I can not believe there are people on du openly calling for censorship to curb our "violent media"

[Kurska]

Last edited Tue Dec 18, 2012, 12:30 AM - Edit history (2)

The reaction to the shooting has been varied and intense, but we can't get caught up in the emotion of it and begin to miss the bigger picture of who we are as progressives. We're supposed to be the party of tolerance and choice. We're supposed to be above trying to dictate our morality, religion or tastes to people through legislative means. Attempting to use government regulation to somehow reduce violence in the media is the antithesis of those principles. Violent video games are not what I am prepared to sacrifice the core of this movement to destroy.

The very reason that you can post on this website and freely share your views is the first amendment. Yes, the very same thing that allows people to publish violent video games is the reason you have the right to freely voice your opinions on this discussion board without fear of government reprisal. I have no idea how anyone can use a platform protected by those basic rights to assail those basic rights.

I think there is a lot of valuable discussion to be had about constructive ways to improve society and to prevent future shootings. I'm especially fond of a drastic overhaul of our mental health system. With that said I am not, personally, prepared to put our first amendment rights on the table in that discussion.

Freedom of speech is the sacrosanct principle of modern democracy. If you don't respect that, then I frankly believe that a democratic message board is not the place for you.

Edit: No Idea how I missed that typo in the title, it is fixed now.

[Dawgs]

1. And, it's also a distraction. Mental illness and assault weapons are the problem, not the media.

We need to keep our focus if we're going to solve the problem, especially on DU.

[HappyMe]

3. Exactly.

Some of what I have read is a few heartbeats away from book burning/banning.

[KittyWampus]

50. Got a link? I'd love to see what you're referring to.

[Kurska]

4. Right on the nose, if this was 30 years ago they'd be talking about rock music.

But the book burners these days grew up with zeppelin so that stuff is fine.

[Honeycombe8]

82. I've posted some studies showing the link between violent video games (not movies) and

predictor of future violent behavior by children. The studies seem pretty sound and conclusive that there is a link between those two things. Note the words I use...I did not say the studies showed that kids who play a violent video game will end up being mass killers.

But pointing out the reality of formal studies is a valid discussion and does not mean they should be banned. But it should be looked at. Information is a GOOD thing.

This goes to causation, which is different from method (guns and ammo). Just as mental illness treatment goes to causation. ALL things should be looked at and studies and considered, when trying to solve a serious problem, whether it's global warming or mass killings.

I don't understand why people are all upset by the thought of looking at all possible causes of mass killings. It doesn't make sense to me.

One poster even posted about Australia fixing its mass killikng problem by addressing assault weapons. Well, Australia also rated violent video games age 18, and the bloodier ones were banned outright. So that was part of their fix, as well.

[Kurska]

84. Your term "link" is very deceptive

The only thing that has been demonstrated is that violent people consume violent media, who didn't already know that?

What there is a massive absence of is any evidence what so ever that says that violent media makes people violent.

The reason people are upset is you're floating video games as "cause" of mass killings with zero hard evidence even suggesting that. You are offending because despite the fact you have mentioned causation and correlation, you are STILL attempting to draw a causal hypothesis from correlation data.

Most of all because the majority of people here are disgusted by the sort of digital book burnings that you so slyly advocate. No I do not want to live in a society that bans media, thank you very much much.

[Comrade_McKenzie]

2. "I frankly believe that a democratic message board is not the place for you."

[Lightbulb_on]

5. Emotion makes people stupid...

... As evidenced in the last 4 days.

[ananda]

6. I haven't seen much stupid here.

A few troll posts, but mostly intelligent and rational ideas.

Guns are the primary problem, but issues around mental health, parenting, and the media are important too.

[Kingofalldems]

40. Rush limbaugh says that about us.

Are you a fan?

[Lightbulb_on]

41. No but you seem well versed...

Are you?

[Kingofalldems]

42. No. I keep track of the enemy.

[Lightbulb_on]

45. Well...

How dramatic of you...

[99Forever]

7. Before climbing up on that soapbox for your morning lecture...

... perhaps it might be a good idea to research the subject before you attempt to browbeat people with it.

Here's a hint:

This website is private property, with public (with permission) access.

Figure it out from there.

[Kurska]

12. And the reason you can't be punished for expressing your political opinion on this private property

is the first amendment.

Clearly in this case means punished by the government. You can technically be banned from this website for any reason.

Again the reason why government storm troopers aren't whisking into your home to detain you as a political undesirable (as happens in other places) is the first amendment. That was the statement I was making. DU's status as public/private or government/nongovernemtanl has nothing to with it.

[99Forever]

17. "DU's status as public/private or government/nongovernemtanl has"...

... everything "to do with it."

Claiming rights where they don't exist, is just plain foolish.

[Kurska]

19. Again the reason POLICE can not break down your door and arrest you for your political opinion here

Is the first amendment. The first amendment doesn't protect us from the private consequences of our speech, I never claimed that. It does protect us from government punishment for private speech, however.

Essentially the mods can ban for whatever, but what you say here is protected first amendment speech that won't put you on some government undesirables list.

Consider how your speech might be different if you lived in say Iran and knew that if your posts were traced back to you, you very well might be imprisoned for them.

[99Forever]

36. Again...

... the 1st Amendment allows for this website to exist, but does NOT apply to those who post on it that are not owners. There is censorship on this site multiple times every day. Posts are hidden and people are banned. Plus, you have no evidence that saying something here can't get a persons name "on some government undesirables list."
Pure supposition on your part. Ever hear of the Patriot Act? Good grief, how naive can it get? Can't get you imprisoned? Really? Wow.

[Kurska]

53. The first amendment protects everyone on the website from GOVERNMENT PUNISHMENT.

You are purposely conflating government censorship with someone politely asking you to leave their home because you are causing a scene. There is a major difference between the two. If you're saying it is happening find a single example of it.

[99Forever]

61. Horseshit.

if you are just to make shit up, you are not worthy of any more of my time. Go hump someone elses leg.

[Kurska]

64. You're contending that first amendment doesn't protect private speech from public punishment?

You must be because that is all I am saying. It also protects public speech from public punishment. It doesn't protect either from public punishment but again, I NEVER CLAIMED THAT.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

33. The first amendment

does NOT protect all speech. While you can't be punished for expressing a political opinion, you can find yourself in hot water if you threaten violence. I would posit that the very people who wish to play video games in which they maim, mutilate and kill
dozens, even hundreds, of people are the exact same people who shouldn't be playing those games. I raised 3 children, including a son, none of them were fixated on games of that nature...nor were their friends. So while the underlying causes may be mental or emotional health issues and easy access to the types of weapons no private citizen needs, violent games and movies serve no purpose other than to make money for the creators. It is no part of the progressive agenda to protect the rights of those who feel no obligation to society and have no concern for the influence or effects of their products.

[Kurska]

65. It certainly protects artistic expression

And madam, It the progressive agenda to protect the rights of everyone. I want no part of progressive agenda that picks and choices whose rights it respects. That is what makes us different from conservatives who want their god, their art and their morals enshrined into law.

Protection of artistic expression is one of the corner stone of our democracy, that doesn't change just because you don't like violent video games or the people behind them.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

71. So you contend that it is part of the progressive agenda

to protect the rights of billionaires who don't think they should pay taxes or gun owners who think they should be able to buy assault weapons without any restrictions? Interesting take on progressive ideology. While artistic expression is indeed protected, it is not without restrictions...or we would have pornography decorating every lobby in the nation....

[Kurska]

75. It is the progressive agenda to protect the free speech rights of all, not just those you agree with

That is the thing about rights, either everyone has them or no one has them.

You're certainly free to decorate your home with pornography or even open a restaurant and decorate it with pornography. It is a very dim view of humanity that says that without government intervention people would just plaster pornography all over their buildings. You're not allowed to plaster pornography on another person's hallway, that has nothing to do with freedom of speech and has everything to do with property rights.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

86. Limits...there are limits.

Child pornography is illegal. Cigarette manufacturers are no longer allowed to advertise on television. There are limits to all rights.... And all rights carry a responsibility.... I have become really tired of people who refuse to recognize that simple fact.

It is incredibly trite to say either everyone or no one...a straw man argument in fact...

[Skidmore]

8. Who is calling for censorship?

I do think the media needs to step in and participate in a national dialogue and arrive at some way in which it can better serve the community. You cannot market a steady diet of gore and mayhem and not expect it to have some effect on society in general. What has become acceptable as a product for the public over the decades has become increasingly disturbing and the industry pushes the envelope further and further. We all have responsibility, both as producers and consumers.

We need a national and very public airing of our societal ills, and we need to own them. Perhaps it is just as simple as requesting that media dial it back and not glamorize violence. Violence and death should not be glamorous or sexy. Freedom of speech may be sacrosanct but not all speech is protected.

[theKed]

18. Plenty of people

in other threads are getting to that point, where they're howling for censorship.

[Skidmore]

29. What do you think the responsibility of the entertainment and media industry is

to society? Is it responsible for its content at all? Are constant images of rape, murder, and torture a-okay? I do believe that people become desensitized to violence and the threshold at which they experience a reaction to it can be changed through constant exposure to its portrayal. Our society does not do things in moderation. Currently, there is the pursuit of the "extreme" that has become popular as sensitivities are deadened to that which once produced exhilaration or fear. I do think that creeping into a new "normal" causes us to lose perspective. I know that when I look back over the course of my life, the content of film and other media has changed drastically, and not for the better.

[KittyWampus]

47. No, I most certainly am not unless you mean SELF CENSORSHIP. Examine what media/entertainment you

enjoy. If it's immersed in violence ask yourself why you are drawn to it when you profess to want Peace in your life.

[KittyWampus]

49. No we aren't. It's not about passing laws banning entertainment. It's about SELF

censorship. It's about individuals taking responsibility for what they engage in and to what degree they reinforce the Culture of Violence.

[RKP5637]

26. Well said!!! What we have in this country is an irresponsible media with a loud megaphone and

often biased doing whatever to generate $$$$$.

If hatred sells, violence sells, god sells, whatever, they will go for it for the $$$$$.

I really see nothing wrong with broadcasting standards. What we also have today is inflammatory media ... shock-jocks, hate-jocks and whatnots to generate $$$$$. Mix it all up and it's a pretty vile mixture. I'm not in the least surprised at what manifests from this cocktail of hatred and maliciousness poured over violence and death ... and served 7x24.

[reformist2]

9. Believe it. I could care less if violent movies and videogames were curtailed.

[Kurska]

14. I mean this in the kindest way possible.

If you really believe the government should be controlling the artistic expression of the people, you have fallen under the sway of the most disgusting tyranny possible.

I hope you sort that out on your own time.

[laundry_queen]

51. Video games are not 'artistic expression'

Anymore than 'Baby Alive' or "Thomas the Train' is. It's a freakin' toy, and toys get banned if they kill kids. That said, because this particular link is very indirect, I don't think anything will be outright banned, but it would be nice to see manufacturers design less violent games. But, won't happen, free market and all that. I say instead of video games we start with guns, then go from there.

[white_wolf]

54. Your subject line is extremely debatable.

What separates a videogame from a movie? What makes one art and the other not? The fact of the matter is your statement is extremely debatable and makes me doubt you've ever played a game in your life. Pick up a copy of Heavy Rain and then tell me video games aren't art.

[laundry_queen]

70. I'll admit I'm not a gamer

but I think saying I've never played a game in my life is funny, I grew up on Atari, Nintendo etc and still play, just not the 'popular' violent games. I don't know anyone who hasn't played a video game. I stand by my statement. If the creator wants it to be art - make a movie about it. I understand there's a fine line, but video games are sold as games, not art.

[Kurska]

72. And it isn't art because... you said so?

Some of the greatest stories I've heard told were in video games, maybe you just aren't familiar enough with the medium.

[white_wolf]

74. Do you consider Toy Story art?

What is the difference between Toy Story and videogames? Both use computers to create the environment and bring their worlds to life. Both use voice actors to bring the characters to life.

[Kurska]

56. Supreme court says otherwise, so does common sense.

If someone were to build a incredibly large full scale model of a medieval city, everyone would consider that wonderous and meaningful art.

If someone builds a fullscale model of a medieval world on a computer and lets you wander around in it, it is still art. They just happen to also include gameplay and story elements.

If a house can be art a digital house is art too.

[Codeine]

73. Pig-ignorant statement.

Videogames are as capable of being vehicles of artistic or political expression as paintings, books, comics, films, or music.

Even a few moments with Ico, Shadow of the Colossus, or Okami would prove you wrong. Even something as pedestrian as the Final Fantasy series has breathtaking graphics and animation.

[laundry_queen]

87. Nice. Name calling. Attractive. Supports your argument well. nt

[Codeine]

88. I called the statement ignorant, actually.

An important distinction.

[AngryAmish]

35. I didn't know you were a member here, Tipper.

[JVS]

10. I can believe it. There are plenty of dumbasses.

[Comrade_McKenzie]

11. That's too nice of a word for anyone that wants to attack the 1A. nt

[JVS]

13. Ok, feel free to call them fascist pig-dogs instead.

[progressoid]

15. Who is calling for that?

[Kurska]

16. You don't even have to look outside a comment to find them.

I won't name names or link posts, because I have no will never do that. That said what I have read disturbed me enough to write the OP.

[progressoid]

23. I think you are confused.

This forum isn't the United States. It's a private entity. As such, it sets its own rules and can accept or reject anyone the owners/administrators wish.

[Kurska]

24. No I completely understand that.

What I'm saying is the reason some governmental force can't punish you the political opinions you post here is the first amendment. Essentially that no matter how unpopular your views are the only "dissappeared" you'll be is tombstoned, not tucked away in a prison for your crimes against the state. There are far to few people in the world who can say that. That is why it frustrates me to no end when people use that freedom to advocate for curtailing that freedom.

[progressoid]

37. I haven't seen anyone here advocate the government hinder free speech.

[Zorra]

20. It does not seem reasonable to assume that violence in media does not sometimes translate into

violence in real life.

Propaganda is effective, as we have seen with Limbaugh and Fox. People are impressionable, many are gullible. Fox news viewers lack the cognitive skills to distinguish Fox news lies from fact.

The effect of Tobacco Co. cigarette advertising on children (and adults as well) is very powerful.

We censor it, because we know it has deadly consequences.

American Psychological Association:

Childhood Exposure to Media Violence Predicts Young Adult Aggressive Behavior, According to a New 15-Year Study

WASHINGTON - Children's viewing of violent TV shows, their identification with aggressive same-sex TV characters, and their perceptions that TV violence is realistic are all linked to later aggression as young adults, for both males and females. That is the conclusion of a 15-year longitudinal study of 329 youth published in the March issue of Developmental Psychology, a journal of the American Psychological Association (APA). These findings hold true for any child from any family, regardless of the child's initial aggression levels, their intellectual capabilities, their social status as measured by their parents' education or occupation, their parents' aggressiveness, or the mother's and father's parenting style.

So what do we do about this, if we don't censor violent media?

[Kurska]

22. It is never reasonable to make causal inferences from correlational data.

All that studies said is that violent children prefer violent media. It doesn't say that violent media makes children violent. It is very well possible children who are already primmed for violence through genetic tendencies or some environmental factor like abuse and that consumption of violent media changes nothing.

As far as I've seen all the studies have sought to find out if playing a violent game makes someone more violent have been inconclusive or negative. People may shape their consumption of fiction to their reality, but most people still realize the difference between fiction and reality.

None of this is addressing the fact that the vast majority of people who consume violent media never commit a violent crime. If there was a strong causal link between violent media and and violent behavior then that would make zero sense.

[RKP5637]

27. Well, I guess everything is okay then, all is well. n/t

[sunnystarr]

25. I've seen the effect first hand in my family

In one family the 3 children were exposed to violent movies and video games from the age of 2 and 3. Chuckie, Pinhead, come to mind and I was appalled. Then every popular shooting video game.

The other family, also with 3 children, had Disney in their childhood and no violent video games until they were 16.

The reaction of this tragedy from the first family was ... "why are you crying you don't know these people, they mean nothing to you."

The reaction from the second family was tears for the victims and their families and outrage that something like this could happen.

The six range in age now of 18 to 22.

Anyone who doesn't believe that we condition our children by what we expose them to is deluding themselves.

[rhett o rick]

31. "Anyone who doesn't believe that we condition our children by what we expose them to is deluding

themselves."

Couldnt have said it better. Controlling what video games, movies and TV our children see has nothing to do with the Constitution.

[cali]

21. gee, maybe because no one is.

Recognizing that violent media and in particular violent video games can be a factor is NOT THE SAME THING AS CALLING FOR CENSORSHIP.

We don't live in a vacuum. And this country has a culture of violence that encompasses more than gun culture. And a history of elevating violence.

[earthside]

30. Indeed: NO Censorship

It is reasonable to examine the culture of violence in this country.

Have any serious sociological studies been done investigating the broad influences of violent video games, television, movies and entertainment on especially our young people?

Is it possible that while violent games and movies don't lead to mass slaughter, are they in varying degrees influential in creating an environment of disrespect, of selfishness, of narcissism, of incivility, of the kind of anger we see out of the teabagger types, etc?

If we didn't believe that media have a genuine impact on human behavior, then why do we all want people to go see 'Sicko' or 'An Inconvenient Truth' or spend hundreds of millions of dollars on campaign TV ads?

But I haven't seen anyone here really calling for the federal government to pass and enforce laws that would ban video games or set-up censorship boards.

Certainly, however, if we are interested in elevating our society out of this morass of endless wars and domestic gun violence, we can exercise some better judgement and demand that the entertainment industry dial-back some of the worst media vehicles that are a steady stream of shooting and killing.

[rhett o rick]

32. Controlling what video games, movies and TV our children see has nothing to do

with the Constitution. The violence on these media have a huge effect on children, IMHO.

[Comrade_McKenzie]

34. I support parental controls, as well as game and movie ratings...

But the content shouldn't be censored.

[L0oniX]

68. Name calling, bullying and hitting is IMO where the violence starts ...in our own children.

Movies showing men hitting women are especially damaging IMO. It's not like Jackie Gleason telling Alice "one of these days Alice ...boom right to the moon".

[Kurska]

69. I thought that it what parents are for.

I just assumed that is what parents did. That is what my parents did.

Censorship is not the answer, parenting is.

[rhett o rick]

77. Are you against all censorship or just censorship against violence. I dont see every 8 year old

watching sexual porn, but I sure as hell see a lot watching violence porn. I cringe when I walk into a theater and some 10 year old has a very real looking gun at a video game killing human looking characters by the dozens. Honing aiming skills. Wow, look dad, I just killed 14 bad guys in less than a minute. Arent guns cool.

Of course it should be up to the parents, but look what can happen.

[Kurska]

79. I'm against government censorship in all things.

What children consume is the business of their parents.

[rhett o rick]

80. So you'd be ok if the networks put porn on tv at 3:00 in the afternoon? nm

[Kurska]

81. TV is a special case because of the public nature of the airwaves.

So the government has an ability to regulate what it is on it, cause it ain't private property. You're not allowed to say whatever you want in a courthouse, but you can rant till the cows come home in your living room.

Lets assume that wasn't the case, if you don't like the porn channel don't watch it or don't subscribe to it. The job of the government not to make media "family friendly". Your job as a parent is too decide what media you want your child consuming and enforce it.

[rhett o rick]

85. Society can regulate whatever it wants. Currently society (government) regulates

a minimum age for drinking. Why? Why shouldnt it be up to parents to regulate their children's consumption of alcohol? I want society to agree to limit the minimum age for porn-violence. Call it censorship if you think that word will scare us into no action. As a society we can decide on what we censor.

[NickB79]

38. The irony, it makes my head hurt

You're upset that people are calling for censorship of violent media after the school shooting.

Yet here on DU, there have been literally hundreds of posts calling for an outright ban on guns after the school shooting.

Ouch.

[Hydra]

39. It may be an irony

But it's human nature at it's most basic:

"I want freedom for what I support, and I want everything else banned."

If we've learned nothing else from DU in the last few years, it's that principles, ethics and even basic humanity is "negotiable." It all depends on who is doing the warring and spying as to whether it's acceptable or not.

I haven't been on DU for a week, but I could have predicted what I saw here. Real freedom is not something Repubs or Dems are advocating either at the top or down to the base. It's just their flavor of slavery.

[forthemiddle]

44. +1

[Kurska]

46. Guns and violent media are two seperate issues.

Best not conflate the two and consider them separately

[NYC Liberal]

59. Since they are not the same, it is certainly possible to support one and oppose the other.

There is no contradiction.

[Initech]

43. The point I was making yesterday was not censoring the media but holding them accountable.

[Kurska]

48. How? Sue a content provider if some wackjob is inspired by their media and commits murder?

Do you realize the sort of muzzling effect such laws would have on free speech? Hell lets say you don't like something, all you have to do is kill a bunch of people and say you were inspired to do it by that.

Art and artists should never be "held accountable" for their free speech rights, because then it isn't a right. Unless a video games makes a direct and specific call to violence there is no accountability to be had.

[KittyWampus]

52. No by turning them off. Not buying. Buying other content.

[Initech]

55. No that's not what I saying at all.

I'm saying bring back media regulations and reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. The media is controlled by six companies, FACT. But no one holds them accountable for the lies, distortion, propaganda and fear mongering. When Newt Gingrich passed the media deregulation act in 1997 it was essentially the death of honest media. Why do you think Fox News was able to get away with calling Florida for Bush when every other network said Gore won? It's simple- bring back honest media and we're on a start toward a sane society.

[Kurska]

58. I'm talking about fictional media mostly.

The news media is a different beast. I will say I have no idea how you could enforce the fairness doctrine in an era of blogs.

[Initech]

76. True I hadn't thought of that aspect of it.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

57. BRAVO

I agree completely.

[LanternWaste]

60. I cannot believe people are so dogmatic as to think that anything and everything can

I cannot believe people are so dogmatic as to think that anything and everything can, may and should be should on the publicly owned airwaves many of the networks lease from us- the people-- who have a vested interest in what can be said over the airwaves, and what cannot be said over those same airwaves.

Additionally, the use of rating tools on games, movies, and television shows by parents is again, just that, a tool.

Sacrosanct? Possibly to the self-righteous-- but certainly not without its own limits, and its own responsibilities; yet not quite so obvious to those blinded by their own righteousness and dogmas-- those are the people for whom I question their readiness to be part DU as a whole, and maybe it's not for them.

[Kurska]

63. You're conflating two very different issues.

The media's sensationalist approach to shootings isn't helping and it needs to stop, but it is outright unconstitutional to try and dictate that it does. Even if you did censor the mainstreem news in this regard, what is your plan for blogs and websites like this?

Secondly, ratings are established by the industry and producers voluntarily submit their movies or games for rating. If you wanted to make a movie or game and tell the rating to system to fuck you, you can and people have. Mainstreem private distribution might be closed to you, but the internet is quickly making up for that with digital distrubution. That is very different from government mandated ratings, which again would be unconstitutional.

If someone isn't willing to protect the sovereignty of the unimpeded voice of all people, they are not progressives. That is my view.

[LanternWaste]

66. it's completely outside the bounds of the rational to believe that everything and anything has an i

"what is your plan for blogs and websites like this?"

I don''t have a plan How in the hell did you jump to that assinine conclusion? Inference is both extremely stupid and strong, sometmes.

I simply think it's completely outside the bounds of the rational (and certainly outiside the bounds of legal jurisprudence on which I base my position) to believe that everything and anything has an inherent "right" to be viewed in any medium, without restriction or regulation.

"they are not progressives. That is my view..." I'll certainly allow your view all the consideration it warrants, because your view is little more than that...

[Kurska]

67. Freedom of speech is not outside the bounds of the rational.

It is something that this website respected before a tragic few decided the world would be better if only art they didn't like went away.

I'm sorry I simply assumed if you're talking about changing something, you might have a plan.

[kestrel91316]

62. People will stop at nothing to deflect attention from things that

actually kill people.

[Iggy]

78. It's the Joe Loserman, errrrr, I mean Lieberman Approach

We've already been down this road-- censorship is not going to happen-- unless it's at the family parental level, where it should be. Years ago, people want to ban The Three Stooges from TV, because kids were aping the (mostly) fake eye pokes and other antics the Stoogers are famous for-- that didn't happen, either.

I suspect people in Bloggo world demanding censorship as THE answer to gun violence/deaths are the same people who think getting rid of FAUX News will turn otherwise stupid people into nice, mellow liberals.

it's that, and/or they're looking for a simple answer to the problem-- because congress isn't likely to do anything about it-- it's much simpler to point to video games/TV programming as THE culprit.

Gimme a break.