Internet censorship

Censorship will exist as long as my politics or religion differ from yours which is why both are censored on this website. All societies have rules. As for yelling fire, the idea is to prevent injury before it occurs not just hold someone accountable.
 
Allowing them to see what they want removes that curiosity, and it becomes no big deal. Tell a kid they can't do something and they will. Tell them they can and it isn't as interesting anymore.

Yet you won't allow her to access porn. Why is that removed from the wider point you're trying to make?
 
Yeah Youtube Har. If the powers that be are telling YT to remove videos, I'm not OK with that. Why should YT remove videos?
Well, I'm not sure what video you are referring to. I looked up "Kennedy Assassination", and a whole bunch of videos are out there. One's 15 minutes long. So .... why one got pulled? Who knows.​
I know one thing that Youtube pulls videos for, is copyright infringement. Could maybe be that.​
 
Yet you won't allow her to access porn. Why is that removed from the wider point you're trying to make?

Because she is only 14. In real life, violence exists, profanity exists, war exists, torture and murder exists, all of these can be accessed just by watching the news. Any news. Dick Rambone the pool guy, Rock Johnson the cable installer, and Phil Uppersnatch the pizza guy showing up at the same time to Ms. Candy Greasetunnel's house for a 20 minute orgy is not real life. She wants to watch porn when she gets older, fine, but as the father of a young teenage girl it is my duty to make sure that when she decides she wants to date she does not have a corrupt idea of what a relationship and love consists of. I want my daughter to grow up with a sense of what the real world is like, but not as a two bit whore. I am the censorer, the parent, the one who is responsible for raising a productive member of society, not the government or anyone else for that matter. Anyone who wants to tell me how to raise my kid needs to start paying child support. Otherwise they can f***off.

As Watso said earlier, it should be mine and my wife's decision what our daughter is and is not exposed to, not someone else's.
 
I am the censorer, the parent, the one who is responsible for raising a productive member of society, not the government or anyone else for that matter.

It's not the parental censorship I'm querying......sounds like common sense from where I'm sitting.

But I can't align this line of thought with the argument you're presenting:

Censorship makes kids curious. Allowing them to see what they want removes that curiosity, and it becomes no big deal. Tell a kid they can't do something and they will. Tell them they can and it isn't as interesting anymore.

If that's the case, what does it matter who does the censoring? Parent or government, it's all in vain anyway, no?
 
Censorship will exist as long as my politics or religion differ from yours which is why both are censored on this website.
Interesting way to put it. I think beyond politics or religion, the root of censorship is often just someone or a group of someones getting offended. It's probably hard to argue against the feeling of taking offense at something that disturbs you being a natural instinct as humans. We (especially some of us) are easily driven towards being passionate about our strong feelings.

In other words, I suspect that perhaps it's more wired in at a base level. Politics and religion are almost just the tools we use to try and enforce our own ideas of what's offensive or not on everyone else. Kind of like our evidence that what we're looking at is truly offensive beyond our own insignificant feelings on the subject.
 
If that's the case, what does it matter who does the censoring? Parent or government, it's all in vain anyway, no?

It may all be in vain, but who determines what and why? That's my job, not theirs. Life is not censored, but entertainment is. What is the point?

Think of it this way, we have a slew of words in the English language that are deemed as bad. Why are they bad? Aren't they only words? To me it is the implied meaning of what is said that can be deemed as bad, not the word itself. When someone says "that car is a huge pile of crap", it is no different than "that car is a huge pile of shit." But yet one is acceptable and the other is not. Are not crap and shit the same thing?

You can't say asshole on TV here. When it is said, the word ass gets through while the word hole is bleeped out. When did hole become a bad word? Who decided that? Same thing with god dammit. God gets bleeped but dammit does not. Are we now censoring god because god is bad? Who comes up with this stuff?
 
Once again it's assumed that the government is running the joint when it's just the errand boy.

Most online places are privately owned and each owner decided their own rules and effectively acts as censors.
 
Well, I'm not sure what video you are referring to. I looked up "Kennedy Assassination", and a whole bunch of videos are out there. One's 15 minutes long. So .... why one got pulled? Who knows.​
I know one thing that Youtube pulls videos for, is copyright infringement. Could maybe be that.​

I was looking for videos that run counter to the Warren Commission report. Oh all kinds of videos pop up, for sure. But if you try to view them it tells you that this video has been removed. There were at least a dozen of them that I tried that were removed. One I tried viewing was called LBJ's wife tells the truth about the Kennedy assassination. That's not a copyright issue like putting a cover song up, that's blocking information in violation of our 1st amendment rights. At least that's my view of the matter. My latest favorite quote is "A patriot is a person who protects his country from his government". Or something close to that.

If the YT owners pulled it....that's different. Their site, their rules. But if pressure came from government sources to pull the videos...I'm not OK with that. That's where a line needs to be drawn.

Once again it's assumed that the government is running the joint when it's just the errand boy.

Most online places are privately owned and each owner decided their own rules and effectively acts as censors.

So humor me a second here. If the government...through untraceable benign channels, put pressure on the owners of YT to pull the vid....are you OK with that?
 
Censorship will exist as long as my politics or religion differ from yours which is why both are censored on this website. All societies have rules. As for yelling fire, the idea is to prevent injury before it occurs not just hold someone accountable.

In retrospect,I should have made my post,clearer ,as I feel some have taken it the wrong way.This is about accountability,but more to do with state of mind,and intent.If your intent was to save lives,and there is actually a fire,then you were acting in good faith.

The example I use ,has been used as an example of the limitations of constitutional freedoms.If someone were to run into a crowded theatre,and yell "FIRE".....there acually has to be a fire,which would represent a danger to all the occupants.In this instance,the person yelling "FIRE",is acting reasonably.and trying to save lives.

If you were to do the same thing,and there was no fire,and no danger to the occupants,the person yelling FIRE,is creating a dangerous condition,and legally,has no right to do so.

Then ,clearly,that person though it was all a joke,and either did,or didn't think about the occupants becoming injured ,during an evacuation.

In that instance,and in that instance ONLY,is the person yelling "fire" acting in an unreasonable manner,and committing a violation of civil and criminal law,with depreved indifference to human life.

You may still think ,that you can still yell fire ,anytime you want,but you'd be mistaken,and there is case law as well as municiple,state and federal laws ,that will bear this out.NY State Penal law "Reckless Endangerment" is one such law.

NYPD officers in the 6 month academy,study city,state and constitutional law,which is fully,1/3 of the curriculum.The example of the man yelling fire,is used as an example of an individual NOT having a right to freedom of speech do so,under all circumatances.

I'm just the messenger.

Steve B
 
It may all be in vain, but who determines what and why? That's my job, not theirs. Life is not censored, but entertainment is. What is the point?

It could be a fine line between rules and anarchy. Again to echo one of Steve B's points, its all about what is 'reasonable'.

I see your point, but presumably when your daughter turns off the TV and said she learned certain words (like a-hole...etc.) you had to guide her in their use (or non-use) somehow. Using your point, is that not censorship?

Larry, I saw an in-depth show the other night (with a full laser survey/analysis of crime scene and a skull reconstruction) that pretty much convinced me there was no shot from the grassy knoll and only shots from the direction of the book repository.
 
If the YT owners pulled it....that's different. Their site, their rules. But if pressure came from government sources to pull the videos...I'm not OK with that. That's where a line needs to be drawn.



Well, I guess you'd need to ask someone at Youtube, then. Merely speculating the who and the why just adds more white noise to an already "conspiracy" laden situation.​
 
see your point, but presumably when your daughter turns off the TV and said she learned certain words (like a-hole...etc.) you had to guide her in their use (or non-use) somehow. Using your point, is that not censorship?

I don't really think so. My guidance as a parent involves communication, it is a two way street between me and my child. If something comes up that she is curious about or doesn't understand, I do my best to be as open and informative as I can. She then weighs what we have talked about and makes her own judgement call based upon the information given. But in order to have these discussions, she has to be allowed access to everything. I don't want her to grow up with a false sense of reality. The world is a harsh place, and I feel that as parents the only way to prepare our children for it is by not hiding reality from them. Guidance is just that, helping your child understand what is acceptable and what is not. After that the decision is up to them. Censorship is removing something completely, and labeling it as unacceptable for human consumption. It comes prepackaged with the idea that some things are wrong regardless of reason or intelligent thought. I just can't accept that.
 
I don't really think so. My guidance as a parent involves communication, it is a two way street between me and my child. If something comes up that she is curious about or doesn't understand, I do my best to be as open and informative as I can. She then weighs what we have talked about and makes her own judgement call based upon the information given. But in order to have these discussions, she has to be allowed access to everything. I don't want her to grow up with a false sense of reality. The world is a harsh place, and I feel that as parents the only way to prepare our children for it is by not hiding reality from them. Guidance is just that, helping your child understand what is acceptable and what is not. After that the decision is up to them. Censorship is removing something completely, and labeling it as unacceptable for human consumption. It comes prepackaged with the idea that some things are wrong regardless of reason or intelligent thought. I just can't accept that.

But at the end of the day pornography (normal pornography....with obvious and clear exceptions) is just sex between two consenting adults.

It's your daughter...you must bring her up how you see fit.

But I find it utterly incomprehensible that on the one hand you are saying "no porn", yet on the other you seemingly sound fairly relaxed about things like violence.

My children are now both old enough to decide what they want to do (18 and 21) so I've passed this particular period....but had I taken a forensic look at either of their laptops when they were 14,15, 16 or whatever I would have been slightly more disturbed had I discovered an 'interest' in beheadings than an interest in two people shagging (which I don't mean to imply I would have consented to my kids watching porn I should add)

And I know that there IS a quite clear line between sort of 'acceptable' porn and the nasty stuff but then the same can be said of watching the Sopranos, and moving on to real life beheadings within the Mexican drug cartels online.

Just my thoughts.

I did, to add, take Grand Theft Auto off my son when he was younger as I considered it 'sick'.

I also consider there to be nowhere near enough censorship in modern life both in terms of TV, and the internet. I am no prude by the way.
 
But at the end of the day pornography (normal pornography....with obvious and clear exceptions) is just sex between two consenting adults.

It's your daughter...you must bring her up how you see fit.

But I find it utterly incomprehensible that on the one hand you are saying "no porn", yet on the other you seemingly sound fairly relaxed about things like violence.

My daughter is not an adult. She is not of proper age to consent to sex. She knows what it is and how it works, but is not emotionally grown up enough to know what to do with or completely understand it.

Violence has no age of consent. She must be allowed to understand the horrors of the world, and how to protect herself from it. She must also be able to identify it, and act accordingly when the situation presents itself. After all, kids are targets too.

Kids are not stupid. They know what goes on in the world. I would rather they be informed and prepared than sheltered and clueless. By not teaching our kids about the world, aren't we just setting them up for failure, or a false sense of reality and security at the very least?
 
Larry, I saw an in-depth show the other night (with a full laser survey/analysis of crime scene and a skull reconstruction) that pretty much convinced me there was no shot from the grassy knoll and only shots from the direction of the book repository.

The first bullet to hit JFK was in his neck and went clean through. The fatal bullet was a hollow point bullet, based on the shrapnel evidence in the brain, and from the trajectory of the entrance and exit wound, it negates the grassy knoll and the school book depository. In the car directly behind JFK, the SS guys had a rifle loaded with hollow point bullets. Pictures bear this out. Also the SS guys were out drinking till 5 in the morning that day. So they were sleep deprived, and the handling of the rifle was given to a guy who was basically just a driver, and untrained, because the rest of the guys were sleep deprived and probably still buzzed. The mans name was George Hickey. The trajectory of the fatal shot was consistent with a bullet that originated from where George Hickey was standing up in the convertible following the President. The crux of the whole show I saw was that it appears to have been an accident, with George Hickey as the guy who accidentally shot the President. I don't believe the SS would assassinate JFK, if that was their intention, in front of all those people and all those cameras. That's just plain dumb. I do believe that Oswald shot the neck shot. I do believe he intended to kill him. Oswald's bullets went clean through JFK's neck into the Governor, so they couldn't have been hollow point.

If the neck shot was a hollow point bullet, it should have blown the front of his neck out. There was radio opaque material throughout JFK's brain, consistent with a hollow point bullet. Also there were many reports of the smell of gunpowder at street level. A very interesting theory that I wanted to explore more.

The SS's own internal paperwork went missing right afterwards of course. So there are new theories out.
 
Right, that's it Harry. I saw the McClaren documentary a few weeks ago. Very interesting indeed. It makes more sense than anything I've heard. It's the shrapnel found in the brain from a hollow point, and the trajectory that makes this theory so compelling. Although I do find it odd that not one person saw George Hickey fire. That evidence could have been suppressed though. I didn't even know of an AR-15 assault rifle in the following car until a few weeks ago.

It's sure smells like a cover up to me.

There are some inconsistencies with George Hickey's testimony as well as with the head of the SS's testimony which lends further credibility to the theory.
 
The trajectory matches up, that is for sure. There is no doubt that a .223/5.56 HP fired from an AR-15 from maybe 25 yards away would cause that much damage. What I want to know is did anyone recover the bullet casing? I know casings were recovered at the scene, and an AR-15 tosses its case a good ways after the rifle cycles. The casing would have left the car, and the way the weapon works, there is no way for it to not eject the spent case. Also, even though an AR-15 is a highly accurate weapon in the hands of a trained individual, it still requires a competent shooter. The chances of the weapon being accidentally fired and scoring such a precision shot seems a bit iffy to me.

I'm not arguing the theory, actually I find all the different theories quite entertaining and plausable in their own ways. The unfortunate problem is that we will never really know what happened at this point. It is quite interesting though.
 
My daughter is not an adult. She is not of proper age to consent to sex. She knows what it is and how it works, but is not emotionally grown up enough to know what to do with or completely understand it.

Violence has no age of consent. She must be allowed to understand the horrors of the world, and how to protect herself from it. She must also be able to identify it, and act accordingly when the situation presents itself. After all, kids are targets too.

Kids are not stupid. They know what goes on in the world. I would rather they be informed and prepared than sheltered and clueless. By not teaching our kids about the world, aren't we just setting them up for failure, or a false sense of reality and security at the very least?

Agree with all that but let's be honest here....we're not talking about a 14 year old child being sat in the front of the TV watching self-defence programmes...I'm not exactly sure what that is all supposed to teach them??

We're talking about kids watching gratuitously violent films, and getting stuck into a bit of slaughter on Grand Theft Auto.

Not for a second saying that's YOUR daughter....I'm talking generally....this is what 14 year old kids are doing often (naturally with exceptions).

As I said...I fully understand why you'd not want your child viewing porn. Absolutely. Nor would I (as stated)....the bit I can't understand is that you'd be comfortable with them viewing violence...I don't get that.

But to each their own
 
Back
Top