Censorship of Music & Movies

Lots of violent movies are tested in and marketed to young kids and lots of artists (like Eminem) make shitty music that only little kids would like, but it's inappropriate for them. So there should definitely be some regulation of this stuff. But at the same time, plenty of R-rated movies have three seconds of nudity, so sixteen-year-olds aren't allowed to see them. That's stupid, too. So how should music and movies be regulated? Nick Navarro's 2 Live Crew approach wasn't the answer, and the system we have now isn't, either.

no there shouldn't be censorship cuz Eminem shouldn't even exist. THe guy embaresses rap and his self. (just like master p, and most other popular rappers, minus outkast)

We just need to enforce veiwer digression laws more feircely

i am against censorship in all forms, so i think that it would be wrong for any type of censorship. I mean, if censorship of any kind was implemented, there are chances it might be perverted and a leftist musician or whatever might be "censored"

Not censorship

But there needs to be a system to "rate" movies to give a guideline as to who it is suitable for. There should be no fixed guidelines, just a panel of judges (a mixture of age and cultures) who decide what the film should be rated.

I am against censorship of the media, such as the changing of several films after sept.11 to remove terrorist / WTC related scenes.

Censorship should not exist in any form. Censoring things will not help anyone but that children should be informed that people like Eminem are not to be taken serious or that violence is films is wrong. As for nudity, I don't think naked people are really going to effect children or turn them into homicidal maniacs.

Socialist way to view censorship, is to allow things, as hiding things only drives things underground. Only criminal things should be banned. Like child porn.
Even though does not solve the problem, it begins to protect children.How much I am not sure.
The way to get rid of the shit that capitalism produces is to produce an environment that does not alienate and fuck up people. Socialism makes pornography out moded as women assert their equality and dignity.
I can not look into a crystal ball and this might only be a matter of taste but instead of watching 'Friends' .
People might actually do someting interesting with their real ones.

Well here's the thing: I'm not talking about censoring from teenagers because at that point things just get stupid. But if we were to, say, not let anyone under the age of seven into an R-rated movie I doubt that would drive things "underground." (You know, the Clint Eastwood fan club does not have a huge amount of members who are still in kindergarden.) No one really talks about it, but there really are plenty of parents who will let their kids watch violent films. And I understand that we should not hide things from children and we should explain the difference between what is and is not real, but when you let a little kid see a violent movie one of two things will happen: 1) the kid will say, "oh, cool!" and become fascinated with violence no matter how many times you tell them that the person who is shooting at Jackie Chan is doing the wrong thing, or 2) the kid will become disturbed no matter how many times you tell them that what they are seeing isn't real.

I'm not saying we should avoid the truth, but there are certain images of the truth that should not be dumped on the laps of little kids. The Holocaust shouldn't be denied in front of children who will have nightmares about it, but that doesn't mean that we should show them Schindler's List. And as much as Eminem is annoying to people who are mature enough to be on this board, lots of really small kids are going around singing songs with the word "faggot" in them even though their parents tell them that gay people aren't weird.

The word "faggot" was part of young children's vocab long before Eminem came on the scene. You seem to forget that many children have older siblings or parents who use that kinda language more often than they will see it on a TV screen or a CD. Are we to censor family members as well?? And homophobia wasn't created by Eminem or any other homophobic musician. Homophobia has existed ever since the concept of homosexuality was conceived (if you'll excuse the pun). I know many people at my skool who are homophobic at the age of 18 and older...in fact, the majority of the skool are. And that's not cos of Eminem or anything else. It's very easy to blame all of society's problems on violent movies and rude music, but that's just skirting the issues. Violence is an inevitable part of life, the only reason kids have a problem with it is because their eyes are shielded from it so much.

Censorship is both pointless and immoral, as hiding information and life experience from children only leads to them being corrupted more suddenly as teenagers. I learnt how to swear when I was seven years old, when my music tastes consisted of Resphigi and Mozart (don't ask) and my favourite film was Famous Five...should we blame Enid Blyton for kids' profanities?? The answer is to open the boundaries, and let children see what they will, it will add to their understanding of life. They're not as dumb as you make them out to be (which puzzles me, because if I remember rightly, you're a teacher, so I would expect you to have a better understanding of kids than most).

Let's take an example: alcohol. OK, so it's not strictly speaking censorship, but it's still something which kids aren't allowed experience of both in the UK and the US. Now in both these countries, there's an underage drinking problem, not just kids getting pissed, but hospitalised and sometimes dying of alcohol poisoning. Why?? Two reasons.

(i) The first time they drink, their bodies are unused to alcohol, therefore there is no tolerance and the alcohol immediately poisons and hospitalises the kid.

(ii) The first time they try alcohol, they have no idea of how much to drink and no grasp of the concept of moderation, so they end up downing a bottle of vodka between three or whatever, which is obviously too much, so they end up throwing up in their sleep in a car park somewhere (it happens, speaking of personal experience).

Now, let's compare this with France, which has a minimal teenage drinking problem. In France, there is no legal drinking age, and most if not all children drink wine on a regular basis with their families and friends. Because of this, their bodies have built up a tolerance, making it harder for alcohol to poison, they know precisely how much they can take before they have too much and they are well-versed in the idea of moderation. Point proved?? I hope so...

Actually I believe alcoholism is an enormous social problem in France and Ireland where drinking young is extremely common.

I think that censorship is unnecessary and as long as things are rated, then parents of kids under 16 should be taking care of what their kids are exposed to. After 16, I think all people should know what's good and bad out there and how to deal with it, keeping stuff from a 16-year old, who can frequently pass as an adult in society, is failing to protect them from what's bad out there.

From personal experience, I found that up to age 3 kids can sit in front of anything and it doesn't sink in. That's not to say they behave in the theater, though.

From 4 to 16 the parent must be aware of what the kid is exposed to, and if the kid is exposed to something not quite appropriate, the parent should give the kid the parents' views.

My kids are 9 and 6 and we routinely watch pg-13 movies together (I wouldn't let them see it alone, so I know what it contains, and there are times (like in Lord of the Rings) where I'm hiding little eyes and ears). They've seen 2 R rated movies: Blues Brothers and Flashdance. Both movies the kids lost interest early on. If the kids are like me, sex and violence won't affect them on screen, it's the scary- ghosty-freaky-devil-exorcist stuff we can't stand.

I did a project on Alcoholism a few months ago for Civic's and I generally noticed that countries which were very lax on legal drinking ages such as France and Portugal do tend to have lower under age drinkers.

I live in Ireland and 'common' is too small a word to describe under age drinking. I do not know one person my age who does not go out every weekend and drink themselves silly. I know people who have been so drunk that they wake up miles from where they live and have no clue where they are.

I'm not trying to blame homophobia or any other societal ill on Eminem or any other musician. I'm not one of those people who thinks that some rock band like Marilyn Manson caused the Columbine shootings. I'm against restrictions placed on anyone over the age of ten unless those restrictions are placed by the parents--enforcing R-ratings for kids who are 15 or 16 is insane. What I'm talking about is little kids.

To discuss censorship; i dont think music should be censored at all for small children. A small child wont be listening to seriously "bad" music at such a young age, just mainstream music with bad language and possibly wrong ideas involved.
A kid who is into Eminem at the age of 8 will know that fuck is a bad word, and he will understand that being gay is something to laugh at. Eminem hasnt made him this way, society has.

But where movies are involved, i beleive it has to be a little carefully controlled. I beleive the current age systems for movies are bugered, 12, 15 and 18 are completely out of touch with what people are watching. 10 year olds are watching 12 movies, 12 year olds are onto 15's, and the 15 year olds are always watching the 18's. It just isnt working at all. So that needs sorting out.

I will leave the alcohol debate for another day. :)

Zippy.

Hmm...I dunno, we're entering a grey area here. The problem with introducing limited censorship is that it can quite easily be perverted and misused. I think censoring music against 4yrolds is irrelevant, as very few 4yrolds listen to any music at all, definitely not music that needs to be censored. And movies, I dunno. I think it should be down to the parents. I'm against the state telling us how we should treat our own children.

Ok, I just realised that my last two posts completely contradicted each other. What I meant to say was I'm against censorship of any form, but I don't see parental discretion as censorship.