Oh Censorship, when will you learn?

[Blog of Reason]

Discussion thread for the blog entry "Oh Censorship, when will you learn?" by AndromedasWake.

Permalink: http://blog.leagueofreason.org.uk/youtube/oh-censorship-when-will-you-learn/

 

[Lallapalalable]

Liked and faved!

 

[australopithecus]

Stupidity abounds at the YouTube HQ (which I have on good authority is manned by a crack team of ducks)

Surely you mean a qwack team?

 

[nasher168]

*hits australopithecus over the head with a blunt object*

 

[sgrunterundt]

*hits australopithecus over the head with a blunt object*

Same here. I wanted to make that joke.

On topic, watched the video, liked, and recommended on stumpleupon.

 

[bemanos]

Liked and faved!

this

 

[sigen8]

I don,´t know, I,´m a bit surprised that video got deleted for beeing "innappropriate". Obviously, the people from youtube are biaised, and it,´s funny to see that when there,´s many video that are actually innappropriate of offensing (litteraly).

Hell, why don,´t they remove all videos from Monthy Python,¨s Life of Brian ?

We should reproduce the video replacing "religion" by hamsters. Or maybe to be fair some meatballs too... lol

 

[Lallapalalable]

Obviously, the people from youtube are biaised

Actually, YT is automated, so anybody could flag something as inappropriate and it gets taken down without review.

 

[Nikolaj]

Not to be a spoilsport or anything, but don't you think it's possible that the reason YT pulled this PARTICULAR video is because of the image that comes up at 0:55: a handdrawing of someone with a cross-shaped penis performing the sex on someone with a ball-gag in their mouth?

I mean, don't get me wrong, I think the censorship of sexual images on YT is overdone, but at least they are consistant with that, and not biased. Personally I would not be offended if nudity and simple handdrawn images of sex were allowed on YT, but wether YT should loosen up on the sex-censorship is a somewhat different discussion.

I mean, don't you think it is possible that if a christian had put up a video attempting to mock atheists, in which a similarly overtly sexual image appeared, that video might get pulled as offensive as well?

It is my impression, with what little I know of the YT admins, that they are indeed much more concerned with not offending religious people, and much too unfair to atheist posters in general, but in THIS particular case I think they could defend their choice of removing the video by saying: "we would have removed this video, regardless of its anti-religious content, because of the sexual image, something that we are consistant in censoring"

Granted, half-naked girls, that flirt with the web cam, and people talking about sexual activity at length (neither of which I have any problems with, btw) IS allowed on youtube, but that is a problem of hypocracy in censorship in general, and true of most tv-stations and other places that impose censorship on themselves, in that they will allow open discussions of sex, and extremelly obvious sexual inuendo, not to mention extremelly sexualized images, like a woman drinking milk, and spilling half of it, but will not allow even a glimpse of a woman's nipple, or a mans butt, even if it is in a completely non-sexual context, like a news-story about breastcancer for example. But I digress... That particular hypocracy has just always really annoyed me*...

I think it is a shame that this video was removed, as I can't PERSONALLY see the big deal about it, but I must admit that if YT cited the image as a reason for the video being "offensive" I might have to agree that they were at least being CONSISTENTLY prudish, and not SPECIFICALLY going after the video because of it's anti-religious content.

So anyway, to conclude, my point is, that in THIS particular case only, is it not possible that Youtube are attempting to defend the sensibilities of prudish people, rather than defending the sensibilities of religious people?

Anyway, it is a somewhat moot point WHY youtube censored the video, because, as the OP states, the good thing about the internet is that nothing can be silenced, censored or removed.

The Obi Wan Kenobi quote says it all: nowhere is that statement more true than on the Internet


*: (/rant on) That hypocracy, of avoiding nipples and butts at all costs, while putting so much implied sex into the shows on TV, is a pet-peeve of mine. Either be ashamed of sex as a society, or don't be: you can't have it both ways. I personally prefer "don't be", but either choice is preferable to blatant hypocracy.

Another thing that really offends me is the much higher bar set for censorship of violent images, something I really DO feel can warrant a certain amount of censorship, at least on TV, to protect children. I personally think you don't need to hide sex on TV from even small children. When you are young enough that it might harm you, you too young to understand it or take any interest in it, and when you are old enough to understand it, you're too old to be harmed by being exposed to it.

Violence on TV, however, is much more freaquent, and the censorship of it much more leaniant than the censorship of sexual content, I feel, and while I don't think this is a HUGE problem in society in general, I think it is reasonable to have some concerns that children aren't inadvertently exposed to grizzly scenes and images in movies and TV-shows. I remember being quite upset by slashermovies I stumpled on while flicking through the channels as a child.

I cannot think of a single instance in which stumbling upon nudity or sex ever upset me in any way (On Danish TV the censorship is considerably less restrictive than in the US and UK, so I DID stumble upon nudity and sex when watching TV as a child.)

Anyway, that's how I feel about censorship. (/rant off)