Meet the Censors

[sarongsong]

It was a dark and stormy night... http://bautforum.com/images/icons/icon10.gifFourteen men armed with black permanent markers approach stacks of thousands of newspapers and magazines...
xpress (http://www.xpress4me.com/news/uae/national/20000787.html)

[Pinemarten]

How do they sensor the internet?
I have chatted in Yahoo to citizens of the UAE, and I could have uploaded files as well.

Or are they afraid to hire another 100,000 staff, and just let it slip through?

[TriangleMan]

How do they sensor the internet?
I don't know about the UAE but in Qatar all internet traffic goes through one server provider. The provider blocks various websites, usually due to pornography but I'm sure they also block sites that offend 'moral sensibilities' or are anti-Islam.

I once started a thread in BAUT asking for a summary of a webpage that I couldn't access.

[Ronald Brak]

Check out the black bars on that babe.

The article quotes a person as saying he doesn't want the pictures to get into the hands of children. I've heard people say this before and I've always wondered just what they think children are likely to do with the pictures. Turn them into weaponized anthrax? Construct a giant, city destroying robot from paper mache? Distract President Bush while they steal his launch codes? What?

[sarongsong]

I don't know about the UAE but in Qatar all internet traffic goes through one server provider...Is satellite Net access available?

[Peter Wilson]

I've always said, Simple jobs for simple minds.

But I realize that is probably not politically correct...so I've never actually said it :)

[Gillianren]

The article quotes a person as saying he doesn't want the pictures to get into the hands of children. I've heard people say this before and I've always wondered just what they think children are likely to do with the pictures. Turn them into weaponized anthrax? Construct a giant, city destroying robot from paper mache? Distract President Bush while they steal his launch codes? What?

Grow up into healthy, normal adults?

[Dr Nigel]

The article quotes a person as saying he doesn't want the pictures to get into the hands of children. I've heard people say this before and I've always wondered just what they think children are likely to do with the pictures. Turn them into weaponized anthrax? Construct a giant, city destroying robot from paper mache?

What? Do you not realise how offensive the human body is?! It'll undermine the moral fabric of society.

Distract President Bush while they steal his launch codes?

This might work. Don't give them ideas!

[speedfreek]

Grow up into healthy, normal adults?

As opposed to adults who require all female flesh to be covered and the female form to be made shapeless, lest they lose control and succumb to their animal desires to ravage them?

[Gillianren]

As opposed to adults who require all female flesh to be covered and the female form to be made shapeless, lest they lose control and succumb to their animal desires to ravage them?

Exactly.

[AstralSpirit]

I've had breasts since I was a child and they have developed as I have matured. You can censor magazines and newspapers, but you can't hide breasts from me. :)

[mickal555]

Lucky you. I havn't :(

[RalofTyr]

I've always said, Simple jobs for simple minds.

That's a great statement. You're my favourite newbie.

[Ronald Brak]

Lucky you. I havn't

I need to go on a diet.

[TriangleMan]

Is satellite Net access available?
I'm not sure but it is likely, perhaps in an unofficial manner. That said you can buy TV cable packages that offer all sorts of channels with, shall we say, mature entertainment. That's why I found the censorship laws so odd, Gulf countries will black out pictures of women in bikinis in magazines but meanwhile there are 20+ satellite channels showing far "worse" than that.

Also here they edit movies that screen in theaters to remove kissing and other unappropriate scenes. Yet the crudest, low-brow humour/jokes are perfectly acceptable. And all the movies are uncensored when sold as a DVD. I don't really understand how the censorship laws work. :confused:

That they still censor magazines in the UAE is even funnier since it is more liberal than Qatar. Alcohol is openly sold and prostitution is commonplace in bars in Dubai. What censoring a few magazine photos is going to accomplish is beyond me.

[Maksutov]

I've never really understood censorship. It doesn't make any sense to me.

One nonsensical aspect of it is, are the censors somehow immune to what they are censoring? If so, what makes them special? Or are censors subject to FIFO, the personnel rosters constantly changing to prevent individual censors from spending too much time with the material and thus running the risk of becoming corrupted?

Other unanswered questions: do censors have mirrors in their bathrooms?
If so, do they then bathe with their clothes on? Or do they strip naked but wear a blindfold?

:think:

[HenrikOlsen]

One nonsensical aspect of it is, are the censors somehow immune to what they are censoring? If so, what makes them special? Or are censors subject to FIFO, the personnel rosters constantly changing to prevent individual censors from spending too much time with the material and thus running the risk of becoming corrupted?
They are such great human beings that they are willing to sacrifice themselves for our moral health.

[mugaliens]

I love this quote from the article: "“I believe what we are doing is important, not just to protect the cultural values of the country but also I wouldn’t want these pictures getting in the hands of children.”

Yeah.

Heaven help the poor child who actually sees either where he came from or the source of his nourishment for the first year or so of his life...

What's next? Blindfolding babies as they suckle?

[RalofTyr]

I need to go on a diet.

Of eating breasts? Isn't that cannibalism?

[AstralSpirit]

I love this quote from the article: "“I believe what we are doing is important, not just to protect the cultural values of the country but also I wouldn’t want these pictures getting in the hands of children.”

Yeah.

Heaven help the poor child who actually sees either where he came from or the source of his nourishment for the first year or so of his life...

What's next? Blindfolding babies as they suckle?
I don't understand the concept of our bodies being obscene. I spend a lot of time being in my body and have grown very fond of it. I think its beautiful, interesting; sort of a work of art.

Am I the only one who *sometimes* stands in front of a mirror and marvels at the unique living system that evolution has produced?? Hey, no jokes about vanity and narcissism here. :)

[sarongsong]

Seems everyone wants to play:April 28, 2007
Iran's Telecommunications Ministry will start filtering "immoral" video and audio messages sent via mobile phones...It did not give details of the techniques it would use to filter such messages, when it would start or how it would define "immoral" messages.
Reuters (http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=technologyNews&storyid=2007-04-28T150618Z_01_DAH839138_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAN-MOBILE.xml&src=rss&rpc=22)Iran has over 15 million mobile phone subscribers (http://www.payvand.com/news/07/mar/1021.html)

[Maksutov]

Seems everyone wants to play:
April 28, 2007
Iran's Telecommunications Ministry will start filtering "immoral" video and audio messages sent via mobile phones...It did not give details of the techniques it would use to filter such messages, when it would start or how it would define "immoral" messages.Reuters (http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=technologyNews&storyid=2007-04-28T150618Z_01_DAH839138_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAN-MOBILE.xml&src=rss&rpc=22) Iran has over 15 million mobile phone subscribers (http://www.payvand.com/news/07/mar/1021.html)

Hi!

We're from the government and we're here to protect you!

Hand over all your media that contain illustrations...

War is Peace.

[Maksutov]

Originally Posted by Maksutov http://www.bautforum.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=977015#post977015)
One nonsensical aspect of it is, are the censors somehow immune to what they are censoring? If so, what makes them special? Or are censors subject to FIFO, the personnel rosters constantly changing to prevent individual censors from spending too much time with the material and thus running the risk of becoming corrupted?
They are such great human beings that they are willing to sacrifice themselves for our moral health.How noble of them!

They should get The Angstrom Medal (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/hoagland/credentials.html).

[sarongsong]

Great photo, Mak, can you movitate 'im, too? http://bautforum.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[Peter Wilson]

I spend a lot of time being in my body and have grown very fond of it. I think its beautiful, interesting; sort of a work of art. :hand:

You're right on the edge, AstralSpirit.

Start talking out-of-body experiences, and the Board may have to sensor you ;)

[Maksutov]

Great photo, Mak, can you movitate 'im, too? http://bautforum.com/images/icons/icon10.gifSure.

BTW, the motivation here is a ritual dance which keeps away evil spirits. This was in response to a situation that arose in Utah a few days ago (http://www.sltrib.com/ci_5756635).

:wall:

[AstralSpirit]

:hand:

You're right on the edge, AstralSpirit.

Start talking out-of-body experiences, and the Board may have to sensor you ;)
hmmmmm, sensor me? :)

[mike alexander]

There are times I've stood in front of a mirror and wondered, given the overall appearance, why it hasn't begun to smell yet.

[sarongsong]

Why it's that silver coating on the back of the mirror! http://bautforum.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[BigDon]

Wait sec here! I see a lot of pots calling the kettles black!

Ever talk to real Irishmen about religion? I did. Best be prepared to duck. Only ever spoke my true mind once, then learned my lesson. Back in the early eighties. I literally barely escaped with my life. Seems these particular Irishmen weren't at home in Ireland for very good reasons. So not only did I pick the wrong group to talk about the moral pros and cons of machinegunning churchs during services with, I picked the wrong subset as well.

Same can be said for a majority of the Southern boys I served in the Navy with. If something was seriously out of sorts, just having a chat with our Ordinance Shop in my squadron would often set it correct. Our ordinance shop at the time was 95% Southern with more than half Deep South. Can't even tell you on this forum the instances why I had to do that, instead of going to the authorities, but it was actual mind-numbing vileness.

More locally we have Mexicans (catholic) vandalising and desicrating Buddist and Taoist displays in front of various restarants, stores and institutes. 'Cause they're "heathen devil worshippers" of course.

So don't be poking the Moslems for something everybody does. They are trying to protect their culture as they see fit.

I swear, you all act like a pack of little girls sometimes.

[sarongsong]

Gee, Uncle BD, tell us the tale of Pat Tillman...

[BigDon]

Gee, Uncle BD, tell us the tale of Pat Tillman...

Excuse me? What do you want to know?

[sarongsong]

Will those within government, including military, who deliberately censored, distorted and lied about the circumstances of his death be punished?

[BigDon]

Probably. Once the media got a hold of the story they were doomed to their fate. Ask Scott Peterson about that one. Plus, Tillman was not murdered for God's sake. Folks want to act like he was assasinated by his superiors instead of it being a horrid accident in an excruciatingly dangerous situation.

You doubt men would try to protect their careers they spent their entire adult lives achieving? Military careers? EVERYBODY practices CYA. And we're not talking bakers or house painters here. We are talking about people that have to kill other people when required. There is a certain level of aggression not found in other lines of work. So yeah, they got caught. Bad for them. Is this on par with Watergate? Oh hell no.

[Cookie]

It's no wonder that Censorship is supported by the masses, seeing as how children often imitate what they've seen, read, or heard.

[mugaliens]

Even parents censor what their child tells those outside the family - how do you think the child learns to censor in the first place?

[Dr Nigel]

It's no wonder that Censorship is supported by the masses, seeing as how children often imitate what they've seen, read, or heard.

This is true, to a certain extent.

However, there is a difference between protecting children / teens from materials (whether images, concepts, passages of text or whatever) that they have not yet developed the emotional maturity to deal with (and this, in my view, includes graphical sex and violence) and, OTOH, trying to "protect" every last member of society by banning or defacing the material altogether.

Adults should have the emotional maturity to deal with such things if they so choose. And if they choose not, they can refrain from viewing the materials.

There is also a difference between materials that could be genuinely problematic and material that is really quite natural. I consider there to be a world of difference between the kind of images you see in some British tabloid newspapers (essentially, glamour shots) and actual depictions of sexual acts.

In the picture in the article linked in the OP, they were censoring glamour photos in magazines. I do not believe these images could possibly do anyone's morals any harm.

I'll stop there; I'm in danger of getting rather political.

[TriangleMan]

I consider there to be a world of difference between the kind of images you see in some British tabloid newspapers (essentially, glamour shots) and actual depictions of sexual acts. <snip> I do not believe these images could possibly do anyone's morals any harm.
But that's your opinion. What if the society feels differently, that there is not a world of difference between glamour shots and sexual acts. Is the censorship valid then?

And it wasn't all that long ago that Britian and America felt the same way. 'Glamour' shots only started to become okay sometime around the 1920s-1940s. Strict censorship is hardly unknown to the West.

[hhEb09'1]

I don't understand the concept of our bodies being obscene. I spend a lot of time being in my body and have grown very fond of it. I think its beautiful, interesting; sort of a work of art. How do you feel about images that debase that art? Subjugation, torture, mutilation, exploitation? The last is problematic--a lot of the publicized images are exploitative, where do you draw the line? Some people may feel that there should be no line whatsoever, I think the line should be personal, and I can try to convince others around me to agree with my standard. That personal effort can coalesce into societal mores (Gillian, is there a single more? :) ).

[Gillianren]

How do you feel about images that debase that art? Subjugation, torture, mutilation, exploitation? The last is problematic--a lot of the publicized images are exploitative, where do you draw the line? Some people may feel that there should be no line whatsoever, I think the line should be personal, and I can try to convince others around me to agree with my standard. That personal effort can coalesce into societal mores (Gillian, is there a single more? :) ).

First off, yes, there is. However, we don't say it; it's Latin, and it's "mos." But it is popularly known as the plural noun.

I agree that the line should be personal, and that's exactly my problem with state-sponsored censorship.

Now. If the taking of the picture doesn't hurt anyone and is consensual, and everyone's of a legal age, okay. Have at. The age at which I'd stop preventing my child from seeing any individual shot would be based on the picture and the maturity level of the child. But that's my business--or, in my case, the business of my daughter's adoptive parents. I, as a legal adult, have the right to decide for myself if I'm mature enough to see breasts. (I hope so; I see them all the time.)

[Dr Nigel]

...Now. If the taking of the picture doesn't hurt anyone and is consensual, and everyone's of a legal age, okay. Have at.

I wholeheartedly agree.

... I, as a legal adult, have the right to decide for myself if I'm mature enough to see breasts. (I hope so; I see them all the time.)

Please insert the joke of your choice here... :)

Sorry, that was facetious* of me. I couldn't resist.


* Official note from Dr Nigel's editor: The juxtaposition of a childish comment about breasts and another poster's comment about maturity was deliberate and intended for comedic effect. As you will note, this was mostly unsuccessful.

[AstralSpirit]

How do you feel about images that debase that art? Subjugation, torture, mutilation, exploitation? The last is problematic--a lot of the publicized images are exploitative, where do you draw the line? Some people may feel that there should be no line whatsoever, I think the line should be personal, and I can try to convince others around me to agree with my standard. That personal effort can coalesce into societal mores (Gillian, is there a single more? :) ).
My comment specifically concerned censoring a picture that simply showed a woman with breasts exposed. I don't know where the limits are, but censoring a picture like that seems extreme. My breasts are beautiful and I don't think they constitute a threat to "societal mores".

[SeanF]

The age at which I'd stop preventing my child from seeing any individual shot would be based on the picture and the maturity level of the child. But that's my business--or, in my case, the business of my daughter's adoptive parents.
But if there's no law concerning the displaying/distributing of pornographic images to children, then it's not your business - at least, it's not within your control.

Those who feel that their 12-year-old is mature enough to read Playboy can buy the Playboy and give it to him. Those that don't need to rely on the stores to not sell it to their 12-year-old directly, don't they?

[Dr Nigel]

But if there's no law concerning the displaying/distributing of pornographic images to children, then it's not your business - at least, it's not within your control.

Those who feel that their 12-year-old is mature enough to read Playboy can buy the Playboy and give it to him. Those that don't need to rely on the stores to not sell it to their 12-year-old directly, don't they?

This is an interesting example. Playboy is in that grey area between glamour and porn. If the images do not have a sexual context, then they are glamour - or, if you prefer, a celebration of the beauty of the human form. If they have a sexual context, they could equally be described as porn. The tricky bit is from whence comes the context. If the context comes from within our heads, then it should be judged on a case-by-case basis (which is very difficult for legislators).

[Dr Nigel]

My comment specifically concerned censoring a picture that simply showed a woman with breasts exposed. I don't know where the limits are, but censoring a picture like that seems extreme.

I agree. I cannot see any benefit to hiding from kids the fact that women have breasts.

My breasts are beautiful and I don't think they constitute a threat to "societal mores".

Er, well, I guess you're in the best position to judge that. I'll take your word that they do not constitute a threat... :) ;)

[hhEb09'1]

My comment specifically concerned censoring a picture that simply showed a woman with breasts exposed. I don't know where the limits are, but censoring a picture like that seems extreme. My breasts are beautiful and I don't think they constitute a threat to "societal mores".I understand that completely. I feel the same way about my...uh...can we say that here?

[Maksutov]

This is an interesting example. Playboy is in that grey area between glamour and porn. If the images do not have a sexual context, then they are glamour - or, if you prefer, a celebration of the beauty of the human form. If they have a sexual context, they could equally be described as porn. The tricky bit is from whence comes the context. If the context comes from within our heads, then it should be judged on a case-by-case basis (which is very difficult for legislators).As usual this was handled by Ton Lehrer 43 years ago (http://members.aol.com/quentncree/lehrer/smut.htm). Pay particular attention to the sixth stanza, fourth line,

[Maksutov]

I understand that completely. I feel the same way about my...uh...can we say that here?Well, mos or less.

[AstralSpirit]

I agree. I cannot see any benefit to hiding from kids the fact that women have breasts.

I think keeping them such a big secret makes for greater curiosity. If they were just there on the beach in the summertime it wouldn't be such a big deal.


Er, well, I guess you're in the best position to judge that. I'll take your word that they do not constitute a threat... :) ;)
Well... I do not mean to sound vain. I have always said tho, that I would never use them for evil. :)

[Maksutov]

I think keeping them such a big secret makes for greater curiosity. If they were just there on the beach in the summertime it wouldn't be such a big deal.


Well... I do not mean to sound vain. I have always said tho, that I would never use them for evil. :)Then perhaps (or perhaps not) you weren't here (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americas/05/06/mexico.nude.ap/index.html?eref=rss_topstories).

[SeanF]

I think keeping them such a big secret makes for greater curiosity. If they were just there on the beach in the summertime it wouldn't be such a big deal.
True.

But I'm not convinced it would be a good thing to make them "bo-ring." :)

[please]

Gulf countries will black out pictures of women in bikinis in magazines but meanwhile there are 20+ satellite channels showing far "worse" than that.

Also here they edit movies that screen in theaters to remove kissing and other unappropriate scenes. Yet the crudest, low-brow humour/jokes are perfectly acceptable. And all the movies are uncensored when sold as a DVD. I don't really understand how the censorship laws work.Let me guess? Because oil princes waste money building artificial slalom hills and 7* hotels instead of building up country infrastructure, the majority of people is so poor that they probably have no enough money not only to use internet or buy satellite/DVD, but even to own a TV set. I don't know about Quatar, but I was in Egypt twice, and this is sort of inline with what I saw there.

[TriangleMan]

Let me guess? Because oil princes waste money building artificial slalom hills and 7* hotels instead of building up country infrastructure, the majority of people is so poor that they probably have no enough money not only to use internet or buy satellite/DVD, but even to own a TV set. I don't know about Quatar, but I was in Egypt twice, and this is sort of inline with what I saw there.

You guessed -- and your guess was incorrect.

Qatar and the UAE are nothing like Egypt or most countries in the region. Qatar has petroleum (Egypt doesn't to a significant degree) and few citizens (~150,000, compared to many millions in Egypt) Most Qataris and Emiratis are either middle class or wealthy, have massive homes, and all the TVs they want. A Qatari going to University will not only have tuition and books paid for, they'll receive ~$2000 a month from the Government, just for going to classes. Egyptians and Yemenis are typically hired as policemen and as grunts in the military. I have never seen nor heard of a Qatari driving a taxi or waiting on tables.

The poor in the country are the labourers brought in from South Asia to build the roads, drive the taxis, and be people's servants. Most of them make around $200 a month. Sadly for them that's a decent living, and for every one of them here toiling in the heat 60-hours a week there's 20 guys back in India who are willing to take the job if they leave. :(

As an aside the indoor skil hill (Ski Dubai) and the 7* hotel (Burj al-Arab) appear to be doing well so may be reasonably successful. If so, then they weren't a waste of money but rather a shrewd investment. No, I don't know how either, I've seen Ski Dubai and it still stuns me that someone thought of doing it. But it exists and is popular.

So that is part of why I find the censorship laws so odd. Most Qataris go to Europe for summer vacations, have satellite TV, and even (discreetly) can drink alcohol if they want. What purpose those laws serve is beyond me.

[Gillianren]

Actually, I'm not sure I do agree that you have to be 18 before you can buy pornography, leaving out the discussion as to whether Playboy is or isn't. (There's the "Shari Bobbins" episode of The Simpsons where she says she'd make him read the whole thing, after all.) For one, the forbidden tends to have more appeal. For another, if my child is old enough to have the money to buy it and the will to buy it--and the determination to find somewhere to buy it and get there on their own--I'm not sure there's anything I can do anymore. Online . . . well, that's something I'd have a better shot at monitoring on my own, and if I were a responsible parent, I would feel it my obligation to do so.

But those are my views, obviously.

[HenrikOlsen]

My main problem with kids reading Playboy is actually with girls reading it and getting the impression that the natural shape of a woman's body is an ironing board with two grapefruits on it.
But then I have the same objection with Vogue, though there it's lemons.

[Maksutov]

[edit]But then I have the same objection with Vogue, though there it's lemons.Maybe things have changed but the last Voque I leafed through (a waiting room copy) in about 17 seconds seemed to promote sticks with mosquito bites.

[Dr Nigel]

I think keeping them such a big secret makes for greater curiosity. If they were just there on the beach in the summertime it wouldn't be such a big deal.

Well... I do not mean to sound vain. I have always said tho, that I would never use them for evil. :)

No mean to imply vanity. I just meant that I'm not in a position to judge, and I'd probably get into a whole heap of trouble at home if I were to ask you to prove it to me! :)

[AstralSpirit]

Then perhaps (or perhaps not) you weren't here (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americas/05/06/mexico.nude.ap/index.html?eref=rss_topstories).

Bravo!! :)

[AstralSpirit]

No mean to imply vanity. I just meant that I'm not in a position to judge, and I'd probably get into a whole heap of trouble at home if I were to ask you to prove it to me! :)
I know!! Think of the children!! :naughty: :)

I wasn't thinking you implied vanity. I don't like using myself as an example tho because I might sound that way.

[Peter Wilson]

hmmmmm, sensor me? :) :doh:

[Noclevername]

I've never really understood censorship. It doesn't make any sense to me.

One nonsensical aspect of it is, are the censors somehow immune to what they are censoring? If so, what makes them special? Or are censors subject to FIFO, the personnel rosters constantly changing to prevent individual censors from spending too much time with the material and thus running the risk of becoming corrupted?

Other unanswered questions: do censors have mirrors in their bathrooms?
If so, do they then bathe with their clothes on? Or do they strip naked but wear a blindfold?

:think:

I once read a novel-- Star Trek TNG I think-- about a planet settled by Puritan-like censors who developed a special helmet for their "thought police"; it automatically sensed and bleeped or pixelated any "offensive" words or images to keep them from seeing or hearing what they censored.

WARNING: Do not wear while driving.

[Dr Nigel]

I know!! Think of the children!! :naughty: :)

There are two or three different ways to interpret that... No, I'll stop there, otherwise things could get messy. :)

Er, just realised there's more than one way to interpret that, too. My word, isn't the English language a minefield?

I wasn't thinking you implied vanity. I don't like using myself as an example tho because I might sound that way.

Fair enough, but if you have a body to be proud of, be proud of it!

[sarongsong]

Probably. Once the media got a hold of the story they were doomed to their fate...Tillman was not murdered...The story that refuses to die :(July 27, 2007
Army medical examiners were suspicious about the close proximity of the three bullet holes in Pat Tillman's forehead...it appeared the Army Ranger was cut down by an M-16 fired from a mere 10 yards or so away...Congress is preparing for yet another hearing next week...
military.com (http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,143861,00.html?ESRC=dod-b.nl)