Dunno if there is something already like this. Also, don't care enough to go searching through oodles of spam posts/topics. So here I am created a Debate Topic. It came to my attention that the...unnecessary posts on this forum are rather tiresome to those that like to have meaning to their words, hence: debates. It's in human nature to have different ideals and to express them when they are challenged. Either it leads to a flame contest or an interesting topic that, in this case, no one side will really win. I hope the admins/moderators/Nokill(he gets his own group) approves of this because as we all know the world we live in is quite controversial -- the topics are too. If its too controversial for one's liking that has control over editing stuff, go for it. If you don't have power to change it, cry. Ill start lightly anyway.
P.S. Dunno if you are, but if you're getting aggravated/frustrated please hold out for 24 hours before posting. We don't want flamage on my beautiful topic. We don't want any of this going on:
= flame = not good.

And as I said in the title of this topic, I hope for it to be serious. That pretty much means Sith God, go away. -.- (I kid, I kid. Feel free to participate as long as you aren't reta...ignorant.)

The First topic will be on Censorship, generally in media and culture.
Heres some basic information on the topic:
The producers of motion pictures, dependent for success on widespread public approval, somewhat reluctantly adopted a self-regulatory code of morals in the 1920s (see Hays, Will H.). This was replaced after 1966 by a voluntary rating system under the supervision of the Motion Picture Producers Association; the need to tailor a movie to fit a ratings category has acted as a form of censorship.

Since 1934, local radio (and later, television) stations have operated under licenses granted by the Federal Communications Commission, which is expressly forbidden to exercise censorship. However, the required periodical review of a station's license invites indirect censorship. The Supreme Court ruled in 1996 that indecent material could be banned from commercial cable-television stations but not from public-access cable stations.

The rapid growth of the Internet presents another set of issues. The Communications Decency Act, passed by Congress in 1996 and signed by President Bill Clinton, was overturned by the Supreme Court for the restrictions it placed on adult access to and use of constitutionally protected material and communication on the Internet. The Children's Internet Protection Act (2001), which requires libraries and schools to install antipornography filters on computers with federally financed Internet access, was upheld, however, because it was only a condition attached to the acceptance of federal funding and not a general prohibition on access.

The debate question is: Do you think censorship restrictions are too biased on what they censor, are they fine, are they just plain stupid; what happened to "freedom"?

-------------------------------------

Note: topics will be changed every Sunday and talk on the new topic will begin Monday.
at least 5 sentences should be posted in response to a question/statement in acceptance or denial.

I believe that the media in America over censors some things as well as doesn't censor some things they should. It's a pretty hectic controversial subject but I feel that censorship is needed but not in the excess that we currently get it. Things have been getting better and the FCC has gotten more lenient towards some things but at the same time they still remain very strict on things that they shouldn't.

(I think this is a great topic idea and I shall mod it pretty strictly to keep things more clean and spam free)

Which brings me to just how movie rating systems are. Why is it that a complete massacre of a humanoid species is "entertainment" and would probably one be rated Pg-13 but a flash of breasts for 2-10 seconds is almost instantly considered to be pornography? Obviously an exagerration but you get my point. Where and how do people decide just how bad one thing has to be to overrule the other? Violence < brief nudity?

That was sort of where I was getting at. It's horrible that mass killing and violence is more socially accepted and much less censored than that of maybe some brief nudity. Not only is nudity overly censored but so is profanity. I believe that America has its morals and priorities completely backwards, but we are too stubborn to change them. And thus this leads to Americans that are psychosexually twisted about nudity. This whole thing sort of revolves around our American puritanism moral values rules that have been set by the FCC.


This is a sort of one sided debate we need more people in here

Its 11:31 P.M. here. I don't think many people are awake or in the mood for a debate at this time of night. lol. I'm sure there will be more people tomorrow or later on in the week.

I love the rule of ratings that two F-words in a movie/program will automatically and instantaneously make a movie rated R. Notice, in PG-13's movies they try to get away with only one F-word. I guess two is a bad number for bad words? Dunno, but censorship definitely has its flaws, and it probably will for time to come since no one thing should be displayed as morally acceptable as another to a "board" or "council".

Yeah all our euroland friends shall be on later, its 12:40 here

Also just one more thing, besides nudity, profanity, and violence there also is another touchy subject when it comes to censorship and that's basically 'Offensive Content'. Or much rather certain things that may offend a particular group of people. With this section I sort of take a more liberal stand and I believe that it's alrite to produce 'Offensive Content' and you have a right to. I also believe that you have a right, if offended by this content, to just ignore it and be able to say change the channel without feeling pressured or guilty.

I don't really know where I was going with that but its gettinh late and I'm not really making any sense.. I shall be back in this topic tommro

i think profanity and violence should be a more leanest censor, i feel this way because in this generation you probably have been exposed to it and it is not a stranger to you any longer. These two things are becoming a natural setting of life and denying someone the freedom to see media or entertainment that may offend you that you have already seen is ridiculousness and denying you some freedom.However i do not believe that profanity and violence should be openly practiced or remove all restrictions on it, for example if someone in the movie has a horrific graphic death it should be R rated9as in horror movies or action movies such as "Saving Private Ryan" i enjoyed the film but i would not find it suitable to be exposed to children) Any nudity should have great effect on a film but violence should not unless it is very excessive. And profanity well i think if a character gets half his body blow off he should be and to say at the top of his lungs Holy SHIT(which is what we would all do if that happened to us)!!!! and for it not to change the rating significantly, what is he gonna do say oh fuggy muffins i dont think so.

(i promise no stupid comments Mairetta )

The current restrictions which the main stream media have in place currently are too stupid to be considered restrictions. Most of the current ratings for movies don't have a 16 year old certificate (in the UK anyway). Sex in the UK is permitted at the age of 16 where as pornography is not allowed to be spectated by people below the age of 18. It's a stupid system more or less around the world, perhaps not Japan. I'm not going to lie here.. it is a stupid system however it manages to keep the population in check if ever movies did actually have an affect on us psychologically.

I'm still in the mists of where people draw the line. I'm happy for anything to feature on television. From a suicide hotline to a bestiality channel. I don't care, there are other channels.

On that "offensive material" streak, its most unfortunate that those offended aren't bold enough...or are too bold to instead just ignore it and be passive. Instead a big deal has to be made about it because of a tv show, or Stern went and said something "stupid" again. Its *going* to happen. So the best we could hope so would be that they'd toughen up and just take it and ignore it. Back to sexual content/nudity; yes, a little bit isn't bad nor is it technically harmful to anyone. Besides, you get the Discovery Channel don't you? (or some sort of channel like it) That's an expression of a freedom, but it isn't at all considered "nudity". Tribes run around naked and we film it. Sure they blur the harsher stuff but its still not even that big of a deal. Putting a restriction on that would be a start, but then restrictions would be soo less lenient when it comes to movies and tv shows/radios. The children of the new era are so exposed to what they weren't exposed to 50 years ago and we alternatively suffer from it. Children begin to think its appropriate and have a mindset that everyone swears, smokes, says offensive things, takes part in sexual activities at their age. Whether we see it in the first 10 minutes of a child watching harmful content we may see no troubling results. But somewhere along the line they'd make a reference to a sex scene or a word that someone said in a movie and they may grow attached to it because it was "cool". From there it will go on and on; a domino effect. Or maybe im just a disgruntle not-parent. I don't care that people do try to put restrictions on what is viewed, but in reality it isn't really working since the innocent of us are still being exposed to it, regardless of any restriction. Either make it harder to achieve that type of content to "minors" or...well, that actually just sounds best. =]

~Marietta

I see RHK can't take serious critics, cause he deleted my post. Well then we now the lamer he is.


Anyways, i think if our leaders who represent us promote a free world, then there should be no restrictions. You can't have a free world with restrictions cause by definition it is not free anymore in that case.

So that will mean our countries lie to 3rd world countries and "terrorist". In that light i see no difference between a Bush or a Bin Laden.

My personal opinion is that we should have restrictions related to age. Blurring out cusswords in music is lame and so is banning porn from tv. It's all part of life. They should make it in a way that it is only viewable by those who can take the message in it.

The very concept of censorship is flawed: people don't watch what they don't want to.

Uhh xander I never even saw your post (there are other mods besides me you know)

Ne ways it seems that we all sort of feel the same way or generally the same way about this subject... what do you think mariettalizette could we change the topic early to something that may have more opposing thoughts by our forum members

Censorship is the inevitable result of the whiny masses saying they are "offended" by anything and everything, even as little as a Bible on a teacher's desk

Yep. No problem. I am officially open for suggestions.


Not really, I just wanted to make you guys think you had a say. =]
Anyway,

Next Topic: Abortion I know this will get some of your attention.

Main question on Abortion, simply: Should it be allowed?



I say
Women should have control over their own bodies; they have to carry the child during pregnancy and undergo child-birth. No-one else carries the child for her; it will be her responsibility alone, and thus she should have the sole right to decide. These are important events in a woman’s life, and if she does not want to go through the full nine months and subsequent birth, then she should have the right to choose not to do so. There are few – if any – other cases where something with such profound consequences is forced upon a human being against her/his will. To appeal to the child’s right to life is just circular – whether a fetus has rights or not, or can really be called a ‘child’, is exactly what is at issue. Everyone agrees that children have rights and shouldn’t be killed. Not everyone agrees that fetuses of two, four, eight, or even twenty weeks are children. Not only is banning abortion a problem in theory, offending against a woman’s right to choose, it is also a practical problem. Enforcing an abortion ban would require a quite degrading and inhumane treatment of those women who wished to have their fetus terminated. Moreover, if pregnant women traveled abroad, they would be able to have an abortion in a country where it was legal. Either the state takes the draconian measure of restricting freedom of movement, or it must admit that its law is unworkable in practice and abolish it. The ‘third way’ of tacitly accepting foreign terminations would render hypocritical the much-vaunted belief in the sanctity of life. In addition, the demand for abortions will always exist; making abortion illegal, will simply drive it underground and into conditions where the health and safety of the woman might be put at risk. It is not just medical emergency that presents compelling grounds for termination. Woman, and in some cases girls, who have been raped should not have to suffer the additional torment of being pregnant with the product of that ordeal. To force a woman to produce a living, constant reminder of that act is unfair on both mother and child. Finally, due to advances in medical technology it is possible to determine during pregnancy whether the child will be disabled. In cases of severe disability, in which the child would have a very short, very painful and tragic life, it is surely the right course of action to allow the parents to choose a termination. This avoids both the suffering of the parents and of the child.

~Marietta

I am too pro-choice, and I believe that a woman has every right to do what she wants with her body and her baby. I believe that fetus to a certain point isn't technically human as it can not feel pain and it doesn't have a sense of being. But after a certain point I believe that that fetus is technically a human, around the first trimester. And at this point abortion should be out of the question.

Quit having the same views as me mariettalizette