Is censorship valid it certainly still exists I accept that certain subjects are acceptably taboo but what about other forms of censorship have you experienced it and what do you consider is acceptable.

As presumably people who write seriously in the hope of making a few bob, how do you cope with censorship do you consider that work you dont like because it offend you in some way should be censored or are you tolerant of everything.

That's a really good question my friend. I think when you're talking about what children can or cannot see/do then some kind of parental control is called for. Which begs the question of if parental control is found lacking, when and where do the government step in; whose yardstick is valid?

Some people moralise that censorship is so easy to impose, and so perilous to fight and that supporting freedom of speech means you may have to hear and see expression that you don't like and to cave in to censorship means you will still hear expression you don't like - from the Powers That Be - and be left without a voice to counter it.

I believe in personal censorship, and I simply don't go where the bad people go, I try to keep my children safe and I write what I would like to read/see, but I wouldn't rain down on anyone else's parade just because they held a different viewpoint from me, unless it endangered my or my children's lives.

Censorship is there really just to protect those who need it, like children. However the rest of us should be adult enough to judge for ourselves, if we don't like something it does not mean someone else won't and therefore we have no right to say what should and should not go as long as that piece is not harmful in someway.

If you do not like something simply turn away and don't waste your time giving your bias opinion because that what it is, not everyone will agree with you and your arguments will be an inefficient volley of drivel if you cannot back it up with an intelligent well balanced argument.

(No names but a Miss H should look at what she's written and decide what face she is speaking from)

Oh Scott you are funny! You too make me laugh out loud!
xx

You wrote in your reply to Miss H '...don't waste your time giving your bias opinion because that what it is, not everyone will agree with you and your arguments will be an inefficient volley of drivel if you cannot back it up with an intelligent well balanced argument'.

Sounds like censorship to me Scott.

You also wrote...'if we don't like something it does not mean someone else won't and therefore we have no right to say what should and should not go as long as that piece is not harmful in someway'.

I'm getting a bit confused here Scott, help me out...so if it's harmful you would censor it? Even though you say 'we have no right to say what should and should not go'?

Some of this has been covered on a previous forum, I think, about a month ago. The one on racism looked at censorship and everyone had some very thought provoking and interesting comments. It might be worth nipping back to that?

Within normal bounds of acceptability nothing should be censored if it is not harmful, what I mean by this is that we shouldn’t censor stuff if it has too much swearing or so on but a film that glorified something like child abuse I think would be harmful and so these extremes should be censored!

There are some who think swearing should be censored. You seem to be saying that we ignore them, that their views are invalid because you say so? How do you decide what should be censored? What's your criteria? And what does 'normal bounds of acceptability' mean?

Ok I'll keep this short because this is dragging now isn't it! I'm just giving an opinion, I said people can choose to watch what they like and so if they don't like swearing don't listen, their views are not invalid, its there right and I am not saying it should be any other way unless it is out of 'Normal bounds' and by this I mean criminal stuff like child abuse or do you think that is ok?

No Scott I don't think Child Abuse is OK. I was just interested in what you meant by 'normal bounds of acceptability' For instance...is homosexuality within or without your 'normal bounds of acceptability'?

The previous thread on this topic can be found here
http://www.writewords.org.uk/forum/44_530.asp

I have no problem with homosexuality or anything else that is not harmful to anyone, at the end of the day censorship should really just be about protecting people, things like racism is harmful and so in my opinion is not acceptable behaviour

And what would you term as racism? 'Problem with most of the isms is that we get so scared of the word that we can't bring ourselves to examine the realities or to celebrate them. To explain: I heard on the radio the other day the runner-up (or it may have been No 1)story in the Ilkley Lit Festival - Brilliant! Written by an Indian woman (in self-confessed revenge against a certain police inspector in Calcutta) it was a comedy of perspectives...dare I say it...racial, cultural and generational perspectives. It was the best thing I've heard in years! I sat in a carpark for 15 minutes because I couldn't bear not to hear the end of it. The author couldn't have written it without an astute understanding of racial/cultural differences - are you saying she shouldn't have strayed into such dangerous land?

Has anyone considered self-censorship: the noble art of not knocking something if [in all honesty] one knows little or nothing about it?
The things we mock, the things we hate, the things we tear down ... how often are they the same things we do not understand, and therefore fear?

If anyone knows/cares what I think they would know I abhor censorship in all its forms. If I want to write a STORY (Scott, that's something that's made up, which means it isn't TRUE) about a child abuser, then you have no right to stop me and I will fight you - not physically I hope - to maintain my right to freedom of expression and speech. The others are driving at a good point - who defines what is offensive or sick or whatever. We all know there are laws, that child abuse is SICK and a CRIMINAL act. We are so lucky in our country and this is one point to tip the old bowler hat to them obnoxious cousins of ours who live across t'filthy pond, soooooo lucky our laws also protect our freedom of speech and expression. Now that George Bush and Friends (Tony that means you, you cunt) are on a personal crusade to impose their own moral standards on just about everything in the world, we must maintain this fight, as writers, more than ever. It is our life blood, and just think about it and forget this moralising bollocks about what is right and what is not. If that fucker Blair has his way, then it will be illegal for me to slate religions, whether it be nutter muslims or crazy christians. Anyway, I ain't rantin on that, it will wind me up and I'm in a good mood.

Censorship is never justified in art. If you want to save your little darlings minds from the sick corruption of modern life, then that IS YOUR RESPONSIBILTY, protect them from stuff you don't like but don't try and ban shit, that is a sure fire road to friggin Nazi Germany. Scott, with all due respect sir, there can be no nitpicking, oh this is okay but this is a bit too racist, sexist, homo-erotic, plain sick minded. Doesn't matter. There is no argument saying my argument supports paedophiles, coz I'm not saying that so don't even bother. A child porn website is illegal, it is not art, it is a criminal act and by even looking at it you are partaking in the sick physical and mental torture of innocent children. Making this illegal is no more censorship than prosecuting a murderer for, yes, you guessed it, murder.

It means there will be a whole load of stuff we may not like being made but that is the price you pay for a truely individual and free society. As writers we must decide which side of the argument we are on, and never let it slip. If you are with me, wicked, jump on board and let's fight the fascists. If you are against me, then you should leave this website and go and join Daily Mail interactive or sommik! Hahaha...

Beadle said it best when he pointed out his TV has its own censorship device, and its called the remote control.

So, to sum up, if I want to lower this thread by saying what a load of bollocks you cunts, I maintain my right to do so. If I fancy peppering my writing with random swear words aimed to offend, I should be allowed to, as a writer, shouldn't I? Else what would be the point of even writing, let alone joining WW?

Now, DB and the noble WW team could pull the thread if they found that tooooo offensive, but I'm only joking and don't mean to insult anyone, so that would be a bit over the top I feel. That would kind of be censorship, only it is their site and they reserve the right to follow certain rules of conduct.

You see I could scream CEEEEEEEEEEEEN-SOOOOOOR-SHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIP at the fact the Chavs thread has been removed, even from the lounge, for no apparent reason, with no consultation to any of the paying members, but then what do I know?

Don't be a cunt. Fight censorship.