[KellieCM]

First, I don't think South Park has ever been anything less than TV-MA. I can't think of one episode that wouldn't wholeheartedly qualify for the TV-MA rating. The movie just barely got an R rating -- they went through many rounds of reviews and cuts with the MPAA until they no longer had the NC-17 rating. (I think the fans would have liked it better at NC-17, but most commercial movie theatres won't show an NC-17 movie, so that rating severely decreases the distribution options for the film, and decreased distribution = decreased profit.)

Second, I agree that ratings are useful, but should be used as a guide only. They don't remove a parent's responsibility to know their own child and make decisions based on that child's emotional and maturity level.

Third, I don't think it's a Catch 22 to not use profanity but argue for free speech. Just because you don't want to say it doesn't mean that other people shouldn't have the right to say it. You have the right to make the choice that is right for you, and others should also be free to make that choice, even if they ultimately end up choosing the other direction. There is a lot of (imo) awful and abhorrent speech and expression made, but I know that I can't advocate for those people to be quieted without it also impacting my right to express my opposite viewpoint. If I want to be able to speak my mind, I have to let others have the same ability, regardless of what they are saying.

Fourth, yes, most of what is on TV in other countries would be considered pornography in the US. You don't even need to pull from other countries to see examples of art being protested, changed, banned, or called pornography. Art, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Art, like time, is what we say it is. Sometimes I think that the US has an average maturity level of a fourth grader.

[Number3124]

i dont like government censorship of any kind censorship should be the responsibility of the channels, studios, and theaters NOT the government

[smax013]

Number3124 said:

i dont like government censorship of any kind censorship should be the responsibility of the channels, studios, and theaters NOT the government

I don't like censorship period. What makes some TV network, TV/movie studio, or theater or any other private entity operating publically any more qualified to censor material than the government?

[Number3124]

its better than the government doing it

[smax013]

Number3124 said:

its better than the government doing it

Why is some idiot at a network choosing what can and cannot be watch better than some idiot at the government? If you have some dude named Joe Smuck who ultimately makes the censorship choice, why would him being paid by a TV network make his decision any better than if he were paid by the government? You can still have the same motivations as to why it is censored...to suprise a point of view, protect the youth from objectionable things, or what ever other reason that might be offered publicly or what ever the true reason is...you can still have the same motivations no matter who spins the propaganda or censors some material.



Are you implying that the government is the only organization capable of "nefarious" censorship? If so, then I would suggest that you might a little naive. I am sure that there are plenty of other organizations/companies on all sides of the political spectrum that would be more than glad to censor certain points of views in some "nefarious" manner. There are certainly legitimate reasons to censor some things (i.e. to protect young kids from stuff that they are not old enough to see), but there are also LOTS of people in the private and public/government sector that would like to censor things for less pristine reasons.

[Number3124]

well someone has to censor so it might as well be a privet company cause if the government does it then when they get power crazy they can censor stuff that goes agent there agenda

[smax013]

Number3124 said:

well someone has to censor so it might as well be a privet company cause if the government does it then when they get power crazy they can censor stuff that goes agent there agenda

And what about the private company's agenda? Or the personal agenda of the CEO that runs that private company?



My point is that a private company can just as easily have a "nefarious" agenda as some government or government agency. So, the notion that a company will necessarily censor "better" than the government is not necessarily true. It could actually be the opposite depending on the company...some company could be worse at censoring than what a government agency might do.



Ultimately, censorship is bad in general. There are certainly some legitimate things that the overwhelming majority of people will agree should be censored. But, there a lots of things that some minority or even slight majority might not like and want censored, but that others believe is OK. And those types of things should be left alone and only be censored by individual choice. This is where a legitimate rating system (i.e. that gives a factual listing of type of content...not just a label) can help...it can help an individual decide if they want to watch something or not. The reality is that I am sure that there is a lot of material that some would find obscene or objectionable that many others don't find obscene or objectionable. So, why should that one group get to dictate what the other group can or cannot watch?



Where things definitely get messy is dealing with kids and trying to "protect" them from "bad" material. It is rather difficult to do that and not infringe on some adult's right to watch what they want. A ratings system is a good step in the right direction, but the problem is that it still requires a parent to be present and aware to prevent some kid from watching something that is not rated to that kid to watch. The V-chip or other parental control stuff in cable boxes can help in that area, but what happens if you kid goes over to a friend's house whose parent's don't use such methods or aren't as "careful" as you are? Point is that it is difficult to handle "protecting" kids while still allowing adults their freedom.

[spike]

LOL

[Number3124]

cause the privet companies cant put you away for life or kill you or erase you form history like the governmentX-( can

[mphenterprises]

Wow. How did this go from TV Ratings to killing and erasing someone from history?







Number3124, not to fuel this discussion even further but do you really think that, theoretically and hypothetically, a private company cannot damage a person's life? A private company is like your neighbor's home. You never know what is going on behind closed doors. You cannot make a blanket statement like that.

Look at Enron. Many people lost millions collectively in that fiasco. Enron's upper echelon made millions and then bailed on their stockholders and employees. This is a perfect example of a private company ruining a person's life.

Yes, the Judicial System can sentence a man or woman to death. The Social Security Administration can "delete" a social security number. But seriously, how does any of that relate to TV Ratings and the use of ratings in a home?

[coastie65]

Hey mph and all, I think the ratings serve a purpose. When I grew up there wasn't any "offensive" TV. Heck, even Desi and Lucy slept in seperate beds. I think Ozzie and Harriet slept in the same bed creating a small ruckus that passed. Today, I don't know. It seems as though the parents want the Government to do the parenting by restricting content ie. censorship. I for one am adamantly opposed to censorship, as I feel that censorship belongs in the home. Aswas mentioned, they have built in devices in TVs, VCRs,DVDs, and cableand satellite boxes to deal with content. They even have a content advisor that can be set on the OS to restrict what can be viewed on your computer. I am thinking that with all this, people are too lazy or too stupid to utilize them and instead just want them to stop making these types of movies and programs. My brother-in-law sat down and watched "Saving Pvt. Ryan" with my then 12 year old nephew. I thought that was a bit much, but then again it was his son. There are way too many parents out there that would rather complain about the content instead of just setting the proper controls that are provided. With the technology today, there is no reason for a child to be exposed to anything a parent doesn't want them to be exposed to. It is up to the parent to use the technogy, not the Government restricting content. coastie65

[Number3124]

good point iv always thought people just blamed the government because they wanted some one to blame and the government was convenient and most of the time it is but still