Forums / Discussion / Serious Debate

With all the controversies going around lately, I thought it would be a good idea to talk about the definition of censorship seriously, to see where everyone's coming from.

As a starting point, let's consult a dictionary, just as a "control" of sorts. It's not necessary going to have a perfect definition, but it will give us someplace to start.
According to Merriam-Webster (the first "official" dictionary that popped into my head) to censor is to ": to examine books, movies, letters, etc., in order to remove things that are considered to be offensive, immoral, harmful to society, etc."

==

This brings up some good questions.

•Does there have to be some sort of motivation for something to be classified as censorship, and if so, what motivations apply? Could accidentally destroying information count as censorship? Does destroying it shamelessly, with only an excuse of greed or vengeance count as censorship?

•What does "remove" mean? To rid the information entirely everywhere, or just the general public? Does making something incredibly inconvenient but still feasible (albeit with enough required investment of time and effort to make it "not worth figuring out") count as a removal? Or what if some sort of information is inconvenient or impossible to access in the first place? Does not making it more accessible count as censorship, and if so, under what conditions? Or what if instead some uses those inconveniences to their advantage to make the information less accessible or completely inaccessible, even if they did not cause any further hinderances and did not create such inconveniences themselves or if they did, it was a complete accident?

•Is censorship limited to just media? Or does it apply to information, and if so, to what extent? Can actions or choices or thoughts be censored? How far does censorship reach?

•Does censorship apply to the prevention of the creation in the first place? And if so, how far along the chain of cause and effect does that definition apply?

•Are there any other aspects worth examining? Were there any important questions I left out?

=

For extra credit, let's discuss if censorship is ever justified. If you don't think it could ever be justified, I'd invite you to read SCP-231 which is a fictional document that is censored quite a good bit and does a scary good job of showing just how disconcerting can be. (Actually, I'd recommend reading it regardless of your position, unless you've already read it or aren't old enough to sign up for this site). It's a tad long, and more than a bit confusing, but it's incredibly though provoking.

Sorry for the long post. I just figured that we take a good, hard look at the idea.

Does there have to be some sort of motivation for something to be classified as censorship, and if so, what motivations apply?

I'd say any motivation fits so long as it means the action of removing information was deliberate.

Could accidentally destroying information count as censorship? Does destroying it shamelessly, with only an excuse of greed or vengeance count as censorship?

No, yes.

What does “remove” mean? To rid the information entirely everywhere, or just the general public? Does making something incredibly inconvenient but still feasible (albeit with enough required investment of time and effort to make it “not worth figuring out”) count as a removal? Or what if some sort of information is inconvenient or impossible to access in the first place? Does not making it more accessible count as censorship, and if so, under what conditions? Or what if instead some uses those inconveniences to their advantage to make the information less accessible or completely inaccessible, even if they did not cause any further hinderances and did not create such inconveniences themselves or if they did, it was a complete accident?

Yes to all of the above.

Is censorship limited to just media? Or does it apply to information, and if so, to what extent?

Any information can be censored if it is of a physical form that can be altered.

Can actions or choices or thoughts be censored?

Not directly as the nature of these things means they cannot be changed once they are done, although information about them can.

Does censorship apply to the prevention of the creation in the first place?

I would say it can in some places. In the situations where someone will alter the content of their information to avoid going through censorship that would occur if they didn't alter it strikes me as being part of the process of censorship.

For extra credit, let’s discuss if censorship is ever justified.

Easy peasy. The information on how to build nukes is censored and that is very good because we don't have to deal with everyone knowing how to (ab)use that information.

censorship, when used in the context of a controversy such as this stupid thing, is referring to hiding or removing things made by other people because they oppose you and/or your associates opinions and ideologies

the key word in this case being made by other people.

most of the times, when something is called "CENSORSHIP!!!!!!!" by epic memers in accordance to the context provided above, it's just things that is either a) done according to the CREATORS' (no one else's) decision or b) falling within predetermined rules that abide to common sense and not due to a political/social agenda, and therefore, not censorship

for example, a proper example of censorship in a controversial manner would be North Korean media banning all American media from airing within its borders. it is censoring due to beliefs that the content made is opposed to North Korea i.e opposing the ideologies of the ruling party/powers that be.
cuz baywatch just screams american propaganda amirite

an example of people just mindlessly calling something censorship because "I LIKED IT BUT NOW IT'S SLIGHTLY ALTERED THE ARTISTIC VISION OF THE PRODUCT IS BEING CENSORED" (you get the gist of what i'm trying to convey here, i'm not good with debates) is, for example, the Skullgirls panty shot frames removal, which was a decision made by the CREATORS in order to appeal to a larger fanbase, as well as the CREATORS themselves feeling like it's just a bit too much.
hell it didn't even change literally ANYTHING else in the visual and gamplay department of the game, other than just the removal of those frames and some re-drawn frames to take place, yet people found this action taken by the creators as "CENSORSHIP (and SOCIAL JUSTICE PANDERING!!!!!!!)". On the steam frontpage for the game, there was TONS of new reviews stating that "Lab Zero (creators of Skullgirls) is now finally pandering to SJWs".

yet there was STILL all the original fanservice from the game left in.

so to come to a point, i feel there's no need to discuss the definition of censorship. You just have idiots who like to use it as a buzzword when they get offended by creators making a decision that affects something they like.

EPIC EDIT: I didn't even read the OP's questions, here's my responses:

Does there have to be some sort of motivation for something to be classified as censorship, and if so, what motivations apply?

Censorship, when used in the context of something that could be controversial, is nearly always motivated by this: "This thing opposes me so I don't want it to be seen by anyone".

Could accidentally destroying information count as censorship?

Nah.

Does destroying it shamelessly, with only an excuse of greed or vengeance count as censorship?

Refer to above.

What does “remove” mean? To rid the information entirely everywhere, or just the general public? Does making something incredibly inconvenient but still feasible (albeit with enough required investment of time and effort to make it “not worth figuring out”) count as a removal? Or what if some sort of information is inconvenient or impossible to access in the first place? Does not making it more accessible count as censorship, and if so, under what conditions? Or what if instead some uses those inconveniences to their advantage to make the information less accessible or completely inaccessible, even if they did not cause any further hinderances and did not create such inconveniences themselves or if they did, it was a complete accident?

Yes to everything here.

Is censorship limited to just media? Or does it apply to information, and if so, to what extent? Can actions or choices or thoughts be censored? How far does censorship reach?

Yes it applies to information.
Actions can be censored via laws.
Choices and thoughts cannot be, although WHO made the choices can be.
Censorship can be very far reaching and influential, depending on the level of control an authority figure has.

Does censorship apply to the prevention of the creation in the first place? And if so, how far along the chain of cause and effect does that definition apply?

i'm too stupid to answer this and it's 3 am

@ Minty

Keep in mind, self-censorship is a thing, not saying those instances are examples of it, but it's happened before.

The heck does "self-censorship" even mean? Isn't that simply choosing not to say or do something?

Isn’t that simply choosing not to say or do something?

Only in light of what consequences may occur if that something is said or done.

Self-censorship for my understanding is when someone afraid of certain backlash because of the contents of his own work decides to change the contents of his work to avoid the backlash.

In other words, I am censoring myself by taking great care not to say something offensive to the internet hivemind?

@LesserAngel
yeah i'm aware it is but i can't consider it as an actual part of censorship that people outside the artist who does it can protest against since most of the time artists are protected by law of free speech to release their material, and they should likewise be prepared for criticism against it, and that those who do it usually don't say they're practicing self-censorship

in countries or areas where society has heavy control over the lives of citizens, if a person decides not to, say, release art that is depicting sexual activity between two different races in a highly violent, racist community, you could also see it as a form of self-preservation.

i know it seems like full-on censorship, but there is technically nothing holding the artist or information holder back to release their stuff, it's just incredibly dangerous for them to do so and is more related to social and political backgrounds of areas.

in countries where you are protected and supported by law and government however, you should release your information or media if you feel it is what you want to express, you shouldn't be fearful of being censored
this doesn't mean you should ignore common sense, decency and basic respect for others in your stuff however, you can, but then you shouldn't be surprised and call it "censorship" when people call you an asshole

Enough of that, back on topic.

I'll start with the extra credit, because why not.

• I think censorship can be justified, but it's a rare thing. For example, there are some things that would really be harmful for a child to see or experience, but it is important for the child to get the context in (most of the) original context that is being censored. The best example I could think of would be a bloody scene in a movie about rape, overt and violent -isms, or the like. You need a dramatic scene to really emphasize the horror of certain historical events, but I think that can be done through just sound, just visuals, an adjusted visual, or the like. You don't want an emotional display through media to "overemphasize" historical or social events, and you don't want to paralyze a kid to the point they have nightmares or complexes.
• But I don't think it's usually justified when you're trying to avoid offending sensibilities. A lot of things are meant to offend, and even if they're not meant to offend, they were meant to be seen in its original context. I would leave censorship in offensive situations more to the creator than an outside entity, especially when no harm is being done.
  • Now money-making, profit-turning entities might censor for the sake of making money or avoiding a situation that would endanger their ability to make money. I believe that's justified, because they're just trying to make money. I might not like it, but it's their right as the property holder to present something as they see fit for their ends.

Now the thought-provoking questions:

• I think censorship has to be intentional. For purposes of greed, that's hard for me to say if it's "censorship." Like I brought up before, is it greedy for a company to make a change for the sake of making more money? I don't think it's quite greedy. When I think of "greed," I usually think someone or something is being harmed. The stories and characters in many video games are so well-written that they should be considered literary, so altering them would be harmful with regards to literature. But short of it being Lolita or something, those changes are made strictly with sales and PR in mind. The First Amendment/Free Speech would never come up, because legal concerns wouldn't be at play.

• Making content inconvenient or difficult to reach is a form of censorship, in my opinion. For example, some shows don't come on US television until late at night, and some movies require you to be a certain age or have a person of a certain age with you to view in certain venues. These can still be viewed, but they are made inconvenient for some/all audiences, because the content is objectionable or offensive to some noted audience. By the definition we're using from Webster, that seems to qualify, and it seems to fit. I don't believe censorship is necessarily bad though. I tend to avoid statements like "All censorship is bad." Children are impressionable, and many of their norms are developed strictly through what they see, fictional and otherwise (e.g., take hip-hop culture as presented on television as opposed to what is enacted in urban culture. Or taking a culture that only exists in media for some people but begins to develop in areas where it wasn't present before it appears in media. Skater culture exists in the Deep South of the United States, but it only came to be, because media highlighting skaters was made available across the US.)
• I absolutely believe censorship applies to information. Now some information doesn't need to be known by everyone anyway. We don't need to know Big Red Button codes even though we pay tax dollars to make Big Red Button exist. And it is intentionally withheld and protected for reasons of protection. We and millions of others could very well be harmed if just anyone could potentially get into position to press Big Red Button.

• And yes, I believe preventing certain information/media is censoring it. Censorship seems to apply to presenting information/media to others. So for example, if a person is a pedophile, they're going to have sexual thoughts of minors. In practice, they could draw pornography that is immoral/offensive in nature involving minors, and they'd probably never get in trouble unless someone knew. In theory, that wouldn't be allowed to be created in the first place. So the next step as OP stated is actually presenting that media/information in the form of art to others. That's where the actual, active action of censoring occurs. No entity can keep a person from being nude in his or her own house or even stepping outside in the nude for the first bit. Most western societies allow enough freedom to actually commit crimes and to be offensive. The "control" aspect of it comes after one actually commits those offenses. So even though many of these sorts of things are offensive, they don't become offensive until they're executed in the presence of others.

(continued)

I might have touched on it, but I think it's also important to consider who is doing the "censoring" as well as why they're censoring it.

Of course, most of us are gamers, and many of us play games from Japan. Japan has weird stuff going on, and Americans are often critically offended by it.

Localization often changes or removes these aspects.

I don't think there's a clearly cut definition here. For example, Nintendo proper for Japan doesn't create all of their games with a good grasp of western culture. They're either very focused on the Japanese audience, or they're just tone deaf to other cultures.

So NoA comes in and they make changes with the permission of Nintendo. Because Nintendo gives NoA or NoE permission to alter games, I believe that's not censorship, even though it's often done (sometimes, it's just so stuff makes sense) to prevent your audience or a well-defined part of your audience from being offended. But at the same time, they're trying to still promote the game as being the same game that's being consumed in Japan.

Now if Nintendo proper gets a game developed and wants the west of have it, but NoA/NoE/others don't believe the premise of the game will work in the US or it would have to be altered so heavily that the game wouldn't be marketable as the same game, then I would consider that censorship. Nintendo gave permission for NoA, etc. to make that call, but the end result isn't the same game with changes. It's not having the game at all.
 
 
Another thing I thought about while typing is when something is considered "offensive." Whether or not someone is offended varies drastically. Some people are offended by people being offended or taking action to prevent someone from being offended. All of those are, by definition, "offensive" to some degree, and you don't have to have a large group of people who are offended for something to be generally considered offensive (although, some people would argue that, and fairly so.)

Going back to art, lets say someone is drawing zoophilic and morbid pornography. They're drawing women who are being literally impaled to death by a horse's penis. The artist is not offended by their art, and they have a niche audience that looks forward to seeing the art. You have to intentionally and actively seek the person or his or her websites to see the art. The artist nor any of their audience want to share the art with people who wouldn't enjoy it, and they don't want to offend their sensibilities.

But at the same time, I believe it's illegal to create such art in the United States for pornographic purposes. It may not be. I'm not sure, but I suspect it should be as illegal as creating pornographic/erotic art of minors.

Since the audience is only those who seek it, then it's only offensive by those who are looking for it (and these barriers are pretty difficult to circumvent.)

So you have to ask (again, by the working definition):

1. Is it offensive?
2. Is it immoral?
3. Is it harmful to society?

I would say that it is not offensive until you view it. So even though I consider such art to be censored and designated as being censored (via being illegal to create and being punishable if caught with it or propagating it), the reason for it wouldn't be because it's offensive. It may not even exist unless you look for it.

I would say that it isn't immoral either. Morals tend to do with harm for a society and people within the society. In theory and in practice, none of the people who enjoy DJ AllTheWayThroughWithHoersSchlong's art are actually coercing or forcing women to have sex with horses and certainly not to the point that they die from "coitus." They recognize that this is harmful to the woman, and gets into a gray area of an animal not being able to consent to. But they enjoy the art.

So I think the concern is that it's "harmful to society." Now how is it harmful? Are you assuming that a person views such art, because they're aroused by it? Would they kidnap a woman to be fatally railed by a horse for their own pleasure? Would they do it to themselves, but they only have one body and life, so they can only indulge in the fantasy of it? "Is suicide a crime?"

I would argue that, yes, actually people are only prevented from doing many things because society exists to prevent it. Many (not all) pedophiles believe that sexual relationships can be held with minors without harming them, and that sexual acts can be done in a safe manner in the same way that you can tickle your child or eat a cake with a kid. But can that be legislated so widely when no harm is being done?

That's probably why laws tend to be iffy. Part of it is because some of these matters of media and information is incredibly taboo, but part of it is…because there's no definitive answer. And in the US where federal laws sometimes are superseded by State laws (or more likely, no federal law exists), those answers in legislation are vague and undefined, especially as the advent of the Internet as we know it makes the proliferation of such media very secretive, very protected, and very much so something that would be terribly harmful (even that is questioned) if done in real life.

Good questions, OP.

Some common forms of censorship:
Governments cracking down on things.
Businesses cracking down on things allowed to be sold due to it disagreeing with their beliefs.
Businesses strong arming other companies to stop alter things.

For instance say a usa senator strong arming a company in order to get a app removed is governmental censorship.

An example of third party censorship is how Nintendo strong armed Koei Tecmo into removing costumes from the latest Fatal Frame game. Nintendo owns the spin-off series Spirit Camera, but Koei Tecmo holds the rights to Fatal Frame. That was not "self-censorship", because Nintendo does not have any rights to Fatal Frame.

Censorship, to me at least, is alterations or changes done to media post-initial-release. Once it's been put out to the public as an official release, that's the version that is what the contents creators put forward to the public.

Now, it's important to note, this is the "official release" of the media. As in, the first instance of this media being released to the world at all. This isn't counting the "first official [insert language here] release", but the first release of said media in its home country. Say you had a product from japan, for example, the first official release is when it was released in japan. That's the version to be judged, and any alterations done to it after that, especially by people who didn't originally work on the media IE third party translation groups, could be considered censorship because the changes are done " in order to remove things that are considered to be offensive, immoral, harmful to society". That's been the expressed purpose for a lot of the recent changes you hear people raging about, usually the first two.

To put this in context, I feel George Lucas censored his work when he went back years later and altered the films to make changes such as "Han Shot First". Because he felt it was immoral to han solo to shoot a character before he got shot at first.

Now, here's the thing. Any change done before release, can't really be considered censorship, because at that point any change could be made for any reason. A content creator can be Coerced into making changes, they can be Persuaded into making changes, or they can just decide to make changes on their own. It's really dumb to call it censorship, even if the content creator is making the change due to outside pressure. There's a word for that, Coercion, the act of making someone do something via threat or force.

So to me, Censorship is alterations done to a work Post-Release, that have a transformative effect on the work. Getting a bit of fair use into this, but it stands to warrant that the changes need to alter the work in a noticeable way. Moving a bit of frames, or adding some color or filter effects, doesn't count as transformative. Changing sentences, altering scenes, and removing content does.

To put this in context, I feel George Lucas censored his work when he went back years later and altered the films to make changes such as “Han Shot First”. Because he felt it was immoral to han solo to shoot a character before he got shot at first.

In that case, the MPAA did, not George.

Based on the discussions I've already seen on this topic, I've come to the conclusion that most of the confusion surrounding it comes from how "censorship" as it is commonly viewed relates to the concept of "self-censorship". In my opinion, these two things are closely related but also very distinct, like hard and soft science fiction or high and low fantasy.
As for the former- that being an entity consciously altering and/or removing the speech (in its various forms) of a person or persons against their will- coming up with an example that is justified and not inherently harmful is exactly the kind of challenge that the phrase "finding a needle in a haystack" was created for. I won't make that attempt right now, but in case you're wondering how I would go about it I suggest you look here.
Now there is definitely an area where these two regions overlap. For example, if a peasant is about to make a joke with royalty as the setup and/or punchline in a public space, but suddenly remembers the edict nailed at every street-corner "those who speak ill of the King will next see the guillotine" and thus keeps his mouth shut has self-censored, but was also directly censored by legal decree. Change the signage into a shock collar which activates upon detecting the beginnings of any such joke, and the end result is exactly the same.
Finally, when the second half of the previous equation weakens from a strict mandate into nebulous concepts like "common decency", "societal expectations" and so on, we step out of this intersection and into the realm of what is solely self-censorship. The fact of the matter is, this is something that virtually everyone alive does on at least a semi-regular basis in personal conversation alone. (Many, many more arguments would flare up between spouses, friends and coworkers if this wasn't the case.) Most of the time, there isn't anything necessarily wrong with doing so. As a pretty hard-line atheist, I can basically guarantee that if I hear someone around me mention that their recently deceased loved one is "in a better place" with a religious connotation, the following two things will happen:
1. I will consider voicing my disagreement.
2. I will not, because I don't want to be a complete dick.
At first, the obvious question seems to be "when is self-censorship a bad thing?" But it doesn't take long pondering this before it becomes very clear how extremely subjective that is. Everyone will have a different answer based on varying standards in areas that have nothing to do with the issue at all, like how assertive people should be, or how to best go about picking your battles. Plus, it doesn't really tackle the core of why these things happen. So, though it's still certainly subjective, I think it makes more sense to instead ask "when is a nebulous force that causes self-censorship a bad thing?" A discussion of this deserves a post all its own, and this one is already quite long, so I'll finish it off with an observation:
There are certain individuals who will try to find your real identity, contact your employer and get you fired for repeatedly vocally disagreeing with their ideology. In the process, they will often exaggerate or outright lie about what you said to get the result they want. This is not censorship. But it is still abhorrent.

If you want to censor yourself, it's up to you …
As for myself I mostly avoid this type of situations with thinking a little bit about what I am writing and decide to not write anything.

Thanks for the feedback. I was worried I made my post way too garbled and long for anyone to bother with it, but it turns out, not only did my post get responses, those responses were well-though out. Thanks for giving me more to think about, such as the Brandenburg test.

I think the most important thing about censorship is that it doesn't take a scary Nazi-esque government or even a big company to censor someone. All it takes is someone who's afraid of what someone else might say. Some degrees of it are obviously more consequential than others, but the reasoning is almost always the same.

Also wow, how didn't I see this earlier?