if you know

 Ok. But do you think a newspaper should be able to publish absolutely anything as long as it's not a safety or security issue? And should local TV channels be allowed to air anything? How about billboards? Is it OK to just go putting anything up there? What if I want to make some very vulgar signs and put them in the front lawn of my city lot? Do you think that is OK?

I know it isn't always easy to determine where to draw the line, but I am thankful that there is at least some regulations about what you can publish or post.

Man, people here REALLY do not appreciate debates. That's the second time I tried to engage someone in discussion and it immediately devolved to insults. I mean seriously, guys, you think I am offended when you tell me I would "teach my kids the whole cuss word?"

You can say the debate is "pointless," but the only reason it is pointless is because you don't want to debate it. That's fine, but if other people do, just don't complain about it.

As for RDR75's point, I acknowledge that this website has the right to censor whatever it wants from its fora and also that perception of having civil discussion clearly is important, even if the actual civility of discussion is not at stake. I already mentioned that. I was considering the broader question of society in general, not this specific site.

As for censorship in general, I think it's a difficult subject, but I don't see any need for the government to interfere. If the government allowed porn on TV in the day, do you think any major channels would air it? We all know TV stations have an image to uphold and besides, those shows wouldn't fit the clientel of that time of day. What would change would be the reliance on arbitrary, context-blind, hard rules of exactly what content is appropriate and what is not. The same can be said of printed media.

In the case of radio, I really can't imagine how the radio could be dangerous if uncensored. Satellite radio is uncensored, but I know plenty of people who have it in their cars and never worry about their kids. You can just change the station if you don't like it, as it is literally at the driver's fingertips.

And that is the issue with the whole thing. Good parenting will make these irrelevant. The fact is that the internet is uncensored, yet most children have unregulated access to the internet. I in five seconds could find things on the internet more horrible than you have ever seen. And this goes back a long time to some extent. Books were never censored, after all.

I suppose the only risk in any of these cases is some "accidental exposure." Well that happens anyway. But do people really think that kids who watched the Superbowl halftime show in 2004 were in any way traumatized, damaged, or disillusioned? It's seriously a nonissue. And I cannot imagine it being any different if there were no FCC.

@Borgqueen

Others could probably answer this better than I since I, don't watch football. Anyway, the superbowl is the big championship game the NFL has every year. In the 2004 half-time show, Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake were doing some kind of performance and her wardrobe malfunctioned (apparently), exposing her breast adorned with a nipple shield. A bunch of people got upset and started 'debating.' The broadcaster got a big fine and the FCC made some changes to the broadcasting rules or something like that.

The FCC is the communications regulator for the US government.

I must not have been clear-- chess.com certainly has the right to decide for themselves what their own rules will be.  My negative examples of people trying to control thought and expression involved other venues.

Incidentally, I resent that some people find it necessary to suggest that because I disagree with their sanctimonious stances, it must therefore be assumed that the only possible consequence is that given any opportunity I would be villainous to children.  BQ equates an opposition stance with active training and promotion of swearing by 5-year-olds, and asserts they will thus be damaged in all future social interactions.  That wasn't shocking enough for Duke-- he had to invoke 3-year-olds.  It's the same-old same-old I first mentioned-- people hiding behind the excuse of kids to justify their own hangups, in this case by suggesting that viewpoints that disagree with theirs, and even possibly the specific voices of those viewpoints, are dangerous or damaging to children. Bunk.  The only way a kid ends up thinking a particular word is offensive is if he is specifically trained, drilled, and/or threatened to think that way.  Where people differ is over which words are worth worrying about.

Amazingly, BQ did manage finally to bring up a valid point, and that is that it doesn't make much sense to debate this among people from different countries.  As a whole, the populations of Australia, Canada, and the U.K. have always been far more accepting of governmental regulation of expression than have U.S. citizens.  Since those are all representative governments, it's not surprising that many of the citizens of those 3 countries may be more comfortable with the attitude that their personal preferences, regardless of what they may be, are actually better (rather than merely different) than the preferences of others, which should thus be controlled or limited.  I remember when the owner of the theater that screened Life of Brian in Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario was shut down and busted in 1979 under Canada's blasphemous libel law.  Such a law would not even have been constitutional in the U.S., yet even now it is still part of the Canadian criminal code (though it's no longer applied, as it's legality was ultimately questioned).  So, lots of different viewpoints on what's appropriate and what is not proper public expression.  The problem comes when people decide their own view is the only acceptable way, try to force others to abide by that view, and demonize any who dare think otherwise.  Which is worse, accepting different viewpoints and expression that you don't like, or promoting intolerance? Several of us obviously disagree as to the answer.

This is a pretty good example of how things can differ from person to person and region to region-- you can't believe how many people were in an uproar about that!  Some religious and "family" groups were going nuts.  It went on for weeks and weeks-- hearings, threats of financial fines and programming sanctions, and yet to you this is something trivial, not worth a moment's worry.  I agree totally.  But the point is, there are people who feel the same way about "bad" words as you do about topless women-- that neither is a threat to kids.  Similarly, there are some who think both are the end of the world.

BTW, "wardrobe malfunction" was the official term for the incident, which has since entered the vernacular as a ridiculed phrase.

Newspapers and television should absolutely be allowed to publish or broadcast whatever they want.  Tune out or put the paper down if it offends you, and if it's really an issue for you, your freedom of speech can also be exercised in protest.

Billboards are a bit of a trickier subject as the viewer is not really given a choice to opt-out, and I think I can agree that "absolutely anything" should probably be limited, but the only thing I can really think of that I believe should warrant barring is outright pornography on a billboard (note: not nudity, pornography).  I've seen some pretty gruesome billboards (never profanity, though, but it qualifies similarly) and while I may not always agree with the message, I do support the right to put them up.

@TheGrobe

Ok. You agree some types of communication do need to be regulated. You have some ideas about what communication methods should or shouldn't be regulated and what type of material qualifies for censorship. That is fair enough. Once you give the authority of regulation to somone (whether it is the FCC or the local government  or whoever), who gets to make the rules about what gets censored and what does not? I think you and I may have different ideas about what should and shouldn't be opened to censorship. In fact, if you asked 10 people where the line should be drawn, you would probably get 10 different answers.  Since the standard can not be adapted to every persons personal opinion, I think we have to accept that there will be some censoring with which we do not agree. But surely that is better than no regulation at all.

I agree with BQ. What is the point in debating just to debate? No one gets anywhere because neither side will budge.

Eebster, desiring debate shows you lack open-mindedness which renders debate meaningless. No one SHOULD desire debate, because it leads to argument, which leads to fighting, and so on. It's pointless in the end. What do you accomplish from debating others for no reason anyways? Life involves others, sure, but it's more about what beliefs you hold and how true you are to yourself and your beliefs rather than imposing your beliefs on others. Sharing your beliefs is fine, but debating them just for the sake of debate? Good grief. That says to me that you care less of the subject and you are just looking for a fight. Of course, that is just my belief though, so I won't argue about it. 

My favourite one-liner....If there is really nothing to say- don't say it !

Yes, "topless" was a poor choice of word-- the exposure was actually much less than that, which makes the example all the more valid.  The incident couldn't possibly have been much more trivial without being non-existent, and yet there were still hordes demanding the broadcasters' heads for traumatizing children and contributing to moral decay.  More than half a million people went to the trouble of filing a complaint with the governmental regulating agency. No kid who watched that would have been traumatized without having first been told that s/he was supposed to feel traumatized, or else.  Attitudes toward cursing work the same way, and thus have similar variation in opinion.

Somewhat of an aside-- I'm curious whether the punishment of washing out a kid's mouth with soap when he or she is heard uttering a bad word is just a U.S. phenomenon, or if it's also done elsewhere?  My parents never engaged in the practice (surprise, surprise, they are both amoral heathens who were not obsessed with policing cursing), but I recall many instances as a kid when I was at friends' or neighbors' houses and either a friend or one of his siblings would let some word slip (which words weren't allowed varied from house to house), and the next thing you knew one of his parents was dragging him off to the bathroom.

I would hear a couple minutes of splashing and screaming, followed by anywhere from 2 to maybe 15 minutes of violent vomiting.  Eventually the criminal would stagger out of the bathroom and, usually, announce he was not feeling well and was going to bed. Apparently there was usually a bout of diarrhea later. Friends told me the most common method of getting the soap into their mouth was lathering up a toothbrush and making the kid hold his mouth open while the soap was applied all over his teeth and tongue.  One friend's father couldn't be bothered with all that trouble-- he just had his kids gargle with liquid laundry detergent.

Some might consider such procedures as child abuse, but I'm sure all of the practitioners would say they were just being good parents and making sure their kids knew which words were "bad".  Maybe mouth-washing is less prevalent now than it used to be, but I'll bet it's still going on in the parts of the South. Was it effective? Perhaps it reduced cursing within the walls of my friends' houses, but it obviously didn't eliminate it, or I would never have witnessed punishments for the crime.  Once those kids were out the door, I know they all behaved and spoke and cursed just like anyone else.  They were just normal kids, hardly threats to society.

This frustrates me to no end. Debating IS about the free exchange of ideas, but it is more than that. It is about actually analyzing them for what they are worth. If we are never willing to debate any of our ideas, how do we ever expect to value the best ones? In all areas of science and of academia, debate is prevalent and necessary to ensure that new ideas are well-tested and scrutinized and to reach a consensus. In politics, debate is prevalent to ensure that the public is being well served and to reach compromise. Yet online, debate is just "pointless" and "close-minded."

That "close-minded" claim is particularly absurd. Holding to your ideas completely and being unwilling to consider others is the very definition of close-minded. Refusing debate is the perfection of stubbornness. Debate itself is the exact opposite--it forces a consideration of other positions. True debate isn't mere contradiction or grandstanding, it involves real clash of ideas, specific responses to opposing points, evidence, and warranted explanation of positions. I try whenever possible to apply this to my own debates, though I don't always succeed. But I hardly ever see this from you, Borgqueen, or you, Duke, although you still superficially continue a debate. You are more concerned with deriding my ideas than debating them or promoting your own.

Look through the previous posts and tell me where I have been "close-minded" or when you have been "open." You frequently drop the entirety of my posts only to equate me with some sort of child-abuser or otherwise bad parent.

That said, you did eventually provide one response:

"You have no idea how sick I am of hearing this argument.  Yes, it's always up to good parenting, because parents just love to be watching over the shoulder of thier kids 24/7.  Good sensorship and removing the "bad element" from specific media would be a GOOD thing and it would give us parents some time to have a life!"

Yet this ignores the specific cases I mentioned in my post. The internet is uncensored, yet we do not usually see children traumatized by their esperience there. Perhaps some parents supervise their children constantly online, but if they are willing to do that, they can just as easily supervise them watching TV. The only fundamental difference is that it is much easier to stumble onto porn online than on TV.

And books also have never been censored, and even books targetted at preteens are liable to have a number of "profanities." But nobody is concerned. Somehow when it is on TV everything is suddently different.

TL;DR: If you don't want to debate, please don't. But don't deride those who do and accuse them of being close-minded and of ruining children.

 @Eebster:

 I think you are overlooking a fundamental reality. We live in a civilized society; a society with rules; a society in which people, to a large degree, are self-regulating. Certain behaviour is universally agreed to be undesirable e.g. spitting on trains; running along the sidewalk; snatching old ladies' handbags; violence.

To achieve a civilized society, it is essential to teach and reinforce the behavioural norms at a young (and impressionable) age; therefore we encourage restraint in thought, in word and in action. Allowing unrestrained language in children is not equivalent to engendering freedom of expression; it actually undermines their ability to learn self-discipline, to learn to communicate fully, and ultimately, to belong.

Swearing is offensive, not so much for the sound of the words, nor even for their meanings, but mainly because it demonstrates a lack of the self-control that we - as a society - prize so highly.

A good ( very bad !) example of unrestrained behavior is shown by the current avatar of member [NAME EDITED OUT] which I have just  stumbled across-puns not entirely intentional.

BQ: You have stated multiple times that the issue is five year olds. But I seriously do not think five year olds should ever be left for extended periods of time without regulation or oversight. Maybe it happens, but it shouldn't, and it doesn't justify the government censoring a broad range of general access media. Your argument seems to be, "I'm lazy, which justifies infringing on the right to free speech."

Then you ask why I am focusing on preteens, but you just took that completely out of context. Obviously I am talking about preteens because, as you pointed out, five year olds won't be doing a lot of reading. So I guess we are narrowing this down to "children younger than reading age," which is pretty young.

Then you continue to skirt the fundamental issue which is that no words are going to in any way damage children mentally, socially, or otherwise. The only danger is, as you said, that kids might repeat those words. But if we accept that those words have no power of their own anyway, it is irrelevant.

Moreover, you cannot censor reality. At the point where you are leaving your children unattended for extend periods of time, they will inevitably talk to other children with larger vocabularies. You act like you expect to keep all these words some giant secret, but we both know perfectly well that everybody will hear them anyway. And when they do, nothing happens.

You say that I am "missing the basics," but I think YOU are missing the basics. You start with the assumption that certain words or depictions are inherently bad and then argue that we should censor them. I am saying that these are not inherently bad in any way, and that even considering such words to be so is itself creating a problem out of thin air.

aftfizz, for some reason I feel like I saw that exact comment earlier in the thread, but regardless it doesn't contribute anything to the discussion. I already stated at least three or four times that I recognize that in society as it is today, we sometimes need to self-regulate because of the way others will perceive us, even though these perceptions are misguided. I have defended the individual's right to self-censorship, and also stated that that is the reason I intend to, for example, follow this forum's rules.

But the question at hand is government censorship, which is not the same thing. At that point, the government is dictating social policy, and specifically one which is causing a number of problems.

To achieve a civilized society, it is essential to teach and reinforce the behavioural norms at a young (and impressionable) age; therefore we encourage restraint in thought, in word and in action. Allowing unrestrained language in children is not equivalent to engendering freedom of expression; it actually undermines their ability to learn self-discipline, to learn to communicate fully, and ultimately, to belong.

We need to reinforce behavioral norms to avoid bad behavior, but that doesn't mean we need to make up arbitrary norms just so we can enforce them. You are equating stealing and violence to swearing, which makes no sense whatsoever. All the behaviors you listed harm somebody, whereas swearing harms nobody. Do you think we should make a law against swearing now?

And the real irony here is that it is perfectly legal in most countries to show all those things you described on TV, as long as no swear words are uttered or naked bodies shown.

Swearing is offensive, not so much for the sound of the words, nor even for their meanings, but mainly because it demonstrates a lack of the self-control that we - as a society - prize so highly.

So the problem with swearing is metaphoric, not real? You say it "demonstrates a lack of self-control," but you could just as easily say that about women who speak in church, yet we tend to value the rights of nondiscrimination and free speech above an arbitrary method of social control. Why not demonstrate your self-control in your speech by speaking kindly of people, using correct grammar, applying the golden rule, etc.? Why do certain unremarkable words, words which are commonly used in ordinary conversation, ruin an otherwise well-mannered statement? The idea is absurd.

This brings up a separate point. Your concept is like Victorian manners, where the upper class established rules not because they made sense, but so that they could make people follow them. Those who did not follow the arbitrary manners were seen as inferior or uncouth. It was an easy way to distinguish between the nobility and the peasants. I feel like our current concepts of vulgarity are a hangover from those times. If somebody says, "No f***ing way," he is clearly a despicable person, as nobody who valued elegant speech would ever say that.

This is essentially the system the government supports with its censorship laws. It proscribes certain words as profane because the public says so, which creates a benchmark by which we can measure peoples' language.

So I feel that censorship not only denies free speech, it also creates another benchmark for class distinctions.

It seems to me you want to force everyone into the gutter because you enjoy being there.

What does his avatar shows?

Good work  moderators,and thanks for diplomatic editing .

Over and out

Indeed, violence and actions that hurt others are undesirable. And we should certainly teach that to our children. 

However, hearing and uttering words harms no one. No objective, measurable harm anyway. You simply cannot say that since we don't allow violence and we respect other peoples property, then swearing too should be curved.

Violence and stealing is wrong because it infringes on the rights of the individual. There is however no such thing as a right to not hear certain words, or to not be offended.

??!

What kind of sense does this make? Desiring debate shows a lacking in open-mindedness... No, i don't follow. Please elaborate.