Personally, I'd like to see censorship made illegal in western nations.
I'd also like to see a broader spectrum of classification tools (sort of like food labels) so people have a better understanding of what they are going to watch or show people without having to see it.
Nudity: Contex (sexual, situational, educational), What is being shown, how many times is it shown, how long is it on screen for
Violence: Context (sexual, abusive, war), how extreme is the violence, how many times does it occur, how long is it on screen
Drug Use: What type of drug use (recreational, Abuse), what type of drug, how many times, how long
etc
I am not against the idea of advising parental control over a film that contains violence and sex being restricted to people over a certain age - so long as it is made free to adults. I personally have a problem with the Educational classification, as it means that a birthing video can be classified as "appropriate for children", as well as nudity as "appropriate for children" if it is a sex education video. If that is the case, all non-sexual nudity should be made "appropriate for children" or requiring parental guidance, or this type of nudity should be subject to the same.
I also think that topless men should be treated the same was as topless women, unless the context is sexual.
It's a bit like the "prevention is better than cure" argument, which I strongly agree with. It costs a lot of money to restrict something, to take it off the shelves etc. A small table or icon that warns of the content is negligible in cost: 4 cents in ink per item
I'd also like to see a broader spectrum of classification tools (sort of like food labels) so people have a better understanding of what they are going to watch or show people without having to see it.
Nudity: Contex (sexual, situational, educational), What is being shown, how many times is it shown, how long is it on screen for
Violence: Context (sexual, abusive, war), how extreme is the violence, how many times does it occur, how long is it on screen
Drug Use: What type of drug use (recreational, Abuse), what type of drug, how many times, how long
etc
I am not against the idea of advising parental control over a film that contains violence and sex being restricted to people over a certain age - so long as it is made free to adults. I personally have a problem with the Educational classification, as it means that a birthing video can be classified as "appropriate for children", as well as nudity as "appropriate for children" if it is a sex education video. If that is the case, all non-sexual nudity should be made "appropriate for children" or requiring parental guidance, or this type of nudity should be subject to the same.
I also think that topless men should be treated the same was as topless women, unless the context is sexual.
It's a bit like the "prevention is better than cure" argument, which I strongly agree with. It costs a lot of money to restrict something, to take it off the shelves etc. A small table or icon that warns of the content is negligible in cost: 4 cents in ink per item
Originally Posted by m0o
Censorship is retarded. The "protect the children" argument has taken place of parenting. Apparently people involved with censorship do not indulge in logic either:
REDUCE VIOLENCE IN VIDEO GAMES
BY THE WAY WE WONT FUND POLICE OFFICERS TO REDUCE VIOLENCE IRL
It's utterly stupid as it is impossible to censor without bias, and thus should not be done at all.
Things should be classified by a guideline. They should not be banned, regardless of the content.
Things like snuff and CP should be legal to own, because pornography has been linked to a reduction in sex crimes (but of course there's always the "hurr it leads to the objectification of women' argument. Protips: Women who are porn stars may as well be objects.).
It should not be legal to produce (as the acts themselves are illegal).
That wont happen and a number of ISPs wont stand for it.
You possess the eloquence i lack, m0o. i couldnt have said it better myself, and by god, i was trying! haha.
Let's hope that we can make a difference. Children are the next generation, after all. teach them, dont shelter them!
Your classification guidelines idea is perfectly brilliant. the more informed we are, the more improved our lives can become.
He's not "Suicide Do" if he's not banned!
Originally Posted by BastardPhoenix
Your classification guidelines idea is perfectly brilliant. the more informed we are, the more improved our lives can become.
Labelling is a huge issue in the western world.
I saw an advertisement for a product on television today that claim NO FAT, and it had in fineprint at the end of the ad, that the fat content was <1% (0.15%).
The packaging had "NO FAT" on the front in large letters. Sure, <1% fat is negligible, and outrageously low for yoghurt, but the print itself is a blatant lie.
Originally Posted by Mapleleaf
oh boy
here we go again, sure is conspiracy theorist up in here
What some of you fail to realize is that some children are immensly sensitive to whatever they watch/play/read/listen to/whatever. There's countless of examples, children shooting eachother, jumping out of windows, etc.
Not every child is intelligent enough to think 'oh, well this is tv/a game/just a song, it wouldn't be like this in real life.' On the contrary, most children are very easily influenced by the media.
And yes, I'm talking about young children, even though teenagers are usually influenced just as easily.
also lol (damnit why do all my posts in discussion end like this) 12 year olds going 'yea i dont like censorship its foor babys'
This is why information should be provided to parents about the content of a film - moreso than "M" "PG" "R".
Fantasy violence is considered PG, whilst realistic violence is considered between M and R. Regardless of what a gun fires, it is still a gun. Just because a realistic looking gun fires PEW PEW lasers, doesn't mean that a child might not go for it and be an hero forever. There was a case of a child shooting themselves because of a knock-off wii controller-gun that was black: you really cannot assume what children will do (although in this case I think terrible parenting was the main cause).
You will also not be warned if the film has sexual innuendo (you only need to look at mainstream music - swear words etc are banned - but just about every hit song is filled with blatant innuendo about sex or drugs). You will also not be warned if, for example, a person with super powers jumps out of a window and lands safely. When you consider the developmental levels of children, you really ought to be told about these things.
For the sake of the "sexual innuendo is not classified", check out the lyrics for "shut up and drive" by Rhianna
I've been looking for a driver who is qualified
So if you think that you´re the one, step into my ride.
I´m a fine-tuned supersonic speed machine
Got a sunroof top and a gangster lead
So if you feel it let me know, know, know.
Come on now what you´re waiting for, for, for.
My engine's ready to explode, explode, explode.
So start me up and watch me go, go, go
Get you where you wanna go, if you know what I mean.
Got a ride that´s smoother than a limousine.
Can you handle the curves, can you run all the lights?
If you can baby boy, than we can go all night.
Cause it´s zero to sixty in three point five
Baby you got the keys.
Now shut up and drive, drive, drive.
Shut up and drive
The amount of air-time this song received was ludicrous.
Anyway, I've taken the thread far enough off-course as it is with my wall-o-texts
I also think people should be warned whenever david bowies crotch is on screen (I'm looking at you, labyrinth)
