The Instigator
BblackkBbirdd
Pro (for)
Winning
22 Points
The Contender
patrick967
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points

Censorship in general is stupid

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
BblackkBbirdd
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/12/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,025 times Debate No: 58866
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (4)

 

BblackkBbirdd

Pro

Because this debate is about censorship in general here will be specific rounds for different forms of censorship with the final round for conclusions/closing arguments.

Round 1 is for acceptance and opening arguments

2 is for internet censorship

3 is for media (inc. music) censorship e.g. wear words

4 is for nudity

5 closing arguments




Opening statement:

I think that censorship in general is stupid and in some cases pointless as it doesn’t work and/or make sense, for example the way we would censor lingerie and not bikinis. While there are some examples where it may be appropriate, most calls for censorship by people are, in my opinion unjust and unnecessary.

On a less serious note:

https://www.youtube.com...


patrick967

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
BblackkBbirdd

Pro

Firstly I would like to thank patrick967 for accepting this debate.

Internet censorship is the most pointless form of censorship as has proven in many cases not to in fact work. It is easy to get round, there are twelve year olds in my school who can get round my school’s internet censorship to access blocked pages. I believe that the government shouldn’t be allowed to decide what its citizens can access on the internet, proving that it isn’t breaking any laws.

Most people campaigning about internet censorship seem to be focusing on porn (to ‘protect children’), while neglecting the fact that the internet isn’t a pervert, you get out what you type in. If you are actively searching for porn, you’ll get porn. Granted that some children do access porn accidentally, many teenagers search for porn out of ‘curiosity’ or to ‘educate’ themselves on sex meaning that the number of teenagers watching porn would decrease with better sex education, not by banning websites. This is show in this extract from Children Commissioner’s a report that there is evidence “…indicating that young people are dissatisfied with the sex education they are receiving and that they are increasingly drawing on pornography, expecting it to educate and give information regarding sexual practices and norms.” This proves we need to improve sexual education if we want fewer children to watch porn. In addition if parents don’t wish for their child to be exposed to pornographic images there are methods of preventing this such as putting filters on computer children use which prevent them from accessing these sites in the first place. There is no need to block these sites for everyone else and restrict what they can see on the internet.

As for child porn, it’s illegal and needs to be removed but it’s not like a child could stumble across it accidentally as some argue because it’s hidden too well. Greater internet censorship would only strengthen the ‘Deep Web’ making it harder to find criminals distributing drugs, porn and other things illegally on the web while not actually solving the issue that these crimes are committed.

Filters used to censor the internet can also be extremely faulty, the one on my computer even blocked a UK Knife crime charity. Other activist sites for example those campaigning for drug reforms have also been blocked, while those supporting the government-backed war on drugs weren’t. Whether or not this censorship was intention or not, this show how censorship filters can infringe the right of freedom of speech, political education and activities of citizens. More worryingly, in 2013, BT allowed users to block “gay and lesbian ‘lifestyle’” content to prevent their children accessing information on what could be their own sexual orientation. The examples above are all extremely worrying.

China is an example of the problems of allowing internet censorship as people have been arrested for expressing their freedom of speech especially when campaigning against the censorship itself among other things. While it’s unlikely that censorship in the West would get to this level it still displays how censorship can be a threat to human rights. China’s censorship method is the one which works the best out of all of the other countries which censor the internet because it is so repressive, less strict censorship policies are domed to be aborted by governments in more ‘free’ countries as people can more easily campaign against them, for example the 2014 Turkish anti-censorship protests.

Paradoxically China’s internet censorship is also a great demonstration that ultimately, internet censorship is doomed to failure. As they get more strict, more find ways around the barriers, not to mention the fact monitoring equipment is already being pushed to the limit by the sheer number of people using the internet to express views making it near impossible to check and censor everything. Now imagine the difficulty with doing the same here, seems unlikely to work.

The internet is an important resource for accessing knowledge and information; a place where people who normally never speak out are given the freedom to express their views, which is obviously a good thing. Censorship takes this away from us. The ‘Right to be Forgotten’ has already received 250,000 "Removal" Requests to remove “inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant” this definition is very vague and partial subjection. UK governments ISP filter plans included blocking ‘esoteric material’, (something that is largely hidden from the public by claims of ‘censorship to protect children’) and could block alternative spirituality websites, thus violating the Human Right to freedom of religion and the ability of people at being able to think freely. There is also a filter for “web forums”. Both these definitions are worryingly vague and show how much of a threat censorship posse to freedom and essentially they could claim.

The internet is an essential toll in everyday life, Google Chairman Eric Schmidt has stated he personally believes "… you cannot build a modern knowledge society with that kind of behaviour.” In referring to Chinese censorship. This view was shared by a majority of people questioned in 2013 as part of a Pew research survey which showed “Majorities in 22 of 24 countries surveyed say it is important that people have access to the internet without government censorship,” To conclude, the internet is too important an asset to be restricted by censorship filters which according to blocked.com block nearly 20% of the internet, in many cases these sites pose no threat to children or anyone else for that matter.


Sources:
https://www.youtube.com...

https://www.youtube.com...

http://bishtraining.com...

http://www.theguardian.com...

https://www.newschallenge.org...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

file:///C:/Users/lisbl_000/Downloads/Basically_porn_is_everywhere_Final.pdf

http://www.bmj.com...

http://www.theguardian.com...

http://www.theguardian.com...

patrick967

Con

I was going to take the "pro" side for debate purposes for this round but there is no way I could ever make rebuttals to counter your extremely strong points. As such, I forfeit this round. I apologize for the lack of debate.
Debate Round No. 2
BblackkBbirdd

Pro

The reason there should be no censorship in media and music boils down to one thing: Freedom Of Expression. Freedom of expression is not expression when you are limited in ‘how’ you can express yourself because some people find something offensive.

Music is a form of art, once censorship of arts starts it becomes a slippery sloop as definitions for what is appropriate and what isn’t are blurred and subjective. Who decides after all when something becomes 'offensive' or not 'appropriate' to be played when these things are subjective? How many people would they have to offend to be banned?

Musicians have often been criticised for the content of their music and told they can’t perform songs relating to topics the broadcaster didn’t believe in, such as in 1968 when The Doors ‘Unknown Soldier’ was banned by many radio stations for being anti-war. The same happened to Loretta Lynn’s ‘The Pill’ (https://www.youtube.com...) in 1975 because it was about birth control and had a positive impact in educating women on birth control which allowed them to take control of their reproductive rights.

In fact songs which deal with ‘sensitive’ issues have actually help encourage people to be more interested in them or to take action against them, especially when these issues are rarely otherwise talked about. Censoring these songs in the past has been used to repress the views of people in the past, notably in Apartheid South Africa and America when songs against racism and segregation, for example when Billie Holiday’s ‘Strange Fruit’ a song which had a particular impact on people were censored. In the case of South Africa, songs were could be censored for “unfair promotion of a political party or movement” meaning protest songs were represented. This use of music to talk about issues continues today, such as in the song the ‘A team’ which was censored on 4Music to remove the word ‘class’ due to it being a reference to drugs, dispute the fact the song has a anti-drug message. Music has traditionally captures the feeling and events of times and places, censorship erodes this by restricting how artists can depict feelings and events.

People who listen to and buy music which contains swear words don’t usually give a shi…sorry ‘defecation’ whether music contains swearing, it’s the people who don’t who actually mind. Why should these people be able to censor the others music? As Frank Zappa said during his testimony at the PMRC hearing in relation to children listening to explicit lyrics “… a teenager may go into a record store unescorted with $8.98 in his pocket, but very young children do not. If they go into a record store, the $8.98 is in mom or dad’s pocket, and they can always say, Johnny, buy a book. They can say, Johnny, buy instrumental music; there is some nice classical music for you here; why do you not listen to that? The parent can ask or guide the child in another direction, away from Sheena Easton, Prince, or whoever else you have been complaining about.” Parents are responsible for what their young child is exposed to, as Mr Zappa points out if parents don’t want their child listening to certain music with swear words, a young child is unlikely to be able to go against their parents. When this child becomes old enough to find ways of buying and listening to music their parents don’t approve off they’re at an age where the explicit content of the song would have no have a ‘negative’ effect on them and it wouldn’t offend them. They would have already picked up swear words found in the lyrics from their friends and family and by the age of 11-12 they'd have an adult-like vocabulary of swearing. In the same time violent Rap was at its most popular crime fell. The opposite would have been shown if music affected the likelihood of someone committing a crime due to listening to explicit music.

Media censorship is a worryingly bad idea, mainly for reasons touched upon above and in Round 2 surrounding the rights of people to access information and express their views and how this can be taken away once we give the government the ability to decide what should be accessed and breach our rights.

People who would read a media articles, for instance in the newspaper tend to be mature and have encountered swearing, so seeing an uncensored swear word is unlikely to offend. Therefore there is no point in using grawlixes like f*ck, ***k, f**k or f*** when they mean ‘Phuck’ just as much as ‘ph.u.c.k ‘ does (we may even see ‘phuck’ written more in grawlixes than as a word), and everyone knows that they mean ‘phuck’ and they read them as ‘phuck’ when they’re reading it in their head anyway. In addition swear words get less strong and less offensive the more they are used, for example 40 years ago George Carlin ‘s ‘Seven words you can never say on television’: “Sh!t, p*ss, phuck, *unt, *ocksucker, motherphucker, and t!ts.”Are used in everyday language and often feature on TV, they’re less offensive now that they’re so regularly used. Therefore when you bleep out a swear word every time it’s said on TV it starts getting more and more offensive again as it become more taboo, censoring swear words just makes them more offensive.

Hiding something doesn’t make it go away, and cushioning swear words with asterisks and beeps doesn’t make then less shocking in the long run when we consider that everyone will encounter, pure, unedited swear words at some point. Censoring them just makes it more shocking when this happens as words are seen as more taboo.

In relation to the use of censorship of swear words in media and music, people have always been swearing to express many thing, as shown by ‘Vsauce’ in the video “”Why Are Bad Words Bad?” (https://www.youtube.com...) Swear words are necessary in language, contrary to what people who are pro censorship argue. They are among the most versatile words in our language, the word ‘phuck’ falls into many grammatical categories including. transitive verbs, intransitive verbs, conjunctions, interjections and nouns among others so cutting them out of our speech reduces our vocabulary as well as ability to express ourselves via swearing using Dysphemisms, empathetic swearing. They can show a range of emotions e.g. Joy, frustration and anger and are often the best words for people to express these emotions and can make expressions of emotion more powerful (observe the ascending emotive expression as potency of words used increase “What’s wrong with you?!” , “What the hell’s wrong with you?!” and “What the phuck's wrong with you!” this proves alternatives to swear words aren’t always continually appropriate as they are less good at conveying feelings and emotions).

In conclusion, even when music and censorship is done for good intentions, ‘to protect innocence’, in the process of doing this we are taking away someone’s rights. We should take offense from people preventing our freedom of expression, not from the expressive freedom itself. Everyone is equally entitled to express themselves under Human Rights laws, even when some people perceive it as ‘offensive’ .


(Is it ironic just spent a hour trying to censor all the 'prophanity' ((i got frustrated and tried to post the whole debate in the comments)) out of this debate because this website is a suppresive douchbag?)

https://soulsafari.wordpress.com...

http://www.billboard.com...

https://www.youtube.com...
http://hangout.altsounds.com...

http://www.theguardian.com...;

http://psychcentral.com...

http://www.neontommy.com...;
http://downlode.org...;
http://www.psychologicalscience.org...

https://soulsafari.wordpress.com...


patrick967

Con

patrick967 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
BblackkBbirdd

Pro

I'm going to keep this short because I don't have much time left, it’s three o’clock in the morning and my opponent forfeited the last two rounds.

While I understand why people would want sexual nudity to be censored in public, none sexual nudity shouldn’t be censored because there is nothing unnatural about the human body therefore we shouldn’t be feel a need to censor it in media etc. Firstly, most shows, movies etc. don’t have nudity in them and the ones that do such as True Blood tend to exclusively have mature audiences, thus it can’t be argued that nudity is needed to protect the ‘innocence of children’ in this instance. Also people who watch these shows tend not to have much of an issue with nudity otherwise they wouldn’t watch something which contained it.

Secondly, if more none sexual nudity wasn’t censored less people, especially teenagers would be worried that don’t have a ‘normal’ looking body or think that they’re fat when they’re not which could lead to there being less body issues among people.

Additionally, nudity isn’t always sexual, for example in art work such as painting and statues as well as more modern artwork such as body paintings (http://www.theguardian.com...).

Finally, in the US and UK among other countries, there is a sexist double standard to what is considered ‘obscene’ in regard to nudity in different genders, for example the way it isn’t regarded as ‘obscene’ when a man’s nipples are shown but when a women’s are the image is often censored, sometimes even when the image of the man’s chest is intended to be sexual and the woman’s isn’t (e.g. protest, art, breastfeeding...). This is simply sexist and point to the major flaw with censorship of nudity, as with all other forms of censorship; what is counted as ‘obscene’ or ‘offensive’ is subjective. Why should something be censored because it might cause offence to some, especially something like the human body which we shouldn’t be offended to seen naked?

Examples of none sexual nudity and nudity not usually regarded as ‘obscene’ which shouldn’t be censored.

Teaching mothers how to breastfeed http://www.mumsnet.com...

https://www.youtube.com...

art http://lh3.ggpht.com...(1)%5B2%5D.jpg?imgmax=800

http://3.bp.blogspot.com...

not usually regarded as obscene:

http://images5.fanpop.com...

http://i.dailymail.co.uk...

Sources (AKA tabs I sorta looked at then added cause, meh you have to add sources)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

http://www.fhm.com...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

http://uk.eonline.com...

(IT IS NOW 04:02, I SHOULD REALLY GO TO BED!!!)

patrick967

Con

I am sorry for the forfeiture. My grandma had two mini-strokes in under a week. One was on Friday, and we (my brother, mom, and dad) stayed in Toledo until Saturday when she was released from the hospital, so we left to go to my parents' house in Akron. On Saturday afternoon there was another TIA (mini-stroke/transient ischemic attack) and we immediately headed back to Toledo. We only just got home today. My grandma is doing well, she is home and my uncle and his wife and four kids are there. So is my grandpa. Again, sorry for the crappy debate.
Debate Round No. 4
BblackkBbirdd

Pro

Sorry to hear about your grandmother, mine also had strokes earlier this year. I hope she gets better.

Main reasons why censorship is stupid:

  • It doesn’t work in many cases such as internet censorship which is ineffective since it is so easy to get around.
  • It takes away freedoms of expression by restricting how and sometimes if people can express themselves. Examples include censoring nudity in art preventing
  • Restricts the information available to the public which prevents them from being fully informed ehcoh could affect a countries growth
  • Censorship can and has been used by governments in attempt to control the views of the public by restricting, information notably in China

Therefore, censorship is stupid because it has very few benefits in comparison to its negative consequences.


In conclusion, Vote for me!! :)

patrick967

Con

Vote pro!
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by BblackkBbirdd 2 years ago
BblackkBbirdd
Yeah DDO, that's what I think of your ban on 'profanities' in debates about censorship
http://s3.amazonaws.com...
Posted by BblackkBbirdd 2 years ago
BblackkBbirdd
Ignore these last posts, I got angry at DDO because I couldn't find the last http://images4.fanpop.com... and I only had 58 minutes left to post it
Posted by BblackkBbirdd 2 years ago
BblackkBbirdd
Media censorship is a worryingly bad idea, mainly for reasons touched upon above and in Round 2 surrounding the rights of people to access information and express their views and how this can be taken away once we give the government the ability to decide what should be accessed and breach our rights.
People who would read a media articles, for instance in the newspaper tend to be mature and have encountered swearing, so seeing an uncensored swear word is unlikely to offend. Therefore there is no point in using grawlixes like f*ck, ***k, f**k or f*** when they mean "Phuck" just as much as "ph.u.c.k " does (we may even see "phuck" written more in grawlixes than as a word), and everyone knows that they mean "phuck" and they read them as "phuck" when they"re reading it in their head anyway. In addition swear words get less strong and less offensive the more they are used, for example 40 years ago George Carlin "s "Seven words you can never say on television": "Sh!t, p*ss, phuck, *unt, *ocksucker, motherphucker, and t!ts."Are used in everyday language and often feature on TV, they"re less offensive now that they"re so regularl
Posted by BblackkBbirdd 2 years ago
BblackkBbirdd
Hiding something doesn"t make it go away, and cushioning swear words with asterisks and beeps doesn"t make then less shocking in the long run when we consider that everyone will encounter, pure, unedited swear words at some point. Censoring them just makes it more shocking when this happens as words are seen as more taboo.
In relation to the use of censorship of swear words in media and music, people have always been swearing to express many thing, as shown by "Vsauce" in the video ""Why Are Bad Words Bad?" (https://www.youtube.com...) Swear words are necessary in language, contrary to what people who are pro censorship argue. They are among the most versatile words in our language, the word "phuck" falls into many grammatical categories including. transitive verbs, intransitive verbs, conjunctions, interjections and nouns among others so cutting them out of our speech reduces our vocabulary as well as ability to express ourselves via swearing using Dysphemisms, empathetic swearing. They can show a range of emotions e.g. Joy, frustration and anger and are often the best words for people to express these emotions and can make expressions of emotion more powerful (observe the ascending emotive expression as potency of words used increase "What"s wrong with you?!" , "What the hell"s wrong with you?!" and "What the phunk's wrong with you!" this proves alternatives to swear words aren"t always continually appropriate as they are less good at conveying feelings and emotions).
Posted by BblackkBbirdd 2 years ago
BblackkBbirdd
DoD is being a douchbag and not letting me post:

In conclusion, even when music and censorship is done for good intentions, "to protect innocence", in the process of doing this we are taking away someone"s rights. We should take offense from people preventing our freedom of expression, not from the expressive freedom itself. Everyone is equally entitled to express themselves under Human Rights laws, even when some people perceive it as "offensive" .
Music
https://soulsafari.wordpress.com...
http://www.billboard.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
http://hangout.altsounds.com...
http://www.theguardian.com...
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
BblackkBbirddpatrick967Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
BblackkBbirddpatrick967Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: concession
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
BblackkBbirddpatrick967Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
BblackkBbirddpatrick967Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession