Censorship vs Warning

[pkt]

Which would you prefer,
1. TV shows that blip out offending 'swear' words that offend no one but the most religious or little old ladies
2. warnings at the beginning of each segment, after the ads, "The following program contains nudity/coarse language/violence/..." etc.

Most Cdn TV stations follows #2.
Most American stations choose #1.

OTOH,
3. Cdn stations will censor scenes or language that are in contravention of the "freedom of speech without inciting racial prejudice or racial hatred against an identifiable group or race." as per recent Supreme Court of Canada judgments.

4. I beleive American TV statations don't do that since that'd be in contravention of the First Amendment...

Which scenarios do you prefer?

PK

[lfortier]

I would have to say the second one with a warning- The stuff for things like nudity tends to be a bit more shocking and shown less. We live in a world where cursing is just as common as dirt- I bet no one can leave the house without hearing something! I can understand the censoring of the whole racial part but if the language is offending (ie, religious and/or old people), they can just choose to not watch it.

[Inquartata]

Come on, #2 would put a lot of censors out of work, thus raising the unemployment rate everyone is complaining about these days!

[Moonitic]

Why must everyone ASSUME that only the "old or most religious" get offended by people who can't use more creative ways to express themselves? I'm neither old, nor overly "religious." I simply prefer to see people use better ways to express themselves.

I prefer the second (& I'm 100% USA), especially having watched Buffy the Vampire Slayer & Angel since their inceptions. A warning is good...it let's the viewer make an informed choice.

But why do tv writers have to be so lazy? Sure, swearing (& sex) is everywhere, but does that mean it's always necessary? In some cases yes. In most cases, no. A good tv show can be good without the trash.

So let's stop labeling people based on their views, huh? I still have a few good years before I'm "old."

Oh yeah, as far as freedom of speech goes...private companies can do as they feel. The First Amendment applies to the GOVERNMENT'S control of what is said, etc. If NBC wants to bleep out something, then NBC is allowed to, under the law. Just as AOL has "terms of service" that are agreed upon when you become a member. They're a private company & therefore can decide what is appropriate.

[Philistine]

Originally posted by Moonitic
{snip}
Oh yeah, as far as freedom of speech goes...private companies can do as they feel. The First Amendment applies to the GOVERNMENT'S control of what is said, etc. If NBC wants to bleep out something, then NBC is allowed to, under the law. Just as AOL has "terms of service" that are agreed upon when you become a member. They're a private company & therefore can decide what is appropriate.

Not entirely. The networks are bound by FCC rules which regulate what can be shown.

This is "censorship," plain and simple. Whether it is good or bad depends on your viewpoint.

--Philistine

[swordsen]

I believe in censorship by the market place. If peopel don't want to see something it will go off the air when no one watches it. the networks have not (yet) figured out a way to clockwork orange us into thier programs. (thank god or I might have to actually watch "reality Televison"

[fencerjim]

moonitic is right. Old people and ultr-religious persons shouldn't and aren't the only ones offended by vulgar and profane language. And just because we hear it every where we go doesn't make it right. It just adds more proof that americans sence of what is decent is on the decline, and civil decourum and respect for one another especially in public is practically non-existant. But we are a free people and if something is on the tv that we don't agree with, just change the channel, or turn it off. I agree with warnings before programs, for informed decision making. Also certain programing should only come on at certain times of day, out of respect for parents trying to monitor their childrens intake of whats on. Prime time isn't so prime for young adults anymore. BTW Buffy rules, and Spike has added a much needed level to Angel.

[Moonitic]

Spike ::sigh:: He's an absolute riot!

He & Angel can bite my neck any time.

Anyway, before I drift into a wonderful daydream, thank you. If a parent is too lazy to monitor their child's tv time & does not feel the need to heed the warnings prior to the shows, then THEY are certainly at fault. TV networks (stations) are at fault when they do not realize the times most likely that a child will be watching. That's where most of MY concern comes from: the children. TV show creators are at fault for creating sub-par programming. It's up to each of us to take responsibility, & to have some not-so-common sense. Ooh...scary thing...with freedom, comes that nasty "r" word! "Responsibility" is becoming more of a curse word than...(insert word here).

So, there ya' have it a non old & not so religious point of view. I just love words, & hate to see people throw them around like monkeys with their feces.

[swordsen]

Responsibility????? You can't expect anyone to accept responisbility for their actions now. Nothing is our own fault. It is all caused by the media, the tobbaco industry, the auto makers, the republicans, the religious right, the radical left wing, our parents, the mene in black, or the fact that someone once looked at you funny when you were changing in a public locker room.

[pkt]

Originally posted by Moonitic
...

If a parent is too lazy to monitor their child's tv time & does not feel the need to heed the warnings prior to the shows, then THEY are certainly at fault. ...

This brings to mind a sub topic for discussion:
Would you 'corrupt' your kid, i.e. expose them to the vices of the world under your monitoring, or let them find out for themselves unmonitored by you, the parent?

I personally prefer the former, not that I have any kids...

The reason is very simple.

Knowledge is very powerful. To be prepared is pre-warned.

No, they don't have to smoke anything or participate in anything; but just know that it's not all perfect out there.

What do you think.

PK

[Grey]

I would feel that society or the media, actually has little need to use sexually offensive nor racial prejudices to promote articles which are of ACTUAL interest. I find that the usage of vulgarities and sex is mainly to promote viewership. There is a particular newspaper (The Newpaper) in my country which ALWAYS feature some sort of sexual scandal every day. Magazines like FHM, Playboy... really, its decadent.

[Artisan]

How about this censorship:

http://www.nad.org/openhouse/action/...orship/pr.html

....people may be interested to know that it's not just Bewitched and Scooby-Doo that have been deemed too strong for the sensitive eyes of the hearing impaired. Movies on the IFC, NASCAR, and Law & Order are all disapproved, but we can still read along with "The Fountainhead" and Fox Network News. List courtesy of the National Association for the Deaf.

The National Association of the Deaf (NAD) urged President Bush to overturn a recent decision by the U.S. Department of Education to declare almost 200 television shows inappropriate for captioning by the Department’s Technology and Media Services for Individuals with Disabilities program, effective October 1, 2003. According to NAD President, Andrew J. Lange, the Department's action is government censorship and contradicts President Bush’s promotion of family values and parental accountability.

Most if not all of the censored shows are in fact educational and informative. These include reruns of family favorites such as “Bewitched” and modern shows such as “Law & Order.” “Disney Monthly Original Children’s Movies” and “Pokemon” cartoons, fixtures in today’s youth culture, are also being censored. Virtually all sports programming has been censored, isolating deaf and hard of hearing students of all ages, not only in the classroom, but within the family, at the school lunch table, and on the playground. The censorship of these shows not only prevents deaf and hard of hearing children from watching shows that help them learn about the trends, culture, and society around them, censorship also prevents deaf and
hard of hearing parents from making informed decisions on appropriate programming for their children.