Censorship

JJ Burke · Post by **JJ Burke** » Sun Feb 18, 2007 1:14 am

one thing, there didn't used to be so much ******* censorship in the media. probably a result of the moral majority's cahoosion with the gubment

Eternities End · Post by **Eternities End** » Sun Feb 18, 2007 9:27 am

ah I dont know about that, seems lately it would seem that Family guy and other comedic programs are going unchecked

JJ Burke · Post by **JJ Burke** » Sun Feb 18, 2007 1:58 pm

just try to watch a movie on tv. 'this film has been edited for content.' take a look at the sopranos on A&E.. neutered.

try to listen to a radio talk show.. 'we had to hit the delay button, you can't say that on the air.' try to listen to music with a swear word in it..

even classic rock songs that got away with it for a long time
'don't need any of that funky shit goin down in the city' now have bits of silence in them

odin2 · Post by **odin2** » Sun Feb 18, 2007 2:38 pm

I like the songs that are allowed to say 'damned' but not
'god-damned' god is profane but damned is not??

E.A. Lovecraft · Post by **E.A. Lovecraft** » Sun Feb 18, 2007 3:09 pm

I suspect they delete "God" so as not to offend the non-Christian whiners.

Eternities End · Post by **Eternities End** » Sun Feb 18, 2007 3:51 pm

odin2 wrote:I like the songs that are allowed to say 'damned' but not
'god-damned' god is profane but damned is not??

lol just like that shitty Panic at the Disco song

Jesus Prime · Post by **Jesus Prime** » Sun Feb 18, 2007 4:47 pm

Panic! At The Disco should be censored. I want every copy of their albums replaced with "Led Zeppelin IV".

JJ Burke · Post by **JJ Burke** » Sun Feb 18, 2007 5:20 pm

E.A. Lovecraft wrote:I suspect they delete "God" so as not to offend the non-Christian whiners.

really? i would have thought it was a god's-name-in-vain complaint from the other end..

there are some pretty ludicrous atheistic fundamentalists too.. but they usually strike public stuff like monuments and christmas decorations

E.A. Lovecraft · Post by **E.A. Lovecraft** » Sun Feb 18, 2007 6:31 pm

The instances I've encountered such censorship cut out "God" in every context. I'm neither pro- nor anti-Christian, but to censor something like that just comes across as pathetic.

Eternities End · Post by **Eternities End** » Sun Feb 18, 2007 7:07 pm

E.A. Lovecraft wrote:The instances I've encountered such censorship cut out "God" in every context. I'm neither pro- nor anti-Christian, but to censor something like that just comes across as pathetic.

I dought its for the anti-christian populas, Im sure its either from the gouverments crackdown on religion in the media, or from christians considering it taking the lords name in vain

Hodgson · Post by **Hodgson** » Sun Feb 18, 2007 7:26 pm

JJ Burke wrote:just try to watch a movie on tv. 'this film has been edited for content.' take a look at the sopranos on A&E.. neutered.

try to listen to a radio talk show.. 'we had to hit the delay button, you can't say that on the air.' try to listen to music with a swear word in it..

even classic rock songs that got away with it for a long time
'don't need any of that funky shit goin down in the city' now have bits of silence in them

People have more freedom than ever to express themselves how they like. If you run into edited material or periods of silence, it's either because it's being publicly broadcast or in conformation to the policy of a particular company such as Wal-Mart. But there is nothing to keep any writer, musician or artist from expressing himself how he likes, no matter how irresponsibly or incoherently.

Flip through any contemporary novel, listen to a rap or rock album, visit an art exhibit--depictions and discussions of sex, violence and various other matter are unimpeded by government. Even on network television, the language has become more licentious and sexual matter of one kind or another more common. Compare it to the fare of even 20 or 30 years ago; you'll find the same in all areas of expression, which have become progressively more crass, sensational and unthinking. Nonetheless, no one has interfered with it.

Interestingly, while many people remain concerned about the right to depict violence and sex, and to use obscene or vulgar language, artists and writers have shown relatively little concern for the increasing regulation of opinion via hate literature and related laws. Brigitte Bardot ( http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=br ... literature ) was dragged into court in France over her opinions about Muslim immigrants; France also recently considered a law (I haven't heard whether it passed) prohibiting anyone from denying the Amenian genocide. Canada has a hate literature law; and similar laws exist in other European countries. Even in the U.S., we have hate crime laws, which punish not the crime but the disposition that motivated it: one who kills for the pleasure of observing the pain of his victim is not subject to a hate law, but one who (with more recognizably human feeling, however mistakenly directed) hates blacks, Jews, Christians or Muslims, is subject to it.

While the more sordid freedoms are well-protected, the principal freedom is being slowly but willingly sacrificed.

JJ Burke · Post by **JJ Burke** » Sun Feb 18, 2007 10:17 pm

all that is also true. but i was more addressing the common mainstream media channels such as tv and radio.

and it's not even as simple as that — subject matter is, i agree, more raunchy and uninhibited now than ever.. but you can see the irony i'm talking about if you consider the mere words that are shunned from the same airwaves like so much black magic.

also, the disparity between violence taboos and sex taboos.

one can point the finger at advertisers, deciding what's acceptable for public consumption and what isn't.. but the advertisers need the public just like the media need the advertisers...

anyway, i saw my chance to complain about changing times, and i jumped on it! so sue me if my life is mostly tv and radio..

E.A. Lovecraft · Post by **E.A. Lovecraft** » Sun Feb 18, 2007 10:27 pm

Eternities End wrote:I dought its for the anti-christian populas, Im sure its either from the gouverments crackdown on religion in the media, or from christians considering it taking the lords name in vain

No, it was not for "taking the lord's name in vain." That much was obvious after several minutes. And I doubt the then-highly-conservative government would crack down on Christianity.

There is a mindset among parts of the population that any reference to religion is improper. My wife works with pre-schoolers, and many of them believe "God" is a bad word, mostly because PC-paranoid adults tell them they cannot talk about anything to do with religion. It's absolutely ridiculous.

Tolerance is taking repeated kicks to the nuts.

odin2 · Post by **odin2** » Sun Feb 18, 2007 10:52 pm

E.A. Lovecraft wrote:
Tolerance is taking repeated kicks to the nuts.

Amen to that!

JJ Burke · Post by **JJ Burke** » Sun Feb 18, 2007 11:03 pm

E.A. Lovecraft wrote:No, it was not for "taking the lord's name in vain." That much was obvious after several minutes.

what is this in reference to?