Is censorship stupid?

[Haroon 49,685]

If it's being aired at a time where "bad words" aren't allowed then the performer should take that into consideration when performing  Censorship is to keep children and people who don't like that stuff free from having to be exposed to it and fairly so in my opinion - keep it for after watershed  

[LoveandMagic 1,731]

I'm fine with censorship, as long as there is a choice. I can understand parents not wanting their children exposed to certain things for example. However I do think some censorship is pointless and completely misses the point. If an album is full of songs that contain lyrics about being violent, mysogynistic, etc, then a blanket sweep of just extracting the swear words is damn pointless. Words can hurt, sure. But so can certain ideas promoted under a flashy image. I can see where some things Gaga does may upset parents, and it's their right as parents to raise their children how they see fit (as long as they keep them healthy and free from neglect and abuse). I also think certain art forms are meant to provoke in order to start certain discussions. I believe music and film mediums are forms of art, so I treat them as such. I think though there are too many grey areas for me personally to command ultimatums, so I will just say that I feel options are the best general solution. 

[AlexanderLevi2 5,849]

4 hours ago, Metamorphosis said:

No. Censorship is necessary because some people do take offense to foul language. You wouldn't talk that way around an old lady or child, so that's why its censored on non-cable channels. Especially in the morning when the whole family is up and could be watching tv/listening to the radio.

Also, one of the kids could just as easily access ****ography, listen to "dirty" words, etc. on the Internet with one simple search. Censorship has never really proven to work in the past and it's not "saving" anyone. the more you censor, the more you harm. 

Look at super religious families for instance. Forbidding their kids to experience the real world makes those kids curious and makes them explore. Some of the heavy partyers/drinkers/drug addicts/promiscuous people I knew were the ones whose parents held them down and censored everything they did. Whereas the parents who weren't checking up constantly and allowing them to read/listen/watch what they wanted, were actually some of the most successful kids I know. When most people are given freedom, they choose the high road.

[Blueskye 1,087]

As long as the channel/show clearly states what to expect, I believe it's the viewers responsibility to protect themselves from things they don't want to see/hear. I don't like that censorship is inflicted upon everyone. 

[Warholian 6,880]

6 hours ago, Metamorphosis said:

No. Censorship is necessary because some people do take offense to foul language. You wouldn't talk that way around an old lady or child, so that's why its censored on non-cable channels. Especially in the morning when the whole family is up and could be watching tv/listening to the radio.

The only way people won't be offended by something is if they're exposed to it. 

[PabloDaBlowfish 428]

Yes and this performance is as well

[StrawberryBlond 14,102]

The real problem is making explicit songs into singles in the first place. In rap music, you can get away with it, but it means your promo will be minimal as very few channels will allow you to swear, even the late night ones. And they may not allow drug references and misogynistic content either. This is why rappers really don't get all that much promo. But they can still sell, which is surprising. But there's no reason why  a popstar should have such an explicit single - it's got a very low chance of doing well if you can't perform it anywhere. CeeLo's F**k You was the one big exception to that rule, but it's a one in a million exception. Anything that will reduce the amount of promo you get should be refused to be a single in pop. How can it be expected to do well if it can't be played on the radio, primetime tv, kid's birthday parties, etc? That's why the name of the game in pop is go really childish to guarantee the biggest audience. Same reason that the Scary Movie creators started toning down the explicit humour - a lower age rating means a far greater number of viewers. Be as inoffensive as possible to roll in money, basically (especially with streaming accounting for chart positions now). But it doesn't half make for a boring experience. I think censorship does have a good purpose, though. It means you can listen to a song or watch something on tv with your family without feeling awkward (I remember always clenching up waiting for that moment in a song playing on the uncensored CD). I think how much easier Amy Winehouse's Back To Black album would've been to listen to with family if she'd cut out the swearing on Me And Mr Jones. It hits you right between the eyes, is so obnoxious and was clearly there for shock value. Every time it comes on in the company of my mum and aunt, I cringe so hard because they always react.