Banning Cinema, Music, Video Games, and Books

I am hoping we can get on a topic we can all agree on. Banning movies, music, and video games is something that has become very common in proclaimed nanny states such as Germany and the United Kingdom. I believe that any type of movie, song, or game should be fully available to the public, no matter what content it might hold. To make this more intresting, I am going to present three notorious items which have pushed the limit in even some of the most tolerant countries, and we'll see if it changes anyone's opinion.

Porn

Enough said here

RapeLay

A game about a man who rapes 4 women who made him angry, in 4 very detailed and graphic sequences. Eventually he rapes the senior youngster after forcibly screwing her mom. She ends up having his rape baby, and that is the end of this disturbing game.

The Serbian Film



According to almost every personal account, this is the most disturbing film you could ever watch. Many critics have had to watch the films over a course of a week just so they could just avoid puking. To give a brief synopsis, a porn star gets a job in a studio. Unbeknownst to him, the studio is producing a snuff film with him as the star. He is forced to do unspeakable acts which slowly progress from soft bdsm to anally raping a decapitated woman, or was that the baby? Yes, he rapes a 1 year old, ick!

Many people actually make the claim that this film is a work of art. I admit that it produces.... disturbing thoughts that one might otherwise never be forced to ponder on.

Wow, just found out that New Zealand banned "A Serbian Film"
Anyone want to defend that decision?

Blackflag: Basically I think a work should be censored if:
> A crime was committed in producing it. For example, child pornography.
> It simulates the committing of a crime in such a way that personally involves the audience, and the media is sufficiently realistic. For example, simulated hardcore child pornography.

Other than those limits I support full free expression.

Blackflag: NZ isn't perfect. I disagree with my country quite a lot.

I think the point was that the film was going to encourage crime. Generally when that happens is when the censor's bureau bans stuff outright. It's extremely rare though. In one case they actually invented a new classification for one film only - Caligula is still the ONLY R21 film in NZ.

admin: Well that is a tough one for me. I would never condone someone commiting a crime to produce a film, but it has been done in the past, and many of these films have been destroyed as a result. I do not have a problem with simulated crimes. I do understand that you are talking specifically about child pornography though, since I am going to take a guess that you do not have a problem with simulated violence and drug use.

I still do not have a problem with simulated child pornography, as long as it is fake. There is no reason to censor something just because it is taboo and disturbing.
No one is being forced to watch films like the one I posted above, and since the infant rape scene and the allusion to raping the son in the film are both fictional, I just don't see the harm.

admin: Politicians have tried to ban every single form of pornography using the case that it will promote crime here in the United States. That includes simulated child pornography, necrophillia, and hardcore pornography. I think the hardline policies of Tony Abbott in Australia prove that censoring content that most agree is disturbing is not a sound strategy. Especially with his little war on porn.

Blackflag: I have a problem with simulated violence and drug use if it's not clear that it is simulated, basically. I think reasonable people should be able to see that for King Kong they didn't literally destroy a whole city with a giant gorilla. I could think of counterexamples but they'd be really extreme cases, not the sort of thing you'd see in your typical action movie or drama where some people are smoking "drugs" on the big screen.

admin: btw, I think most people are intelligent enough to be exposed to content without resorting to acting out what they see. For example, most people who witness rape and violence in a film or video game are not going to rape or physically hurt anyone over the course of their lives. People who do rape and physically hurt people were already facing internal issues even before they experienced the content in question.

Blackflag: In fairness though, Tony Abbott isn't that intelligent. I wouldn't judge a policy based on Tony Abbott's implementation of it.

admin: Well I believe in drug legalization, but I would be interested in hearing your extreme cases about how simulated violence could cause people to act out crimes.
I am not a big fan of censorship in any regard. We obviously differ a lot here. You are more authoritarian than me in the regard that you believe certain content and items should be withheld and restricted from the population for their own benefit.

Blackflag: I agree in general; I would only disagree in the event that the "game" blurred the lines between reality and fantasy a lot to the extent that it wasn't clear whether you were really experiencing something or not. For example, if simulated hardcore child porn was otherwise exactly identical to viewing child porn, I'd censor it. I'm particularly concerned about virtualization technology and hope that in the future we'll still be able to tell when we're in the "real world" and when we're plugged into a computer or something. Kinda like how it's sometimes sort of hard to distinguish between dreams and reality.

Blackflag: Like, giving somebody a real shotgun and getting them to play the game of running around the city finding and killing robots who happen to look a LOT like people. I'd ban that game.

admin: Not a conventional video game, to be clear. More like real life games.

admin: Nah, if a law doesn't have serious intrinsic flaws then the fallout of bad implementation will fade overtime. In this case his laws on pornography had serious intristic flaws. By Australia's standards, law enforcement could arrest and charge me for holding an image such as this one, as it would be considered child pornography.

Wow, that image was really big. Just in case people didn't know this about me, I hate anime with a fierce passion. I am not that critical of Tony Abbott for banning this stuff in particular

admin: 75% of the games that exist involve running around as a vigilante killing people. You would be as unpopular as Arnold Schwarzenegger if you were ever in politics. Stop giving me examples before you get me pissed off at fascism again.

admin: Yeah, I do not care much for thought control. I think you are playing with fire by controlling individual components in people's life. It kind of gets me pissed that people are supporting these nanny states that treat grown men like they are children who need guidance. I wouldn't want to live in a complete anarchist existence, but if society allowed people to be a little more independent that would be great.

In essence I believe life under relatively unstable conditions is superior to a nuanced and routine existence. That is the beauty the third world has over Western governance.
I think society has progressed to much, where stability and first world problems have dominated our lives, lowering our quality of life in general.

I am just asking for a little slack on my taxpayer leash. Give adversity a chance! No one?

Blackflag: Sure, but then Tony Abbott would probably think any girl under the age of 13 should be locked up or something.

admin: Oh, okay. I responded to that before it was totally clear.
That would be one wild game in real life, lol

Blackflag: You should make a thread in "creative stuff" explaining why. That'll be interesting. I'm ambivalent on it.