A life without censorship

All of you know what censorship is. I’m not talking about the Hentai censorship, in particular, I mean Censorship in the greater picture, to either protect audiences or victims. Depending on where you live, you might think it’s unfair, or even believe that your media is not censored at all.

Nowadays you might think that you are there is no censorship, but looking at the bare facts: It’s everywhere. I’d be surprised if there is a country that does not apply censorship to the media in one form or another.

For those of you that don’t know censorship: Censorship is the alteration of information and media, or even deletion, to either protect audiences (new version), keep the people ignorant (old version) and protect normal people that are being broadcasted in the media.

In the past censorship was first issued by the church, halting development and stopping any and all innovation until the late 15th century in europe. Later it was issued by politicians but instead of keeping the information entirely, they just offered certain parts of the medium. One of the most famous examples is, at least for germany, how Bismarck agitated France to start the German-French war that was before WW1, and he won over the hearts of the entire German people (which at that time was not united) and hurting the pride of France.

In WW2 it was used by the Nazis, by burning any liberal and communist literature (even children books, if they were written by a socialist). It was used by the russians, turning the greatest loss into a victory and by the U.S.A., keeping their nuclear experiments hidden.Β  Following that, the Cold War was all about censorship. The question is: Are we really free of Censorship nowadays?

My answer is: No. “Why?”, is what you are most likely going to ask. How should I put it… I’ve experienced at least some kinds of censorship in every country I in the 14 years I remember. Starting chronologically: While I was five I always wondered why they would put black bars on the faces of people in the Newspaper. Now I know that it was to protect the people from getting widely known. The problem in germany is: They wright that damn name there, and usually even the town the person resides in! So that makes no real sense so far.At least in some countries they write victim A. instead of Mr. Peter Strauss

The next event was while watching Dragonball. The first airing in Germany was so heavily censored that they halved the episode length, and left a quarter of them out because: “They are not appropriate for TV”. Well the re-airings were uncensored at least. but every new anime is heavily censored.

The next example is in the U.S.. There most games that even contain hints of explicit content are either banned, or only sold under the counter. The interesting thing is that this censorship focuses on sexual content (meaning no bare breast), alcohol and drugs, and explicit language. The latter is resolved by the famous beep tone. In germany it’s the opposite. Sex can be witnessed in videos that are rated with age 12, but if it comes to violence everything is cur out.

Now you might mention that these are for some special areas of media, but nothing important, right? So let me get to the next step: News censorship. Instead of traditional censorship, the new way of doing things is to bias one side, so that some things are left unspoken. The years 2008-2009 I attended grade 11 in Canada. I was amazed with all the different TV channels from different countries. You might remember that around that time was also an aggression from Israel towards Lebanon and Syria. Well, I compared the BBC broadcast stating that: “Dozens of Civilians were killed in the last Airraid by Israel…”, to a broadcast from CNN. There they said something along the lines: “The Israeli airforce just bombed one of the major Hisbollah Terrorist Cells. No civilians were injured.”

First of all, the last time I followed this thematic: Hisbollah is a militia not a terrorist cell. Second: Why do these news-reports contradict each other. I belive this kind of censorship is applied because the U.S. people is pretty patriotic. They believe what their country does is right, so the news have to tell them just that (no offense intended, but I found a couple of surveys that were stating that). But well, that Israel thing is a touchy issue, so you might not count that as an argument.

There are two kinds of censorship I still haven’t mentioned, that are still around: First the feudal kind of censorship in the autocraties of the oriental states (take Jordan as an example). Since Internet is not a standard there, that is not very hard. I visited it a couple of times, and noticed that they were keeping sensitive information away from the people (like the liberal movements of the neghbouring countries. It took about ten days to spread properly.)

The last one is the one that is found in China. There, they are simply blocking of the information, that they don’t want. It’s the same ofr north Korea btw. Now there are two facts that make this seem a little out of place: First: How do they keep 1.3 billion people ignorant about some things? and Second: They have Internet. Well to the first fact I just have to mention the one-child policy: If they can keep 1.3 billion people from founding families with more than one child, then censorship should be easy, right?

TheΒ  Internet problem is probably one of the most impressive feats I have seen in my seventeen year long life: They have and maintain a hacker force (official size unknown) to control the Internet for things that might be harmful for the Peoples Republic of China. The world had first taken note of this hacker force in an incident when the U.S. powerplants where hacked, and they found the same traces in many european powerplants.

So now, do you still think you live without censorship? I don’t, and I think that some things actually are pretty good. Like keeping violence away from the children and protecting victims from becoming public. But get rid of the other stuff, as that is more harmful to us and the governments, than that it is helpful.

Post Script: Congratulations if you read it all πŸ˜‰

Post Post Script: If you want to apply that to Hentai, you are free to copy and alter any part of this post.

This entry was posted in Educational and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

26 Responses to A life without censorship

  1. tatsujin says:

    I wish Hentai wasn’t censored … then I wouldn’t care what other features in life are censored.

    • Hellfire says:

      I actually disagree on that method of spelling them. I was taught arabic by my mother, and also how to write arabic words in english letters, that’s why I’m spelling it that way. But well, the actual word used in the english world is hezbollah…

  2. pops says:

    Brilliant article dude. Read it all. πŸ™‚
    Quite interesting, valid opinion. I agree with what you’ve said.
    All in a all, a lovely read. Thank you. πŸ™‚ Hope too see more from you. πŸ™‚

  3. Yorl says:

    Censorship is everywhere, anyone who is not willing to admit it probably has bigger problems anyway. You forgot the most prevalent kind of censorship though; self-censorship. Whether it is artists who will choose not to write, draw, or say what they really mean or production companies that choose what to show to the public based on what they think the public wants or is best for them.

    • Hellfire says:

      Well, you do have a point there. But I based this article on censorship that I experienced to some degree and I never noticed a company telling me about how they shut up about something, just so that it would sell better. Also, I believe that is common knowledge, since it is a marketing strategy to hide the downsides of something, and to highlight the advantages^^.

  4. newy says:

    Sorry, but your statements about Germany’s censorship is utter BS. Unlike in other countries in Germany there is the presumption of innocence. That means that if the media are reporting about a suspect they have to abstract the identity until the guilt is proven. And the means to do that are black bars over the eyes and the abbreviation of the family name.

    • Hellfire says:

      But that also depends on the newspaper that you read. Some don’t care. Also, in the Internet there is no real law that forces the provider/sitecreator to hide the name. You just have to hide the faces. In the actual law it is written that you are allowed to present all the informations that are necessary. So of course, if you are in the newspaper because you won 1.000.000€, your name will most likely be cut abbreviated. But if you commited murder and are on the run? There the duty of the state to protect it’s citizens takes precedent over individual protection, and even private informations are leaked, so that the citizens may cooperate.

      If you are german, the most important articles found are:
      GG: I: Art. 5
      Β§1 IFG and
      Β§3a – Β§4 BDSG
      You can look them up on dejure.org.

      • Hellfire says:

        One thing I just noticed is, that it might be state dependant, meaning that you might have a point. Berlin is different from Hamburg and even Brandenburg in this part of the law. I’ll try to find the time to look it up in the LDSG.

  5. Do your part – run a Freenet node.

  6. modmadmike says:

    “Why do these news-reports contradict each other. I belive this kind of censorship is applied because the U.S. people is pretty patriotic.”
    Nowadays the people who watch TV for news either don’t care about such stories, or live in secluded parts of the US with no other way to get information. Nearly all US citizens use the internet for information, as nearly all of us know NOT to believe the commercial media. The only rational source of news on TV today is actually on the comedy channel (no i’m not being sarcastic) as the rest of the media has came crashing down and yet they wonder why people are switching to internet news. The real reason why the commercial US media does this is because they are payed to censor and are even full of ignorant fools that can’t find the truth.

    • Hellfire says:

      That is the rational way of thinking about it. I know some people (mainly extremely conservative) that think it’s the only truth. But that generation is aging (and slowly dying off). If you look at the young people the nationalism (or patriotism) is getting rarer, although there still are some cases.

      Considering the position of the law: the LDSG doesn’t add to it. Apparently it depends on the newspaper how they are able to interpret and reason their decision to show the full name. That on the other hand means that smaller local newspapers (from a small town in Saxony for example) have it easier writing the full name of a victim living somewhere in Bavaria.

  7. Islidox says:

    Definitely a good read. However, sometimes there are cases where deliberate censoring can have a more positive effect than a negative one, kind of like, “Ignorance is bliss”. But for the most part, I don’t support censorship because it blocks our fundamental human rights. That, and blocking genitalia in my hentai… effing cockblockers.

    • Hellfire says:

      That was what I was trying to convey. But then, as I am a marxist, I think that censorship has to be abolished for the world to function as a proper community!

  8. adighraiz says:

    Hello..i like your article and i have 3 note:

    1- the USA press&media concentrate on the local news like tornado,serial killer,drug matter,celebrity,corruption Etc because USA have 51 or 52 state its like 51 or 52 Country,if you pick one report or issue and spend 1mnt you have 51 mnt of news,and because all of that the American who watched the local media will hear what the government say exactly and by the view of the government they will active and think.

    2-about Hezbollah its a sensitive case because everybody know that USA is with Israel and media in USA is under control by Israel or “Zionism” and for that they say its military strike and no civilian casualty has been report,in the other side the Arab media try to enlarge the case to have sympathy from the global world,the two are lying but indeed there was civilian casualty but not like the media say.

    3-Am From Jordan i agree with you there is censorship in our media and press we take the sensitive news From other channel like Jazera,BBC,CNN,they talk about riot in “Madpa” and Demonstration Etc and after 3 or 4 day the Government Channel inform about the incident when its over and under control.

    But my friend that’s not censorship that’s Deception or Politic by there view,and to be honest you should rise your kid with clean and pure soul and when they grow up let them decide to watch porno stuff or hentai
    or violent bloody movie or animation like i did now,watch them and observe that’s how the Government look to her people i blame them and understand them and that’s not excuse to control my mind and my will and my dignity
    Note:- Our Internet Is Not too blacklisted and we have 24mp speed and remember we are from third class of the world by your opinion πŸ˜›

    • Hellfire says:

      First of all, I do not think that Jordan is third class. Most of my family lives there or in the gaza-strip or the westbank. I do believe that Jordan is laggin behind a little in terms of hardware, but the people there are pretty nice. The problem with internet there is coverage, as far as I understand it: Imagine a cafe at the side of the highway between Amman and Aqaba, and you will certainly belive that there is no internet there. They don’t even have partially running water. There are many settlements like this, that can be seen throughout Jordan. It is those people that have only access to censored media. Even Al-Jazeera shows only it’s own side of the issue at hand.

      Considering you first point: I never thought of it that way, because in Germany, there certainly are 16 different Countries which Unify to Germany , which is why the German name: Bundesrepublik Deutschland, is used for Germnay. It means something along the line of Federal Republic of Germany. At least here, we are not to concerned about news about the different states, except for elections which can turn out quite funny, but rather about international news. The funny thing is, during the (recent) Japan catastrophe most of Germany was horrified with the extent of the damage. The news stopped talking about anything else, not even the middle-east case. It’s alwas pretty much the same if something horrible happens around the world.

      And about Hezbollah: First one should know the definition of a terrorist: A terrorist is an armed civilian or soldier, that harms unarmed and innocent civillians, innocent meaning: they did not aggrevate the person. The problem with that is: If hezbollah is acknowledged as a militia, that would mean Israel repeatedly commited acts of war against Lebanon. If they are seen as patriots or freedom fighters for palestine, that would mean the Israeli soldiers are the Terrorists. (Just a reminder, in WW2 the nazis that harmed french civilians were deemed Terrorists by the international community, but there was no real way to prove it and a person is innocent until proven guilty.

      My point in the article was: if this isn’t censorship, then what is. I believe I did mention that it could be to protect audiences, or even to harm them. I agree on being free to choose whatever I want to play/watch. But I disagree that senseless splatter movies, or movies like SAW are necessary.

      • shichiseiken says:

        I disagree with your definition of terrorist. A terrorist is someone who fight for a political cause by means of terror or indiscriminate attacks. Your definition will make robbers terrorist.

        • Hellfire says:

          Then how do you define terror without being subjective? Everyone has a different view of terror, just ask an arachnophobic person and a claustophobic person. Tehir greatest terrors would be either spiders or narrow areas.

          If you start talking about what people fear in general, you should venture into communism, as every person is regarded the same there. Freedom, by todays standards in europe and the US, is the freedom of the one who thinks differently. And if you start talking about political causes, did you ever consider a revolution to be a terrorist activity? There is no common definition about terrorism, but the one I mentioned is probably one of the more civil defs.

          And in a sense, robbers are economic terrorists. If you focus it terrorism on politics what is the al-qaida for you?

          • shichiseiken says:

            Yes, a revolution can be a product of terrorism. ANC (African National Congress) itself was a terrorist organization. In short Nelson Mandela was a terrorist, so does some other historical figures who are now hailed as heroes.

            As to what Al-Qaeda is aiming, I’m not entire sure of it. From what I know, American government used to be Osama’s ally during the cold war. They might have multiple cause what is generaly believed is that they aim to Islamize the world (establishing Islamic Caliphate -or whatever the word is- and that they believe that Christian-Jewish Alliance (some Christian groups hate the Jews, it’s obviously a direct reference to USA) which they believe is conspiring to destroy Islam – by means of Americanization of the world. The idea is likely seeded by Sayyid Qutb’s book “Milestones” which portrays Americans as a bunch of -Satanic- infedels (Imagine that culture shock end up producing this. I’m not kidding, it’s true. When Sayyid Qutb visited USA, he was suprised with the openess (or some culture regard it as shamelessness) in the US – which is against Islamic teaching).

          • shichiseiken says:

            If robbers are economic terrorist, what about evangelist who knocks my door and telling me that I’ll go to hell if I don’t join them? Theological terrorist? Please don’t lump this people with terrorist. What I mean by indescriminate attack is no matter who you are, no matter which group you are associated with, if you are in the wrong place at the wrong time, you still can be the victim (of bomb attack or whatever means those goons might do).

            A robber can’t be said to be a terrorist. A robber attacks those who appear to have money. Why would a robber try to rob a beggar anyway?

          • Hellfire says:

            I just took al-qaida as ane xample, since your definition didn’t cover religous fundamentalists (or extremists), but only focused on politics. And as I said earlier, evangelists that knock on you door are not terrorists, because they don’t cause damage to a civil target (unless you consider a headache and a bump on the door, that is so small that you can’t notice it, as damage).

            What I was trying to say is that not the reasons of the terrorists are what makes them terrorists, but it’s the actions they take. You can’t blame someone for preaching, if that is what he believes is right, but you can blame him if he does so with a gun pointed at you head.

          • shichiseiken says:

            You seems to miss the point of my Nelson Mandela example.

            Look at this wikipedia page to know more.
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_African_National_Congress#Violent_political_resistance

            What I’m trying to say is, terrorism for a political purpose by means of indescriminate violence. Just like what ANC did. They actually killed more black man than white man. Terrorism does not need to be religiously motivated. It can be motivated by nationalism and other factors. (ANC was motivated by racial descrimination and black nationalism. Tamil Tigers who fought against discrimination imposed by Sri Lankan government -by means of violence. Palestine Liberation Ogranization who fought for self governance of Palestine- they stop using violent method after Oslo Accord.)

            LOL, in some parts of Indonesia some imams did that with a gun pointed. I’m only aware that it happened in Moluccan Islands.

            I’m sorry if my liberal use of brackets and hyphens made it a pain to read.

          • Hellfire says:

            I think we’re not talking about the same thing, are we? I’m trying to get tell you that terrorism doesn’t necessarily have to be political (although there are examples: yours, and the RAF in germany, among others) but that there can be different kinds. You are trying to tell me that terrorism CAN be political and doesn’t necessarily have to be religous.
            I understood that much from the beginning, but I think we must’ve misunderstood each other somewhere along the way. ^^

          • shichiseiken says:

            That would be a very liberal definition. I am giving you the technical definition. You can’t use the word terrorism on a governing body even if they rule by terror. The proper word would be “fascism”. For nothing to do with government perhaps the word “barbarism” is the best. LOL

          • Hellfire says:

            But fascism is the idolization of one person as the leader. Everything needs to revolve around that person. I does not necessarily imply terroristic acts. If you state that every government commiting terroristic acts is fascistic, then you would imply that even a democratic decision to commit these acts would be fascistic (If it was decided by a democracy). That on the other hand contradicts the democracy of that fictive nation. On the other hand, a government (even if it was elected by democratic means), that commits democratic acts, can also be terroristic by international standards. Another thing to note about fascism is that it is a right-leaning movement (in it its origins) that turned to a right leaning government. Calling that terroristic would infringe upon the right of free choice of thoughts, as being right-leaning, even being a nazi, does not imply that you necessarily hurt people of different ethnologies.

  9. adighraiz says:

    I m Sorry If i Say It Wrong But I meant “Jordan is third Class By your opinion ” Not You exactly But For The Weirdo Who Divide The World For First And Third Class,And Am Sure He Is Not Eastern Or Oriental.

Leave a Reply