Oh no, not this can of worms...
Personally, I find censorship flat out wrong in any and all cases for a couple of reasons -
Censorship cannot be done inconsistently, and as such, any case of censorship sets a precedent enabling other people to carry on censorship of things that you might not want censored in the future.
The reason this is the case, is because the only argument as of this moment in time, where the effects of media cannot be quantified and are still very much ambiguous and in debate, is an argument from personal sensitivity
I.E "censore X because I feel uncomfortable with it", which is ridiculous because feelings are subjective to the point that absolutely anything can make anyone uncomfortable.
If that is a basis for censorship, then anything can be censored. For instance, religion makes me uncomfortable. Is that grounds for me to advocate its censorship? I think not.
That's not a society I wish to live in.
The second reason is the assumption that it's reasonable to censor the expression of artists and content creators for creating something that you dislike or that might(a big might this be) harm people, when nobody is actually being forced to consume the product in question.
When art/media is created there is a rapor between the creator and those who enjoy consuming the product - why is that third-party people who're not satisfied, or not even interested at all, with the product feel entitled to dictate changes to the product, or deny the product right of life at all despite this fact, when they're obviously not the intented target audience?
By this logic we should ban alcohol, cigarettes, unhealthy food, potentially dangerous sports, and sub-cultures ("how dare the Heavy Metal crowd aliante the Jazz crowd by not making Jazz, and abusing those power-chords all the time?!?!") while we're at it.
While art is made for people, it is also primarily made for the person making it. I don't write and produce for people in the sense that Ikea produces furniture - my creative output is a product defined by not what you all want to see, but by what I want to see realized. That's a perspective lost on a lot of modern day gamers and consumers of media.
They think they're entitled to media being fashioned to their liking, not realizing that this is not how creative development works, nor the mindset it comes from, but a misunderstanding caused by the rapid growth of small hobby movements into large industries through globalization, that end up looking like the general service-industry that provides you your Iphone, or your daily bread.
Art/media is not McDonalds (generally speaking - some of it really has gone down that path though *cough-call of duty-cough*) - it's a creative endeavor, each product a rich tapestry made up from the hard work, dreams and desires of many individuals, and those dreams and desires may or may not overlap with yours.
If they do, that's great. If they don't, then that's a shame, but it's not injustice, and as such it's not your place to decide that the work needs to change for your sensibilities or be denied a chance in the open market.
That is not to say that people aren't free to do advocacy work - of course they are. Freedom of speech goes both ways. Content creators have a right to create content that offends you, and you have the right to be offended by it. Neither have the right to silence the other though, and neither should they.
Censorship is, IMO, the lowest common denominator of human behavior when it comes to interaction and personal expression.
It literally only exists for emotionally frail and narcissistic thugs to stop people from expressing thoughts and ideas that they find threatening, while failing to realize the obvious fact that they themselves might represent thoughts and ideas that other find threatening.
Besides, how is a censoring society better than one that doesn't censore? Even in the case of blatant bigotry, I would rather have it out there in the public, than censored. Why? Because it doesn't go away just because you censore it, it just stays hidden for a while, growing in extreme pits of the internet etc - dark echo-chambers where the morally bankrupt keep feeding each other hatred - to the point where it spills back into the public in a form much worse than before.
By allowing even the worst of speech, it's there for the world to see, to challenge, and to condemn - and it's in that kind of environment that we defeat bad ideas and bigoted attitudes.
Now, for some replying -
I think that it depends on the level of the morality of the people in question. I know that back in the day of early comic books, they went too far and was shielding people from death or evil, but today, I think that it's too loose so to speak. I think there is a healthy amount of censorship and a completely unhealthy level. Censorship should serve as a limit to what you can do, and serve as a guideline. I think when you enter what I term, prudish levels, you force people to follow it like a law, but when you don't have guidelines, you get chaos and people doing whatever they desire.
Who is the arbitrator of what is the "right amount of censorship", and how would you argue that someone has gone too far, or not far enough, in a logically consistent manner?
And exactly what is wrong with people doing whatever they desire? As long as people aren't actually harming other people, then doing whatever it is they desire, even if that is creating/playing a game about feeding babies into lawn-mowers, is completely unproblematic by virtue of being a victimless activity.
It's all about making a game for a certain audience, sex, age group in mind and sticking with those guidelines for that group.
How does this even make sense? This implies that there are inherent sensibilites to specific groups, and that artists and content creators make product solely to please these groups, without any personal artistic vision what so ever.
Here's the thing though, artists make what they want, and groups form over time when people gravitate towards specific products they find desirable. The people who made Dungeons and Dragons, in the inception of the table-top role-playing traditions, didn't go "I wonder which group of people we should make something for today?" then pick a group, then start the creative process.
It was the other way around (if target audience even came into account at that point, given that they were pioneers in that medium).
Later, you'll get industry goons wanting to make a quick buck, who'll go "which demographic should we milk today, and how should we go about it?", but are really these the kind of people you want to use as a standard for how to cast judgement on the art/media culture?
At the end of the day - it's the consumers responsibility to weave their way around the market, and select products for themselves.
Censoring the creators, when consumers can just self-censore themselves by not engaging with media they don't like, is a silly notion, especially when there are people who actually like the media in question, just the way it is, and who would want to engage with it, even if you don't.
You're essentially saying that the fact that you find a piece of media problematic trumps the creative desires of content creators, and the desires of other consumers to engage with whatever the creators are making.
That's extremely self-centered.
MORTAL KOMBAT *plays theme* I can understand why they used the censorship. As a teen I couldn't handle violent games. I remember playing the first Halo game and I couldn't handle the game because of the blood and the aliens. Although I did muster up the courage to play all the stages until the very first time you were introduced to the Flood and once again I could not handle it. It was depressing. I also remember when House of the Dead came out and I had nightmares about the game because of the scary zombies. I believe they are trying to protect kids.
As a teen, and even a young child, I could. You'd deny me the opportunity to play a game, because you couldn't handle it, despite the fact that you could have put down the controller at any moment and stopped playing the game?
The thing about kids, is that it is up to each parent to know their kid, and know what they can handle. Do parents get it wrong sometimes? Absolutely. Every parent has made a bazillion mistakes, generally though, the kids come out the other side fine.
The thing that isn't though, is censorship. When I say my daughter can't see X movie, or play Y game (which doesn't happen much, my daughter is 12, and generally can handle pretty much anything that isn't horror, horror is a no no because I don't want to stay up all night with her), that isn't censorship. I'm not telling anyone what they can or can't say, or removing anything from society.
This is very true. It's also worth mentioning that even children are capable of self-censorship. If I wasn't comfortable with something, I didn't watch it, period.
When I was first exposed to the "Alien" franchise, I was 5-6 years old. I saw a few scene, was terrified, and never went back to the franchise until my late teens/early twenties. Now, it's one of my favorite sci-fi franchises.
I find it reprehensible that some people would find it acceptable to ban something like "Alien", which is now very dear to me, just because I found it traumatizing as a 5-6 year old.
My personal stance is that video games are fair game for censorship, unless it significantly detracts from gameplay or the message the developers wanted to create. Making sure that the 1000+ year old demon that looks like a little girl has some clothes on is fine by me, so is removing inappropriate dialogue from E-rated games.
Any censorship detracts from the artistic vision of whomever made that aspect of the game.
It stops the players from seeing the game the artist wanted to make, and it stops the artist from being able to produce the game the envisioned.
Just because you don't mind changes that fit your sensibilites, doesn't mean that others won't mind either.
If a game has inappropriate dialogue, it isn't the dialogue that needs to change to fit the rating, but the rating that need sto change to fit the dialogue.
Unfortunately ratings and censorship can't be separated as some of you partially think.
The first example about the blood removed from a game? That wasn't exactly censorship, the publisher could have left the blood in.
However, if the blood would have been left in, the game would probably have gotten an Age-18 rating here in Germany. Including a switch to turn the blood off would not have changed that, as long as the blood can be shown it would result in a higher rating.
The publisher of that game decided to remove the blood in hope of getting a lower age-rating and being able to sell to a larger audience, because here in Germany the age ratings are enforced on selling.
This is very true. Self-censorship done as a conscious and willing choice, is not censorship at all, and developers should be at liberty to choose for themselves who they want to cater to in relation to their monetary goals.
There is a difference between the sentiment "if your game contains blood, you won't be allowed to sell it at all" which restricts freedom of creative expression, as opposed to "if your game contains blood, it will receive a rating, and only be made available to adults", which still means all people (given time) will be able to play it as intended.
The thing with Sanji smoking though is that he is one of the protagonists. When you've got habits placed in the hands of the 'good guys,' you are suggesting that that is a good thing.
This is patently absurd. You're suggesting that nothing a "good" character does can ever be a bad thing in the minds of the consumer.
By that logic, American History X is an advocacy-piece for racism, because through the first half of the film, Edward Norton is a neo-nazi.
Context matters. Also, consumers don't walk into media like blank sheets of paper, with no idea how the real world works.
Even if a piece of media/art was sending the message that smoking is cool - that still isn't a problem. The creators are entitled to their opinion, even if it's stupid. The answer to that is more information about the dangers of smoking, not censorship.
And as an end note -
I grew up playing all kinds of absurdly violent and sexual video-games (everything from Soldier of Fortune to Manhunt, and various Japanese Hentai games) . Yet, I've not a single issue in my life tied to violence or sexuality. In fact, I am a flaming sexual liberal, and I've never hit anyone outside of my gym, or in self-defence.
I watched Battle Royale at the age of 12, and saw my first execution video on the net around the same time. I've frequented sites like rotten, albinoblacksheep and 4chan since the inception of each of them, and I could keep on going.
Now let's put this into perspective -
I have no mental health issues, completed higher education, have no trouble being employed, enjoy a wide arrange of different academical, technical and artistic pusuit, I am married (to a woman who is better educated than me, earns more, and bosses me around on a daily basis), and a father to a healthy little boy.
The worst part is - I am not unique. Almost every single close friend of mine fit into a similar narrative.
People are seriously advocating censorship - denying me and those like me, the ability to enjoy certain media because A.) you can't handle it (despite the fact that you can opt not to engage with it) or B.) because certain people might, possibly, maybe be harmed by it in some ambiguous way.
I mean, seriously?
Nobody thinks that's severely problematic?
