Let's say you’re watching a movie on televsion and a character says "baloney” instead of another supposedly more offensive b-word that censors dubbed over, either sounding stupid or ruining a funny or serious moment in the movie. Doesn’t this action seem nonsensical? Here in the twenty-first century, we as a society have become sufficiently worldly that certain words, nudity, and violence ought to not so overtly offend people that they be bleeped, blacked out, or cut from images or video. Every day most of us hear and many of us say things that might be censored without being offended or offending others around us while sex and violence permeates our media, demonstrating how little the general public is disturbed by these subjects. Despite this reality, social restraints and the government continue many forms of unnecessary censorship that fail to accomplish their goals of preserving certain moral standards or protecting children.
Other countries are not so squeamish about bad words, nudity, or violence. Based on personal observations, one can walk down a Paris avenue and see a magazine cover with a naked woman on the side of a bus stop. As most people know, nude beaches are very common in numerous countries around the world. On Spanish television, Spaniards freely employ curse words without bleeps or dubbing, as well as English curses on occasion. In Honduras, newspapers publish violent images of crime or disturbing pictures of poverty that no American daily would ever put into print, even if those images would better demonstrate the seriousness of conflicts like the ones in Darfur or the extreme poverty in the Third World. But apparently American sensibilities are more easily offended than many other peoples around the world, enough so that many watchdog organizations encourage people to contact the Federal Communications Commission if they have issues with the supposedly offensive material in the media. In the last few years the FCC has seen a much higher rate of complaints from citizens about indecent material in media even as it has become more obvious that fewer and fewer people are bothered by it.
Why do these things alarm people so much? A word is a word — each supposedly indecent term is in the dictionary and people employ them all the time. The human body is the human body; its parts are no secret. Violence is a sad fact of life, disturbing images a constant reality. Admittedly, movies and television are more prone to show gore than allow cussing or nudity on screen; however, it is disconcerting that CNN or Fox News producers might feel like horrible images of poverty or violence that can be employed to illuminate the American public would be deemed inappropriate due to their graphic nature. Some might disagree with equating the censorship of cursing and sex with disturbing images of political potence but what it comes down to is social norms: does the average American have a problem with a bad word, nakedness, or gore? Based on the commonplace nature of these components in our entertainment and society at large, it would seem only a small minority demonstrate disapproval of them. Therefore, there is no point in maintaining the most common forms of censorship that restrict these elements in media, whatever the context.
This perspective might not be popular with some parents. But honestly, does parental protection prevent children from learning bad words, discovering sexual terms or ideas, or keep them from watching a friend play a violent video game? No, unless the parent goes to absurd lengths to prevent the child from being exposed to these subjects. If the child is not home-schooled, it is practically certain that the child will acquire knowledge of this information by the time he or she is in middle school. From anecdotal evidence, when a five year-old asks his mom why the man on television said a word other than the one his mouth was forming because the kid knows the actual word, censorship is probably not working. The goal of certain groups and many governmental regulations to limit supposedly distasteful aspects in the media fail to keep children “pure,” making their continuance pointless. While censorship is obnoxious at times, not every form is bad.
Overtly explicit items, like pornography, are still not appropriate for the general public and especially children. However, most curse words, many forms of nudity, and many other images should not be considered obscene like pornography, or indecent for that matter. Considering the pervasiveness of these allegedly inappropriate items in society, it’s obvious that most people don’t mind their existence in movies, television, and other media. And if some people really care intensely about this, then they can choose not to watch a channel showing something they dislike or utilize the power of the V-Chip to control what their children watch. It is only obnoxious to force everyone else to deal with what amounts to meaningless censorship.
Geoffrey Skelley’s column appears Thursdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at g.skelley@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
EDITORIAL: Carla Williams deserves her seat at the table
By Editorial Board | 2 days agoLooking beyond basketball and football reveals that Virginia Athletics is, in many ways, thriving.
UPADHYAYA: The Great and not-so-Good sides of U.Va.’s 2030 housing plan
By Apal Upadhyaya | 4 days agoInstead of improving the dire state of existing infrastructure, however, the University has shifted attention away from it and chosen to expand.
EDITORIAL: Support low-barrier shelters in Charlottesville
By Editorial Board | 5 days agoInvesting in low-barrier shelters now will pay off in increased stability for the homeless, which will undoubtedly improve the safety of shelters and the community writ large.
