Where do you draw the line on censorship?

I, specifically, draw the line at censoring books.

@Simone_De_Beauvoir I agree

We draw the line every day.

Win some, loose some.
It is always an up hill battle.

You loose the battle on censorship when you stop fighting for it.

Right across the exposed breasts or ass crack.. that’s where you draw the line… and you should probably make it a bold line.. really more of a box.

Let’s be sure what we are talking about when we say “censorship.” Censorship is often used as a scare word to arouse people when censorship is not actually at issue at all.

Censorship and selectivity are not the same thing.
Censorship and responsible editing are not the same thing.
Censorship and exercise of judgment and taste in what to bring before the public are not the same thing.

If I decline to publish your remarks in my magazine, newspaper, Internet forum, or other outlet, where my intent and goal are to give voice to the best work I can find that serves the interests of my audience, that is not censorship. I am doing nothing whatsoever to stop you from publishing it. I do not owe you or anyone a platform. You can go elsewhere and publish it.

Censorship is the systematic suppression of material on the basis of some definable content or ideology or other criterion that can be identified and stated in advance. It takes a pretty large institution (such as a government) to practice censorship because it requires the span of control to actually prohibit and prevent release of the material to the public.

I will always stand on the side of free speech and will prefer too little restriction over too much. But I do believe that most content can benefit from the exercise of some judgment and selectivity before it is released. It is the rare author who is his own best critic.

Right below the knee leave the good stuff clearly visible.

@Jeruba Lurve. Great distinctions.

Only in the case of provocation of violence where actual personal or property harm has happened.

@Jeruba Your answer clarifies the definitions beautifully.

I would support the censorship of communications whose clear purpose is to promote hatred and/or violence against an identifiable group. I would also censor depictions of sexual abuse of minors, e.g. child pornography and websites promoting the sexual exploitation of children or those below the age of consent (or those incapable of giving consent).

Explicit sexual materials should be restricted so that minors will not be exposed to them on broadcast media. In the home, parents or guardians have the right to block or lock out channels they believe are unsuitable for any (or all) family members.

The FTC and in Canada CRTC set and enforce broadcast standards to protect the public from exposure to whatever they deem unsuitable for general audiences.

That would include such things as (neo-)Nazi propaganda and those whose communication denies facts such as the Holocaust or the various well-documented genocides such as but but exclusive to the one in Rwanda.

I may choose to disregard or refuse to expose myself to communications that I consider offensive or misleading. Whether that is America’s Funniest Home Videos, the broadcasts of televangelists, or Barney the Dinosaur is up to me.

Censorship (in the popular definition, anyway) should be like hearing nails scraped down a blackboard. Any repression of information in any capacity, I simply cannot stand.

This is a very open ended question. The obvious answer might be, – at the censorship of honest dissent – define honest. And so on. No, it depends on context. What needs to be said today, now, this minute, can become by next day, irrelevant and inflammatory.

For media that is fairly prominent and in-your-face, I draw it around where the average movie in the US gets a PG-13 rating.

For media that requires intentional acts to access (websites, books, television,etcetera) I am for advisories as to what sort of content may be within but nothing beyond a “Tipper sticker” warning. Of course, this means that parents wil actually have to do a little parenting ot ensure that their kids have some sense of morality.

Other than keeping kids away from explicitly violent films and literature, there should be no official censorship. I believe that censorship is up to an individual. That’s where film ratings are an excellent way to determine wether you want to see a movie, read a book, or play a game. Censorship for children needs to be decided at home. There should also be severe penalties for letting children into theaters to see movies that are rated as not for them.

I try to avoid extremely violent movies and especially hate ones that show rape and torture so that means I avoid Mel Gibson movies.

I also cancelled HBO when my kids were in their early teens because they watched shows, without my permission. Censorship belongs at home and in now way should the government be involved.