What is the impact of randomly censored words on TV?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pengwuino
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the impact and rationale behind the censorship of certain words and phrases on television. Participants explore various aspects of censorship, including its perceived randomness, the cultural implications, and the inconsistency across different channels and times of day. The conversation touches on theoretical, conceptual, and societal dimensions of language censorship in media.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express confusion over the inconsistency of which words are censored on different channels, noting that certain words are allowed while others are not.
  • One participant argues that the concept of censoring words is childish and that mature topics should not be limited to specific language.
  • Another participant points out that censorship rules seem arbitrary and do not align with the severity of violent content often shown on television.
  • Several participants question the rationale behind censoring language while allowing graphic violence, suggesting a societal contradiction.
  • Some participants propose that censorship is intended to protect impressionable young audiences, but they challenge the effectiveness and consistency of this approach.
  • One participant mentions that the censorship of certain words may stem from cultural or religious influences, particularly regarding the use of "God."
  • Another participant shares a personal observation about differences in movie content when viewed on television versus in theaters, highlighting specific examples of censorship.
  • There is a mention of the idea that censorship may serve to preserve the allure of taboo subjects, making them more intriguing.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally express disagreement regarding the rationale and consistency of censorship practices. Multiple competing views remain about the appropriateness and implications of censoring language versus violent content.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that different times of day may have varying standards for censorship, influenced by FCC regulations and the preferences of sponsors and demographics. There are also references to specific cultural contexts that affect censorship decisions.

Pengwuino
Gold Member
Messages
5,112
Reaction score
20
You know what's got me confused? Why are the most random words censored on certain channels? For some reason words like "the b word" are allowed but "***" and "god damn" aren't allowed. Then on some channels it's the other way around... then "the N word" is allowed on certain channels or programs while not in others (irregardless of the program or station catering towards or mainly staring african americans). Has anyone else noticed it? I have a few movies on dvd and I watch them... and then I see them on actual television and I've started noticing what words were allowed and what weren't and it's completely random with the sole exception being the F word and S word from what I can remember...

And yes, I didn't want to fill this thread with cursing so I did write it a bit childishly.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I find the entire concept of censoring words to be childish to begin with. Swear words are not mature topics, they merely convey anger. The real mature topics are ideas that can be conveyed with almost any words.
 
I agree that a lot of the rules regarding the censorship of language don't make any sense.

By the way, regardless is a dumb (non-standard) word.
 
jgens said:
By the way, regardless is a dumb (non-standard) word.

Ok Stewie. I use that word as much as possible ever since stewie said he would have people jailed for using that amongst other words if he took over the world.
 
The "b" word is allowed because Hillary Clinton used it once.
 
I don't even know why they censor the body and sexual acts on TV. It's lame.

After like 9pm in Canada, it's pretty much anything goes.
 
JasonRox said:
After like 9pm in Canada, it's pretty much anything goes.
Watched Usual suspects the other night. In the line up scene they say "fairy-godmother", I'm pretty sure that's not what they said at the cinema.

In The Dambusters they simply blanked out the name of the dog.
(I can't put the word here but the black dog is named after the Joint Russian-Nigerian gas company http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8118721.stm )
 
Has anyone ever seen idiocracy? They have that blurry crap everywhere in that movie! Especially when that fast food place ButtF***ers is on the shot haha.
 
I've never understood censorship of any kind. What is the purpose of perpetuating the meme that certain acts and words are taboo? Are we such a backward society that watching people kill one another is the norm, but seeing two people make love, expose a select piece of skin, or say a word is forbidden? What is the cause of this strange censorship?
 
  • #10
Different times of day there are different FCC standards. Also certain sponsors and stations wish to promote a particular image to cater to their preferred demographic. If the station has a tendency to allow 'foul' language they may get complaints from their demographic and lose sponsors that do not wish to be associated with them due to their content.
 
  • #11
Pupil said:
I've never understood censorship of any kind. What is the purpose of perpetuating the meme that certain acts and words are taboo? Are we such a backward society that watching people kill one another is the norm, but seeing two people make love, expose a select piece of skin, or say a word is forbidden? What is the cause of this strange censorship?
Because young people are impressionable? Because they are often too underdeveloped to understand the context in which an act is commited or a word is used, and when it is inappropriate? So we censor on the rationale that they will be more thoughtfully introduced to these things under more caring and controlled (likely parental) tutelage?
 
  • #12
Pupil said:
I've never understood censorship of any kind. What is the purpose of perpetuating the meme that certain acts and words are taboo? Are we such a backward society that watching people kill one another is the norm, but seeing two people make love, expose a select piece of skin, or say a word is forbidden? What is the cause of this strange censorship?

I've hypothesized that it is primarily and unconsciously for the purpose of preserving the titilation people experience at hearing or seeing the 'taboo' thing.
 
  • #13
TheStatutoryApe said:
I've hypothesized that it is primarily and unconsciously for the purpose of preserving the titilation people experience at hearing or seeing the 'taboo' thing.
The censored version of Robot Chicken's Palpatine Takes a Collect Call is way funnier than the uncensored version.

And a girl wearing nothing but a man's dress shirt is way sexier than a girl wearing nothing at all.

IMO.
 
  • #14
DaveC426913 said:
Because young people are impressionable? Because they are often too underdeveloped to understand the context in which an act is commited or a word is used, and when it is inappropriate? So we censor on the rationale that they will be more thoughtfully introduced to these things under more caring and controlled (likely parental) tutelage?

The censorship is not designed to censor anything meaningful. Surely you can agree that watching a person force another person to eat their brains while they are still alive, or chop them into pieces with a chain saw, rip their teeth out while still alive, stab them in the esophagus and then take pleasure out of watching them choke to death on their own blood...is far more disturbing than someone stubbing their toe and saying the F word. Guess what..all of the above are scenes in popular movies made for children.
 
  • #15
Our family has seen the movie Apollo 13 several times. I remember one of the lines from Gene being "God damnit I don't want another estimate, I want the procedures... NOW".

On the TV they bleep out God and it's just "Damnit I don't want another estimate, ..."

How in the hell is saying God on television bad? Evangelists should be banned from TV in that case :P
 
  • #16
protonchain said:
How in the hell is saying God on television bad? Evangelists should be banned from TV in that case :P

I think it's the evangelicals that banned that one, because they don't like people ordering their God around
 
  • #17
junglebeast said:
The censorship is not designed to censor anything meaningful. Surely you can agree that watching a person force another person to eat their brains while they are still alive, or chop them into pieces with a chain saw, rip their teeth out while still alive, stab them in the esophagus and then take pleasure out of watching them choke to death on their own blood...is far more disturbing than someone stubbing their toe and saying the F word. Guess what..all of the above are scenes in popular movies made for children.
In what movie made for children do they force another person to eat their brains while they are still alive, or chop them into pieces with a chain saw, rip their teeth out while still alive, stab them in the esophagus and then take pleasure out of watching them choke to death on their own blood?
 
  • #18
DaveC426913 said:
Because young people are impressionable? Because they are often too underdeveloped to understand the context in which an act is commited or a word is used, and when it is inappropriate? So we censor on the rationale that they will be more thoughtfully introduced to these things under more caring and controlled (likely parental) tutelage?

The large part of being a parent is to give children the context of situations and words and when it's appropriate, which parents do for every other situation except reproduction and 7 choice words. Why? For what reason are these things taboo while other more complicated things to explain aren't?
 
  • #19
DaveC426913 said:
In what movie made for children do they force another person to eat their brains while they are still alive, or chop them into pieces with a chain saw, rip their teeth out while still alive, stab them in the esophagus and then take pleasure out of watching them choke to death on their own blood?

:?: I was wondering the same thing.
The first one sounds like the scene from Hannibal which is certainly not a childrens movie. The others can be from just about anything but I don't remember them being in any childrens movies.
 
  • #20
protonchain said:
Our family has seen the movie Apollo 13 several times. I remember one of the lines from Gene being "God damnit I don't want another estimate, I want the procedures... NOW".

On the TV they bleep out God and it's just "Damnit I don't want another estimate, ..."

How in the hell is saying God on television bad? Evangelists should be banned from TV in that case :P

God dammit is apparently worse than dammit. Same thing goes with ******* compared to ***. A lot of times you'll hear ***(beeeep).

EDIT: ok I won't even bother, too many stars
 
  • #21
Pupil said:
The large part of being a parent is to give children the context of situations and words and when it's appropriate, which parents do for every other situation except reproduction and 7 choice words. Why? For what reason are these things taboo while other more complicated things to explain aren't?
That is a completely distinct argument from what we are currently discussing.

What we are discussing is 'why does mainstream media censor?' The reason is (idealistically at least) that this puts these sensitive topics in the hands of those closest and best able to handle it sensitiviely.


Whether parents actually do this to your satisfaction is not merely highly-debatable but also beside the point of this discussion.
 
  • #22
DaveC426913 said:
That is a completely distinct argument from what we are currently discussing.

What we are discussing is 'why does mainstream media censor?' The reason is (idealistically at least) that this puts these sensitive topics in the hands of those closest and best able to handle it sensitiviely.


Whether parents actually do this to your satisfaction is not merely highly-debatable but also beside the point of this discussion.

Perhaps you were arguing for censorship only by mainstream media, but I was not -- as was alluded to in my post. I'm generalizing for society as a whole. I ask why as a society we consider these topics sensitive. I'm going to the root of the problem. That the media does censor certain acts/words is a corollary of our sensitivity to these things as a society.

As for violent acts seen by children, why only consider movies? By the time a child is 18 he or she has seen 40,000 murders and 200,000 acts of violence. One only needs to turn on the television at any hour of the day to see that.
 
  • #23
Pupil said:
As for violent acts seen by children, why only consider movies? By the time a child is 18 he or she has seen 40,000 murders and 200,000 acts of violence. One only needs to turn on the television at any hour of the day to see that.

Source? Does that include people like me whos kids will spend their entire cihldhood watching reruns of Scrubs and Futurama?
 
  • #24
Pengwuino said:
Source? Does that include people like me whos kids will spend their entire cihldhood watching reruns of Scrubs and Futurama?

Huston, A.C. et al (1992). Big world, small screen: The role of television in American society. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

If you're an average child it does include you.
 
  • #25
Pupil said:
Huston, A.C. et al (1992). Big world, small screen: The role of television in American society. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

Actual place in the book? It's available free online apparently.
 
  • #26
DaveC426913 said:
Because young people are impressionable? Because they are often too underdeveloped to understand the context in which an act is commited or a word is used, and when it is inappropriate? So we censor on the rationale that they will be more thoughtfully introduced to these things under more caring and controlled (likely parental) tutelage?

That's probably the reason, but anybody who seriously thinks a child first learns about swear words or sex from parents rather than from peers is out of touch with reality. In fact, censoring a word or image probably has the effect of making the word/image more well-known, for the simple fact that children are more likely to tell their friends about something "inappropriate" than about something completely mundane. That's why "swear words" are swear words: their censorship reinforces society's notion of their inappropriateness. It's also why so many teenagers use illegal drugs: because they're illegal, not because taking them is fun in itself.
 
  • #27
ideasrule said:
It's also why so many teenagers use illegal drugs: because they're illegal, not because taking them is fun in itself.

"Uh yeah, I'm going to smoke me a joint because it's illegal, not because it gets me high as a kite!"
Seriously, are you really telling me it's the illegality of it that makes people want to take drugs, not the fact it does something to them like get them high or give them a rush? If that's your reasoning, nobody would be drinking alcohol.

WRT censorship, if a child hears a word on tv, say the F word, and then runs around a shop shouting it, because they don't know they shouldn't and don't have any understanding of it (although neither do many teens), it's embarassing for the parent and puts a bad light on them as a parent. Imagine your child running up to your boss and shout "f*** you", because they don't realize what they are saying.

Yes, I think a child should learn the words (and many other things) sooner rather than later (preferably not from inapropriate sources), but until they are able to comprehend exactly what they are saying and understand when they can and cannot use it, they shouldn't be exposed to them all the time. I think censorship of many things simply continues because of peoples views of the words or acts and they don't want their children exposed to them at all, leaving them to learn them from movies, friends and tv, which leads to a lot of inapropriate use.

In my house growing up, nobody swore around me and my sister, I never had the urge to swear, I still don't. It just seems a pointless way to pad out a sentence. However, in my cousins house they swear around the children all the time, those kids now use the words all the time completely inapropriately with no understanding of them (arguing with their parents for a start). I think that is bad. They aren't old enough (8 and 10) to know what they are saying and the continuous use by their parents means they are taking it as the correct way to speak. Yes, I would want my child to know the words/acts or whatever, but I also would like them to understand you can't just go about swearing or there are certain things that are inapropriate.

After 9.00pm in the UK, anything goes.
 
Last edited:
  • #28
"Foul or hostile language will not be tolerated on Physics Forums. This includes profanity, obscenity, or obvious indecent language; direct personal attacks or insults; snide remarks or phrases that appear to be an attempt to "put down" another member; and other indirect attacks on a member's character or motives."

Perhaps we could have some input from the PF Mentors why posters who are only discussing such words and not using them in an offensive or insulting manner must still disguise them by saying "the F word" or "b****" so that everyone knows what is meant but the actual use of the word has been avoided. Is it the particular arrangement of letters that is important or the meaning associated with that arrangement? If the same meaning can be conveyed by using other arrangements of letters (I hesitate to call "b****" a word) what has been accomplished by avoiding the use of the word itself? It would be helpful if the PF Mentors would provide a list of prohibited words that are never allowed even in academic discussions of prohibited words.
 
  • #29
skeptic2 said:
"Foul or hostile language will not be tolerated on Physics Forums. This includes profanity, obscenity, or obvious indecent language; direct personal attacks or insults; snide remarks or phrases that appear to be an attempt to "put down" another member; and other indirect attacks on a member's character or motives."

Perhaps we could have some input from the PF Mentors why posters who are only discussing such words and not using them in an offensive or insulting manner must still disguise them by saying "the F word" or "b****" so that everyone knows what is meant but the actual use of the word has been avoided. Is it the particular arrangement of letters that is important or the meaning associated with that arrangement? If the same meaning can be conveyed by using other arrangements of letters (I hesitate to call "b****" a word) what has been accomplished by avoiding the use of the word itself? It would be helpful if the PF Mentors would provide a list of prohibited words that are never allowed even in academic discussions of prohibited words.

I agree. What is it people don't like? I find it is the use of these words that is the problem. They are almost always used out of context or in situations where their meaning is irrelevant. They are simply thrown at you to insult/express anger etc. When looking at the definition of "the F word" and then the conversations it is used in, it doesn't fit the majority of the time. Like I said, sentence fillers. It is just the stigma ascociated with the use of these words that causes people to be offended by them and for people to use them.
 
  • #30
skeptic2 said:
Perhaps we could have some input from the PF Mentors why posters who are only discussing such words and not using them in an offensive or insulting manner must still disguise them by saying "the F word" or "b****" so that everyone knows what is meant but the actual use of the word has been avoided.

There is an automatic filter so mentors don't have to manually clean up the posts of people who use such words inappropriately. Its easily side stepped as you have pointed out and I've not really known anyone to get in trouble for side stepping the filter. If it weren't made known in this fashion that PF prefers not to have such language used on the site then it may become much more prolific than it is now.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 97 ·
4
Replies
97
Views
14K
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
7K
Replies
20
Views
10K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
6K
  • · Replies 69 ·
3
Replies
69
Views
10K
  • · Replies 54 ·
2
Replies
54
Views
9K