Censorship!

[Thingus]

Alright I know where I stand on the subject (censorship is a load of crap that should have never been allowed to take place) but Im interested in hearing how you guys feel about it.

 

Its hard for music to be an art form if there are limits to what the artists can do

[Dave Martin]

Did a specific action bring this on, or did you just decide that censorship is a bad thing?

 

There's a time and a place for it, just as there's a place for free expression. Foe example, I loathe 95% per cent of what's on television, so I don't have cable and don't turn the television on. If you were a producer of a TV show, you could claim that I'm acting as a censor, because no television in my house will air your show. Is it censorship when I won't allow passengers in my car to play obscenity laden rap music? Is it a bad thing when newcasters aren't permitted to divulge sensitive information?

 

On the other hand, I think that the limits of what an artist can do (and the ways in which they push those limits) have a great deal to do with what makes music an art form...

[dcr]

Hey, yeah! And what's with the price of stamps lately? And how come no one ever hears about Sinbad anymore? My hip hurts--why?

 

Thoughts?

[Max Valentino]

Freedom of speech, freedom of expression, is a wonderful thing, yet, with it comes a heavy repsonsibility.

One of my favorite sayings is:

"Just because you CAN do something does not neccessarily mean you SHOULD".

 

Yes, art requires freedom of expression to live and to grow. But in todays culture, "art", whether good or bad, carries with it great social responsibilities, and with that great ramifications for every artistic "expression".

Giving power to one person or group to decide on what is "proper" forms of expression, can only lead to great repression of ALL forms of expression.

 

It is then up to the artist to be his/her own critic and censor.

Unfortunately, our world turns on a financial axis, and as we all know, vulgar sensationalism sells.

 

I am all for free speech, and expression, but there are some exponents of this which are truely harmful, and ridiculous, pointless, or just plain stupid (yet somehow continue to titilate and exploit the masses, and yes, make money for either their "creator" or the business which pull the strings...consider the game "Grand Theft Auto", for instance).

 

The freedom of speech and expression which we enjoy carries with it a tremendous burden and responsibility to those who use it. When taken in this light it is truely meaningful, insightful, inspirational, illuminating, elevating, and, most of all, neccesary. When taken for granted, without responsibility, it is dangerous, frivolous, exploitive, insulting, degrading, demanding, vulgar, and expendable.

 

Max

[cornbread_medhotmail.com]

It's just the same as with everything else. The actions of a few spoil the fun for the rest of the class. But, society has asked for it so they can be lazy and lax in raising their kids. My parents knew what I was watching and what video games I was playing (Atari 2600 didn't have much in the way of racy content). They understood that they had to take an active part in my brother's and my life. They weren't just looking for something to occupy my time so they could have time to themselves or time to go out and party. Society has gotten to the point where we want to be titilated, but want to leave our kids in front of the tv so we can be titilated without any distractions. If parents would actually take the time to be with their kids and raise them properly, we would not need all this legislation to raise our kids for us.

[GeorgeR]

Max - I agree.

 

Censorship only comes about when other people, our neighbors, find they have to complain to (government, other authority, etc...) about our lack of responsibility regarding what we create, when our appetites for money grow irresponsibly.

 

With freedom comes responsibility. Two sides of the same coin. Inseparable. We either govern ourselves responsibly or someone else will eventually step in where we consistently fail.

 

Certainly as a daddy, censorship must occur in this house - too much smut on the cable TV for example, so I set limits to what my child can see when I'm away and my wife is running the place by herself, and I've eliminated cable so that's even one less thing to worry about.

 

In so doing, we're trying only to give reinforcement of the good things about life and not give opportunity to permit confusing or conflicting messages to influence someone so young and impressionable.

 

I certainly do remember quite clearly as a teen hearing on the radio Samantha Fox's "Touch me" and yes, that stuff DOES have a tremendous influence on young people, even if it's for ideas and ideals that teach disrespect to women. I can't tell you the nonsense that was running through my head upon hearing that song back then!

 

I also can't imagine how confusing it must be to young kids who saw the Madonna/Britney thing and secretly wondering if that is somehow a good form of behavior.

 

Then again, Madonna's appetite for money seems to know no limits.

[davebrownbass]

Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Expression.

 

Well, I think that freedom of speech initially had the focus of allowing those with informed dissent express that dissent without repercussions.

 

And the reason this right was protected is that informed dissentors can foment change, especially change in the government. And in people's hearts.

 

So, in my lifetime, Martin Luther King's free speech, while enraging some, causing fear in others was vital to begin to get a new generation of Americans to change their thought patterns about other races.

 

Informed dissent implies that the dissenter has a firm grasp of the issues, and chooses to skeptically look at "the accepted definition" and attempt to re-define. It also implies that his "new definition" of whatever is being discussed is better, more true than what is commonly believed or practiced.

 

With this in mind, a young rapper extolling the joys of rape or celebrated his own "bulletproof-ness" hardly contributes to the public good. And I, with my freedom of speech, have the absolute right to say that.

 

It's a marketplace of ideas...but this new view of freedom of speech just makes it a marketplace of "whatever sells." Often, they make no effort to discourse at all.

 

Consider the tenure system of college professors, and to a lesser extent, public school teachers. After a given period of time, these professional "studiers" are given lifetime employment. The primary reason is that if they uncover unpopular truths, they shouldn't risk unemployment and blacklisting simply by adding their information to the discourse.

 

Or perhaps they believe something unpopular. If a college professor believes in evolution, he should be able to maintain a personal belief and still teach effectively.

 

But I personally know a college professor who brought a teenage protege into his program, moved her into his house, kicked out his wife and kids, made her the star pupil. Later, she got disgusted sleeping with a married old goat and left him for another student in the program. The college professor then flunked and emotionally tortured this student, began stalking this young couple, eventually being arrested for stalking and sexual harassment.

 

This professor had tenure, and did NOT lose his job for these obvious infractions and crimes. Would you consider this an abuse of the tenure system...making tenure less meaningful for those who use it properly?

 

In my generation, teenagers given the right to vote. This came primarily because teenagers were being sent to a war they had no right to vote against. If an 18 year old faces involuntary conscription, he quickly becomes informed of issues and uses them to change things. But would you extend that to 16 year olds? 14 year olds?

 

There may well be 14 year olds who could vote informed choices, but I'll wager the vast majority of them couldn't get deeply enough into the issues to understand them. They haven't had enough life experience for that.

 

And yet, we allow them to dictate, through thier purchase, the direction of our "freedom of speech." To the detriment of all.

 

Our deepest freedoms, freedoms whose definitions are often summarized in a catch phrase such as "freedom of speech" or "separation of church and state" are often vicimized by those same, simplistic definitions. Hollering these simple word "freedom of speech" to justify anything vile or useless gives trash constitutional protection it doesn't deserve.

 

Spewing ignorant hate in a recording can't exactly be called informed dissent. It's the most simplistic outburst of an immature mind, and it's only purpose is to drain the pocketbooks of similiar immature minds.

 

Of course, this is where responsibility enters the equation. If you are going to say something, you have the responsibility to inform yourself about the issue. And you have the responsibility to make your speech contribute to the public good. And if you don't do that, you are exercising free speech irresponsibly.

 

This is also similar to the gun control issue. The constitution reads, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right

of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

 

The purpose of the right to bear arms is to function as a voluntary soldier in a regulated militia. It is much simple. You aren't even guaranteed the right to bear arms to protect your own home...at least not in the constitution. Yet when taken out of context (and it's implied meaning), this phrase is used to justify owning assault weapons...which unfortunately, can get in the hands of these same, ill-informed teenagers.

 

Our society has made a dreadful choice. We've allow ourselves to be lazy, not dealing with a primary issue...the development of intellectual rigor in the young. We place fewer demands on them spiritually, emotionally, intellectually. And we do get wonderful kids, but a few become troubled......

 

Censorship? I don't think anyone should tell me what to say, think, do, read, study, visualize. But I am an educated, reasonable adult with mental health.

 

Unfortunately, in adult's exercise of their free speech, young people have become expose to things they can't deal with. And that hurts them and us all.

 

We can't put the genie back in this bottle. So people like me, who have daily, regular interaction with young people, spend valuable class time helping them process and cope with this emotional assault. Just one small finger in an enormous dike for sure...but it's what I gotta do.

[BenLoy]

George R wrote:

I also can't imagine how confusing it must be to young kids who saw the Madonna/Britney thing and secretly wondering if that is somehow a good form of behavior.

This particular snippet of your argument had me stop and think for a bit...because I agree and disagree...

 

Two women kissing in and of itself I believe does harm to no one. Being a healthy, young hetero male, I certainly don't complain when I see it.

 

Confusing for kids? Perhaps a bit...but growing up in Northern California exposed me to the G/L community fairly early in life, and it hasn't really affected my orientation or done anything to "confuse" me or poison my moral fibers...it has made come up with some very interesting theories of how mother nature has a very simple, effective tool for population control, however.

 

But I am in agreement with you that the rediculous degrees that sexuality in the media have been taken to is distasteful. I can't tell you how many singers I've worked with who go after that overly sexual image that's so popular now. Truth be told, it bugs me.

 

I believe that what's going on in the media right now is a reflection of us rather than necessarily the reason for the depravity that passes for entertainment these days. There's a bit of a vicious circle though, because kids are influenced by what they see and listen to.

 

But the ultimate responsibility lies with us, not the media. Why shouldn't Jerry Springer have a TV show if millions of people tune in? If the "dumb masses" can't help themselves...well...maybe the powers-that-be should think about why the masses are so dumb, but I guess they're too busy furthering their own careers and accepting huge soft-money contributions.

 

It's bigger than just what's on TV...there's a dangerous vicious cycle occuring at the fundamental core how our country works. I don't know if there's a simple answer other than turning off or not reading what offends you and hoping other people come to their senses.

[Dave Martin]

Originally posted by BenLoy:

I don't know if there's a simple answer other than turning off or not reading what offends you and hoping other people come to their senses.

Well, that may be part of the problem; thoughtful viewers turning off the television leaving the networks scrambling for an ever-decreasing audience So budgets shrink, leaving producers scrambling for ways to make cheaper shows. That gave us 'reality television'. Reading? People don't read anymore... USA Today (McPaper) sells a lot more copies than the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal. The whole media thing appears to be dumbing down to the lowest common denominator.

 

I'll stick to my books, thanks, most of which were written more than 50 years ago..

[Gord -B]

I believe that what's going on in the media right now is a reflection of us rather than necessarily the reason for the depravity that passes for entertainment these days

ah.. a plauralist is in our midst. A very post-modern view, i didn't think that was trendy anymore.

[Gord -B]

I just think that i'm damn lucky to live in a free(ish) society and i think we are slowly reaching a stage where we will develop more world-centric views. Instead of worrying whether or not its bad that britney spears is kissing madonna we should be wondering, hey..

 

what do we do when the fossil fuels run out?,

what happens when there is no rainforest left?,

what happens when the icecaps melt?,

why does where you are born define your quality of life?

why does one set of countries own such a big proportion of the worlds wealth?

why will america not adrress the issue of the destruction of the o-zone layer?

why don't young people vote when they have the right?

 

priorities of the west need to be sorted out in my opinion.

[NickT]

This may be a little flippant I know, but apparently, nothing will happen when the ice caps melt (or certainly not as much most people think).

 

One of th continents (I think the one at the North pole, but I can't remember) is actually just a load of floating ice. In effect a giant ice cube. When you drop an ice cube into your drink the level of the liquid rises, as the solid replaces the same volume of water. BUT when it melts, the level does not rise as there is no increase in volume, simply a change of state from solid to liquid.

[wraub]

Originally posted by dcr:

Hey, yeah! And what's with the price of stamps lately? And how come no one ever hears about Sinbad anymore? My hip hurts--why?

 

Thoughts?

Speaking of flippant... This has to be the first combined usage of the words "Sinbad" and "Hip" in a REALLY long time...

 

Peace,

 

wraub

[NickT]

Am I missing a Sinbad reference somwhere? I always thought sailors were quite hip.

[wraub]

I don't remember Tower of Power mentioning sailors at all.

 

Peace,

 

wraub

[_Sweet Willie_]

There is a jazz-funk album from the 1970s titled Sinbad by keyboardist/composer Weldon Irvine, Jr. (one of Marcus Miller's mentors back in Queens -- 57pbass should have some clue what I'm talking about). This might be a good example of "Sinbad" and "hip" existing in the same conceptual space.

 

I have not the energy to bite off this topic seriously this evening. Perhaps another time.

 

Peace.

[dcr]

(Fill a glass of water. Drop in an ice cube. Observe the level rise. Remind yourself that ice caps are not currently displacing anything but air.)

[Adamixoye]

I do not know the geology of the ice caps very well. Are they essentially giant floating icebergs or ice on top of land?

 

If the former, NickT is dead on--if an iceberg melts, the level of the water does not rise, because the iceberg was always displacing its weight in water, and when it melts, it fills that volume. So the issue is not what happens when you drop ice into a glass of water (because obviously the water rises), but whether or not the ice cube is in the water in the first place.

 

Did you know if you're travelling along in a motorboat and the motor falls off and sinks, the water level in the lake rises? Archimedes' principle, baby!

 

[/physics discussion]

[Gord -B]

looked into the whole icecaps melting thing, aparantly the water level will raise about a foot in the next 100 years.

 

Anyway cos i'm young i reserve the right to take the moral high ground with utterly no scientific foundation for doing so.

[dcr]

Remind yourself that ice caps are not currently displacing anything but air.

[BenLoy]

Well, that may be part of the problem; thoughtful viewers turning off the television leaving the networks scrambling for an ever-decreasing audience So budgets shrink, leaving producers scrambling for ways to make cheaper shows. That gave us 'reality television'.

While that's an interesting argument, I think the cause of reality television moving into prime-time was far simpler: The Screen Actor's Guild was on strike, and networks needed to fill the time with something...they've stayed on the air because they make money.

[the stranger]

Originally posted by Max Valentino:

 

I am all for free speech, and expression, but there are some exponents of this which are truely harmful, and ridiculous, pointless, or just plain stupid (yet somehow continue to titilate and exploit the masses, and yes, make money for either their "creator" or the business which pull the strings...consider the game "Grand Theft Auto", for instance).

 

Max[/QB]

I've played video games since they were conceived. Games don't cause shit. Responsible parenting is the key. If kids are taught right, they won't be emulating games or other entertainment.

If GTA causes somebody to do anything, it is the fault of the parents, not the game maker.

 

And GTA is not just a game. It is a commentary on this country. If you play the game, you will see the political overtones.

 

We don't need censorship, we need responsible parenting. I would guess that the majority of people playing GTA are kids. Who's fault is this?

The game is rated mature. If kids are playing it, who is to blame?

 

Teach your children what's right and you don't have to worry about the input of a depraved society.

[Adamixoye]

Originally posted by dcr:

Remind yourself that ice caps are not currently displacing anything but air.

Yes, I read that the first time you posted it, and I'm asking--are they? I am skeptical (in the more "objectively neutral" sense of the word). I can remind myself all I want, but what if I never believed it in the first place? (Pending evidence, I'm willing to believe.)

[martianrebel]

No limits & no baundaries = anarchy.

 

I prefer to work within a framework (censorship) of my own making.

 

I agree that the choice is the individual's, whether or not to listen to music with explicit lyrics.

 

However, I believe that it is necessary to have censorship for those individuals that cannot make an intelligent choice (children). In that vein, I support that television shows do not display sexuality or profanity before 9:00pm. I also support that tobacco companies should not be allowed to advertise. AT ALL.

 

So I guess this topic is like most of life: There is no black or white, only shades of gray.

[Dave Martin]

Originally posted by BenLoy:

While that's an interesting argument, I think the cause of reality television moving into prime-time was far simpler: The Screen Actor's Guild was on strike, and networks needed to fill the time with something...they've stayed on the air because they make money.

That sounds good, but the 'reality TV' thing started 3 or 4 years before the SAG strike; "Real World" was one of the first, and that was a straight up "How cheap can we make it" scenario. In fact, they were originally going to use actors in that show, but MTV didn't want to pay SAG rates; that's why the cast of 'Real World' were all punters.

 

And when you take all of the cops type shows into account (also premiering before either the SAG or the SWG strikes, it looks to me as though money was not only the driving consideration but the ONLY consideration.

[dcr]

I'm guessing that the ice that you (or a polar bear, or a penguin) can see above water, is not displacing water. But hey, that's just me.

[Adamixoye]

Originally posted by dcr:

I'm guessing that the ice that you (or a polar bear, or a penguin) can see above water, is not displacing water. But hey, that's just me.

That's the whole point. IT IS, if we're talking about an iceberg. That is to say, the weight of the whole iceberg is equal to the weight of the water that is displaced by the volume of the iceberg under the water. When it melts, the ice that is less dense than water, will fill the volume of the ice that is below the water--thus, no rise in water level.

 

By the way, I don't mean to hijack the thread. Have I mentioned recently how much I love talking about non-bass subjects in this bass forum?

[a boy named sue]

what do we do when the fossil fuels run out?,

what happens when there is no rainforest left?,

what happens when the icecaps melt?,

why does where you are born define your quality of life?

why does one set of countries own such a big proportion of the worlds wealth?

why will america not adrress the issue of the destruction of the o-zone layer?

why don't young people vote when they have the right?

1) fossil fuels don't just run out. They get more and more expensive to mine. The economic reserves always change with the price of oil and the extraction technology available.

2) Ozone depleation has been addressed long ago (although possibly only because Duponts CFC patent was comming to an end). Ozone levels have started increasing again....

 

My pet whinge (along the lines of why does where you are born define your quality of life?) is why does the nation state exist at all...I blame Woodrow Wilson

[Tom Capasso]

Not a surprise, but I find myself closest to DBB's opinion.

 

Originally posted by tom rivet:

...I blame Woodrow Wilson

That's a popular thought. Wilson was reflecting one theory of the times (granted - there were plenty then and now that disagreed with him). I'm not a big fan of Woodrow, but concepts about the nation were being thrown around during the revolution. There was a "Federalist" political party....

 

Tom

[Gord -B]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/2236952.stm

 

http://www.policyalmanac.org/environment/news/global_warming-2001-03-27.shtml