Im sick of hearing about peoples idea of censorship, so I decided might as well show the truth behind it all and show what censorship really is....

Censorship by definition is the act, process, or practice of censoring. Psychologically, it is the prevention of disturbing or painful thoughts or feelings from reaching consciousness except in a disguised form.

"On Thursday February 1, 1996 the Congress of the United States of America voted 414 to 16 (Senate vote 91 to 5) to violate the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights set forth in the Constitution of the United States of America. In a major historical decision, First Amendment rights guaranteed for the past 205 years (December 15, 1791) to all American citizens were stripped from them."

Censorship helps or offends some of us. However, is it right to censor? The answer is yes and no. The reason why I say yes, is that it saves some from being offended or insulted. It allows all to browse the internet without worrying about opening a porn site, or another goatsec.x site. It allows us to not worry about someone saying obscenities. It also prevents people from being ridiculed. But does this break the point of reality? Does this make us more vulnerable to it? Would this force racism to be gon? The answers to these questions can be endless. Lets say you had an 8 year old child (or if you do, you can probably relate), and he/she was browsing the internet looking for something about his favorite cartoon. Out of curiosity he clicks on something that came up that said "Hentai" (Hentai is Japanese cartoon pornography) and was exposed to all of its content. I’m sure you'd be appalled, as well as the child’s mind now open to that, and probably will go back to it, for curiosity. Sure, he/she would have lots of questions.

Now for the no part. Censorship does break the first amendment which allows us to express ourselves freely, and allows us to be more open as well as say/show our thoughts, without hesitation. Expose some to the truth, however some to the lies. An attempt to protect our civil rights. But is censorship all it seams to be? It may even protect us.

I myself agree with censorship, but to an extent. I believe that only racism and religion bashing should be censored (as well as child/animal pornography but I won't get into that). Racism is brought about by ignorance. People bash races because they are "different" than them or someone had a bad experience with someone of a different race. However, all races bleed the same blood, have the same body, and are human. This is what some people cease to recognize. Religion bashing can shatter ones deepest belief, as well as offend someone more strongly as anything there. Just imagine someone shattering your beliefs. Shattering your dreams, your thoughts. Don't think you'd enjoy that.

Have any of us actually read the CDA? To actually see what censorship is, I have included a nice chunk of the Communications Decency Act of 1995 within this news post:

This title may be cited as the "Communications Decency Act of 1995".
SEC. 502. OBSCENE OR HARASSING USE OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES UNDER THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934.

"(a) Whoever --

"(1) in interstate or foreign communications -

"(A) by means of a telecommunications device knowingly -
"(i) makes, creates, or solicits, and
"(ii) initiates the transmission of, any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication which is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent, with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass an other person;
"(B) by means of a telecommunications device knowingly -
"(i) makes, creates, or solicits, and "(ii) initiates the transmission of, any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication which is obscene or indecent knowing that the recipient of the communication is under 18 years of age regard less of whether the maker of such communication placed the call or initiated the communication;
[...]

"(1) in interstate or foreign communications knowingly -

"(A) uses an interactive computer service to send to a specific person or persons under 18 years of age, or
"(B) uses any interactive computer service to display in a manner available to a person under 18 years of age, any comment, request suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards, sexual or excretory activities or organs, regardless of whether the user of such service placed the call or initiated the communication; or
"(2) knowingly permits any telecommunications facility under such person's control to be used for an activity prohibited by paragraph (1) with the intent that it be used for such activity, shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
[...]

"(c) PROTECTION FOR 'GOOD SAMARITAN BLOCKING AND SCREENING OF OFFENSIVE MATERIAL.Ñ

"(1) TREATMENT OF PUBLISHER OR SPEAKER.ÑNo provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

Think about it....
I would also like to thank the admins for posting this.

"It is not what a teenager knows that bothers his parents, it is how he found out." - Deviant Art

Very good veiw points - and great article.JOHN

This is silly. When is censorship okay? When ya do it to yerself. End of story. Doing it to others is an invasion of others' personal liberties. If you're offended by certain words, images, ideals, or humor, then either walk away or change the station. To legislate what others can say or hear is absolutely ridiculous, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

Additionally, no child's head (or anyone's head for that matter) is gonnoo explode from seein' or hearin' things, should they happen to stumble across it. God ferbid we should find a naked body on our screen or read some propaganda. Oh, such corruption. Listen, if you're so worried, then shield YOUR children from it, but don't even think about tellin' me what my kids can experience.

Again, knowing when to censor yourself just goes along w/wisdom. Learning how ta tolerate that which you don't like takes an even greater amount.

Btw, it strikes me as a bit incongruous how your headline and opener nearly contradict your views.

I could not have agreed more. Plus, Sean oversimplifies racism. People often get the wrong idea when it comes to racism, sexcism, etc. Not all racism is based on 100% hatred. Sometimes, it is a mixture of fear and hatred and the hatred comes out because of fear sometimes. For example, I am Caucasian and I feel nervous when I am around a group of black people. I feel like they will do harm to me. Does that make me a racist because I perfer not to be around them? In my opinion, in a way, it kinda does. Is this bad? I do not think so. Sometimes our fears protect us. I think most people are very touchy when it comes to the subject of racism and are always ready to label anybody who has a prejudice against a race or sex. Just a note: next time think about why people do have prejudices. Not all racism or prejudice is based on hate.

You think religion bashing should be censored?? By the government?? Are you nuts? I'm a christian myself, but I would never allow myself or anyone else to be censored as to what they can and can't say about religion. If it shatters someones ideals they probably weren't that true to begin with! You have no idea how many great works of literature would be banned if religious censoring was allowed.

I'd even argue that racist things should not be censored. I may not agree with them--but making it OK to censor one thing opens the door to censor other things--and my ideas might be next.

The government should not censor anything short of national security issues and things that would onset a public panic/riot. And Private groups should be able to censor whatever they want. Is this so difficult?

Brian

You think religion bashing should be censored?? By the government?? Are you nuts? I\'m a christian myself, but I would never allow myself or anyone else to be censored as to what they can and can\'t say about religion. If it shatters someones ideals they probably weren\'t that true to begin with! You have no idea how many great works of literature would be banned if religious censoring was allowed.

I\'d even argue that racist things should not be censored. I may not agree with them--but making it OK to censor one thing opens the door to censor other things--and my ideas might be next.

The government should not censor anything short of national security issues and things that would onset a public panic/riot. And Private groups should be able to censor whatever they want. Is this so difficult?

Brian

I agree with brian.

It’s all or nothing when it comes with censorship. I don’t like racist talk either but its no ones place to tell someone what they can and can not say about another. being held responsible for what they is a differnt issue though.

I common factor with censorship is 'tolerance'

if you are anti-censorship you MUST be tolerant to a degree. Even with views you don’t agree with.

heh i did a fantasic job of proof reading that post eh?

I think we're all racists to a certain extent. ...apparently, some of us more than others.

I definitely assert that if you cross the street for fear of bein' on the same side as someone who's ethnicity is different from yours, then you're a racist. One certainly can very much be a racist based on fear.

Q, as much as I understand what'ch're tryin' ta say, I think perhaps ya oughtta think about reevaluating your fear. Are ya fearful because they're black, or is it because those particular people at that particular time appear ta you ta be ominous or threatening? I think there's a difference. I've "crossed the street" in the past when a group of white people were there, and I've stayed on course most o'the time where there are black folks, and vice versa. It sincerely depends on the people and the vibes they give off.

Btw, Simon, you said there're 2 extremes. At 1st, after readin' the rest of the paragraph, I almost thought you'd mentioned only 1. I think the tangent we're goin' off on here is that there's only 1 form of racism, but it transcends to many ethnic groups. I think we should paint our pic in more colors than just b&w. It can be applied to the racist Asian who hates or fears both whites and blacks; it can be the Indian who hates or fears native Americans. It can be the Jew who shies away from befriending gentiles. Hell, I even have a friend of Columbian descent whose mother doesn't approve of his girlfriend because she's Puerto Rican! Racism comes in all shapes and sizes, folks.

That is the earlier more antiquated definition, sy. Today, racism refers to any prejudice or discrimination based on race (MW, 10th Ed.). It's all bigoted and racist. If we make a decision based on someone's race, even if it's your own, it's bigoted and racist. If one fears one race and not another, then by definition, he thinks the one he's not afraid of is superior, simply because he or she's not afraid of that one. There, racism without hate.

Rrrriiiight, that's a good point! There are many (too many, if ya ask me) neighborhoods where all groups of people are potentially dangerous. ...from Compton and Harlem right on thru Little Italy, trailer parks, and backwoods southern towns.

Maybe in Rialto, one is protecting his or her ass by crossing the street. Like I said, same goes for Compton, Watts, East St. Louis, Bed-Stuy, etc. But the active phrase has become locale rather than race. If you cross the street because of race, you're a racist. If you cross the street because of potential danger, then you're not. I've never once changed my seat at a Met game or a concert because the people sittin' near me were a different creed. Like I've said, tho, I have changed my seat when my comfort level declined below satisfaction due to people nearby.

What's so ridiculous .. Merriam-Webster's contemporary definition? You can debate them all ya want, but I tend ta lean toward their authority. ..and to further elaborate, if I prefer drinkin' coffee over hemlock juice, then it just goes ta follow that I think coffee will react to me in a more superior way for my tastes. I mean, I may even like the taste of hemlock, but it could kill me, so I drink the coffee and think it's superior because it won't kill me. There, beveragism without hate.

What facts are you referrin' to?

I .. think that's what I just said.

Yes, that IS what I said. You're not crossing the street because of fear of the race; you're crossing the street because of fear of those particular people (regardless of race) in that particular location! Those same people may not be feared in a Six Flags park, and we probably wouldn't cross the street if it were a different group of people in the lousy neighborhood if they're givin' off less ominous vibes. The motives for crossing the street are not racial. See what I mean? I know you do.

If we make ANY decision based on race, it is racist. Period.

It is NOT a decision based on race. If the race you belong to were in the same threatening situation, YOU'D STILL CROSS THE STREET.

...or is it that'ch're afraid of THEIR racism?? If so, and you're basin' your decision on race; it's a racial decision. It then goes ta show that you yourself would believe that the race you WOULDN'T cross the street for is superior because you don't fear'em. Racism.

I never meant to open up a can of worms. LOL. It's not an easy subject. It's hard to draw a line. In America, racism has so many connations. I mean you have KKK racism where they go out and kill people and you have people like me that tends to avoid certain people. It's a complex subject.

Heh, and here all along I'd been thinkin' that the familiar twisting was yours.

The last sentence of the 1st paragraph is the only correct thing stated in your last post. The preceding part o'that paragraph is entirely incorrect. When we make decisions based on race, i.e., racially-motivated decisions, it is racist. When we make decisions based on circumstance that just happen to include another race, it is not. I dunno how ta make it any simpler.

Whether it's a feeling of superiority or inferiority, its still racist. Hiring somone because of their creed is just as wrong as not hiring someone for the same reasons. Like I've been sayin' (repeatedly it seems), if you fear .. let's say .. cats but not dogs, then it logically follows that you think dogs are superior because they know how to behave in a manner that agrees w/your sensibilities. Nothin' changes when we talk about any 2 differing things for which we have a preference.

Btw, just curious, what are some o'the ways that a race can be "physically superior" to another?

Q, racist murders and racist evasion are both racist, but since killing another human is ultimately the worst thing we can do on this planet, we really shouldn't compare. It's apples, oranges, and bananas. It's one thing to cross the street to avoid the entrance of the NAACP; it another to yell epitaphs before ya do; and it's entirely a third to throw Molotov cocktails before the crossing.

...and that's okay. Simon and I're kinda useta kickin' each other's can.

Simon .. buddy .. please don't make me quote M-W ta you again.

"This is not racist." I disagree (based on M-W's modern definition). "This does not discriminate." Yes it does. Of course it does.

Are you basin' your decision ta cross the street on circumstance and potential danger, or on race? Again, if this group of people is jumpin' people all day, you'll avoid'em because they're dangerous, not because they're from "a certain race." If that same person crosses the street, but instead says, "Oh my, there's that group of [insert race here] and I've been hearin' that these [insert race here] have been jumpin' people walkin' past all day, so I better cross the street to avoid gettin' jumped by these [insert race here]," IT'S STILL RACIST. Now, if that same person replaces "[insert race here]" with a word like "hooligans" or sump'm, then we're certainly not talkin' about race then but protection. In both cases, the person is interested in self-preservation, but "[insert race here]" is definitely racially motivated. Racism.

Elmer season!!!