SPEW!! DEBATE!!

[ohthatisbadnews.livejournal.com]

Click on the picture to join!

The monthly SPEW debate is here! Wanna know whats going on? Look under the cut!!


Imagne going to the record store, and blaring from the loud speakers is an artist like Eminem. You have your two young children with you. Should they have to listen to that kind of music, even if you think that it is immoral?
The Topic of the debate is a popular one. Should Music/Movies/Magazine/Video Games/Etc. be censored? Should the government be able to say, "No You cannot put that on your album" or "That is too vulgur for our youth to see on the big screen!"
What I Want I want you to debate over this issue. Gryffindor//Slytherin will be arguing that the government SHOULD NOT be able to censor the media. Ravenclaw//Hufflepuff will be arguing that the government SHOULD be able to censor the media.
Rules
-Only qualifing comments count! They must be signed, be at least 3 sentences, stay on topic, and stay on your assigned side.
-Keep it civil. If you don't agree with what someone says, let it slide off your back, and don't start an argument. You will not be allowed to participate in the contest for SPEW.
-Have fun! Thats what I want most of all

The Break Down
-10 points for first comment.
-5 points for each additional comment.
Deadline
-The debate will end THURSDAY, Mar. 2nd, at 8 P.M. EST!

Thank you!



DEBATE OVER! Sorry, I had to end it a little early, but I have a paper due tomorrow, and it will take me the rest of the night to finish it.

Comments

[esrielle.livejournal.com]

The government should be allowed to censor products such as music, movies, magazines, video games, etc because they are aimed for the youth age group. These children, preteens and teenagers often don't have the cognitive abilities to distinguish between morality traits. This is actually usually achieved at its greatest sense during the early adult years (according to my textbook on the science of development of the human body, a psych course).

esrielle//ravenclaw

[sleep-x-dream.livejournal.com]

The government should be allowed to censor products such as music, movies, magazines, video games, etc because they are aimed for the youth age group.

I believe this statement to only be a partial truth as many companies target various marking groups when selling products. Not to mention it is commonly known that a majority of those products, namely movies, music, video games, etc) are purchased by those individuals over the age of 18.

These children, preteens and teenagers often don't have the cognitive abilities to distinguish between morality traits.

While I do agree with you on this point I would have to argue (coming from a tradition American stance) that there is no set standard in regards to "morality" traits as they very form region to region, culture to culture. Thus, it would be quite difficult, for the government to state one set of traits as being superior to another without offending a large portion of the population.

This is actually usually achieved at its greatest sense during the early adult years

So do we simply slap another age limit on these items/products? No, as as these cognitive abilities are gained at various ages for various people thus it is impossible to state that because you are 18 you are able to make sound decisions, thus not truly solving the "problem" at hand.


trent | slytherin

[tsukinofaerii.livejournal.com]

The goverment has no place making decisions about child rearing that rightly belong to a parent. It's the parent's decision, and obligation, to control what their child is exposed to, and any larger body (such as a government) is incapable of properly deciding what is "appropriate" for individuals in child-rearing, much less as a society. "Brokeback Mountain" was kept out of my local theaters for five weeks because of "inappropriate material", and while I'm sure various anti-gay factions in the city were relieved, I myself was greatly offended.

Long argument short: If you don't like seeing it, don't look. If it's not something you want your kids to see, don't take them places where they'll see it.
Moon Faery//Slytherin

[tsukinofaerii.livejournal.com]

If something is aimed specifically at younger viewers, then the creator usually takes that into consideration. There's a vast gulf between childrens movies and literature and those meant for teens, teens and young adults, young adults and adults. No censoring is needed there, because creators take care of it themselves. A work that is wildly inappropriate for the age group its aimed at won't be profitable, and it won't be produced. Very simple, and no government intervention needed.

As for children's morality... I would take a Freudian answer with the Super Ego developing young, but I don't think I even need to. Up to about middling teen years, a parent is supposed to be in control of their child enough to make those moral decisions for them. After that, if the parent's done their job, the teenager is perfectly able to do it for themselves. Again, it takes care of itself, no intervetion needed. And yes, while some parents don't necessarily do their jobs properly, it's certainly not the government's task to raise their children for them. Leave me my R-rated movies and they can babysit their own children, rather than sacrificing the rights of others so they can slack off on their parental duties.

Moon Faery//Slytherin

[esrielle.livejournal.com]

We censor the use of alcohol to an age when people are more responsible and have developed good judgement. Consequently, the precedent has already been set to sensor products which youth are not yet able to digest fully or constructively or sensibly. If we don't protect the youth of our country no one else will.

esrielle//ravenclaw

[sleep-x-dream.livejournal.com]

We censor the use of alcohol to an age when people are more responsible and have developed good judgement.

We assume that individuals are more responsible and have developed good judgment. Using the United states for example where the current legal drinking age is 21 there are more accidents & deaths involving those under the influence of alcohol then in those countries where the drinking age is lower.

Consequently, the precedent has already been set to sensor products which youth are not yet able to digest fully or constructively or sensibly

Just because the precedent has been set does not make it correct (i.e. the europeans invading the americas and taking over the land, the ideal of slavery in american, the use of atomic bombs, the list could go on.

If we don't protect the youth of our country no one else will.

We as individuals need to educate, not shelter our youth, the government should play a minimal part if any. As the saying goes it takes a village to raise a child, not a reigme.


trent | slytherin

[yellow-eyes.livejournal.com]

The government should not be allowed to censor the media. Parents should ultimately take responsibility for their own children, not the goverment. If there is a certain song or movie parents do not wish their children to see, they should take the iniative to be sure that they do not. It is a very simple thing, making sure you know what your children are doing, and most parents do this anyway. Also, I live in the United States, in which we have freedom of speech, which allows someone to say whatever they feel without reprocusscions from the government. Lastly, any store which would play a song by Eminem loudly on speakers doesn't exactly seem like a proper store for young children, at least not in my view.

Lauren//Gryffindor (first post, by the way- hope it was OK!)

[esrielle.livejournal.com]

Lauren, it is awesome. Glad to have you.
Es

[rindiggfelt.livejournal.com]

In my opinion, governments SHOULD be allowed to censor media content. No matter how much freedom we want, we can't deny that certain materials are just not suitable to be viewed by all. Children should not be viewing programmes with explicit scenes simply because they are not mature enough to say that "This is fiction, I cannot do this and it's only for entertainment." Children are curious by nature, imagine showing them something suggestive like a violent fight scene involving gangs and knives and the next thing you know, they're experimenting on themselves.

Yes, curiosity is not a bad thing, but at the time when their minds are open to all kinds of possibility they won't be able to stop themselves from trying out what they see on tv.

One more thing. Parents may be the ones who know better than to let their kids watch inappropriate stuff, but not all parents are around their kids all day long, making sure they do not learn anything stupid on tv. We as adults may be able to restrain ourselves, but the younger ones are slowly learning, so the government no doubt has to step in and take action.

Irene//Hufflepuff

[sleep-x-dream.livejournal.com]

In my opinion

in debates personal opinion should be checked at the door as we simply try to argue the facts.

governments SHOULD be allowed to censor media content. No matter how much freedom we want, we can't deny that certain materials are just not suitable to be viewed by all.

Some can, and many will. This is a decision that each of us individually should have the opportunity to make. By placing a limit on media intake the government is indirectly stifling individuality, not to mention they are disabling various art forms.

Children should not be viewing programmes with explicit scenes simply because they are not mature enough to say that "This is fiction, I cannot do this and it's only for entertainment."

Some are, some aren't thus this point is relative to the individual at hand.

Children are curious by nature, imagine showing them something suggestive like a violent fight scene involving gangs and knives and the next thing you know, they're experimenting on themselves.

ALthough the relationship between acts of violence and video games is correlated it has yet to be proven as a causal relationship. Thus making your point null and void.

Yes, curiosity is not a bad thing, but at the time when their minds are open to all kinds of possibility they won't be able to stop themselves from trying out what they see on tv.

This is again assuming that the parents play no role in the raising of their children. This also assumes that children are drawn to this ideals and forms which are considered to be "negative" which is perplexing as you state curiosity as not being bad.

One more thing. Parents may be the ones who know better than to let their kids watch inappropriate stuff, but not all parents are around their kids all day long, making sure they do not learn anything stupid on tv.

the same argument can be used in reverse as many parents do watch over their children ensuring that they are raised in the manner that they see fit.

We as adults may be able to restrain ourselves, but the younger ones are slowly learning, so the government no doubt has to step in and take action.

Interesting enough, you use the term may when referring to adults being able to restrain themselves, as I am sure you will agree that many "adults' are unable to restrain themseleves form certain actions/thoughts/etc. What defines restraint? Are those not of legal age incapable of some if not any type of self restraint simply because they have not reached a certain age?


Trent | Slytherin

[esrielle.livejournal.com]

Unfortunately, in today's modern and expensive world it often takes both parents to work and make ends meet so they are not always with their children. Second, just because someone is a parent, doesn't make them a good one. You aren't given licenses or guidebooks on parenting. There are good and bad one's so government censorship of mature subject matter whether in film, music or publication is just the safe way to go.

esrielle//ravenclaw

[sleep-x-dream.livejournal.com]

Unfortunately, in today's modern and expensive world it often takes both parents to work and make ends meet so they are not always with their children.

This still is not reason enough for the government to implement such rash action as nationwide censorship. Parents are still able to monitor what their children see on tv & the internet through the various technological advances. Parents are also able to keep track of what their kids invest in (i.e. magazines, cds, movies) simply by paying attention to what their childrens money is being spent on.

Second, just because someone is a parent, doesn't make them a good one. You aren't given licenses or guidebooks on parenting. There are good and bad one's so government censorship of mature subject matter whether in film, music or publication is just the safe way to go.

the same argument can be used for governments. there are good and bad ones. there are no licenses or guidebooks on how to run a government; at least none that apply universally. Thus how can individuals be sure they are being lead in the "right" direction?


Trent | Slytherin

[yellow-eyes.livejournal.com]

Just because parents aren't good ones doesn't give them an excuse. Honestly, this responsibility shouldn't have to fall back on the government, really. I mean, though you are correct in saying that parents aren't given licenses and manuals, but anyone should have enough common sense to know where a young child should and should not be. And if you were to allow your own young child to enter a store without you, problem number one arises. Secondly, if you entered with your child and heard such a song, common sense tells you that maybe that isn't the proper place.

Lauren//Gryffindor

[karinablack.livejournal.com]

You are subjected to the tastes of others no matter where you go. Even if those tastes aren't your own, shouldn't they at least be free of offense in the form of vulgarity, nudity, and sexuality?
I'm all for a person expressing those things, but in the proper place and time- and that time is NOT where my child and I could be happening by. When I have the choice, I make the correct one. All too often, I am not given the choice of what my daughter sees. (once is too often, actually- I'm fairly uptight about my kid ;) )

Karina Black, Ravenclaw

[sleep-x-dream.livejournal.com]

The government should not be able to censor media as every individual should have the right to make their own choices and decisions. By censoring various media forms the government is in a sense taking away ones liberties and freedoms in which they are supposed to be protecting. Is it not enough already that album's and movies must carry various labels proclaiming their "obscenity", as is strictly guidelined?

trent | slytherin

[karinablack.livejournal.com]

A store has to LABEL it, but they aren't prevented from selling it, nor are they prevented from playing it. Loudly. And singing along to the lyrics. Loudly.
IF ONLY shoppes in the mall were as tasteful with their music as Hot Topic. I'll take whiny Gothy poetry over Christina Aguilera anyday!
At least they keep their damn clothes on and don't sing about masturbation :P
Well, not blatantly anyway... ;)



Karina Black, Ravenclaw

[esrielle.livejournal.com]

Unfortunately, letting your three year old child walk down Broad St. in Columbus in only a diaper on a February morning doesn't give the parents an excuse either. However, action must be taken to protect the child. The same is true in the case of mature media. It's everywhere and trying to avoid it is difficult if not impossible. Yes, it sucks but it should be censored to protect our youth.

esrielle//ravenclaw

[karinablack.livejournal.com]

Absolutely!! This isn't about parents looking for an excuse to not raise their children, it's about parents asking the government to step in because we can't control outside influences that affect our kids 24/7. They're exposed to God-knows-what during school, when they're at their friends' houses, when they're just walking down the street!
What parent goes through their kid's ipod playlist every day and listens to every song, screens the lyrics sheet... You trust your kids, even after the first time you find they've been sneaking lipstick with them to wear at school behind your back.

Karina Black, Ravenclaw

[esrielle.livejournal.com]

Monitoring how a child spends their money? If the parents are at work, how can they monitor how a child spends their money? (Please note, not an attack just a point). Let's face it, kids are on their own more today than ever with more money than ever to spend.

Esrielle//ravenclaw

[karinablack.livejournal.com]

And this is a more consumer-driven culture than ever before. Kids are bombarded with inappropriate imagery, and high pressure to fit in and conform to what's "cool."

The sliding scale of "cool" is being pushed further and further on the side of slutty and inappropriate at a younger and younger age because of images being presented by the media. SOMEONE needs to get a grip on things. After a certain age, parents have little or no influence on their child's decisions. The media isn't self-censoring, they're just out for money and ratings. Someone needs to keep a grip on social morality that isn't a left-wing nut.

Karina Black, Ravenclaw

[esrielle.livejournal.com]

Let agree that not all adults are mature. Now moving on from there. After doing some research, the majority of music buyers and piraters are the under 18 age crowd. Thus, the problem. Censorship sucks but not all parents and many just aren't computer or electronics saavy. Young people tend to be more so because of classes at school. Censorship is needed, no one said we had to like it.

esrielle//ravenclaw

[karinablack.livejournal.com]

It's not like we want to take away the IDEAS being expressed. There are several ways to communicate an idea. More intelligence, more cleverness, and better prose are simply needed to make a movie or piece of music fit for mass consumption.

Karina Black, Ravenclaw

[troughgirl1.livejournal.com]

I definately think that the government should be allowed to censor Music/Movies/Magazine/Video Games/Etc. I mean, look at some of the CD covers for rap artists. I totally understand that they want to express themselves, but come on, smoking or lighting up some Mary-Jane on a CD cover? It's insane! What ever happened to just a picture of them doing something that normal people do? I also don't understand why on some movies they have to be so graphic. I mean, there are some scary movies out there, but you don't have to put someone with a chain saw on the cover. It definately will get my attention, but I'm not going to want to watch it! I'm going to want something that looks good but that will fool the common eye. For example, just put the setting or the good part of the movie on the cover so that it looks like a good and nice movie and then scares the living poop out of me when I find out what it really is, hence fooling the common eye!

Stephanie -//- Hufflepuff

[karinablack.livejournal.com]

I know!!! It's like they're just out to sell stuff. They claim their music is an art and serves to raise public awareness, but it's all about the bottom line... and not just rap artists. Other genres are certainly guilty as well, but rap seems to be the bigger target because they've been so blatant about it, crying racism when anyone says otherwise.

Karina Black, Ravenclaw

[redwingprincess.livejournal.com]

I think that the government should totally be able to censor the media. It is ridiculous on how loose everything has become. You can walk into a convenience store and sitting on the counter right next to the candy or toys is porn magazines or cd covers that have inappropriate pictures/gestures, etc. on them right where a young child can see. I won't even go into the music stores anymore because all the seem to play over the speakers is hard-core rap. Granted I live in Detroit and that's what is popular out here but that doesn't mean I want to hear it all the time. It's gotten to the point where its out of control and it needs to be back under control.

You see all these different crimes being committed by young children and then you find out the music/tv/magazines they saw/heard/read were the influence and you just shake your head and wonder why no one does anything to stop it. Well they have the chance they just need to do something about it.

Tiffany//Hufflepuff

[weirdointhecorn.livejournal.com]

While you don't like that the music stores play hardcore rap, there are more feasible ways you can help control your atmosphere without getting the government involved. Start a petition for the music store to play more appropriate music. Tell them you are offended by the music in person. Go to a different music store. But all-out action by the government? Not OK. There are plenty of people in other places that don't mind the music and are not affected detrimentally in any lasting way. Plus, in an argument I've stated before, profanity and vulgarity won't just disappear just because a few want it to. Like it or not, it is part of the culture, and culture should not, cannot, and will not be directed by the government.

For that matter, 'profanity' exists in every culture. Go back to the 1800s and you will have some people still very indignant about whatever is taboo. (Things that are not remotely considered vulgar today, for that matter.) Go back to the 1600s, and you have Shakespeare making disrespectable, tongue-in-cheek comments about sex. There is no way to try to 'censor' profanity, despite the beliefs of a few.

You see all these different crimes being committed by young children and then you find out the music/tv/magazines they saw/heard/read were the influence and you just shake your head and wonder why no one does anything to stop it. Well they have the chance they just need to do something about it.

You see crimes committed for many other reasons, all much more potent than that. Let's start with how we raise our kids and influence our society as people.
For that matter, an agreeable link has not been established directly between vulgarity and violent crimes. So your point is, decidedly, moot.

Lisa//Slytherin

[musicaltwin07.livejournal.com]

The government should be able to censor the media. I mean I recently saw RENT, in the movies. It was rated pg-13, but I thought about it and if I had a thirteen-year-old I wouldn't want them to see that. They go to an exotic dancer club, they do drugs and show them shooting themselves in the arm. I mean, I don't want them to see that. Then things like words in songs... yes. In Evanescense's Tourniquet someone screams in the middle "I want to die!" If I was a parent I wouldn't want my kid to listen to that. It might encourage them to think about it, like, wow being suicidal is cool, espceically if they didn't know any better. I'm not saying ban them, but censorship is good in some ways.

Melissa//Hufflepuff

[troughgirl1.livejournal.com]

RENT was actually a pretty bad movie/play, but you also have to consider the time it took place in. I'm not saying that 1989-1991 were bad times, but they definately weren't like today. People had to do what they had to do, and drugs were a lot more addictive then. Once again, I'm not saying that they still aren't, it's just that they were what started mass drug usage. (I'm pretty sure I have my time frames right.)

Stephanie -//- Hufflepuff

[devils-sidekick.livejournal.com]

The government should censor media

Last night I was walking to my weekly therepy session, I decided to get a drink. Went to the corner deli/candy store for it,while I was waiting for my turn to pay, I noticed there were these very graphic pictures of sexual acts. Located right on the top self over the magazines for all to see. Trust me I made a complaint about it. The owner quickly told one of his workers to change the display.

Come on, your in an area where there are a lot of kids, your right across form a park, in a semi religious area, why would you display movies like that? Hide them, like you do with the "dirty" magazines, for heavens sake. I don't want to see the pictures, not even the titles, I am not really sure which was worse the pictures or the film titles. I can handle, "Debbie does Dallas", but when the title has sexual tems and stuff, that dosen't cut it.

Deborah/Hufflepuff

[weirdointhecorn.livejournal.com]

While I see your point that you did not want to view things like that, it would be idiosyncratic for the government to monitor those types of things. In fact, you did exactly what I feel is the solution: monitor it yourself, and don't get the government involved. Questionable material will not survive in a community that doesn't want it, so there should be no problems if everybody would speak up when they find something offensive.

As for the government, that is on a national level and inappropriate for a select community (or neighborhood, or group of people) to control what everyone else sees. If everybody in the nation complained about a specific poster, or CD, or magazine, sure it'd be right to ban it. But not in any other circumstance besides a clear majority is this right to do.

As having a certain stance on things, the deli/candy store incident proves that you have very much a power to change things in your neighborhood. I encourage you to do so. But please do not force it on me and the rest of the country.

Lisa//Slytherin

[weirdointhecorn.livejournal.com]

The government should, emphatically, not be able to censor art media, and anything else in the country. First of all, repression of expression of the people leads to political unrest frequently, and can lead to more dangerous and strict forms of censoring. Second of all, the argument of harming child development should not be used because parents are free to control what their child views (such as restricting to certain movies/TV shows/web sites/etc.) The government, being the fundamental ruling power, should not restrict these things for everybody because select groups of people may have a problem with it.

[weirdointhecorn.livejournal.com]

Oh, and:

Lisa//Slytherin

[esrielle.livejournal.com]

There are a ton of ways to use artistic expression that is not graphic. There is no reason why artists cannot express themselves instead of limiting themselves through foul language, clothes that cover nothing, etc. Children are the future of this and every society and should be protected so they can develop into healthy individuals. If this means censoring art media, so be it.
esrielle/ravenclaw

[sleep-x-dream.livejournal.com]

There are a ton of ways to use artistic expression that is not graphic.

Graphic in what sense? For a period in time the terms "gee", "golly", and "gosh" were deemed graphic/vulgar/unacceptable by American society, but today they are not. By censoring artist now, future generations will be without.

There is no reason why artists cannot express themselves instead of limiting themselves through foul language, clothes that cover nothing, etc.

To many these "limitations" as you call them are actually possibilities and opportunities. It's all about options. At one point in history it was improper for women to show their ankles when wearing bathing suits. Today it is perfectly fine.

Children are the future of this and every society and should be protected so they can develop into healthy individuals. If this means censoring art media, so be it.

While I agree children are the future, censorship is not. Censorship hides, and in a sense, erases part of our history. By placing bans on things today we hinder our future generations from having opportunities.


trent | slytherin

[fyrefaerie.livejournal.com]

The governement SHOULD NOT be allowed to censor artistic expression of any kind. Good parents will allow their child to view/hear age appropriate material. The arguement that some parents are not good parents so the government should step in is ludacrous. I mean, if we really want to prevent bad parenting, why doesn't the government sterilize anyone deemed too stupid to care for their children. We can't expect the government to protect us from anything "harmful" without sacrificing many personal freedoms. I would rather have freedom and take responsibility for my own children and the materials they view/hear. Also, the world is a place full of sex, violence, drugs, and foul language. Children cannot be sheltered forever. I don't mean that anyone should show their toddler R-rated movies, however, some parents take things too far. The government is not responsible for everything. People need to stop blaming the government for everything that goes wrong in the world and instead take responsibility. If a person is a good parent they will teach their child a proper set of morels which, in turn, will make censorship uneccesary, because the child will be able to determine for themselves what is right and wrong.
Melissa/Slytherin

[weirdointhecorn.livejournal.com]

I mean, if we really want to prevent bad parenting, why doesn't the government sterilize anyone deemed too stupid to care for their children.

Excellent point.
What people realize is that things will always fall short of 'good' or 'respectable' in the world. One can't just wipe out vulgarity from the face of the earth. It has been around as long as there has been civilization itself.

Lisa//Slytherin

[devils-sidekick.livejournal.com]

The governement should be allowed to censor products, especailly porn or other kind of adult material. Children are curious they will try to get their hands on it when their parents aren't looking. The government should make restrictions on who can buy it, how it is sold and how it is displayed. The governemnt should also impose fine on the retailers that don't follow their rules.

Deborah/Hufflepuff

[sleep-x-dream.livejournal.com]

The governement should be allowed to censor products, especailly porn or other kind of adult material.

The government already does such things [in the United States] there are both federal and state laws regarding pornography. Thus there is no need to add more on top of it, as the ones currently in place are working fine and dandy.

Children are curious they will try to get their hands on it when their parents aren't looking.

Children are curious about any & everythign which they have yet to experience/encounter, so should be censor everything?

The government should make restrictions on who can buy it, how it is sold and how it is displayed. The governemnt should also impose fine on the retailers that don't follow their rules.

This is already done.


trent | slytherin

[weirdointhecorn.livejournal.com]

The government should not be able to censor products, especially more so than it already does. One example why:
Swear words: They do not carry guns or kill teenagers. They are, first and foremost, only words. The only thing decidedly agreed on about it is that it is perhaps impolite. People used to be offended by such impoliteness as asking two questions in a row without waiting for a response. Yet there was no governmental ban on such vulgarity.
Vulgarity and crudeness are in the eye of the society. There will always be vulgarity in society; it cannot be so efficiently erased with any kind of censoring. Perhaps it is better that children are exposed to some of it, at an early age, so they will learn not to imitate that type of behavior.

Lisa//Slytherin

[kellerton.livejournal.com]

The problem is, that if children are exposed to vulgarity at a young age, by the time they are older, they may learn to accept it as the norm, and not realise that it isn't the right thing to do. Many of these rap songs glorify violence and promiscuity. If these messages are relayed at an early age, children will, again, grow up to accept it. By censoring media, the government delays exposure to such things until children are old enough to understand the messages.

Kelly//Ravenclaw

[weirdointhecorn.livejournal.com]

As children are being used as examples for why 'inappropriate' media is detrimental, I will share my experience as one of them.
I grew up from an early age listening to things like Pink Floyd, Creedence Clearwater Revival, and Lynyrd Skynyrd, via my dad. There were swear words in the songs, along with numerous sexual references. Lots of them. I didn't even notice or care.
In fact, all I think it's left me with is a passion for hard rock.
I grew up with my mom, who ahd a hot temper and what would be considered a 'filthy' mouth. It was routine that I'd hear things like, "LISA, GET YOUR ASS DOWN HERE AND DO THE GOD-DAMNED DISHES!" or "The shit will hit the fan if I come home and the socks aren't done." My mom made no attempt to hide her swearing. She made dirty jokes too, and still makes them to this day. In essence, I grew up in a completely uncensored household.
Yet all it's left me with here is a resentment for authority. I still love my mom, mind you.
I saw my first R-rated movie, Silence of the Lambs, when I was maybe 6.
Am I out comitting violent crimes or attempting suicide? Let me tell you.
I have never gotten in trouble with the law, ever. I have never gotten into a physical fight, I don't drink or smoke, and I didn't allow myself to swear until I was in seventh grade.
Look how negatively the media has affected me. Or did I not grow up in an unsheltered-enough environment?

Lisa//Slytherin

[fyrefaerie.livejournal.com]

The exact opposite is true of my friend, Diana. She's Chinese and was raised by very strict, traditiona parents. When I met her at the age of 13 she had never slept over at anyone's house before and she ad never seen a PG-13 movie. Let's just say, she rebelled, a lot. She smokes, she drinks, she does drugs, she lost her virginity at 14, she goes out on Friday night and doesn't come home until Saturday afternoon. Her parents have gotten to the point where they've stopped trying because she won't listen to anything they say. So, over-censorship can be a bad thing, a very bad thing. Well, I personally don't think there's anything wrong with her, she's awesome. However, most parents wouldn't want her to be their daughter.

Now, me, I don't know what I'm an example of. My parents were normal, they protected me, yet didn't smother me. I think I'm just a rotten person, so I can't use myself as an example. Of course everyone's parents, mine included, think I'm just perfect. *looks innocent*

Melissa/Slytherin

[weirdointhecorn.livejournal.com]

Let us also keep in mind that this is not a debate about censorship vs. non-censorship as a whole. (which would affect all levels of government and society.) Rather, this debate is about censorship on a sweeping, governmental level.
As this is a largely moral issue, this does not and should not involve the government. When groups of morals and power join, there is unrest. Plus, it must be noted that this is supposed to be an equal-opportunity government (at least here in America; I won’t speak for across the pond)
Really now. If you’re offended by the images you see around you in your community, please do something about it. I encourage you. Talk to the music vendors. Complain when you don’t like that one dirty poster. Yell and scream if you want. Feel empowered and make a difference. But, first and foremost, do not touch my individual rights. While you and your surrounding peers might agree that something is vulgar, I might not. Essentially, do whatever you want to your area, but leave mine alone.

Lisa//Slytherin

[fyrefaerie.livejournal.com]

That's pretty much my philosophy on everything. You do what you want, I do what I want, we're all happy. Interfere with my rights and decisions and there will be pain, lots of pain

[tsukinofaerii.livejournal.com]

Music, movies, books, magazines and other articles of enternatinment for public consumption are, by most rational, supposed to be under the control of the parent at all times in childhood, and proper parenting can see to it that a teenager or young adult makes appropriate choices once it's out of the parent's control. In the given example, I wouldn't have brought my children to the store in the first place. Any location that plays offensive music is going to be a type of place that is easy to spot, and easy to avoid, and it's certainly not the store's fault I chose to bring my childen into such an environment. By saying "the government should censor this material", a parent is taking responsibility out of their own hands and placing it elsewhere, a sure recipe for disaster.

Morals differ widely from region to region. In some places, even as little as an hour's drive can take a person from a highly liberal urban area to a very conservative rural one. With this wide a range of morality, claiming that any one "set" is the right and proper one would be not only impossible, but out-right repressive of individual rights and freedoms. Depending on which faction won (and only various forms of "conservative" would truly be in the running, since most liberal perspectives oppose censorship), anything from alternate lifestyles, minority religions or even the news could end up on the cutting room floor, and the only result would be a generation of children who are either unable to handle the harder aspects of life and choose their own morals. Or worse, a generation that rebels against the censorship by emulating the worst of what's banned. Nothing good comes out of allowing anyoe to make moral decisions for a group of people, no matter who those people are how how supposedly "wise" the people deciding are.

Moon Faery//Slytherin