Censorship of Violent Content

[Stevicus]

There are countries in which almost everything written or shown on TV is censored by government. On the other hand, there are countries that allows almost everything to be shown or posted uncensored..

It's clear to us why excessive censorship is bad. But there are so many people who don't see a problem in the complete lack of censorship. Thus, we see in abundance what the wise Louis in Family Guy calls "violence in movies and sex on TV". People killing each other with cold blood, dismembering body parts, torture, and rape are only normal scenes on movies and TV series nowadays.

However, especially after the rising number of teenage mass shootings, people have started to question the wisdom behind allowing so much violence.

Do you think the filters of censorship should be thicker, allowing for less violent content? Or do you thing it's actually better to have such freedom of movie and TV production?

I think the way they do it now, with content warnings and disclosures, are sufficient for people to make viewing choices for themselves and their kids.

When I was growing up, TV was probably a bit cleaner than it is now. Even the violence of westerns and war movies was somewhat toned down - no real blood or guts scenes or anything like that - or even any foul language. Perhaps there might have been a reaction against that somewhat, as there seemed to be a tendency to want to portray the horrors of violence more accurately, albeit more graphically.

 

[Koldo]

Some authority must decide for the children when they learn about adult behaviors, and I think parents/teachers/guardians should decide rather than people who don't know the children.

Why must someone decide for the children what and when they learn about adult behavior ?

 

[Brickjectivity]

Why must someone decide for the children what and when they learn about adult behavior ?

Children are very vulnerable and are helpless in many ways. A child must be taught many, many things in order that they may take care of themselves; and adult behavior is only one kind of thing they must be taught. Even so children are too young for many adult behaviors, and so someone must decide when they are to learn about them and when they are old enough.

 

[Skwim]

Why must someone decide for the children what and when they learn about adult behavior ?

In the case of violence, typically children are unable to put violence in perspective. They haven't gained an appreciation of the pain and suffering others endure at the receiving end of violence, and how violence can negatively impact others. It's a one-sided benefit: One side derives a benefit at the expense of another. On the other hand nudity and consensual sex, which are usually censored or at least moderated, are harmless or mutually beneficial. No one is hurt.

.

.

 

[Koldo]

Children are very vulnerable and are helpless in many ways. A child must be taught many, many things in order that they may take care of themselves; and adult behavior is only one kind of thing they must be taught. Even so children are too young for many adult behaviors, and so someone must decide when they are to learn about them and when they are old enough.

People are very vulnerable. Period.
Shouldn't we be more worried about the quality of the information rather than when/what is being taught ?

 

[Koldo]

In the case of violence, typically children are unable to put violence in perspective. They haven't gained an appreciation of the pain and suffering others endure at the receiving end of violence, and how violence can negatively impact others.It's a one-sided benefit: One side derives a benefit at the expense of another.

What age group are you talking about ?
If too young, they don't have the strength to do much by themselves.
If a little older, they do understand the pain they are causing to others.

On the other hand nudity and consensual sex, which are usually censored or at least moderated, are harmless or mutually beneficial. No one is hurt.

.

Yup.

 

[oldbadger]

TV is for old people ...GTA V is the new teacher for teenagers.

OK.... you're the expert.
So let's get rid of telly programs for infants, kids, schools.

Makes sense..... Not.

 

[Skwim]

What age group are you talking about ?

Let's say between 4 and 12. Young children don't understand the relationship between all the various forms of violence and the consequent harm and suffering, and could employ the same on a playmate. If you've ever seen the Three Stooges bop each other on the head with essentially no lasting consequence it sends a false message as to cause and effect. I believe older kids, those under thirteen, simply haven't developed adequate emotional controls and a good sense of the morality of violence so to use it as a brake on their actions. All in all, imitation serves their impulse to react.

.

.

 

[Father Heathen]

that oddly enough makes a little sense. Not blaming a game of course. But the sort of person that would blame a game would probably be not too aware of what the latest hits were and his chosen scapegoat would be a few years out of date as a result.

That reminds me of a kid I knew back in High school who couldn't play D&D or read Harry Potter because they were deemed "satanic/witchcraft" by his church, yet he had no qualms playing/reading very similar things (Final Fantasy, Everquest, LoTR, etc.) because his church never mentioned them specifically, likely due to a lack of familiarity.

 

[SomeRandom]

That reminds me of a kid I knew back in High school who couldn't play D&D or read Harry Potter because they were deemed "satanic/witchcraft" by his church, yet he had no qualms playing/reading very similar things (Final Fantasy, Everquest, LoTR, etc.) because his church never mentioned them specifically, likely due to a lack of familiarity.

Ahh the days of demonising Harry Potter. Such fond memories. (Ironically my cousin’s Church used to practically hand them out in order to encourage reading.)

 

[Brickjectivity]

People are very vulnerable. Period.
Shouldn't we be more worried about the quality of the information rather than when/what is being taught ?

Children must be taught with kindness, and a teacher must anticipate their feeling and needs. They are easily manipulated, worldly ignorant, needy. Their emotions are undeveloped, and they are strong believers in adults. Their identities are also still being formed which means they don't have the same ability to filter thoughts and feelings that adults do (or should). Adults have hopefully fully formed identities and can determine how to feel, what to think about, what to ignore and how to organize and improve our thoughts.

The decision of what and when to teach children should fall to those who know them not to strangers, and that is my opinion which I consider axiomatic but have shored up with a formalism: If children do not need to be taught in a personal way then there are numerous obvious contradictions in reality. They clearly need to be taught in an orderly fashion, taught and loved and their needs anticipated.

 

[Father Heathen]

Ahh the days of demonising Harry Potter. Such fond memories. (Ironically my cousin’s Church used to practically hand them out in order to encourage reading.)

I believe it's almost exclusively US churches who get hung up on ridiculous "satanic panics" (remember when 80's rock musicians all purportedly placed subliminal messages/backmasking in their music?), and they're not much for reading anything, not even their own bibles.

 

[Koldo]

Let's say between 4 and 12. Young children don't understand the relationship between all the various forms of violence and the consequent harm and suffering, and could employ the same on a playmate. If you've ever seen the Three Stooges bop each other on the head with essentially no lasting consequence it sends a false message as to cause and effect. I believe older kids, those under thirteen, simply haven't developed adequate emotional controls and a good sense of the morality of violence so to use it as a brake on their actions. All in all, imitation serves their impulse to react.

.

That is literally what I meant by quality of information. The Three Stooges misrepresent reality.

 

[Koldo]

Children must be taught with kindness, and a teacher must anticipate their feeling and needs. They are easily manipulated, worldly ignorant, needy. Their emotions are undeveloped, and they are strong believers in adults. Their identities are also still being formed which means they don't have the same ability to filter thoughts and feelings that adults do (or should). Adults have hopefully fully formed identities and can determine how to feel, what to think about, what to ignore and how to organize and improve our thoughts.

The decision of what and when to teach children should fall to those who know them not to strangers, and that is my opinion which I consider axiomatic but have shored up with a formalism: If children do not need to be taught in a personal way then there are numerous obvious contradictions in reality. They clearly need to be taught in an orderly fashion, taught and loved and their needs anticipated.

But there is nothing about being a parent that makes one more fit to teach a child at all. Not regarding the kindness used nor in being able to anticipate their feelings and needs.

 

[Brickjectivity]

But there is nothing about being a parent that makes one more fit to teach a child at all. Not regarding the kindness used nor in being able to anticipate their feelings and needs.

Nothing can be done about that, because every child must have a parent/guardian/teacher. It is not optional. They simply cannot rear themselves. Therefore the parent/guardian/teacher which we should assume every child has in order for them to survive, that person knows them. The two qualifications which another child cannot fulfill and which the child cannot provide for itself: knowing the child and being an adult.

 

[Koldo]

Nothing can be done about that, because every child must have a parent/guardian/teacher. It is not optional. They simply cannot rear themselves. Therefore the parent/guardian/teacher which we should assume every child has in order for them to survive, that person knows them. The two qualifications which another child cannot fulfill and which the child cannot provide for itself: knowing the child and being an adult.

The fact that a child needs a guardian has no bearing on why this guardian should get to determine what can be taught to this child. If anything, being taught by multiple people will allow a more diverse and deeper knowledge.

 

[Brickjectivity]

The fact that a child needs a guardian has no bearing on why this guardian should get to determine what can be taught to this child. If anything, being taught by multiple people will allow a more diverse and deeper knowledge.

You have not provided any basis for giving children an uncensored childhood but rather have provided an even stronger reason for doing so. You are saying that the fact that the parent knows the child has no bearing on whether they should be involved in deciding what the child learns and when but have nothing to back up this assertions. Multiple guardians does not change things, either. They still should know the child. The child still has to be taught and protected. If its by multiple parents/guardians/teachers then you provide an additional reason for censorship: agreement about what the child needs to learn first.

 

[Koldo]

You have not provided any basis for giving children an uncensored childhood but rather have provided an even stronger reason for doing so.

My reasoning is twofold:

1) There is no logical entailment being having a guardian and granting that guardian complete control over what a child learns. You need an extra premise which you have not provided.

2) It is beneficial for a child to have access to a variety of lessons and perspectives since that leads to a more knowledgeable ( and well rounded ) individual.

You are saying that the fact that the parent knows the child has no bearing on whether they should be involved in deciding what the child learns and when but have nothing to back up this assertions.

I have no qualms with parents being involved in that decision. What we are talking about is having something aking to supreme power over what the child learns. Those two are not one and the same.

Plus, I hate to break it to you but parents often don't know their children as much as they presume to know. There are aspects of our being that can only be seen, and interacted with, when coming from a different angle.

Multiple guardians does not change things, either. They still should know the child. The child still has to be taught and protected. If its by multiple parents/guardians/teachers then you provide an additional reason for censorship: agreement about what the child needs to learn first.

I am not talking about having multiple guardians. I am talking about not giving that much power to guardians in the first place.

 

[SomeRandom]

I believe it's almost exclusively US churches who get hung up on ridiculous "satanic panics" (remember when 80's rock musicians all purportedly placed subliminal messages/backmasking in their music?), and they're not much for reading anything, not even their own bibles.

The 80s was a bit before my time, but I have watched people basically point and laugh at the phenomenon.

 

[Linguister]

I enjoyed most of your comments, especially the remarks about games. To me, I believe that TV, movies and games are showing too much violence, and parental control is nowhere near enough to "control". I don't understand why detailed sexual contact is censored but not detailed graphic violence! A line needs to be drawn somewhere.