BURN IT ALL!

[andrewducker]

[Poll #1750855]

Comments

Reasoning

[andrewducker]

Daytime broadcast TV I can understand. Parents should be able to let their kids watch TV at 5pm with the expectation that they won't be exposed to adult-themes/unpleasantness.

Advertising is in public spaces.

Re: Reasoning

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

I would agree with this stance.

I'm not actually very troubled by the current situation -- I think allowing people to sell unrateable films if they make it clear this is an adults only situation would be fine, and I may be concerned, in principle, with who has control over bodies like BBFC (and I agree with Charlie's point that amateur videos should not require the same hoops as commercial films, probably), but I don't think the current situation is actually harming anyone, and not moving in that direction, so I'm inclined to leave well enough alone.

This has the caveat that restricting obscene things should be code for "we're going to ban anything that shows gay couples, and then SAY it was because that's obscene".

Re: Reasoning

[marrog.livejournal.com]

I would extend my 'daytime broadcast tv' stance to advertising within that period and advertising that may be seen by said people's kids - for example on the sides of buses, in shopping malls, parks, etc, but not after the watershed or in adult-only spaces.

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

Anything you might consume without really, really meaning to.

[andrewducker]

That's why I separated broadcast and subscriber tv.

[philmophlegm.livejournal.com]

Yes, I think that's the key matter for me. The old "I don't want it rammed down my throat!" distinction.

[fearmeforiampink]

Aye. There's enough random channelsurfing, including by kids, pre-watershed for me to include that. And adverts aren't something you've signed up to watch.

[laplor.livejournal.com]

That's my reason as well. If one might be exposed to it involuntarily, it should be all ages and all mindsets friendly.

[fub.livejournal.com]

Considered obscene or unpleasant by who?

[andrewducker]

The government, of course (or duly appointed body, as we currently have for movies and computer games)

[accordingly.livejournal.com]

I find this really difficult.

I do accept that the BBCFC play an important role in film classification and I think that should stay. But I don't agree with banning things (the Human Centipede 2 will just end up on the Pirate Bay like everything else).

BASICALLY I disagree with censorship or banning of obscene/unpleasant material, but I do think it should be restricted. Such as is currently with the watershed on TV, or age ratings on films.

[interactiveleaf.livejournal.com]

Human Centipede 2 hasn't been banned, though.

It *is* far more difficult to watch, but if you're willing to make the effort, you're welcome to, and it's not illegal to own it.

[major-clanger.livejournal.com]

I've not answered because 'obscene' and 'unpleasant' are such different concepts that to me the question is so wide as not to admit of a meaningful answer.

[andrewducker]

Picking two definitions of "obscene" from handy dictionaries:
1. (of the portrayal or description of sexual matters) Offensive or disgusting by accepted standards of morality and decency.
2. Offensive to moral principles; repugnant

There seems to be a lot of crossover there between obscene and unpleasant.

[bart-calendar.livejournal.com]

Margaret Thatcher, Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin.

[major-clanger.livejournal.com]

...walk into a bar.

Do carry on, I'm waiting for the punchline :-)

[feorag.livejournal.com]

The question is a little vague for my tastes, especially the choice of the word "unpleasant". As for my one choice, advertising, it also depends on where the ad is. For example, I don't think the ban on tobacco advertising should extend to genuine (i.e. not a marketing vehicle by tobacco companies) specialist publications. There are magazines aimed at cigar connoisseurs, for example, and I really think there are no health benefits to be had from not letting them carry advertising for cigars.

The "legal, decent, honest, truthful" thing is reasonable and should be extended to cover religious ads which currently have an exception on the matter of "truth", but I suspect this is not what the question is about.

[andrewducker]

I agree with you on cigarette ads in trade magazines. Seems entirely reasonable to me.

[lizzie-and-ari.livejournal.com]

I selected 'adverts' but in fact in depends on the placement of the adverts to a certain extent - eg adverts on daytime tv, yes, adverts on a porn website, maybe not.

And I took 'censor/ban' to not include classifying - I think things like 18 certificates are a good idea, but don't consider that censorship.

Lx

[naath.livejournal.com]

I think "things which people who don't want to see it can't reasonably avoid" is a good shot, which I think mostly amounts to "advertising in public spaces or during not-similarly-unpleasant/obscene-television". I'm not sure "day time TV" is something you can't reasonably avoid (I avoid it all the time!) but a lot of people seem to want to put their child down unsupervised in front of it, and I'm sure most 5 year olds have figured out a TV remote these days...

I think defining what is obscene/unpleasant is much harder. There's going to be SOMEONE objecting to almost anything (personally I object to advertising in public spaces in general...), should we thus censor anything that might offend anyone? that might offend 50% of people? difficult question.

What I would like to see for other types of media is more information about the ways in which it might be obscene/unpleasant/offensive before I purchase/rent/view/etc it so I can decide whether I want to read/view it from an informed perspective.

[blackmanxy.livejournal.com]

Obscene or unpleasant? Nothing. Show me actual harm and we'll talk.

[alitheapipkin.livejournal.com]

Daytime TV and public adverts should be family-friendly but other than that, I'm a big fan of putting age certificates or explicit content warnings on things and then leaving adults to decide what they expose themselves to. I get that parents are scared about children seeing stuff online but I think content filters are the way to go with that not Government censorship.

[zz]

i'm ticking daytime tv and adverts on the assumption that the powers would be used for good. which they probably wouldn't be, because power corrupts and people are "imperfect" even without power.

i'm also not entirely convinced by "protecting" kids from ideas, but then i may have a skewed perception because my parents "protecting" me from 18 films was just another way in which i didn't fit in with my peers at the time, and rl has been far more harmful to me than metaphorical monsters under the bed.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

I'm with "none of the above" *specifically* because "obscene" and "unpleasant" are the criteria being used.

There are reasonable cases to restrict speech, and most of those will ALSO be unpleasant and many will be obscene, but simple obscenity is insufficient.

[cairmen.livejournal.com]

This is exactly my opinion, although it does (see major_clanger's comment) depend upon which definition of "obscene" you're using. If said definition incorporates proof of harm, then it may be more reasonable.

[elmyra.livejournal.com]

I nearly ticked adverts and daytime telly. Here's why I didn't tick either in the end.

Daytime telly Firstly, if we see broadcast TV as a single unit rather than distinguishing between daytime and night time TV, then shifting time slots doesn't really fall under censorship for me. (Yes, I am still a fan of the watershed, mostly as a reflex rather than because I've really thought about it and decided it's a good thing.) Secondly, given the omni-presence of subscriber TV these days, and that I don't think that should be censored, I'm not convinced censoring broadcast TV makes any practical difference.

Adverts I do think there's a case for regulating advertising, but not on obscenity/unpleasantness grounds. Misleading advertising is a different matter entirely.

[andrewducker]

I'm not sure it's fair to put up disgusting/pornographic images in public spaces.

My $0.02...

[dpolicar]

...not having read other comments:

The government should have not only the right, but the obligation, to prevent the display of certain information/images/whatever, for all kinds of reasons: national security, public welfare, various criminal acts, etc. But the fact that some people consider something obscene or unpleasant isn't among those reasons.

The government should also have the right (and perhaps the obligation, though I'm less clear about that) to enforce labeling, so customers can make informed choices to avoid stuff they consider objectionable for whatever reason.

Owners of communications channels should have the right to refuse to carry signals they consider objectionable, for whatever reason. The government should have not only the right, but the obligation, to override that right-of-refusal in certain cases.

In cases where a communications channel is itself owned by the government, that gets trickier. I'd rather they outsource it. But if they must own it, then I guess they should have the same rights as any other channel owner. I'm less confident about that part.

[apostle-of-eris.livejournal.com]

Censorship by content may be arguable. I don't see how censorship by medium is.

[andrewducker]

I would argue that content that you have specifically requested (movies, subscriber-TV, websites) is different from content that you might casually bump into in a public place (billboard advertising, broadcast TV)

[andrewhickey.livejournal.com]

I don't think there should be the ability to censor or ban *anything* for being obscene or unpleasant, but I do think some sort of improved ratings system would be useful so people can make reasonable decisions.
Daytime broadcast TV would be a special case, except I don't see that being an especially important medium for more than a few more years.

But essentially, if it's something you can choose not to look at, and you're given reasonably accurate information about what you'll be looking at, then I don't see that it's any of the government's business.