Censorship

Personally, I think that society should have no censorship whatsoever; except in extreme cases, all artists should be allow to portray their opinions with whatever kind of materials.

(runs to hide from incoming posts.)

To your last comment ! 😆

Well frankly i personally agree with you to some extent. Not completely! I am reminded of this discussion when the Prohpet Mohammad cartoon controvery happened and before that a stir when M.F.Hussain painted Goddesses nude.

I did feel they should have been allowed to express themselves , but at times this freedom is misused. It may be allowing freedom of expression but is hurting the sentiments of a group. I think this is where an individual most apply restraint. I don't think any goverment, fatwa or law should be made against it.

Such people like Hussain or the Danish cartoonist have to be ignored!!

Originally posted by: Aparna_BD

To your last comment ! 😆

Well frankly i personally agree with you to some extent. Not completely! I am reminded of this discussion when the Prohpet Mohammad cartoon controvery happened and before that a stir when M.F.Hussain painted Goddesses nude.

I did feel they should have been allowed to express themselves , but at times this freedom is misused. It may be allowing freedom of expression but is hurting the sentiments of a group. I think this is where an individual most apply restraint. I don't think any goverment, fatwa or law should be made against it.

Such people like Hussain or the Danish cartoonist have to be ignored!!

Ur last comment is urging me to make my comments... even the DM has the new rule... Aparna di! U have the right to edit my post if u find it breaching the new DM's religion policy... 😊

Freedom of expression is ok unless and until it doesn't hurt a group of people and play with their sentiments. (biggest example: religious sentiments) The act of the two people mentioned above is highly condemnable as they have deliberately done that and have passed their boundaries, misused the freedom!

Otherwise i believe in freedom of expression with rationality, facts, profound analysis,proofs , etc. I am talking abt the print and electronic media i.e. journalism... See, the freedom of expression here (Constructive or plain criticism) sometimes is very very beneficial.. e.g. speaking for the common man... taking stand for rights of people, etc.

Nudity in media or painting is a BIG NO NO! i am totally against this kind of attitude... i mean, wht do we wish to communicate through nudity?? LUST!!! Nudity Sells, that's why people do that a totally disgusting act and to me, a shameful act by an artist!... if u talk abt paintings.. then a good painter may starve to death if he paints the beauty of nature or a good clean expression of a thought in his mind... Art in its true place! But wht do we do abt the people who buy it... the painter is forced to make a disgusting nude painting... becoz it sells!! WE don't value his art, but the "Nudity" he shows!!! Cheap!! Horrible!! Rubbish!!! 🤢

Come to nudity in media...i.e. films... Again, it SELLS!!!Unfortunately!! I am not going for wht happens in West or wht their value systems are... they are they... but we the south asians.. do have values and sure there are certain things that are unacceptable by the society... I agreee this is 21st century and we do have to move with this world, but if this "new" century promotes such acts then are we going to compromise in this way by saying "O.. this is freedom!" No way!

Finally, i think while using freedom endlessly, everyone should use his brain and think at least twice the consequences of such an act!

Originally posted by: Iron

Also reminds me a story of strict censorship..Chaudhavi ka chand movie...during shooting Wahida had to get at night for night shoot and then lights and camera's were very close, so her eyes got red. SHe some how finished shooting. Movie was okayed. Gurudutt decided to show it color. ANd censor stoped it. The objection was Wahida with her red eyes was looking very sexy 😆 😆
oor Gurudutt kept on insisting that it is same song that was okayed in black & white bt I guess her eyes color was not clear in it. 😆 😆

Now that is what I call Censor. What they show in media today is simple ugly. Even the nudeness can be portrayed with decency and dignity, but todays movie and video of item songs.....some of them are disgusting

Yeah, I remember reading that. What kind of s were on the censor board at that time? 😆

Originally posted by: abhijit shukla

Couldn't agree with you more!
I have said this before but once again: people like Socrates, Jesus, Gandhi and MLK Jr. were killed just because what they said offended someone - just to shut them up; 1000 year old Buddhist statues offended some idiots in Afghanistan; it is fabled that the only person Hitler was 'afraid' of was Charley Chaplin; I have heard that at one time you could not even show two pillows on a bed on Pakistani TV - it would imply people sleeping togather...Hello!!! How do they think the population of the subcontinent is getting out of control?
Freedom of speech and expression can only be absolute...whatever is legal to do should be legal to write about, enact or paint or sculpt. Of course that will still leave some henious acts legit to censor or ban...Not because they are henious to produce but because they are henious to perform with or without camera - I don't want to 'offend ' anyone so I will not innumerate them here.
If you stop people from expressing something because it might offend someone...that is when we cease to live in a world fit for human habitation (is there a word like that?).
I would be offended by M.F. Hussain painings but I would suport his right to express himself.
Besides censorship is useless anyway, the most offensive, the most outrageous, the most unagreeable content is only a few clicks away for the connected part of the world! Even before internet, I have seen and heard all in India, I am sure the 'stricter' countries can not be that much better in enforcing the unenforcable laws!

Whtever Pakistani TV does.. or not.. U have nothing to do with it! It is Pakistan's policy for Pakistani people, RESPECT IT!

I have said this b4 but once again: Wht one country has set standards of expression.. it is for ITS PEOPLE for THEM to EXPRESS...For any Pakistani there is plenty of freedom of expression... Anybody can say Anything.. any discussion on tv.. i know it... I have the FIRST Hand INFO!!... BUT Not for anybody else!

Sorry Mr.Shukla.. the deal of not replying ur posts broke😉... At least i don't wish U to say THIS for MY country! U succeeded in offending me again .. unfortunately !😉

now if u reply my post .. its ur wish.. u have the freedom of expression!!

Originally posted by: Iron

Actually T. she did look sexy 😳

How do itchy, bloodshot eyes look sexy? 😆😕

MNMS , If you read it nicely kiddo, Mr Shukla is just expressing his view and condemning it.
So take it easy. No one is imposing nothing on any country. Comparing what was shown and what is being shown now.
If you bring reginalism here, then your deabte is very narrow. TO prove points sometimes things of past are just noted down. i am sure it is not the case now. India and Pakistan surely are most conservative. Now they are becoming more open. But today's censor is a joke.

Sometimes even I think why we need censor???? So that they can pocket some money 😕 They still show such vulgarity at times that is hard to watch the movie with family.

Maryam , you misunderstood both me and Abhijeet Shukla.

About what i said was, that i feel an artist should use self restraint while painting so as not to hurt people's sentiments. But on the other hand i don't favour laws, or Goverment imposing restraints on artists.

I too was offended by that disgusting painting by M.F.Hussain when he painted the goddess i pray too. But what i can do is think that Hussain is a bigot and a jerk and ingnore it and will never buy his painting. But i will not shout slogans that i want him be-headed, or for him to apologise or he should be jailed. Because i believe in freedom of speach too.

As for what Abhijeet said about i am sure what he meant was there was lots of prudishness in Pakistani Cinemma and there is also prudishness in Indian Cinema. Like they long ago showed two flower meeting if they wanted to show the hero and heroine kissing. 😆 Now thats become a joke !!

Ok, getting back to the actual topic. I have a lot to say on this subject!

According to the Oxford Dictionary, the word "freedom" is defined as "the right or power to do as one pleases." Freedom definitely gives an individual power. But, as Lord Acton once said, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Let us assume that the government allows unrestricted freedom of speech. Can the government guarantee that this freedom will not be abused? Will this resolution ensure that there will be no hate-crimes against religious or ethnic groups in a country? The answer is NO.

In a society, there can be no order unless certain restrictions are imposed upon its members. Let me give you all an example of the case of James Keegstra, a high school teacher in Alberta, Canada, who taught his students that Jews were "barbaric," "subversive," "sadistic," and "materialistic". Students who disagreed with Keegstra got a lower grade in comparison to students who did agree with him.

It was the classic case of "give a dog a bad name and hang him". One cannot make generalizations about a community or a race based on a handful of people. Keegstra was found guilty of spreading hate messages under Section 319 of the Criminal Code of Canada because his statements were harmful not only the Jewish community but also to peace and order in society.

I submit that the freedom of speech is vital to a democratic and multicultural society. However, if there are no restrictions imposed upon this freedom, there may be serious consequences. For example, we have laws which regulate the speed limit on roads and highways. The idea is safety-based and helps prevent accidents. In Canada, a driver with a blood-alcohol count of over 80 mg is guilty of drunk driving even though he may have not caused any accidents. The limits imposed are based on research and are reasonable in terms of protecting society as a whole.

The idea is not about what happens, but what could happen.

Freedom of speech should be allowed to exist in a free and democratic society. However, there must be certain limitations:

First of all, people are allowed to express themselves freely as long as they are not promoting hatred based on race, religion or gender.

For example, Toronto-based Mark Harding distributed pamphlets and recorded telephone messages which stated that all Muslims in foreign countries were terrorists and that the Muslims in Toronto were no different from those abroad. Like Keegstra, Harding was found guilty of spreading hate messages under Section 319 of the criminal Code. Mark Harding was convicted because he lied even though he knew many Muslims were not terrorists.

You can express your opinion in public as long as you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that what you do say is actually true.

It could be argued that the individual must be protected from the tyranny of the majority. My question to them would be, how would you protect the "individuals" of a community from people like Harding and Keegstra who can give wrong impressions about those individuals to the majority?

Messages which stereotype people are often unfair and can hurt certain individuals. I am not saying that freedom of speech should cease to exist. But, one should take into consideration the long-term impact of unrestricted freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech and expression can only be absolute...whatever is legal to do should be legal to write about, enact or paint or sculpt. Of course that will still leave some henious acts legit to censor or ban...Not because they are henious to produce but because they are henious to perform with or without camera - I don't want to 'offend ' anyone so I will not innumerate them here. [/quote]

How do we define what is "legal" and what isn't? Isn't that a sort of restriction as well?

Freedom of expression can never be absolute - its impractical and would just result in lack of control in society.