Censorship on TV

[Peikko 1,575]

I don't think Number 6 got to draw that line either, it was a decision by some or another moderator. Number 6 may agree with the moderator but he didn't make the decision. My opinion? I might think you acted like an #######, but I still wouldn't have stopped you carrying on acting like one.

[DeadPoolX 9]

Well, this isn't an example of censorship from television, but it's an example nonetheless...

I don't know how many of you are gamers. If you are, maybe you've heard of an adventure game called Fahrenheit in Europe (and presumably South America, Africa, Australia, and Asia as well). If you haven't... this game is about a young man who doesn't remember committing a horrible murder and then has to escape the authorities while proving his innocence in a number of different ways.

The reason I'm bringing this up in this thread is because it was changed for specifically for use in North America, while the original was left untouched everywhere else in the world.

How was it altered? Well, for starters, the name was switched to Indigo Prophecy because the developer (Quantic Dream) and publisher (Atari) feared that North American audiences (specifically those in the United States) would get the title confused with Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11. Other parts that were changed include a "nude shower scene" and a "controllable sex scene."

Granted, none of these alterations made the game any different. The name getting changed doesn't affect it any and the shower and sex scenes were, at best, tertiary to the overall plot of the game. However, the point is that the developer and publisher made a decision for the gamer -- they said that North American audiences couldn't "handle" the original game, wouldn't be able to "tell the difference between two different forms of media with similar names" and made the automatic assumption that people in North America would think that "all games are for children."

As anyone with even half a brain could tell you, simple nudity and a relatively mild sex scene (certainly nothing more than you'd see in an R-rated movie) is in no way worse than a bloody, violent, horrific murder. In addition, I think most people could probably figure out that Fahrenheit was a computer game and that Fahrenheit 9/11 was a movie; if they couldn't, then that's their damn problem for being stupid. And finally, as far as "games being for children" goes... some are and some aren't. Games are a lot like movies and TV shows in that respect -- there are all different types designed for all different audiences. To believe that the medium is created for only one group is beyond ignorant.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Well I think we ought to be specific here. The 9/11 thread you hijacked didn't involve you expressing an individual opinion as much as it did involve you jumping on and repeatedly attacking someone who demonstrated a direct, personal link to the tragedy.

The 'pack' BTW - has no power, relatively speaking. That resides with the admin and moderators.

Number 6, please re read the thread. The hijack as you mentioned occured when (Devilette) wanted recognition of him or her's experience of 9/11 was more significant than mine. Based on the theory of their seeing it in person. I stood at the top of that building in 1991. Being awwww struck at the height of that building. Vj troll, got some guff for showing A pic of the reality of the guy making the decision to jump or burn,truly showed the pettiness of any of our feelings toward the occasion. Being there doesnt give anyone the right to tell me I get to feel less than them.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well I think we ought to be specific here. The 9/11 thread you hijacked didn't involve you expressing an individual opinion as much as it did involve you jumping on and repeatedly attacking someone who demonstrated a direct, personal link to the tragedy.

The 'pack' BTW - has no power, relatively speaking. That resides with the admin and moderators.

Number 6, please re read the thread. The hijack as you mentioned occured when (Devilette) wanted recognition of him or her's experience of 9/11 was more significant than mine. Based on the theory of their seeing it in person. I stood at the top of that building in 1991. Being awwww struck at the height of that building. Vj troll, got some guff for showing A pic of the reality of the guy making the decision to jump or burn,truly showed the pettiness of any of our feelings toward the occasion. Being there doesnt give anyone the right to tell me I get to feel less than them.

Clearly others had a different interpretation.

[Emancipation 2]

This is the latest one that comes to mind!! And Sally Fields of ALL people to get censored!! *sigh I love Canada...

http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/thebigb...ives/121971.asp

Sally Field: Censored by Fox for political reasons?

Controversy is brewing online over whether Fox TV (owned by the politically conservative Rupert Murdoch) censored Sally Field during her Emmy acceptance speech Sunday night for an obscene word or because she was making an anti-war statement.

Field, who is no stranger to unusual acceptance speeches, said: ""If mothers ruled the world, there wouldn't be any god ... " when the sound was cut off and the camera cut to other shots from the awards ceremony. The rest of the statement was: "------ wars in the first place." Backstage, Field, when pressed, said: ""If they bleep it, oh, well. I'll just say it somewhere else."

Canadian TV played the remark uncut.

The L.A. Times Insider blog says that, under an FCC ruling from 2004, the censored word was not obscene.

The Washington Post's media critic, Howard Kurtz, noted in an online chat:

"I don't have any problem with Fox bleeping the expletive, given the FCC's penchant for big fines. I have a big problem with Fox not letting Sally Fields complete her thought -- that she was making a statement against the war. Award shows may or may not be the appropriate venue for political statements, but she said it at a live news event, so in a way Fox was censoring the news."

Ironically, Justin Timberlake and Adam Samberg won an Emmy Sunday for their Saturday Night Live song "D--- in a Box." But they declined to perform it on the show in a censored version.

Edited September 19, 2007 by Emancipation

[pedroh 21]

This is the latest one that comes to mind!! And Sally Fields of ALL people to get censored!! *sigh I love Canada...

http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/thebigb...ives/121971.asp

Sally Field: Censored by Fox for political reasons?

Controversy is brewing online over whether Fox TV (owned by the politically conservative Rupert Murdoch) censored Sally Field during her Emmy acceptance speech Sunday night for an obscene word or because she was making an anti-war statement.

Field, who is no stranger to unusual acceptance speeches, said: ""If mothers ruled the world, there wouldn't be any god ... " when the sound was cut off and the camera cut to other shots from the awards ceremony. The rest of the statement was: "------ wars in the first place." Backstage, Field, when pressed, said: ""If they bleep it, oh, well. I'll just say it somewhere else."

Canadian TV played the remark uncut.

The L.A. Times Insider blog says that, under an FCC ruling from 2004, the censored word was not obscene.

The Washington Post's media critic, Howard Kurtz, noted in an online chat:

"I don't have any problem with Fox bleeping the expletive, given the FCC's penchant for big fines. I have a big problem with Fox not letting Sally Fields complete her thought -- that she was making a statement against the war. Award shows may or may not be the appropriate venue for political statements, but she said it at a live news event, so in a way Fox was censoring the news."

Ironically, Justin Timberlake and Adam Samberg won an Emmy Sunday for their Saturday Night Live song "D--- in a Box." But they declined to perform it on the show in a censored version.

that kinda censorship is sad. very sad

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Well I think we ought to be specific here. The 9/11 thread you hijacked didn't involve you expressing an individual opinion as much as it did involve you jumping on and repeatedly attacking someone who demonstrated a direct, personal link to the tragedy.

The 'pack' BTW - has no power, relatively speaking. That resides with the admin and moderators.

Number 6, please re read the thread. The hijack as you mentioned occured when (Devilette) wanted recognition of him or her's experience of 9/11 was more significant than mine. Based on the theory of their seeing it in person. I stood at the top of that building in 1991. Being awwww struck at the height of that building. Vj troll, got some guff for showing A pic of the reality of the guy making the decision to jump or burn,truly showed the pettiness of any of our feelings toward the occasion. Being there doesnt give anyone the right to tell me I get to feel less than them.

Clearly others had a different interpretation.

It was clearly taken out of context, and totally misunderstood. The name calling that insued was very clear and justified. Right?

[Jenn! 918]

This is the latest one that comes to mind!! And Sally Fields of ALL people to get censored!! *sigh I love Canada...

http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/thebigb...ives/121971.asp

Sally Field: Censored by Fox for political reasons?

Controversy is brewing online over whether Fox TV (owned by the politically conservative Rupert Murdoch) censored Sally Field during her Emmy acceptance speech Sunday night for an obscene word or because she was making an anti-war statement.

Field, who is no stranger to unusual acceptance speeches, said: ""If mothers ruled the world, there wouldn't be any god ... " when the sound was cut off and the camera cut to other shots from the awards ceremony. The rest of the statement was: "------ wars in the first place." Backstage, Field, when pressed, said: ""If they bleep it, oh, well. I'll just say it somewhere else."

Canadian TV played the remark uncut.

The L.A. Times Insider blog says that, under an FCC ruling from 2004, the censored word was not obscene.

The Washington Post's media critic, Howard Kurtz, noted in an online chat:

"I don't have any problem with Fox bleeping the expletive, given the FCC's penchant for big fines. I have a big problem with Fox not letting Sally Fields complete her thought -- that she was making a statement against the war. Award shows may or may not be the appropriate venue for political statements, but she said it at a live news event, so in a way Fox was censoring the news."

Ironically, Justin Timberlake and Adam Samberg won an Emmy Sunday for their Saturday Night Live song "D--- in a Box." But they declined to perform it on the show in a censored version.

I was wondering what had happened there. The whole thing was very strange. She just kept saying, "war...war...war...". I think she may have been on something.

[pedroh 21]

according to fox, they censored her, because she used the word godamn.. but a lot of people are like 'she talked bout war, fox censored it'

[Emancipation 2]

according to fox, they censored her, because she used the word godamn.. but a lot of people are like 'she talked bout war, fox censored it'

Yeah.. I think if i was her I would have taken out the swear words and seen if it would have been censored.. I think her emotions got the better of her and out of frustration she swore.. it would have been interesting to see if she hadn't swore if they would have aired her message.

[DeadPoolX 9]

according to fox, they censored her, because she used the word godamn.. but a lot of people are like 'she talked bout war, fox censored it'

Yeah.. I think if i was her I would have taken out the swear words and seen if it would have been censored.. I think her emotions got the better of her and out of frustration she swore.. it would have been interesting to see if she hadn't swore if they would have aired her message.

Exactly.

Maybe they still would've censored her even without the foul language (we'll never really know), but since she did use it, that gave them a great excuse. If she had wanted to get her point across, without letting FOX seem like they're just following FCC regulations, then she should've deleted the foul language from her speech.

[almaty 19]

i agree censorship is bad and puritan is nature..also, i agree that VJ is guilty of the practice too..........

[DeadPoolX 9]

i agree censorship is bad and puritan is nature..also, i agree that VJ is guilty of the practice too..........

Everyone and every establishment is "guilty" of censorship, in some form or another. It's just human nature. Most of the time we don't even realize it or just accept it as "that's the way things are." Sometimes, censorship can be a good thing too.

Take, for instance, airports. Is it censorship or security procedures that disallow people there from making jokes such as "Hey, Steve? Remember that bomb you packed last night? Can I see it again?" In most cases, I don't think airport security personnel would find that too funny -- neither would "Steve" or his friend after they were whisked away to a back room to be interrogated and probably even searched.

But the fact remains that we are not allowed to say things like that. For the most part, people accept and respect that. There are still some who test the limits (like a moron I read about a while back who thought it was his "right" to wear a "Bush is a terrorist" T-shirt on a flight and was detained), but most people just don't even think about it and follow the rules.

What about your job? If you work for someone (or you are the boss), then chances are you either can't say whatever you want to whoever is above you or you don't allow those below you to say whatever they want to you. Some of this is based off of respect; if anything was allowed, then the whole employee-employer relationship would eventually become blurred and overall respect would dimish in time. However, there is some form of censorship going on as well -- you can't "tell your boss off" and you need to be careful what you say to other coworkers, especially if they are of the opposite sex (and you're male and they are female), since whatever is said can be construed as sexual harassment.

There are many more examples as well, but I don't think most of you would care to read a novel-sized post. That's fine with me, since I don't really feel like writing a whole lot more anyway.

People in this country (and most "free" countries, I'd imagine) make a big deal about the concept of "free speech," but there's really no such thing. A better term would be "free speech within the limited confines of the situation at hand."

Edited September 19, 2007 by DeadPoolX

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

i agree censorship is bad and puritan is nature..also, i agree that VJ is guilty of the practice too..........

Everyone and every establishment is "guilty" of censorship, in some form or another. It's just human nature. Most of the time we don't even realize it or just accept it as "that's the way things are." Sometimes, censorship can be a good thing too.

Take, for instance, airports. Is it censorship or security procedures that disallow people there from making jokes such as "Hey, Steve? Remember that bomb you packed last night? Can I see it again?" In most cases, I don't think airport security personnel would find that too funny -- neither would "Steve" or his friend after they were whisked away to a back room to be interrogated and probably even searched.

But the fact remains that we are not allowed to say things like that. For the most part, people accept and respect that. There are still some who test the limits (like a moron I read about a while back who thought it was his "right" to wear a "Bush is a terrorist" T-shirt on a flight and was detained), but most people just don't even think about it and follow the rules.

What about your job? If you work for someone (or you are the boss), then chances are you either can't say whatever you want to whoever is above you or you don't allow those below you to say whatever they want to you. Some of this is based off of respect; if anything was allowed, then the whole employee-employer relationship would eventually become blurred and overall respect would dimish in time. However, there is some form of censorship going on as well -- you can't "tell your boss off" and you need to be careful what you say to other coworkers, especially if they are of the opposite sex (and you're male and they are female), since whatever is said can be construed as sexual harassment.

There are many more examples as well, but I don't think most of you would care to read a novel-sized post. That's fine with me, since I don't really feel like writing a whole lot more anyway.

People in this country (and most "free" countries, I'd imagine) make a big deal about the concept of "free speech," but there's really no such thing. A better term would be "free speech within the limited confines of the situation at hand."

To reword what you wrote you slightly – people ‘can’ say whatever they like, but they can’t have an expectation that there won’t be consequences resulting from certain statements or behaviour. I ‘could’ be rude to my co-workers, but I don’t because I’m aware that this would result in (i) a visit to the bosses office, (ii) disciplinary action or termination of employment, and (iii) damage to my future career prospects.

‘Could’ doesn’t mean ‘Should’. Does that mean I’m being censored? Perhaps, assuming of course that using exercise of common sense amounts censorship.

[almaty 19]

i agree..DP...there are times and places for censorship...but, the fear is that since janet jackson teat...this has became a crusade..