Censorship

[Wonderboy]

Censorship is such an appalling issue in writing. However in music I think that sometimes it is useful. Someone at my age, it's helpful to have songs that are censored, it helps make your parents trust you, and sometimes adds to the beat...

[Slavik44]

Sensoring songs is relativley un-important, however if eminem says motherfroth instead of Mother******(i'll censor it out ) it doesn't really matter to me. Anoying is when you listen to someone on T.V or the radio that hasn't deveoped their dialect past a select few four letter words. But when censorship helps people, when it keeps people from getting hurt, I.E censoring child Pornography, I would say it is a good thing and protects peoples rights rather than infringes on them. Everyone claims it is their right to do whatever they want, but first and foremost it is everyones right to feel safe and secure...that is the ultimate right, if censorship protects it then yes it is a good thing.

One a side note if your music is being censored our you being trusted?

[August1991]

Censorship in music?

However in music I think that sometimes it is useful. Someone at my age, it's helpful to have songs that are censored, it helps make your parents trust you.

You want a signal. Censorship makes the signal more accurate. A signal to your parents, and to your cohorts. "I took the risk and listened to the music!"

[Newfie Canadian]

Censorship is a slippery slope, but necessary at times.

Look at the recent beheading videos. I assume it was the networks that censored them as opposed to the government.

But look at the CRTC decision for allowing Al Jazeera into Canada. Among other things, it says :

The authorization to distribute Al Jazeera is subject to the broadcasting distribution undertaking (BDU) wishing to offer the service having a condition of licence governing its distribution. The Commission has decided that distributors must record Al Jazeera programming and keep the recordings for a specific length of time. This measure will enable the Commission and licensees of BDUs to verify and assess the context of the programming in the event of any future concerns about abusive comment on Al Jazeera’s programming. The Commission is also requiring that BDUs distributing Al Jazeera not distribute, as part of that service, any abusive comment. Finally, the Commission will allow BDUs to alter or delete the programming of Al Jazeera solely for the purpose of ensuring that no abusive comment is distributed. The Commission found that this condition is necessary to prevent, to the greatest extent possible, the distribution of abusive comment on the service pursuant to the Commission’s statutory responsibility to regulate and supervise all aspects of the Canadian broadcasting system with a view to implementing the broadcasting policy set out in the Act, while at the same time minimally impairing freedom of expression.

http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/NEWS/RELEASES/20...004/r040715.htm

I agree with this decision, even though it is censorship of a kind.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Censorship is bullshit. The only kind of communication which should be prohibited is "false information capable of causing harm to an individual, uttered intentionally or recklessly".

This captures both defamation and the proverbial case of shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre.

[Newfie Canadian]

But do it cover beheadings and inciting hate crimes?

[The Terrible Sweal]

But do it cover beheadings and inciting hate crimes?

News media playing the video of a beheading would not be false, presumably. Furthermore, it's not clear to me that playing it inflicts harm on any individuals.

As for inciting hate crimes, let us assume it is intented to cause harm to individuals. We would still need to look to what is actually being said. Is it false?

[Hugo]

If you knowingly disseminated falsehoods, for example shouting "Fire!" in a public place when you knew there was no fire, or publishing pamphlets that state "Blacks are all thieves and criminals" when the evidence you used is fabricated, would you not be guilty of fraud?

I completely agree with Sweal's assessment: the only 'free speech' that needs to be actioned against is lying.

To show a beheading would be perfectly legitimate, if either 1) to the best of your knowledge it actually happened as you showed it or 2) the whole or a part of it may have been false, but you cautioned your audience with an advisory, gave your sources or at least advised your audience that they might not be 100% reliable.

Of course, free speech also covers the option not to speak. If a network feels that footage of a beheading would not be well-received by its audience, or that such footage violates its values, it is perfectly within its rights to refuse to screen it. But a network that feels no such qualms should be able to show it, just as its audience can choose whether or not to watch it.

One should not fear the truth. A person who wishes to hide the truth has an agenda that is probably reducible to self-interest.

[Newfie Canadian]

News media playing the video of a beheading would not be false, presumably. Furthermore, it's not clear to me that playing it inflicts harm on any individuals.

False no.

Harm, it could be considered traumatic for individuals to witness.

Against the law, not as I understand it.

So I agree that censoring that is unnecessry and wrong.

As for inciting hate crimes, let us assume it is intented to cause harm to individuals. We would still need to look to what is actually being said. Is it false?

False no.

But it is a crime in Canada to incite hate against an individual or group of individuals.

But in the context in which we are discussing this matter, I have discovered that even unnder the Hate Crimes law, it would not be illegal.

I was arguing that even if it was the truth and incited hatred against a group, it would be illegal under the law and subject to a form of cesorship. I have come to realize that the law says, among other things:

No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)

(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;

So my argument flies out the window.

[August1991]

Hugo, who "owns" an idea? When you express a thought, can you always enforce your ownership rights to it?

Strictly speaking, Hugo and TS, if I am aware of a fire in a theatre, I should sell this knowledge to others rather than informing them for free. This would create the proper incentive for people to be on guard for fires in theatres.

Unfortunately, as soon as I "sold" the information to someone, that someone could sell it too - unless I could enforce a copyright/patent.

IOW, I would be less dogmatic than you in having a simple rule about censorship. Even your criteria of "telling the truth" strikes me as open to interpretation.

[Hugo]

Hugo, who "owns" an idea? When you express a thought, can you always enforce your ownership rights to it?

You're trying to apply concepts of the physical - ownership - to the metaphysical. Intellectual property rights are violations of individual rights, because they presume to order other people not to do things with their own "intellectual property." You can't control or limit the metaphysical, it is a universal capable of existing in many places at once, in many minds, and universals do not exist.

For instance, say you write a poem and I buy a copy. You still have your poem, but now I have the poem too. Why can't I do what I want with that poem?

If I just memorise your poem, do you consider it ethical for you to be allowed to dictate to me what I may do with information rendered by my own brain and stored in my own memory?

Strictly speaking, Hugo and TS, if I am aware of a fire in a theatre, I should sell this knowledge to others rather than informing them for free. This would create the proper incentive for people to be on guard for fires in theatres.

That's a pretty convoluted thought experiment you're conducting here! I'd say the silliness of this example tells us something of the theory under it.

[August1991]

If I just memorise your poem, do you consider it ethical for you to be allowed to dictate to me what I may do with information rendered by my own brain and stored in my own memory?

I believe Mattel went to court on that very point to protect "Barbie".

Coca-Cola would certainly object to you using the name to sell a brown liquid. Coca-Cola owns the name, as they should. They lend it out to others for use.

[Hugo]

Coca-Cola would certainly object to you using the name to sell a brown liquid.

But then I would be guilty of fraud because I would be misleading my customers into believing they were buying something manufactured by Coca-Cola, when in fact it was manufactured by me. No intellectual property laws required.

[August1991]

But then I would be guilty of fraud because I would be misleading my customers into believing they were buying something manufactured by Coca-Cola, when in fact it was manufactured by me. No intellectual property laws required.

What if the brown liquid were in every respect identical to the liquid sold by Coke?

Would that be theft or dishonesty?

Hugo, after a long discussion about the definition of property rights, are you now going to argue that "intellectual property" is less in need of protection than "real property"?

-----

Let me revist this quote again:

If I just memorise your poem, do you consider it ethical for you to be allowed to dictate to me what I may do with information rendered by my own brain and stored in my own memory?

I will ignore the word "ethical" and consider whether it would be "legal" or not.

ISTM that it depends on the contract and what property changed hands. If I sell you a car and the sales contract contains a condition requiring you to drive the car only on weekdays, such a condition would not withstand a court decision. But if I sell you land and the sales contract contains a condition that someone else can cross the land, you would have to respect that condition.

A recent Supreme Court in Canada decision stated that condo owners are not bound by a condition forbidding the installation of a dish on their balcony - as was stated in the sales contract.

So, in theory, some property rights are sold with complete freedom and some are not. It depends.

As an example, if I buy a DVD of "The Godfather", I cannot show it in a public place such as a cafe. That strikes me as similar to your poem example.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

As an example, if I buy a DVD of "The Godfather", I cannot show it in a public place such as a cafe. That strikes me as similar to your poem example.

As far as I know, you can show that video in a public place. What you are not allowed to do, is sell admission or otherwise profit from showing the movie 'without express written consent of "yada yada Broadcasting Corporation".

I would guess that Hugo is not against file-sharing on the internet.

[Hugo]

What if the brown liquid were in every respect identical to the liquid sold by Coke?

It wouldn't be made or endorsed by Coca-Cola, so it would be fraudulent to sell it in a way that implied that it was.

Hugo, after a long discussion about the definition of property rights, are you now going to argue that "intellectual property" is less in need of protection than "real property"?

Yes. I thought that would have been clear from my arguments thus far.

I will ignore the word "ethical" and consider whether it would be "legal" or not.

But I'm not discussing this from a viewpoint of what's legal. I consider vast reams of current legislation to be grossly immoral, unethical and unjust, so to tell me that an act is legal or illegal will not sway me one inch.

I would guess that Hugo is not against file-sharing on the internet.

It depends, doesn't it? If you agreed to an EULA that stated you couldn't redistribute the software, you'd be in breach of contract if you did. But if you signed no such agreement, you wouldn't be contractually bound to do anything or not to do anything with the software in question and you could distribute it as you wanted.

[JWayne625]

All forms of child pornography should be censored. When the Supreme Court rules that there is somehow artistic merit in child pornography those particular justices should be removed from the bench, immediately and permanently. Anyone who could find anything artistic about child pornography is one sick individual, and certainly does not deserve to be sitting in judgement on a society with morals.

[Slavik44]

All forms of child pornography should be censored. When the Supreme Court rules that there is somehow artistic merit in child pornography those particular justices should be removed from the bench, immediately and  permanently. Anyone who could find anything artistic about child pornography is one sick individual, and certainly does not deserve to be sitting in judgement on a society with morals.

People have the right to pursue happiness, I will agree but when that happiness comes at inficting terror in little children, we should send the offender to abu graib and let the soldiers have their way with them, and then say this art, enjoy it.

[Tawasakm]

Just to revisit a couple of points that were raised here. As I understand it the view was raised that only information which is proven to be false should be censored. Information that is potentially harmful/distressing but true should not be censored. I have several thoughts on this subject.

The first is regarding a requirement for truth. This is a dicey area as far as opinions are concerned but the proposition still works with suitable advisories. By this I mean that advisories appear stating that what is to follow (or as the case may be what has preceded) is the opinion of an individual and my not be correct (or something like that - I haven't really thought it through enough).

My second thought is regarding information which may be harmful or distressing to view. Now I agree, to some extent, that this information should still be free of censorship. Again I feel that advisories are required. Before displaying a beheading a network should run a written and spoken warning of the nature of what it to follow and allow people a suitable interval of time to change the channel if they wish. I think there should also be time restraints on when such things could be broadcast. There are times of the day when there are likely to be children watching and they may not possess the capacity to determine whether or not they should be watching certain things and the likely impact on them.

Which leads me to a third related point. The idea that harmful but true material should be free of censorship only works if those who may not be capable of making informed decisions on viewing are protected (as far as is practicable - I'm not talking a Big Brother state here). There is also by extension the issue of censoring material that exploits that same group - such as child pornography. I guess what I am saying here is that censorship, in some form, needs to exist for children to a greater extent then it does for adults.

So I suppose I may be thinking of a two tiered censorship system geared to provide more protection for children. Any thoughts?

[lowly_caterpillar]

I have had many a discussion in class on this topic and because of the ready availability of "information" nowadays it is becoming increasingly difficult for parent to properly censor the things that their kids are exposed to and although parents are easy scapegoats, there is a responsability on parents to somewhat at least be aware of what t heyre kids are witnessing.

I think that complete censorship is less detrimental than partial censorship, let me explain. If someone doesnt hear an Eminem (geez such a cliche already) album at all they don't have any material to judge but it is far more harmful for someon to hear small out of context exerpts of songs and take them the wrong way.

I agree with Tawasakm there should be a longer warning period before "edgy" shows and such and I also agree with JWayne625 and Slavik44 on the issue of child pornography, when material like this is created it proves that the exploitation of children has happenned.

To take this point on child porn further, in a discussion that i recently had someone mentioned the fact that this type of material can now be created digitally without harming children and we all agreed that that this was just as detrimental in that it advocated the atrocities commited, I'd like to hear your thoughts on this.

[lowly_caterpillar]

sorry another point i'd like to add has to do with Michael Moore. Okay here goes, I have seen many a documentary by this man and he proves some valid (i suppose) points but he goes about very dishonestly.

He attacks the state for using fear to instill ideas and then he tries to hit our nerves by using a soldiers death to rile up some sort of grief, not only this but he is a complete hipocrite he goes around catching people off guard and holding interviews pop-quiz style , and i have seen footage which shows that he never gives up any information unprepared.

By the way there was a time when i was completely convinced that this unshaven humble looking (definitely not humble)man was the bearer of absolute truth, but i have come to realize my incredible naivety.