Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
BlackFish

Quick Poll about Censorship in American Media (TV/Games/Music)

How has censorship in American Media Changed since 20 years ago?  

26 members have voted

  1. 1. How has censorship in American Media Changed since 20 years ago?

    • Even with rating systems, authors are stuck with more stricter rules.
      9
    • Authors are able to make profanity freely in their media because of rating systems.
      6
    • Rating Systems are a psuedo censor, meaning that the AO rating is the line for making profanity in games.
      4
    • Other reasoning
      7


Recommended Posts

My Exhibition Paper Topic was "How has censorship in American Media (TV/Games/Music) changed since 1980?"

I wrote as my thesis as that censorship lessoned over the years because of the enforcement of rating systems, allowing authors to create more profanity in their media freely.

While there's obviously arguments to this (like Rockstar still getting hammered about GTA4), I wanted to know your opinions. Apparently my teachers were somehow amazed by the topic and I aced it too easily, but I just wanted your opinion.

Share this post


Link to post

Maybe, just maybe authors can have more profanity and violence these days, but that's pretty much all. Sex, racism, almost all religious themes and so on are rather controlled (not directly, though, but you can be certain that if you make, say, muslim jokes that you'll be paying for it in a way or an other).

So no, censorship is even worse these days.

Share this post


Link to post

Yeah, I'd have to agree with Jodwin. You can have as much profanity and violence you want in a game or a movie and it'll probably end up getting a MA rating or R rating. Add in one tiny sex scene and it'll automatically get jumped up to a AO rating or NC-17 rating.

Share this post


Link to post

Censorship has changed a lot due to changes in the country. There are arguments supporting both an increase and decrease in overall censorship. For instance, the more channels present on television, the more channels without censorship restrictions and thus the higher perceived ratio of uncensored material. (Though many new channels have high censorship standards as well, so the ratio likely hasn't changed much.) But there are factors increasing the use of censorship as well. In a post 9/11 world, censorship of certain touchy or potentially dangerous or offensive subjects has risen. Then there's the advent of the world wide web, where censorship cannot affect much of what Americans see.

It's really a complex issue. You have to consider the many arguments on each side of censorship. These arguments will tell you how censorship has changed, but they won't prove whether censorship has increased or decreased overall. Without exhaustive research, it'll be hard to prove whether censhorship has increased or decreased in the past 20 years.

Share this post


Link to post

GGG said:
But there are factors increasing the use of censorship as well. In a post 9/11 world, censorship of certain touchy or potentially dangerous or offensive subjects has risen. Then there's the advent of the world wide web, where censorship cannot affect much of what Americans see.

I'd say that is more an effect of bias rather than outright censorship. Nonlegal private or internal censorship and ideological spam are used to absorb attention and keep most of what is considered acceptable or watchable within certain standards. Things are in a way censored by being pushed to certain channels or mediums that only certain types in the population are exposed to, by habit or arrangement. It's a kind of commercial or economical censorship, as opposed to the traditional censorship that is imposed legally.

Share this post


Link to post

Here's my thesis.

"Censorship is just a fancy word for infringment on people's freedom of speach and expression, and it sucks. The end."

Share this post


Link to post

Maybe their freedom of speech wouldn't be taken if they knew how to spell!

IM BLOODSHEDDER

Share this post


Link to post

It's bullshit that movies and games get cut up and edited in order to get a more marketable pg-13 or teen rating. So in the end, publishers suck most because they're most directly responsible for censorship.

Share this post


Link to post

The third option is probably the closest to making sense with the current scheme, although "pseudo censorship" is a misnomer, as pseudo means "false". It's more like attenuated or relative censorship, as far as entertainment goes.

If you ask me, censorship is less effecticve nowadays, as GGG sort of implied, although there are some alternate mechanisms in place that do some of censorship's work where it has lessened. Just like stopping underground copying (what information hoarders call piracy) is harder nowadays, so is the blockage of specific info, although certain steps are taken to channel the info and media flow in order to oversee it or alter it (politically or for profit).

Note that while after 9/11 some types of censorship may have increased, there doesn't seem to be much of a change when compared to cold war (anticommunist, and so on) censorship. I would take the patriot act as a reactionary response to this greater flow of information, where the centralized state has taken the occassion to try to get a power grip over the current scheme of (digitalized) information, becoming more invasive, and more obscure in itself, as opposed to necessarily blocking third party information from reaching some of the public.

Share this post


Link to post

I know that in Singapore, they censor by cutting inappropriate scenes to try as best at making it available to the general public. It doesn't work out, because when people can't watch it in the theatres, they'll watch it on the comp after downloading it through some filesharing program. Censorship isn't effective. The idea is great, but not well put into effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Xaechireon said:

I know that in Singapore, they censor by cutting inappropriate scenes to try as best at making it available to the general public. It doesn't work out, because when people can't watch it in the theatres, they'll watch it on the comp after downloading it through some filesharing program. Censorship isn't effective. The idea is great, but not well put into effect.


I don't think the idea is great, and I'm glad they can't put it into effect. Why the hell should one person stop me from doing something that they dislike? In the end, no one is higher up than anyone else; we are all human. So why should a fellow mortal human on my own level try and play as my God?

Share this post


Link to post

I got it back today, 88 go me O_o.

Yes I realize I should have done more research about the topic, and I know many people think that the Ratinglimit censor is a current problem today, as many people (like Clerks for example) couldn't do exactly what they wanted without getting an NC-17 rating or some other rating that's too high for the mainstream to buy. I wanted to write more about this idea but I didn't know how to make it 10 pages in time for the deadlines.

@fraggle: The paper was based off of Music/Games/TV, entertainment sorts. I know that stuff like news is definitely censored, but that doesn't relate to people like Tipper Gore and Joseph Lieberman, who I researched on.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×