Protection Vs Free Speech (Censorship)

[MacLeod]

I'm fairly liberal when it comes to censorship, and broadminded and only thing censorship should be used in extreme cases.

Don't have much of an issue with the current certifcates either as I think they strike a decent enough balance. Perhaps the R18 rules should be relaxed and allow them to be sold with a license(Something like an Alcohol License) in non adult stores.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Why not leave it to the discretion of the store owner? After all, the age requirement is the same for both. Why not just have the R18 rating act as a warning label so people are aware of the contents, rather than as an actual censor?

 

[Pingfah]

I'm fairly liberal when it comes to censorship, and broadminded and only thing censorship should be used in extreme cases.

Extreme cases is very subjective though, the BBFC probably already thinks they only act to curb extreme cases.

 

[Opus]

Not if they are staged, no. Obviously I would draw the line at anything that involved committing a crime in order to create. But simulated violence, I would not have any limit on, nor sex as long as all actors are consenting and of legal age.

What if the actors, who are of legal age, are depicting underage or illegal sexual activity, such as brutally raping a child?

Although as I said before, I do support age restrictions.

So you do support censorship.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

That depends on your definition of censorship. Arguably, if there is still access in a country, it isn't censorship or, if it is, it's a less harmful version of censorship.

 

[Sean Aaron]

I'm not too bothered myself, but I do question the uneven removal of head-butting from films: is the presence of a head-butt the difference between a certificate 15 and an 18 or something? I can see why it was removed from Attack of the Clones (since I've only ever seen the UK version in its entirety I was surprised to find that there was one in the fight between Obi Wan and Boba Fett), but removing it from The Matrix makes no sense to me given how much other violence is in the film. Since I originally saw that in the States I'm aware of the cuts, though I have to say the editing out of those actions is pretty seamless.

 

[DarthTom]

Asides from this argument, It would be interesting to hear where people stand on the debate of free speech. In the United Kingdom, if people are preaching hate on the streets, by law they can be arrested (and often are, in the case of Abu Hamza), whereas in many other Countries, practises such as this are seen as an individuals right to free speech.

A recent example of where a written constitution and where a written guarantee of free speech would ensure that the situations like the below cannot happen where the Royal Family excluded certain coverage of the wedding which by all rights was a very public ceremony.

The Chasers are a group of Australian comedians who mount a satirical program called The Chaser's War on Everything for the taxpayer-funded Australian Broadcasting Corporation (the ABC, Australia 's equivalent of the BBC). The Chasers are famous for “stunts”, the most celebrated being driving a person dressed up as Osama bin Laden through the incredibly tight security of the 2007 APEC conference in Sydney that was attended by US president George Bush.
However the UK Royals prohibited participation by the Chasers in the Royal Wedding coverage and threatened the ABC with exclusion from BBC TV footage unless The Chasers were excluded. According to Mumbrella (that comments on Australian media): “ The ABC has been forced to cancel Friday night's alternative coverage of the Royal Wedding by The Chaser on ABC2 after a ruling from the office of the Royal Family.

 

[Pingfah]

Not if they are staged, no. Obviously I would draw the line at anything that involved committing a crime in order to create. But simulated violence, I would not have any limit on, nor sex as long as all actors are consenting and of legal age.

What if the actors, who are of legal age, are depicting underage or illegal sexual activity, such as brutally raping a child?

I'd allow it.

Although as I said before, I do support age restrictions.

So you do support censorship.

I support age limits on lots of things, don't you?

 

[RJDiogenes]

What if the actors, who are of legal age, are depicting underage or illegal sexual activity, such as brutally raping a child?

Actors frequently depict illegal activity. Depicting illegal activity is not illegal. Or at least shouldn't be.

 

[Sean Aaron]

But if it's "CGI" porn, or that which is made by adult actors pretending to be children, then I don't see the illegality of it. Indeed, the more fake porn is available, the less demand there will be for the real thing, and therefore less likely that children will be in danger. Right?

Considering countries like Sweden regard drawings of children in sexual situations as child pornography the same as photos, I think you'd find at least one country (and probably more - I'm pretty sure there's been talk here of classifying something as "child porn" due to use: i.e. if you're jacking off to a photo of a child from a clothing catalogue that counts) where what you're describing would be illegal.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

By use? I assume they at least mean the person who owns and uses it would be the one committing the crime and not the producer (who can't control someone using a catalog for other purposes). Even then, that's extraordinarily iffy. If the person was just picturing children, is their mind child pornography?

 

[RJDiogenes]

I've heard of at least one cartoonist (I believe this was in Florida) who was jailed for publishing cartoons of children in sexual situations. I believe it was an autobiographical comic. He was being defended by the CBLDF, but I'm not sure how it turned out.

 

[DarthTom]

Here's another example of the British Government censoring "Free Speech."

An attorney for the British government has reaffirmed the United Kingdom's decision to ban leading talk-radio host Michael Savage from entry.
WND reported last July the new Conservative-Party-led government of Prime Minister David Cameron informed the popular nationally syndicated host it would continue the ban initiated by the previous administration unless he repudiated statements made on his broadcasts that were deemed a threat to public security. The U.K., however, has never specified which statements it thought were so dangerous.
As WND reported in May 2009, then–British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith announced that Savage was on a list of 16 people banned from entry because the government believed their views might provoke violence. Smith said it was "important that people understand the sorts of values and sorts of standards that we have here, the fact that it's a privilege to come and the sort of things that mean you won't be welcome in this country."

Read more: Britain reaffirms its ban on Michael Savage http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=303069#ixzz1NMjir9u9

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I support age limits on lots of things, don't you?

This is not unreasonable.

Only a few decades ago, a great deal of pornography was illegal in the United States. The First Amendment has been interpreted in a number of ways over time, and given the current makeup of SCOTUS the winds could shift again.