|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu May 24, 2007 1:45 am
 |
|
|
 |
I have noticed lately that more and more in the media here in America, the word "God" is being censored in the media, while so-called "swear words" are not.
Now. I may be slightly prejudiced, considering that I'm a follower of God.
But really, that's not the real reason behind my arguement.
America is a free country. The Bill of Rights says quite clearly that we have freedom of religion. If the word "God" is being censored in the media, that means that equality, so idolized in American eyes, is being tainted.
Let me explain this reasoning.
If one religious symbol is being censored in the media, and others are not, then this means religions aren't being considered equal. For example. If, say, the word, "Satan" or "Devil" isn't censored, what is that saying? Satan is acceptable, but God isn't?
Personally, I think censorship is stupid. Common sense tells us every single word/phrase that is bleeped out. The purpose is somewhat pointless to me. But if you're going to censor anything, censor the word that's going to supposedly offend the masses. I mean, really. Cutting out "God" but not "damn"?
Well, anyways.
I'm ranting this at 12:43 in the morning. I don't think it's best to write a point of veiw when you're lacking sleep, but I wanted to get it out of my system.
Feel free to agree, disagree, or both.
Thank you. > < |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 24, 2007 6:40 am
|
|
|
|
Aphrodite in Chains I have noticed lately that more and more in the media here in America, the word "God" is being censored in the media, while so-called "swear words" are not.
Now. I may be slightly prejudiced, considering that I'm a follower of God.
But really, that's not the real reason behind my arguement.
America is a free country. The Bill of Rights says quite clearly that we have freedom of religion. If the word "God" is being censored in the media, that means that equality, so idolized in American eyes, is being tainted.
Let me explain this reasoning.
If one religious symbol is being censored in the media, and others are not, then this means religions aren't being considered equal. For example. If, say, the word, "Satan" or "Devil" isn't censored, what is that saying? Satan is acceptable, but God isn't?
Personally, I think censorship is stupid. Common sense tells us every single word/phrase that is bleeped out. The purpose is somewhat pointless to me. But if you're going to censor anything, censor the word that's going to supposedly offend the masses. I mean, really. Cutting out "God" but not "damn"?
Well, anyways.
I'm ranting this at 12:43 in the morning. I don't think it's best to write a point of veiw when you're lacking sleep, but I wanted to get it out of my system.
Feel free to agree, disagree, or both.
Thank you. > <
I agree.
I suppose it's because of all of the wars caused by the different religions,
and the word "God" itself being so powerful from its significance with religion.
And/Or maybe, it's because the majority of US, oppose the use of that word in a offensive way.
Since it is part of the Ten Commandments..
Well at least in Christianity and some other religions, as far as I know.
What do you think? |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 24, 2007 9:42 pm
|
|
|
|
I agree it's wrong to censor the word if it's being legally forced, but only because I think censorship in general is wrong. Words mean nothing on their own. No word has any meaning but that which we give to them, words are just symbols used to communicate thoughts and ideas. The purpose of censorship is not cutting out words, but cutting out the ideas behind the words. It's an attempt at forcing thought control is what it is. The book 1984 demonstrated this quite well. Since I don't like this kind of sneaky and underhanded way of trying to control people, not actually changing their minds to what you want because you actually have a view with enough reason behind it that people will freely come to your side but instead making it harder and harder all the time for them to not agree with you because they do not have the means, the words, to form alternative ideas, this is why I think it is wrong to censor out that or any other word. It's not about offending anybody at all. People have the right to be as offensive as they want in the things they say and think to anybody and everybody else so long as you are not 1) on somebody else's private property (they can just kick you out though and that's the end of that issue) 2) possibly in a tax supported place for all the reasons that go with that about how everybody is paying for it so on and so forth (again, you just get kicked out and nothing more though.) And TV chanels are privately owned I do believe, so I don't see why any government agency has the right to make them censor anything at all short of actually endangering people. They can broadcast something from the nazis or kkk so long as it did not actually make any threat of or encourage actual violence and they would still be, while some real cruel idiots, within both their free speech and private property rights I'd say.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 26, 2007 9:26 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 27, 2007 7:58 pm
|
|
|
|
I agree you can't force people to censor it in the media and just walking around and whatever because those are cases of private individuals saying what they want in places they have the right to, however, in public schools those are tax supported and that means EVERYBODY is being forced to pay for them. So if everybody is paying to support them, you can't really have much of any stuff about any single religion being supported (meaning things like having prayer in classes) because that would mean you ARE forcing everybody to support a certain religion or couple religions which is much like having state sponsored religions. You have to leave religion out of public schools aside from places they apply (such as mentioning stuff about them in history, psychology, and sociology classes would work because those things have played parts in many events and many how many people have lived their lives) because otherwise you would always end up doing things which would favor some religion over others and get people all offended. Even if you could do something which was like a blanket statement for applying to any kind of religions there are people who do not believe in any kind of religion would still be getting the short end of the stick and wouldn't like it. So the only way it really works is to just generally leave religion out of school policy generally and leave support and teaching of things like religion to churches and wherever else for people to do when they are not doing it on the general public's funding. And after all, I still don't think the public school system counts as having the word "god" censored, because it can be said just fine by students and teachers, you just can't have the actual school staff, operations, and curiculum really pushing any religious stuff much for the above mentioned reasons. A teacher or student saying something like they're going to be absent for a few days for some holiday of whatever their religion is wouldn't get anybody in trouble or anything like real censorship would.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 8:56 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 11:36 pm
|
|
|
|
Actually, I thought it was the FTC that was responsible for why certain things were not aloud on basic network and cable chanels. Chanels that you can get individually like showtime and HBO have all kinds of cursing, nudity, and "touchy subjects" you just don't see on those other chanels. And those chanels, Showtime and so on, could if they wanted to decide to not allow those things on their chanel, whether for personal reasons or profit reasons, however, they haven't done so. People have actually gotten their chanels for the kinds of content freedom to be had on them which allows for certain things they couldn't see on the more strictly regulated chanels. However, if I am incorrect in my original statement that the FTC doesn't allow basic cable chanels to have certain content, point me to a source that corrects me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 2:58 am
|
|
|
|
bluecherry Actually, I thought it was the FTC that was responsible for why certain things were not aloud on basic network and cable chanels. Chanels that you can get individually like showtime and HBO have all kinds of cursing, nudity, and "touchy subjects" you just don't see on those other chanels. And those chanels, Showtime and so on, could if they wanted to decide to not allow those things on their chanel, whether for personal reasons or profit reasons, however, they haven't done so. People have actually gotten their chanels for the kinds of content freedom to be had on them which allows for certain things they couldn't see on the more strictly regulated chanels. However, if I am incorrect in my original statement that the FTC doesn't allow basic cable chanels to have certain content, point me to a source that corrects me.
Not to be too picky, FTC=Federal Trade Commission (regulates transactions).
FCC=Federal Communications Commission (regulates airwaves, literally -- including Showtime and over-the-airwaves terrestrial broadcasts but NOT satellite exclusive content, like Howard Stern).
..but other than that, yeah... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 12:47 am
|
|
|
|
bluecherry Oh! *smacks forehead* Bah! That was a stupid mistake I made. Thanks for correcting me. Yes, it should say "FCC" not "FTC." sweatdrop And I am still correct though in saying that those chanels which can be paid for individually are less strictly regulated though right?
Definitely on the right track! Back in the 80's, a friend of mine was stationed on a military supply vessel in the Atlantic, and they had access to ANYTHING on the air. This included satellite TV, such as it was 20 years ago. Now, I have no idea whether it still exists, but one of the channels they could sign up to record was American XXXtasy. This was a pure, full-on explicit sex channel, showing the kind of movies that could make Ron Jeremy blush. This channel had no federal restrictions thru the FCC, because it wasn't a terrestrial broadcast. It had nothing to do with the fact that you had to pay for the channel.
I was at a Q&A at a local university with one of the execs from Clear Channel broadcasting in the 90's, and one of the topics that came up was the restrictions pay channels face from the FCC. Local mores weigh heavily in the decision on whether to carry explicit content. If a pay channel decided to say, "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" and air penetration and so on, they could. However, experience shows that the backlash they would receive from tightly organized special interest groups (not to name names) would be bruising. The potential for loss of revenue outstrips any gamble like that. "Guilt by association" makes the big boys pee their pants.
Now, straight up TV broadcasts would be expected to be the most timid about how far they can go. However, one of the basic cable channels (either TBS or WGN... I get them confused) has the nasty habit of wanting to show big budget network shows like ER in syndication, but dropping the volume on some swear words. It's very inconsistent, and rather distracting. But it's voluntary self censorship, so as not to offend their gentile daytime audience.
I always get a laugh out of local channels, though... There was an old movie called "Where's Poppa?", a comedy centered around a senile woman who couldn't remember she was a widow. Her son gets mugged by a bunch of foulmouthed gang members, including one whose 10-letter name gets bleeped out repeatedly in the scene. But the censors forgot to read the credits, and his name "Muthaf*cka" rolled right by!!! LOL |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 12:50 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 3:15 am
|
|
|
|
Hey, the 80's! I was alive then! pirate For the whole last two years of it. ninja Heh. Anyway, so all in all, how much of it is voluntary self censorship and how much is demanded by regulations and what does the FCC have and not have jurisdiction over and why? I know some censorship is done on some chanels by choice to avoid getting all kinds of organizations bugging them, however this surely is not the case with all things. You've said satelite stations are not regulated by the FCC? I do believe a lot of those stations do have looser restrictions on what they do and do not show. Anyway, my over all point was that not all censorship is by choice, there are many things that for a lot of stations are forced by government regulations, whether local, state, or federal. Is this correct now? Heh, warmer or colder? I'll get there eventually. lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 12:52 pm
|
|
|
|
A good article to start with is here...
http://broadcastengineering.com/news/fcc-profanity-ruling-tossed-0608/
...or here...
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6448861.html
It's all very subjective, and there really is no consistent answer as to what's allowable and what isn't. Back in the late 70's, Saturday Night Live had a show where they parodied the whole "Who Shot J.R.??" craze, and at the end of the show the actor (who was instructed to stretch a bit, since the show had a few seconds to kill) was asked "So, you got shot?" To which he replied on live national TV, "Yeah, and I'd like to know who the f*** did it!" Following that, SNL had a tape delay. sad The comment aired about half-past midnight, when there shouldn't have been little kids watching, but still...
BTW, know the story about Nirvana's song "Rape Me", and the night Nirvana appeared on SNL?? rofl rofl rofl
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2007 4:43 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 4:00 am
|
|
|
|
I do have to agree that censoring the word "God" is not something I'd consider logical, ethical, not to mention constitutional, but my argument for this is a little different than most people's.
See, the judeo/christian god has a name, it's Yhwh, in censoring "god" and not the names of all gods, you are kicking a concept out of language, not the actual predominant deity.
If viewed from that perspective, even "in god we trust" written on the currency doesn't seem all that bad, seeing as which god it is is up to you.
That is all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
