Christian censorship

[potwalloper.]

Throughout history there are numerous examples of Christians attempting to apply censorship and by so doing to suppress free speech.

Last week Jerry Springer: The Opera was broadcast on the BBC following an orchestrated campaign by Christian fundamentalists to have it banned.

See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/4154385.stm

This campaign included Christians telephoning BBC staff and threatening them and their children with death and violence.

Should Christians be allowed to control what others (including non-Christians) say, see and do?

Is Christian censorship ever justified?

If so then what of freedom of speech and how may this be reconciled with Christian beliefs?

[otseng]

Not what I am saying. It is OK to protest about anything you like. What is not OK is trying to force your beliefs, religious political or otherwise, onto others by suppressing programmes that would otherwise be broadcast on their merits and market forces.

I can see how using death threats is not acceptable. But, how is a bunch of people calling a station to show their disapproval of a show unacceptable? Is it simply because they were motivated to call because of their religious belief that makes it unacceptable? If this is the case, why would not this be considered a restriction of free speech upon religious people?

[potwalloper.]

Not what I am saying. It is OK to protest about anything you like. What is not OK is trying to force your beliefs, religious political or otherwise, onto others by suppressing programmes that would otherwise be broadcast on their merits and market forces.

I can see how using death threats is not acceptable. But, how is a bunch of people calling a station to show their disapproval of a show unacceptable? Is it simply because they were motivated to call because of their religious belief that makes it unacceptable? If this is the case, why would not this be considered a restriction of free speech upon religious people?

Calling to show your disapproval is different in principle to demanding that a programme be withdrawn and that viewing should therefore be denied to others who do not share your views. I have no problem with the former (for whatever reason) - I do with the latter especially when accompanied by threats.

The reason why religion appears to come up whenever such problems arise is that many people with religious beliefs appear to believe that they have some sort of God-given right to tell other people how to behave and what they should say or do. This issue strikes at the very heart of why fundamental religious belief and the behaviours it encourages are so dangerous.

Religion is often referred to as a crutch - please don't beat us to death with it.

[Arch]

For all intents and purposes, Grown people should be able to watch whatever they want. As long as its not child pornography which in and of itself it illegal to produce.

In the current age of parental guides and child lock outs on cable internet and TV's that only opposition to something getting played(the fear of children seeing things that can harm their minds) really sits in the hands of the parents. If you don't want your children watching these things censor the viewing selections in YOUR home. My childs TV is set to childrens and family channels only.

Otherwise as an adult if you don't like it don't watch it. You don't have to watch programs that are one channel. Just turn the channel.

They say don't put in on TV. THen People that want to see it will just buy the tape. Your child might be over their house when they are watching it.

Then the next step is don't produce tapes of it ... and there you have it censorship and the removal of the freedom of speech.

[otseng]

Calling to show your disapproval is different in principle to demanding that a programme be withdrawn and that viewing should therefore be denied to others who do not share your views. I have no problem with the former (for whatever reason) - I do with the latter especially when accompanied by threats.

Let me ask this, if a viewer calls a station and asks that a show not be shown, but does not use threats of violence, would that be acceptable?

The reason why religion appears to come up whenever such problems arise is that many people with religious beliefs appear to believe that they have some sort of God-given right to tell other people how to behave and what they should say or do.

I understand what you are saying. And actually, I agree with it, even from a Biblical perspective. I wrote in a post awhile back that I think Christians in a sense should let non-Christians do whatever they want to do. (Hey, am I now a liberal for saying such things? )

In the current age of parental guides and child lock outs on cable internet and TV's that only opposition to something getting played(the fear of children seeing things that can harm their minds) really sits in the hands of the parents. If you don't want your children watching these things censor the viewing selections in YOUR home. My childs TV is set to childrens and family channels only.

That reminds me when a Christian friend complained to me about what is on cable TV. I simply responded with, "All you have to do is not subscribe to cable TV."

[potwalloper.]

Otseng wrote

Let me ask this, if a viewer calls a station and asks that a show not be shown, but does not use threats of violence, would that be acceptable?

I would have to question their motives for such a request when they can exercise personal control over what they see by the use of the off switch. The only possible motive that I can see for making a request like this is to try to deny other people access to the material in question.

No one twists anyone's arm and forces them to watch a TV show - neither should one try to implement a virtual on-off switch on the TV sets of strangers - they are well able to make their own judgements as to what is appropriate for them to watch.

If I was complaining about a show that was to be shown I would simply register my displeasure rather than try to have the show stopped - it is not for me to try to control what others can watch.

[RevJP]

I would have to question their motives for such a request

Why? What do their personal motives have to do with their right to free speech? Calling and demanding that something NOT be aired is covered under this concept, is it not?

I read through this thread with great interest. The debate over 'religious censorship' based on the acts of a handful of distasteful fanatics, the debate over free speech and who should or shouldn't be allowed to exercise such...

Potwallaper in essence is saying that John Doe calling and demanding that a show not be aired is a violation of the free speech of someone else, simply because he demands it. Now if he called and said he did not like the idea of a show being aired and that he and his 50,000 buddies would no longer watch that station because of it, well then, that would be fine - an exercise of his free speech.

But since he demands that a show not be aired, that violates some law or right of free speech or freedom from censorship. Hogwash. It was said:
No one twists anyone's arm and forces them to watch a TV show
and by the same token; no one twists anyone's arm and forces them to comply with someone's demands.

But maybe I am mistaken, perhaps it is because it is for religious reasons, or that religious people are involved that it then becomes censorship or violation of free speech. I wonder if NRA members called and staged a protest against a program pushing the merits of gun control, would that raise the ire? Maybe if some of the NRA members were rude or distasteful in their phone calls? Might be we would have to have one or two of them mention God in those phone calls....

[potwalloper.]

RevJP wrote:

I read through this thread with great interest. The debate over 'religious censorship' based on the acts of a handful of distasteful fanatics, the debate over free speech and who should or shouldn't be allowed to exercise such...

45,000 people contacted the BBC and demanded that this show should not be broadcast. 45,000 is not a handful.

Potwallaper in essence is saying that John Doe calling and demanding that a show not be aired is a violation of the free speech of someone else, simply because he demands it. Now if he called and said he did not like the idea of a show being aired and that he and his 50,000 buddies would no longer watch that station because of it, well then, that would be fine - an exercise of his free speech.

No. What I am saying is that religous lunatics who demand that shows should not be broadcast or poems printed are attempting to violate the fundamental freedoms of others to make their own decisions as to what they watch or read or do.

But since he demands that a show not be aired, that violates some law or right of free speech or freedom from censorship. Hogwash. It was said:
No one twists anyone's arm and forces them to watch a TV show
and by the same token; no one twists anyone's arm and forces them to comply with someone's demands.

I see. So, threatening to kill somebody's children unless they do what you want is not trying to force them to comply with your demands? I wonder how you would feel if someone telephoned your children and threatened them with death and violence to try to make you comply with their wishes. I think that you would feel that your arm had been twisted.

These maniacs threatened children with death to try to prevent this show from being broadcast and are now trying to pursue a blasphemy prosecution to prevent further broadcasting of the show. If that is not an attempt at religous censorship I don't know what is.

But maybe I am mistaken, perhaps it is because it is for religious reasons, or that religious people are involved that it then becomes censorship or violation of free speech. I wonder if NRA members called and staged a protest against a program pushing the merits of gun control, would that raise the ire? Maybe if some of the NRA members were rude or distasteful in their phone calls? Might be we would have to have one or two of them mention God in those phone calls....

I think that the main reason this always comes down to religion is that it seems to be a characteristic of religous believers to try to apply their views, beliefs and judgements to other people. They never seem to be satisfied with simply following their own beliefs but rather seem to feel they have some God-given duty to make everyone else as dour as they are!

[micatala]

Otseng wrote:

Let me ask this, if a viewer calls a station and asks that a show not be shown, but does not use threats of violence, would that be acceptable?


I would have to question their motives for such a request when they can exercise personal control over what they see by the use of the off switch. The only possible motive that I can see for making a request like this is to try to deny other people access to the material in question.

This has been an interesting discussion.

I would agree with Osteng, if the callers behave in a responsible manner and do not use threats or advocate violence, they are simply exercising their free speech rights, and their motivation should not matter.

It seems to me what potwalloper is concerned about is that, by exercising their free speech rights or through coercion, the religious right will exert an undue and deleterious effect on other's activities. I can understand this concern. But I don't think that the solution is to curtail the right of people to make such calls, ESPECIALLY if it is done only because the calls are religiously motivated.

It seems to me that the solution is to maintain the rights of media to broadcast what they deem fit, within normal bounds of decency (and no, I don't want to get into a whole discussion on what that is, and yes, I understand even that is a sticky issue).

I would add one other comment. The argument in the thread so far seems to be that the callers are motivated because they feel offended by the programming. If this is the only 'harm', then I agree, they really don't have much of a reason for calling in (although they should feel free to do so). I believe it would be better for them to just get over it.

However, a separate issue is whether the programming has the potential to have wider harmful effects on the society as a whole. For example, if a program on Hitler was aired, extolling his virtues and inciting white supremacists to rise up and do violence or try to take control of the government, this has potentially serious and harmful consequences, especially if there is a significant population that is amenable to responding to such incitements. Would it be wrong for people to call in and 'demand' that such a program not be aired? Would it be wrong for the media to broadcast it? To not broadcast it?

I don't think it is easy to make a clear cut distinction on what should be or should not be 'censored.'