Total Posts:5|Showing Posts:1-5
Jump to topic:

Should Art & Entertainment Ever be Censored?

BlackheartCynic
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2016 4:47:55 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
Does anyone believe that there are any circumstances under which entertainment, along with all other forms of art (should you feel the need to differentiate them), should be censored? I've heard many people espouse the position that art should be censored for the sake of the children, who might be exposed to "adult concepts" that they might not be able to handle, or sensitive people who are likely to be offended by much of the art ingrained in popular culture. Does anybody find a shred of validity in this point?

Personally, I believe that no art should ever be censored, at least so long as no one was harmed without their consent in its production. I say f*ck censorship (and wouldn't you know it, even these forums aren't free of arbitrary censorship) that has the intention of preserving the "innocence" of children, because if anyone is to be responsible for controlling what art children access, it should be their parents, not the PC Police who would ban everything they deem inappropriate for children. I also raise my middle finger to those who say art should be censored so as not to offend the hyper-aggressive, hyper-insular, manic-panic bedecked social justice warriors who balefully breathe down the necks of innocent artists like mosquitoes in the miasmic swamp holes of Florida (though the mosquitoes are certainly less invasive and irritating). Censorship benefits no one, only succeeding to create an atmosphere where one belief system or set of ideals triumphs over and controls all others. It's an enemy of free speech, which I care dearly about.

Thoughts, anyone?
Torton
Posts: 988
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2016 5:52:55 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/26/2016 4:47:55 AM, BlackheartCynic wrote:
Does anyone believe that there are any circumstances under which entertainment, along with all other forms of art (should you feel the need to differentiate them), should be censored? I've heard many people espouse the position that art should be censored for the sake of the children, who might be exposed to "adult concepts" that they might not be able to handle, or sensitive people who are likely to be offended by much of the art ingrained in popular culture. Does anybody find a shred of validity in this point?

Personally, I believe that no art should ever be censored, at least so long as no one was harmed without their consent in its production. I say f*ck censorship (and wouldn't you know it, even these forums aren't free of arbitrary censorship) that has the intention of preserving the "innocence" of children, because if anyone is to be responsible for controlling what art children access, it should be their parents, not the PC Police who would ban everything they deem inappropriate for children. I also raise my middle finger to those who say art should be censored so as not to offend the hyper-aggressive, hyper-insular, manic-panic bedecked social justice warriors who balefully breathe down the necks of innocent artists like mosquitoes in the miasmic swamp holes of Florida (though the mosquitoes are certainly less invasive and irritating). Censorship benefits no one, only succeeding to create an atmosphere where one belief system or set of ideals triumphs over and controls all others. It's an enemy of free speech, which I care dearly about.

Thoughts, anyone?
Nope, never. IMO, the only reason censorship should exist is to get rid of blatantly illegal sh!t, like child porn. Even Hatred, as dumb as the idea (and it's not even a good game in the first place), has a right to exist.
Vaarka
Posts: 7,526
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2016 3:04:00 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/26/2016 4:47:55 AM, BlackheartCynic wrote:
Does anyone believe that there are any circumstances under which entertainment, along with all other forms of art (should you feel the need to differentiate them), should be censored? I've heard many people espouse the position that art should be censored for the sake of the children, who might be exposed to "adult concepts" that they might not be able to handle, or sensitive people who are likely to be offended by much of the art ingrained in popular culture. Does anybody find a shred of validity in this point?

Personally, I believe that no art should ever be censored, at least so long as no one was harmed without their consent in its production. I say f*ck censorship (and wouldn't you know it, even these forums aren't free of arbitrary censorship) that has the intention of preserving the "innocence" of children, because if anyone is to be responsible for controlling what art children access, it should be their parents, not the PC Police who would ban everything they deem inappropriate for children. I also raise my middle finger to those who say art should be censored so as not to offend the hyper-aggressive, hyper-insular, manic-panic bedecked social justice warriors who balefully breathe down the necks of innocent artists like mosquitoes in the miasmic swamp holes of Florida (though the mosquitoes are certainly less invasive and irritating). Censorship benefits no one, only succeeding to create an atmosphere where one belief system or set of ideals triumphs over and controls all others. It's an enemy of free speech, which I care dearly about.

Thoughts, anyone?

If you ask me, most stuff that is censored probably shouldn't be. However, if it's something that's blatantly pornographic or something, then that's up to wherever it is.
If it's on some website, then the site should have the say in censorship. In other words, if there was a rule on a site where users could post their artwork, and that rule stated "no artwork relating to [subject]" and someone breaks that, then it can possibly be censored.

At this point, I'm not sure what else to say, really XD. If the risk of some kids seeing a painting of a half-naked person exists in an art gallery, then that is more of a parental decision. If it's a website, then the site has permission to censor as they see fit if it violates certain rules or something. I mean, there are usually warnings or ratings for certain arts or entertainments, so a parent can't do something like bring their kid to a movie that's rated R and has "scenes of graphic violence" and "nudity" in the description, and then complain about it and how it's ruining their kid's experience.
You're probably thinking right now "haha I'm a genius". Well you're not -Valkrin

inferno: "I don't know, are you attracted to women?"
ButterCatX: "No, Vaarka is mine!"

All hail scum Vaarka, wielder of the bastard sword, smiter of nations, destroyer of spiders -VOT

"Vaarka, I've been thinking about this for a long time now," (pulls out small box made of macaroni) "W-will you be my noodle buddy?" -Kirigaya
TheBeesKnees42
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2016 2:54:36 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/26/2016 4:47:55 AM, BlackheartCynic wrote:
Does anyone believe that there are any circumstances under which entertainment, along with all other forms of art (should you feel the need to differentiate them), should be censored? I've heard many people espouse the position that art should be censored for the sake of the children, who might be exposed to "adult concepts" that they might not be able to handle, or sensitive people who are likely to be offended by much of the art ingrained in popular culture. Does anybody find a shred of validity in this point?

Personally, I believe that no art should ever be censored, at least so long as no one was harmed without their consent in its production. I say f*ck censorship (and wouldn't you know it, even these forums aren't free of arbitrary censorship) that has the intention of preserving the "innocence" of children, because if anyone is to be responsible for controlling what art children access, it should be their parents, not the PC Police who would ban everything they deem inappropriate for children. I also raise my middle finger to those who say art should be censored so as not to offend the hyper-aggressive, hyper-insular, manic-panic bedecked social justice warriors who balefully breathe down the necks of innocent artists like mosquitoes in the miasmic swamp holes of Florida (though the mosquitoes are certainly less invasive and irritating). Censorship benefits no one, only succeeding to create an atmosphere where one belief system or set of ideals triumphs over and controls all others. It's an enemy of free speech, which I care dearly about.

Thoughts, anyone?

Genocide.
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2016 6:03:47 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
Art is fine to be censored under conditions in which it violates the standards of its hosting outlet (e.g., television station, website). Obviously, in such cases, the artists should seek out more accommodating outlets.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...