talkmagic.co.uk

I just thought wondered what other's thought about this, at the risk of seeming unduly polemic, although I do ask this with the greatest amount of respect.

My question is what differentiation those who are opposed to censorship in the media and in society make between that and forum-censorship? Clearly I am not suggesting that forums repress political expression of opinion- more generally it is used almost as a 'policing' tool. However, if this is the role it plays then surley- as I'm sure most would agree on about even political censorship- the circumstances in which it is justifiable are extreme and related not merley to avoiding bitter disagreement but to avoid abuse and protect the welfare of individuals. Of course if I don't like a forum's policy in this area then I do not have to remain at any particular forum, but evidently when it comes to TalkMagic I find enough on balance good about the forum than this issue to stay despite my own contention, but nonetheless this does not mitigate my questions which are relevent here.

I just know that occasionally this issue does concern me so I thought I'd say it.

Talk magic isn't a society, it's a private club. Like all clubs it has rules an etiquette that members are expected to follow. Anyone can join as long as their interest is magic or magic related, but it's at the whim of the moderators, the creators of the club, whether we stay or not.

It's up to the forum owners and moderators what they want to include, if you don't like the policy simply don't visit. Find somewhere else, or start your own place

Media censorship is an entirely different kettle of fish and a massive can of worms

Jean Eugene Roberts wrote:Talk magic isn't a society, it's a private club. Like all clubs it has rules an etiquette that members are expected to follow. Anyone can join as long as their interest is magic or magic related, but it's at the whim of the moderators, the creators of the club, whether we stay or not.

That's a fair distinction. However, I do not believe it still resolves the issue of whether it would be better or not if there wasn't censorship. Clearly it is not a society and there is no necessity for democracy and for the club owners to listen if a member disagrees with them, however this still avoids the issue.

Media censorship is different in that the censorship usually has some political motive, but I am thinking more with respect to freedom of expression than of controlling media for political influence.

SamGurney wrote:
Media censorship is different in that the censorship usually has some political motive,

No, most of the film censorship that actively takes place in Britain currently is mainly done to prevent particular types of violence and weapons being shown.

Television and radio in Britain has very little daily censorship, but the broadcasters are expected to exercise good judgement in terms of broadcasting standards, fairness, decency and violence. Unlike the film industry (who are policed by a Board Of Censorship) television and radio broadcasters decide themselves what to broadcast or what to leave out. However they can be given fines after broadcast if they are found to have failed to maintain the above. But this is after broadcast, not censorship before.
It is very rare for a programme to be banned/censored prior to broadcast in Britain.

With regard to the Internet it is largely completely uncensored, which is one of the reasons it attracts so much filth, criminality, horribly violent sites, porn, one-sided stories and ranting, utter garbage and information that cannot be relied upon. Fortunately there are also sites like this one where it is policed very well by the folks who run it and an understandable set of rules exists that everyone is able to read and decide whether they want to abide by them or not.

SamGurney wrote:Media censorship is different in that the censorship usually has some political motive, but I am thinking more with respect to freedom of expression than of controlling media for political influence.

Absolutely not. In the UK there is very little censorship by the government. There are guidelines which should be followed and some restrictions, but these are made by Ofcom. Even News Corp buying out Sky was referred to Ofcom by Jeremy Cu.. Sorry, Hunt. Complaints are made by people then PCC or Ofcom get involved and action taken. It's usually a warning or fine, rarely are licences taken away

Any censorship is done by the broadcaster. Sometimes this might be down to pressure by the government but its down to the broadcaster at the end of the day. Do you think they would've allowed BBC to show that football expose just before they decided who was going to host it, when we were in the running?

Newspapers are also self-governed. The people you complain to about them (the newspapers commission) are ran by, yup, the newspapers themselves

So nope. Uk media are independent from the government (although the licence fee negotiations are always a sticky point it seems), and self censor. And in some cases, self-regulate. A government can (and do) pressure, but people can pressure just as much. Sachsgate only happened because people complained


(ironically, its harder to censor the Internet, no matter how many countries try)

(also if you think freedom of expression is censored in media, have you even listened to late night phone-ins?)

Could the "c*** (not the best)" word censor click off after 9pm?
If not, f*** it, it doesn't really make any difference to me.

Lawrence wrote:Could the "c*** (not the best)" word censor click off after 9pm?
If not, f*** it, it doesn't really make any difference to me.

You're all correct, which would be more relevent if I ever said anything about the media in Britain. I said: 'Media censorship is different in that the censorship usually has some political motive' which I intended to be more general rather than refering specifically to Britain, which has a largley free media and yes, I was thinking of newspapers as I wrote that.

Take totalitarian governments like China, the censorship which occurs there erases completley any hint of revolution, subversion, the previous president of china, porn and as Lawrence mentioned, 'expletives'. Tunisia, until recently was exactley the same on their internet in which the government blocks any websites they don't like and censors any words it wants to. Every totalitarian government or even authoritarian one I can think of uses the media as a machine for its political ends- begining with Plato, right the way virtually all through every society- the more authoritarian ones being even more controlling of the media until the exceptions occuring in liberal countires- such as France-, and even until quite recently in Britain and to a large degree still in America the media had been controlled and censored by the government or the classes who finance it. Even just a few months ago the BBC was caught concealing a piece of news which would look unfavourable to their organisation, although I fully support the BBC it still demonstrates that even the corporations with the noblest intentions sometimes fail. Usually when it comes to totalitarian regimes who choose to regiment their internets it is with devices sold to them by the US, such as in Chad.

So when I say censorship I wasn't really thinking of Britain at all; I am doing the exact opposite of criticising the British media as I believe it to be one of the most free in the world and certainly throughout history, along with other mainly europian countries. Also, the fact it is not propagated by the government does not make it free from political bias, for it is the financial classes which may benefit from the public holding a certain political opinion who can afford to run newspapers- which is why the US has such a dreadful media record.

Nonetheless, none of this is still relevent to what I was thinking about. I am thinking more along the lines of when threads are locked because there are arguments, even if they seem incessant.

I don't think there's much difference, then. It's harder to block the internet and TV and Radio stations are relatively hard and expensive to put up. So yes, internet media such as twitter would be more prevalent

SamGurney wrote:Even just a few months ago the BBC was caught concealing a piece of news which would look unfavourable to their organisation

What was this?

Also, the fact it is not propagated by the government does not make it free from political bias, for it is the financial classes which may benefit from the public holding a certain political opinion who can afford to run newspapers- which is why the US has such a dreadful media record.

Newspapers are generally biased, yes. But TV and radio aren't, especially near the election, but that doesn't mean someone can't give their opinion - there just has to be balance (eg. in Question time)

The US is biased because they have more lax rules, it's got nothing to do with the government

Nonetheless, none of this is still relevent to what I was thinking about. I am thinking more along the lines of when threads are locked because there are arguments, even if they seem incessant.

Obviously I can't speak for Mandrake but I've always assumed that threads get locked when either certain rules get broken, or when things get out of hand and someone makes a complaint (or he acts before someone complains). Which I'm ok with, heated arguments happen and they just get stopped before it gets too far. I've been involved in a couple of locked threads and I've apologised if I thought I caused problems, and he seemed fine about it

Leaving aside the wider issue of censorship in the media (as a former journalist I can tell you that it is more common than you would suppose, but rarely imposed by government in European countries) there is an issue of censorship on internet forums.

Some threads are locked or deleted because they contain offensive material. I have no problem with that. We should be able to interact without abuse. But threads should not be locked because they offend people's beliefs, political or religious. People should be big enough to take a free exchange of ideas.

I was banned from magicbunny for offending the religious sensibilities of one of their moderators. I have not visited the site since. That sort of bigotry really turns me off. Themagiccafe is another nest of narrow-minded christians. Thankfully I have not seen such problems here. I hope that continues.

TonyB wrote:Leaving aside the wider issue of censorship in the media (as a former journalist I can tell you that it is more common than you would suppose, but rarely imposed by government in European countries) there is an issue of censorship on internet forums.

Some threads are locked or deleted because they contain offensive material. I have no problem with that. We should be able to interact without abuse. But threads should not be locked because they offend people's beliefs, political or religious. People should be big enough to take a free exchange of ideas.

I was banned from magicbunny for offending the religious sensibilities of one of their moderators. I have not visited the site since. That sort of bigotry really turns me off. Themagiccafe is another nest of narrow-minded christians. Thankfully I have not seen such problems here. I hope that continues.

I agree with Tony!

That is a good point which I was going to make, that we have no idea how much is being censored, since if it is censored the general idea is that we don't know! But as far as my researches into international affairs goes, the BBC usually is extremley good and does seem to deliver information with great equanimity. As Aldous Huxley commented, what is often more important in media that what's been left in, is what's been left out. I find it hard to believe that there is no ushc thing as 'behind the scenes' even in Britain...

As for the BBC being somewhat humiliated on a small scale, I am refering to their recent affair with Rupert Murdoch, a fitting person in this context! As it happens, Murdoch is exactley what I am talking about in the media relating to politics- the neoconservative model of the media which Murdoch symbolises and which, as I will come to, is much more prevelent in the states. Another irony is that in this whole incident Vince Cable was saying that 'I can't make my decisions known to the public, but those who do know, know that it's big'! Evidently there is a 'behind the scenes'! The BBC's role in this was merley that of omitting some of what Vince Cable was recorded saying, if I remember correctly. This memory is consistent with the fact that the Mark Thompson, who possesses a brain, is opposed to Rupert Murdoch on the grounds of wanting a free media.

However, on the American media, it really is just a matter of definition whether or not the government is responsible for the bias in the media of who exactley the government is. Unarguably it is the people with power- which includes the government- who have the control in the media; perhaps to be even more precise in terms of neoconservatism: the people with money, like the Thatcherite Rupert Murdoch. And it tends undoubtedly to suspiciously favour the government, although I am spoiled for choice for the copious examples I could give in support of that statement. This is undoubtedly because of the neoconservative system.

Oh Yes- no I haven't watched any 'late night phone-ins'. However, even if I were to delusionally say that all dissent is oppressed unashemdley at all hours of the day in the British media, I'm not entirley sure if I would even go as far as to argue that all dissent would be completley erased in that scenario- the best authoritarian media systems do a better job of mutilating and distorting their opponents views that entirley getting rid of them. For instance, 'terrorists' attack because they can't stand freedom and morality and know nothing of the blemish free history of the west in the middle east, supposedly. Of course it is inconcievable that 'the west' has done anything wrong, ever. So this makes sensible criticism and sympathy for the opposition to the west virtually impossible, although there is plenty of opposition who are not militant islamic fascists, but ordinary people and people who know the facts. If I were a muslim, simply because of subtle racism, I would be branded an extremist because I assert that the west is in the wrong with respect to its middle east foreign policies. The logic- if you're not with us, you're against us- you disagree with one side, you support the other- you don't like Stalin, therefore you support Hitler- you disagree with the impious 'west', so you support terrorism on innocent civilians.

Sorry, that had nothing to do with anything. Still. It's true.

But we really have gone wildly off course, and on that note is something going 'off course' grounds for the thread being locked? That's the one which annoys me mostly here on tm although Mandrake is generally quite good.

Censorship in film is a problem with such works as Wes Craven’s Last House on the left being banned in this country up until 2008. Part of the video nasty scare of the 80s where the director of public prosecutions decided that a lot horror films would affect the majority however this is not the case. All in all 50 plus films were banned and some are just being shown uncut now. The BBFC are a bit more laid back now days its more then likely a local authority suggestion cuts (a reflection of Britain in a way).

The MP who lead the attack on the “video nasties” one Graham Bright once said "I believe... these films not only affect young people... it affects dogs as well" we then ended up with the Video recordings act.

In a way the internet may be the last bastion of free speech it gives every one from The queen to Alex Jones to prattle on. As the cliché says “if you don’t like it find something else to do.” censorship to me is a problem in the media everything from some one flipping the bird to blurred out corporate logos there is enough problem’s in the world instead of worrying about me seeing things like I spit on your grave uncut.

Then again some people have sensibilities and it is amazing what some people take offence at. The question of censorship do we protect what the patronizing classes deem as “at risk” guide lines are fine and I quite like the idea of the video classifications take the rather gruesome French Horror Martyrs that was even nearly banned in liberal France should not be seen by a 9 year old I know 40 year olds who have seen it and where quite disturbed.

It is strange though how easy it is you can read what ever you like in books though. Strange line this censorship. One has to figure out what is “good for the national good and moral standings” and what is nanny state.

Did we define exactly what we mean by "censorship"? It seems to me that some editing is justified, wherever you live in the world.

***

*******

Edit:..... huh....