Cen***ship

wudangclan

an interesting article about bhutan which only allowed television in 1999 and how crime rates subsequently rose.a simple case of monkey see,monkey do. http://www.dancewithshadows.com/media/bhutan-tv.asp
can a movie (or tv) harm you? yes,imo, they can be highly detrimental to society not only in desensitizing people to violence,inspiring some to commit violence but also detrimental because of the ideas (propaganda) contained therein.

Karl Hungus

Joey the lips wrote: »

I simpley ment I would favor making it as hard as possible for kids becuase even the best parenting is innocent to the ways of kids. Just ask any man/women over 50 I reckon 25% of them can send a text message never mind try and grasp the concept of cyber bullying.

By your own admission then, by supporting censorship or the banning of films, you wouldn't be effecting kids who are familiar with torrent sites or are in any way computer savvy and could easily see banned films unhindered, you'd only be effecting adults. Faultless logic as a parent.

Lux23

jumpguy wrote: »

IFCO's classification system: If England rate it something, we'll outdo them and rate it higher!

Seriously, it's always one higher. If it's 12's in England, it's 15's here. It's retarded and annoying! Also, why do we have a 16's class now? Does it really make a huge difference it you're 15 or 16?

I think the IFCO classifications system is pretty good, it does allow for parents to make the decision on whether or not they want to bring their kid under 15 to any movie and also the 16 classification means that its rare to see a film get an 18s cert these days. It has to be pretty horrific to get that. The last one I could that got that was Antichrist and that has genital mutilation in it amonsgt other things.

As for banning films, what's the point? Its easy to download them, buy them on the internet etc etc so its pointless really. Its far better for someone to go and see a film that might disturb them in the cinema surronded by people then sitting at home on their own.

rossie1977

irelandrover wrote: »

some of the japanese stuff should never be seen, by anyone. Anyone that ever saw ichi the kiler should kind of know what i mean

great movie, Takashi Miike is one of the finest directors around today

MikeC101

wudangclan wrote: »

an interesting article about bhutan which only allowed television in 1999 and how crime rates subsequently rose.a simple case of monkey see,monkey do. http://www.dancewithshadows.com/media/bhutan-tv.asp

The article says nothing of the sort. There's no figures, no facts, no kind of study referenced to support that viewpoint. There's nothing concrete to suggest any causation.

The only study quoted says "over 66% said television had had a positive impact on society, while just 7.3% disagreed."

The only statement claiming that is "critics of television press on regardless, arguing that petty crime and recreational drugs, almost unheard of a decade ago, have arrived in Bhutan in the last one decade. " with nothing factual to back it up.

Joey the lips

Karl Hungus wrote: »

By your own admission then, by supporting censorship or the banning of films, you wouldn't be effecting kids who are familiar with torrent sites or are in any way computer savvy and could easily see banned films unhindered, you'd only be effecting adults. Faultless logic as a parent.

Again are you asking me a question or mind reading. I never specicically mentioned filims. Additionally there is programs that can track kids usuage of the internet. I mind be effecting adults but that is what the pin number on sky is for, So adults can access things kids should not.

"Faultless logic as a perent" translates into "There is nothing wrong with this way of thinking as a parent" I assume as a parent that is a good thing.


What is simply boils down to is what as a parent are you happy with your kids seeing. Granted you might be making it harder for yourself as an adult but if it means protecting my kids so be it.

fizzynicenice

C'mon ichi the killer dosen't need to be banned, the violence for the most part is just ridiculous and funny. There is stuff out there much much worse...some of it by the same director actually (Visitor Q anyone?)

IMO banning films is almost never necessary, definitly not in this case.

Joey the lips

Joey the lips wrote: »

LOL you are a very funny guy. I express an opinion on censorship and you can map out my whole life. Well done! Ever think of going into fortuene telling!

I simpley ment I would favor making it as hard as possible for kids becuase even the best parenting is innocent to the ways of kids. Just ask any man/women over 50 I reckon 25% of them can send a text message never mind try and grasp the concept of cyber bullying.

Joey the lips wrote: »

Again are you asking me a question or mind reading. I never specicically mentioned filims. Additionally there is programs that can track kids usuage of the internet. I mind be effecting adults but that is what the pin number on sky is for, So adults can access things kids should not.

"Faultless logic as a perent" translates into "There is nothing wrong with this way of thinking as a parent" I assume as a parent that is a good thing.


What is simply boils down to is what as a parent are you happy with your kids seeing. Granted you might be making it harder for yourself as an adult but if it means protecting my kids so be it.

Basically what you are saying is that adults over the age of 18 should have their access to adult material restricted so as to make a parents life easier.

Complete crap, if a kid wants to see a film he will find a way and this isn't some new development either. When I was a kid I wanted to see Natural Born Killers and even though it was banned I got to see it pretty easily. Banning material is not going to stop children seeing a film, if anything it's going to make them even more curious to see it.

sceptre

Rebelheart wrote: »

John Kelleher (the film censor) is a sound man. He was the producer of 'Eat the Peach' years ago (1986), if anybody remembers it.

I liked it. Although it had Pat Kenny acting in it.

walshb

Seems to be two issues being argued here. If children are getting to see
dodgy films, then it's an issue to resolve, but not banning the films for all.
I, as an adult, have every right to be able to view absolutely anything that any other person can view, whether it be a garda, a nun, a priest,a doctor or a flml censor. Now, if there is concern that kids will watch adult films, then put in safeguards to control this, or damn well monitor your kids, but don't ban me as an adult from viewing anything I choose.

Joey the lips

Deleted User wrote: »

Basically what you are saying is that adults over the age of 18 should have their access to adult material restricted so as to make a parents life easier.

Complete crap, if a kid wants to see a film he will find a way and this isn't some new development either. When I was a kid I wanted to see Natural Born Killers and even though it was banned I got to see it pretty easily. Banning material is not going to stop children seeing a film, if anything it's going to make them even more curious to see it.

Well then there you go this is what is called a difference of opinion. I believe one thing you believe another.

But to call it complete crap! Now thats interesting. lets change the rules a little. Gun laws..... Gun crime is a lot more relaxed in america than in europe. How many kids have shot kids/Adults in europr the last few years..... Now how many kids have been involved in shootings in america.

You see my feelings are simply make it difficult and it will be difficult. Make it easy and you pay the consequences.


I have no problem in adults doing what they want but unfortunatly many adults behave like kids and many kids are more intelligent than adults.

Karl Hungus

Ok, along with the 'are you mind-reading' nonsense, you're now comparing kids watching films to kids shooting and killing people... I'm done. Can't reply to this "speaking as a parent" logic. Carry on.

Joey the lips

Joey the lips wrote: »

Well then there you go this is what is called a difference of opinion. I believe one thing you believe another.

But to call it complete crap! Now thats interesting. lets change the rules a little. Gun laws..... Gun crime is a lot more relaxed in america than in europe. How many kids have shot kids/Adults in europr the last few years..... Now how many kids have been involved in shootings in america.

You see my feelings are simply make it difficult and it will be difficult. Make it easy and you pay the consequences.


I have no problem in adults doing what they want but unfortunatly many adults behave like kids and many kids are more intelligent than adults.

You cannot seriously be comparing gun control with censoring of film, Jesus Christ man they are two completely different things entirely. Watching a film is not going to turn a kid into a spree killer. There is no real evidence linking violence in films to school shootings, it's something which was manufactured by the media. I'm waiting for you to bring up Childs Play and how it was due to watching that film that Jamie Bulger was killed.

A quick search online and I have found 17 active and well seeded torrents of the film in question, now surely by refusing to classify the film in essence banning it, the film has received far more publicity than it would ever have got on it's own. Now anyone interested int he film, be they 12 year old kids or 30 year adults can easily acquire the film.

Joey the lips

Deleted User wrote: »

You cannot seriously be comparing gun control with censoring of film, Jesus Christ man they are two completely different things entirely. Watching a film is not going to turn a kid into a spree killer. There is no real evidence linking violence in films to school shootings, it's something which was manufactured by the media. I'm waiting for you to bring up Childs Play and how it was due to watching that film that Jamie Bulger was killed.

A quick search online and I have found 17 active and well seeded torrents of the film in question, now surely by refusing to classify the film in essence banning it, the film has received far more publicity than it would ever have got on it's own. Now anyone interested int he film, be they 12 year old kids or 30 year adults can easily acquire the film.

Folks its good to see the extremes operate. I am simply making the point why make it easy! If you cannot understand well then whats the point in me going on! I am using gun control to show how the a vailability and easy access to guns has lead to these killing sprees. It is then simple to see that easy access to films cannot be good!

Better still just take rateings on films away all together. After all by your logic you wont be able to stop kids anyway!

By my final point would be to say that while there is buckets of proof to show that television and video have impacted on child behaviour you cannot show ANY proof to show that censorship is bad and unnecessary!

Joey the lips

Joey the lips wrote: »

Folks its good to see the extremes operate. I am simply making the point why make it easy! If you cannot understand well then whats the point in me going on! I am using gun control to show how the a vailability and easy access to guns has lead to these killing sprees. It is then simple to see that easy access to films cannot be good!

I think you're missing the point completely, by out right banning the film the BBFC has ensured that it is no a highly publicised film with more free advertising and interest int he film that ever. The distributors are in heaven as the film is guaranteed to be a success.

You say why make it easy, by releasing the film with an 18s certificate and no uproar the film would have received little if any publicity. The publicity due to the banning has ensured that every 12 year old kid in the world is aware of the film and can now easily access by using a torrent meaning that the film is now easier for them to obtain.

By the way your argument about gun control in Europe and how there are no killing sprees is complete bull also. Here's a handy little piece from BBC news detailing just a few of the gun crimes in Europe and America perpetrated by kids. If you read it carefully you will see that more people were killed in Europe than America.

The Erfurt massacre is the worst school shooting in Europe since a gunman killed 16 children and their teacher in Scotland in 1996.

Detailed below are some of the worst incidents of the past decade.

Scotland, March 1996: Gun enthusiast Thomas Hamilton shoots 16 children and their teacher dead at their primary school in Dunblane, Scotland before killing himself.

Yemen, March 1997: A man with an assault rifle attacked hundreds of pupils at two schools in Sanaa, Yemen, killing six children and two others. He was sentenced to death the next day.

United States, October 1997: A 16-year-old boy fatally stabbed his mother before shooting dead two students, including his former girlfriend, at Pearl High School in Pearl, Mississippi.

United States, December 1997: A 14-year old boy killed three students attending a prayer meeting at Heath High School in West Paducah, Kentucky.

United States, March 1998: Two boys aged 13 and 11 killed four pupils and a teacher after setting off fire alarms at Westside Middle School in Jonesboro, Arkansas.

United States, April 1999: Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris killed 12 of their classmates and a teacher at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado, before killing themselves.

Germany, November 1999: A 15-year-old student in Meissen, eastern Germany, stabbed his teacher to death after taking bets from classmates he would dare commit the crime.

He was later jailed for seven years.

Germany, March 2000: A 16-year-old pupil at a private boarding school in the Bavarian town of Branneburg, shot a 57-year-old teacher, who later died from injuries.

The teenager - who also shot himself - was facing expulsion from school after failing a cannabis test.

Germany, February 2002: A former pupil killed his headmaster and set off pipe bombs in the technical school he had recently been expelled from in Freising near Munich.

The man also shot dead his boss and a foreman at the company he worked for before turning the gun on himself. Another teacher was shot in the face, but survived.

Germany, April 2002: Seventeen people killed after a gunman - a former pupil - opens fire in a school in Erfurt, eastern Germany. He then turned the gun on himself.

Joey the lips wrote: »

Better still just take rateings on films away all together. After all by your logic you wont be able to stop kids anyway!

You seem to be unable to understand the difference between censorship and classification. I'm all for ratings on films, they act as a guide line as to what is and what is not suitable material for the viewers.

Do you think that the music of Marilyn Manson should be banned as according to the media he single handedly caused the Columbine Massacre? Or perhaps you would like if every country enforced strict censoring of our lives like in China.

Joey the lips wrote: »

By my final point would be to say that while there is buckets of proof to show that television and video have impacted on child behaviour you cannot show ANY proof to show that censorship is bad and unnecessary!

Can you link to any of this proof? For every study done linking violent films to violent crimes there are a half a dozen arguing the other side. WE live n a world in which the media and parents groups are happy to blame television, film and music for the actions of kids. Whats happened to plain old crazy?

grenache

Deleted User wrote: »

That's not true, there are numerous films with a lower rating in Ireland than in England.

i'll second that. It used to be the case that IFCO would rate a film higher than its British counterpart. But this seemed to change around the turn of the century. Borat for example was given a 15 rating in Britain but only a 12 rating here. There are more but i cant think of them now. I think some of the SAW films were lower here too.