MovieChat Forums > General Discussion > Is censorship always a bad thing?

Is censorship always a bad thing?

posted 4 years ago by TheMan18 (13188)
28 replies | jump to latest

Hi.

Granted, in general, I am anti-censorship and in films that I watch for instance, especially since Britain has been for many decades notorious for it, I prefer full uncut versions with all the violent and bloody scenes and other adult material intact.

But at the same time, is it always that bad?

Also, while I am no expert on it, even though I have lived partially in Russia during the USSR/Soviet Union until it collapsed in late 1991 (I was born in 1986), whilst some or even many aspects of the Soviet censorship are and have been criticized (negatively, mind you), some actually have found an understanding and appreciation even, although it was STILL referred to as "Soviet CENSORSHIP".

For instance, the picking of TALENTED MUSICAL artists, who CAN sing, write music and play interests, versus the later 90s and 00s untalented musical acts who got on the scene due to money and family connections, that was ACTUALLY called CENSORSHIP (although why it ws referred to as THAT as opposed to something else i.e. "stronger musically-related CRITERIA, Soviet or otherwise, I have little idea, but I guess at different times and different levels words mean different things to different people) and that was seen as a good thing.

Also, you may be surprised, but during the USSR, pornographic movies were often unavailable, there was a classic slogan "No sex in the USSR" and even the word "sex" (meaning "sexual intercourse") was often censored and called "sekas" (lol!!!!) - I will leave it up to you to make judgments but this was NOT seen and is still NOT seen today as an example of "good Soviet censorship".

But anyways, Soviet Union, USSR, me and a few bibbles and babbles briefly put aside, censorship, and is it always "bad" and "wrong", thanks.

P.S. In some cases, even if it isn't "good", does it really MATTER and why is its presence often STRONGLY felt and does it even MEAN anything? Cheers!

[–] 102000 (6350) 4 years ago

Yes, censorship is bad. The only person who should "censor" what they watch, read, to hear is each individual - not any agency, and certainly not the government.

Parents have the right to censor when it pertains to their children, but IMO, that is based on individual values, not something that someone outside of their family has determined is or is not acceptable.

[–] joi2049 (5632) 4 years ago

NO, CENSORSHIP is NOT always a bad thing.

Because if someone is filling up a TWITTER ACCOUNT with MISINFORMATION and LIES that leads to the harm or even to the death of someone else, then that's also plenty of reason why their ACCOUNT should CENSORED, SHUT DOWN, and PERMANTENTLY removed, as a way to prevent them from causing any more harm or the deaths of still others who would die because of what they've said.

Perhaps you're also aware of how one isn't ALLOWED to CRY OUT saying "FIRE" inside of a crowded theatre???

The reason they have LAWS against doing that is because people will PANIC, and start running for the EXITS, and will TRAMPLE on each other while trying to GET OUT. And that can also cause the deaths of other people who get TRAMPLED ON if people PANIC like that.

So SHOUTING something like "FIRE" when there is no fire is also NOT ALLOWED, and using other WORDS like that (which can also cause the HARM or the DEATH of someone else) should also NOT be allowed to be used either.

In other words, whether or not others like to recognize this FACT or not, there are definitely LIMITS to one's FREEDOM and to what one can do or say in certain situations.

Because NO ONE is FREE if you allow "UNCENSORED SITUATIONS" that lead to the HARM or the DEATHS of other people.

In a SOCIETY without CENSORSHIP, what you'd end up with instead is TOTAL CHAOS, and with "PEOPLE ENSLAVED" by the PSYCHOPATHIC DESIRES of someone else.

[–] nyctc7 (44107) 4 years ago

It’s Time to Stop Using the ‘Fire in a Crowded Theater’ Quote

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/

[–] BillHicksFan (10717) 4 years ago

Crowded theater? Where??? LOL

[–] joi2049 (5632) 4 years ago

Yes the LAW that FORBIDS one from YELLING FIRE does become a bit on the useless side during the time of a WORLDWIDE PANDEMIC.

But since NYC is also going to OPEN EVERYTHING back up again soon, that also means "CROWDED THEATERS" will also be back again, and the LAW that forbids you to FALSELY claim there's a FIRE when there is NOT will also still apply.

PLUS they're also suppose to be living a "NORMAL LIFE" DOWN UNDER in AUSSIE LAND, where they've probably also still got CROWDED THEATERS.

Because the SHUT DOWN rules that they had there were so STRICT that they also never reached the point where things got as bad DOWN there as they did UP here in the US.

And that's also the reason why MURDOCH (the guy who runs the PROPAGANDA CHANNEL that caused so many problems for us with it's ANTI MASK/ANIT VAX campaigns), left the USA and went to live DOWN UNDER.

Because he didn't want to STAY HERE and LIVE in the BIG MESS that he helped to create.

So he RAN AWAY to live DOWN UNDER in a place where they STUCK to having STRICT RULES about MASK WEARING, etc.

Thus also resulting in them having MORE FREEDOMS DOWN UNDER than we had UP HERE during the PANDEMIC.

[–] nyctc7 (44107) 4 years ago

"Those who quote Holmes might want to actually read the case where the phrase originated before using it as their [argument]. If they did, they'd realize it was never binding law, and the underlying case, U.S. v. Schenck, is not only one of the most odious free speech decisions in the Court's history, but was overturned over 40 years ago...First, it's important to note U.S. v. Schenck had nothing to do with fires or theaters or false statements..." From the linked article above

[–] joi2049 (5632) 4 years ago

And if there is a stampede in which somebody dies, you could be charged with involuntary manslaughter. In other words, even if there's no law in your state that explicitly prohibits you from crying “Fire” in a theater, there are other laws you might still have to worry about.

During the late 18th and early 19th centuries, there were dozens of tragedies [PDF]—mainly in the U.S., but also abroad—where false shouts of “Fire!” provoked panic that resulted in multiple innocent, and avoidable, deaths.

In 1913, for example, residents of Calumet, Michigan, held a Christmas party for the children of copper miners on strike. Hundreds of people gathered on the second floor of Italian Hall, and when an unidentified perpetrator (possibly motivated by anti-union sentiments) yelled “Fire!” they all rushed to the stairs. The stampede claimed 73 victims, most of whom were children.

The fear of fire wasn’t unfounded. Since not all buildings had sprinkler systems, neon exit signs, and capacity limits, plenty of fatal blazes occurred. More than 600 people died in Chicago’s Iroquois Theater fire in 1903,

In short, shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater was an idea firmly entrenched in the public consciousness by the time judges co-opted the phrase for legal arguments on First Amendment rights.

The axiom became popular in legal spheres after Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. mentioned it during Schenck v. United States in 1919, but he wasn’t the first person to use it in court

attorney Edwin Wertz had uttered a lengthier version of it the previous year

The falsely shouted warning, while technically speech, could potentially violate a state's criminal laws against disturbing the peace or disorderly conduct, whether or not it provokes a stampede

if there is a stampede in which somebody dies, you could be charged with involuntary manslaughter

Shouting “Bomb!” or “Gun!” in public would put you in a similar situation

[–] nyctc7 (44107) 4 years ago

Also from your linked article

Both defendants were convicted, and Holmes justified his ruling on the Schenck case with the explanation that “the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting ‘fire’ in a theater and causing a panic.” But while his analogy struck an emotional chord, it really had nothing to do with constitutional law.

“The ‘crowded theater’ statement in Schenck never amounted to any kind of binding standard or doctrine,” Nashwa Gewaily, a media and First Amendment lawyer, tells Mental Floss. “It was basically a bit of emotionally charged extra flair from Justice Holmes, outside the official legal determination of that case; a powerful image that endured outside its context ... It was not a high point in American jurisprudence.”

The article goes on to briefly explain Brandenburg v. Ohio. My point really is only that the "Fire in a Crowded Theater" example is not a good way to discuss censorship questions, as shown both in my linked article and your linked article, except to debunk what many people think about it.

[–] joi2049 (5632) 4 years ago

>>In short, shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater was an idea firmly entrenched in the public consciousness by the time judges co-opted the phrase for legal arguments on First Amendment rights.

The axiom became popular in legal spheres

AXIOM

NOUN

>>a statement or proposition which is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true.

The KEY PASSAGE, explains how it's "an IDEA" that became "FIRMLY ENTRENCED" in the "CONSCIOUSNESS of the PUBLIC," which was also because of the way that so many KIDS and other people had DIED in FIRES in CROWDED places.

So for that reason it becomes an AXIOM, or "a statement that's REGARDED as being ESTABLIISHED, ACCEPTED, or SELF-EVIDENTLY TRUE."

And to argue over which case first mentioned it or established it's existence also becomes SECONDARY to the other matter at hand of whether or not it's FREE SPEECH or not.

And FREE SPEECH, or whether it should be FREE or not (without any RESTRICTIONS), also comes under the CENSORSHIP TOPIC that we're discussing.

In other words, while your opinion is that it's NOT a good way to discuss such questions, the FACT still remains that it's an AXIOM that's become FIRMLY ENTRENCHED in OUR CONSCIOUSNESS.

And that's also the reason why the person (the OP) who is originally from RUSSIA was also asked if they'd ever HEARD the EXPRESSION before.

Since RUSSIANS also have many other interesting AXIOM's as well, (such as saying HUNGRY HUNTING DOGS make better HUNTERS), I'm also thinking THE MAN will also appreciate hearing about why "YELLING FIRE in CROWDED THEATRE" is NOT a good idea.

"

[–] nyctc7 (44107) 4 years ago

It is an axiom that needs de-bunking, which your linked article tends to do. Something that is firmly entrenched in the public consciousness is not necessarily the law. The last paragraph from the mentalfloss article, "And if Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. has taught us anything, it’s that not every word a Supreme Court Justice says automatically counts as constitutional doctrine."

[–] joi2049 (5632) 4 years ago

You're still MISSING the MAIN POINT about how all those KIDS and other people DIED when they were TRAMPLED to DEATH.

Because that's how the AXIOM got FIRMLY ENTRENCHED.

And That's the reason WHY we need CENSORSHIP, and should NOT be ALLOWED to say anything that we like without having RESTRICTIONS of some kind on WHAT we can say.

Some people "can't SEE the FOREST for the TREES," but in this case you're too busy "LOOKING at the LEAVES" with a MICROSCOPE to be able to see the TREES in the FOREST.

https://matadornetwork.com/read/30-expressions-show-russian-soul/

NUMBER 24:

“The head is not just given for the hat.

[–] nyctc7 (44107) 4 years ago

"we should NOT be ALLOWED to say anything that we like without having RESTRICTIONS of some kind on WHAT we can say."

But this has virtually always been true! We have laws against libel and slander and false advertising for example.

You seem a little censorship happy, though.

[–] joi2049 (5632) 4 years ago

And you still seem CLUELESS as to how the DEATHS of several KIDS and other people who got TRAMBLED to DEATH is the SUBJECT that we were attempting to discuss.

But instead of discussing that matter you bring up this other issue that has NOTHING to do with DEATH, and involves a much more IRRELEVANT TOPIC about one LAW CASE vs another one.

Which basically also means you're still LOST there in the LEAVES where you can't see the TREES much less the FOREST.

Because LIBEL LAWS and SLANDER and FALSE ADVERTISING also don't have anything to do with FIRE and the LOSS of LIFE.

🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄

[–] joi2049 (5632) 4 years ago

Can you be charged with crying fire in a theater?

Is It Illegal to Falsely Shout 'Fire' in a Crowded Theater?

https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/627134/is-it-illegal-to-shout-fire-in-crowded-theater

>>And if there is a stampede in which somebody dies, you could be charged with involuntary manslaughter. In other words, even if there's no law in your state that explicitly prohibits you from crying “Fire” in a theater, there are other laws you might still have to worry about.

[–] 102000 (6350) 4 years ago

What a crock of crap if you believe for one moment that the censorship that is currently occurring on Facebook and Twitter is not politically selective. You and I both know there are some really bad people who are still allowed to post their hate and misinformation w/o any censorship while other's are not.

A society with censorship may not result in chaos, but people definitely are enslaved by the think police.

[–] joi2049 (5632) 4 years ago

Since I don't have a FB or TWITTER ACCOUNT and don't read what's posted there, the only thing I know about what's there is whatever people on the NEWS talk about from time to time.

And ever since the last POTUS got his TWITTER and FB account removed, they hardly ever mention what gets posted there anymore (except this past week when there were more discussions about what people TWEETED in regards to CHENEY being removed form her job).

So forget about what I believe or don't believe in regards to what I don't even READ.

[–] BillHicksFan (10717) 4 years ago

Yes, censorship is always a bad thing....

Also, nepotism is a very bad thing, because we keep seeing the untalented with family (or other) ties being forced onto an ignorant population/market.

Have you ever seen the documentary, "Do Communists Have Better Sex?" and it showed how the West was very anti-sex, while the "East" was very educational and open about it. It focuses mostly on East/West Germany, but I wonder what the similiarities/differences were between East Germany and the USSR.

[–] joi2049 (5632) 4 years ago

What are the good reasons for censorship?

List of the Pros of Censorship Censorship can reduce the impact of hate speech in society. The idea that all speech is equal is arguably false. ... Censorship can protect children from unhealthy content. Parents have plenty of work to do in today's society to protect their children from unhealthy influences. ... Censorship can reduce the amount of conflict that is in society. ... More items...

19 Biggest Pros and Cons of Censorship | FutureofWorking.com

https://futureofworking.com/11-biggest-pros-and-cons-of-censorship/#:~:text=List%20of%20the%20Pros%20of%20Censorship%201%20Censorship,that%20is%20in%20society.%20...%20More%20items...%20

Would you consider a SHUT DOWN or a LOCK DOWN to be a form of CENSORSHIP???

When you're told you can't leave your house to do anything else but go get groceries, that definitely puts a LIMIT on your FREEDOM.

But there was also a VERY GOOD REASON for that RULE.

And there are also VERY GOOD REASONS for other CENSORSHIP RULES (whether people like to admit that FACT or not).

And when they had more FREEDOM DOWN UNDER than we had UP HERE (due to the way they FOLLOWED the RULES instead of acting like a bunch of CRY BABIES about them), that also demonstrates how CENSORSHIP can be a GOOD THING in certain situations.

[–] Burk48917 (11533) 4 years ago

Yes, always bad, unless you censor for yourself or your children. No outside entity should dictate what you consume.

[–] jriley555 (8551) 4 years ago

in the US, we usually restrict the word censorship to governmental prohibitions on speech. any platform/paper/media organization is -relatively- free to enact their own standards for the filtering of content.

I don't see a big problem with this, as long as platforms DO erect defensible non-partisan filters against active disinformation, parties engaged in a persistent pattern of same.

the truth does still matter. on questions of fact, persistent lying need not be tolerated.

this is very much a current debate.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

we have hate speech laws in canada which i am not completely comfortable with.

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9443) 4 years ago

Censorship is not so easy to pick out sometimes. I think it can be for good.
For instance if I ran a site like this I would delete posts that had obscenities in them,
or name-calling ( in most cases ), demonstrable lies.

The problem is that moderating a site is not an automation-ready thing. I think
kids should be able to engage online ... maybe over age 14.

I think moderating, or censoring style is OK, but not ideas.

For instance is I saw a post that said:

Trump is great, for reason A, B, C, D .... , Z and anyone who disagrees
is a moron.

I'd delete it. But not because I disagree that Trump is great, but for using
insults to make the point. If I was a moderator and I had to time I would
say - repost that comment without the pointless insult. Now, if that user
did the same thing over and over I would eventually give them a warning
and finally give them a time-out or delete their account.

The other specific problem I've run into I'll call the Fairness Doctrine issue.
I think there should be no sites like 4chan ... and I am just going by what I've
been told because I've never been there, but sites that push a certain agenda
by shutting down the other side of the argument. That is, whenever someone
posts a polite and civil response with facts, no one should delete it or moderate
it because they disagree with the facts. The exchange of ideas, as politely as
possible should be the goal.

For example a long time ago I went to Breitbart.Com and opened an account,
and of course immediately started discussing and commenting on the content
there. Within half an hour they deleted my account -- basically for disagreeing
politely with some of the users there who were posting obscene and false
claims. I knew I would be on shaky ground there, so I took pains to make my
comments clear, simple and polite - but they still deleted me. That kind of site
should be monitored and shut down the government in my opinion, or taken over.

[–] trevorh321 (5495) 4 years ago

I am against censorship. Unless it helps Dems win elections. Then I am for it.

[–] SoapboxQuantez08 (646) 4 years ago

I'm pro-censorship in music terms, I think profanity distracts from the overall message. But overall, no.