"), if they condone abuse, even extensive psychological conditioning would have a tough time making them change. A movie which actually depicts such abuse would not even make a dent. And obviously that movie did more than depict such abuse - it likely condoned it, and the same for the suicide bomber one.

 

[tempco]

i can't seem to read any of the links provided. i'm confused.

By the time one is an adult ("mature"), if they condone abuse, even extensive psychological conditioning would have a tough time making them change. A movie which actually depicts such abuse would not even make a dent. And obviously that movie did more than depict such abuse - it likely condoned it, and the same for the suicide bomber one.

we're obviously not talking about the same thing. i see no relevance in your post whatsoever.

 

[my sharona]

What's that French film they censored before I could get my arse into a cinema??

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.

 

[iamsickofyear12]

If Ken Park can be censored why can't books about the effectiveness of suicide bombings and attacking western civilisations be banned also?

I am strongly against censorship but when it comes to this sort of stuff I think there is a need for it.

 

[iamsickofyear12]

I have the feeling bomb making books should certainly be censored.

Ken PArk and other books can appeal against consorship on the basis of artistic value. A Manual on how to make bombs has no artistic value.

I wouldn't have a problem with the terrorist books if there were no potential terrorists in Australia who might read them and get some ideas.

 

[Slidey]

nekkid:

Excessive violence is never necessary for conveying one's point of view. It simply shows a lack of talent when somebody resorts to this. However, such movies do more often than not pass censorship, thus it is reasonable to expect that this movie about abuse was not conveying a positive message (as well as being overly violent) and it is this which got it banned. Similarly, the book likely did one of two things: proposed that all Muslims are terrorists or some derivative of this, or proposed that terrorism is a valid tool for people to use.

 

[tempco]

Excessive violence is never necessary for conveying one's point of view. It simply shows a lack of talent when somebody resorts to this. However, such movies do more often than not pass censorship, thus it is reasonable to expect that this movie about abuse was not conveying a positive message (as well as being overly violent) and it is this which got it banned. Similarly, the book likely did one of two things: proposed that all Muslims are terrorists or some derivative of this, or proposed that terrorism is a valid tool for people to use.

imo, i don't think that's true. for example, the effect of a documentary on the holocaust, for example, would not have the same effect if it did not have images of the mass graves or executions that took place. similarly, if a documentary was made on the war in iraq, it would not have the same effect if videos such as this or of a similar nature was not included.

 

[Slidey]

imo, i don't think that's true.

Be that as it may, this thread is not about the effectiveness of violence as a filmic technique.

 

[shady_03]

Im totally against cencorship, especially in music and movies - the artists wants a specific thing 2 be expressed - who is to say that that should be removed or that it shouldnt be expressed?

I think that if the image or scene plays a specific role in a movie and heightens the audiences understanding or creates a certain point, then it shouldnt be edited. Alot of edited bits are ones which seem to cause the most controversy or would end up in legal means (ie lines in songs directed to specific people or tragedies)

 

[my sharona]

A Manual on how to make bombs has no artistic value.

What if it was an artistic movie which gave detailed steps to making bombs and bombing people?
The boundaries are easily blurred.

 

[tempco]

Be that as it may, this thread is not about the effectiveness of violence as a filmic technique.

that's right.

i knew i was doing something wrong.

 

[VonDavis]

What about the extremely religious people that got put in prison for censoring films without copyright permission .... There argument was that it wasn't appropriate to the story. There biggest complaints were war movies (that are based on facts mind you) ... But still Passion of the Christ was very gruesome and quite horrific but they considered that ok because it is religious ....
My personal opinion- Why must we censor things that people pay to watch/read fair enough on Television because any child can view it but why must we censor things that we have personally gone out to watch/read .....