No Nudity, Violent Video Games or Freedom of Speech?! Censorship in USA vs. Europe
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 чер 2024
- Get 4 months extra on a 2 year plan here: nordvpn.com/typeashton. It’s risk free with Nord’s 30 day money-back guarantee! Take a look at the often-controversial areas of nudity, video games, and social media. Uncover the cultural, historical, and legal nuances that shape how each region approaches content restrictions...and how a brand new EU regulations on speech might just change social media worldwide.
🔍 KEY HIGHLIGHTS:
Historical Background - How past events shaped present-day attitudes towards censorship, and changed the landscape on music, television, and entertainment.
Nudity Norms - Contrasting views on body representation and public display.
Video Games Controversies - The debate over violence, age ratings, and cultural sensitivity in the gaming industry.
Social Media and Freedom of Speech - How platforms are regulated in the face of misinformation, hate speech, and political biases.
🔗 RESOURCES & LINKS:
@NPR EU law targets Big Tech over hate speech, disinformation
www.npr.org/2022/04/23/109448...
@ACLU www.aclu.org/documents/aclu-h...
@ClimateTown The Brainwashing Of America's Children | Climate Town • The Brainwashing Of Am...
TIMESTAMPS:
0:00 - Introduction
1:50 - History of Censorship
7:45 - Nudity: USA vs Europe
12:37 - Video Games Censorship
17:36 - Bad or Good? The New EU Regulation on Speech
📢 JOIN THE CONVERSATION:
What are your thoughts on the differing approaches to censorship? Do you think one region has it right over the other? Drop your thoughts in the comments below and let's foster a respectful discussion!
👉 Don't forget to LIKE, SHARE, and SUBSCRIBE for more in-depth analyses on important healthcare topics. Join the discussion below by leaving a comment about your thoughts or experiences regarding prescription drug prices.
🔔 Subscribe: / @typeashton
📷 Follow us on Instagram: / typeashton
🤳🏻 TikTok: / typeashton
🖥 Website: www.blackforestfamily.com
📧 E-mail: typeashton@gmail.com
𝗦𝗨𝗣𝗣𝗢𝗥𝗧 𝗠𝗘
👑 Patreon: / typeashton
#censorship #socialmedia #law #europeanunion #unitedstates #america #germany #subculture #videogames #freespeech #controversy #USvsEurope #NudityInMedia #VideoGameRatings #SocialMediaRegulations #CulturalDifferences #FreeSpeech #ContentCreation
Episode 122 - Розваги
Get 4 months extra on a 2 year plan here: nordvpn.com/typeashton. It’s risk free with Nord’s 30 day money-back guarantee!
I wanted to say that there are routers with a VPN option. This means you can enter the VPN directly into the router and then surf completely as if you were in another country.
Your eyes are beautiful 🤩
13:00 For me the problem is not that if you watch violent content you become violent, watching violence makes the spectator more numb to violence if they see it for real. That is extremely dangerous, and terrifying. If the violence become a common thing, then that is not perceived as a bad thing anymore. And IMHO the damage has been already done, there have been already cases where instead of calling for help the onlookers started filming the violence with the phone. Maybe using violence in the media with some kind of teaching could be helpful, but it's really hard to not patronize in this kind of scenario, and a patronizing game/movie is not what a gamer/spectator wants.
There isn't any legitimate proof that video games cause violence.
Hello Ashton,
I really like your videos. They seem well thought out and researched.
I've got a suggestion to a video. Often when discussing with Americans, about "free" education or "free" health care they will to the death (sometimes literal death) defend the american model over the EU model.
I'm not sure of the psychological mindset here, expect they somehow fear "socialism" or maybe it's paying for others, by the tax and not the church. If it's the latter, I would assume it's because they don't get as much exposure, when you just pay it via the tax vs donation to the church, but I'm not sure.
I know we're a fairly homogenous society here in Northern europe, maybe that's one of the reasons.
Maybe it's a too insubstantial subject, but I'd really like to hear about the mindset of those of them calling themselves Christians, but don't mind letting people die on the street, rather than paying more taxes and help all people in your country to have a roof over their heads and food on the table and universal health care.
What I find disturbing in the US is how even the most ridiculous bit of nudity is censored while it seems ok to show most shocking forms of violence.
Nudity is available all the time, just not on broadcast television, in other words over the air. Premium cable has no restrictions. In fact basic cable doesn't either, but are subject to their own standards because they have advertisers.
I agree. Just watch the evening news.
You won't see death or dead bodies on your murican TV news. They always "pan away" when a car chase ends. It's censored to fuck and back.
@@wesleybush8646 so the advertisers are the problem? they threaten to rescind a contract if the statue of David is shown without being blurred? and why would they act that way? all this seems to go back to a very puritan understanding of modesty or how to raise a child. and so the cycle perpertuates itself. don't shield your children from nudity. it's not inherently harmful
It's not only the US that shows violence. Switzerland doesn't have censored video games like Germany. Switzerland gets the exact version of video game that the US does.
There was a woman in the UK during the 60's and 70's called Mary Whitehouse, who used to try and get things banned in the UK, and was very good at getting her way. Well she lived not fwr from the town I grew up in, and the local council got a bit fed up with her. So when ever she tried to ban something they would look at it, and the vast majority of the time used to disagree with her and allow it. There was even a film that got banned in the rest of the country appart from that town, so you had people from all over the country, coming to the town to buy or watch it. We used to get all sorts of films in town, that were banned in other places. I think in the end the council were just doing it to upset her, as she used to hold protest meetings in the town. The locals of the town were of the idea, that if they did not like something they would not watch it, or buy it, but at least we had the choice.
I remember. She didn't even want to set strict minimum age limits or watersheds. She wanted even adults and older teenagers not to be able to see what she didn't want children to see. There is a 9pm watershed for a reason and later in the evening you can broadcast even more than you can in the first hour after 9pm. Before 9pm it is assumed that young school age children could be watching so sit coms use coded laguage and symbolism.
I remember Mary Whitehouse. She lived in the next village to me so I know what town (now city) you are talking about.
I remember that old bitch but I didn't know Ardleigh spited her. Heartwarming.
Hey you, Whitehouse
Ha, ha, charade you are
You house proud town mouse
Ha, ha, charade you are
You're trying to keep our feelings off the street
You're nearly a real treat
All tight lips and cold feet
And do you feel abu5ed?
You got to stem the evil tide
And keep it all on the inside
Mary you're nearly a treat
Mary you're nearly a treat
But you're really a cry
Pink Floyd - Pigs (Three Different Ones) 3rd verse/pig
I remember her.
I generally question the actual morality of anyone trying that hard to enforce their public morality on others (I suspect most are actually hypocrites).
I think she tried to get Life of Brian banned across the UK too.
Between her and the various religious groups campaigning against it, I think it did more than any marketing campaign to make it successful (just from people being curious over what the fuss was about).
I will never forget the look on my husband's face, when he saw a German soap commercial with a woman showering and showing her body. My husband is American, I'm German. His jaw dropped and he turned to look at me and said "This is allowed?" My response was non-plussed at first, since I didn't know, what he was talking about. I had seen these type of commercials most of my life and thought nothing of it. To me, it was just a soap commercial but to him, it was like the forbidden fruit. Mind you, it was in the 70ies, not right now. I was shocked to find out from him, that full nudity was a big no no in the States on tv, way before any cable or streaming services. Where I live now, the level of censorship in schools has gotten out of hand. If one parent complains about a book, it gets taken off the school library shelves. Our public libraries and bookstores now have a special section for banned books, so you can still read them at home, if not in the classroom. ONE parent determines, what other kids can and cannot read. Certain subjects are not to be taught or touched. History lessons are sanitized to the point of vacuous nonsense or minimized to the point of implying, that what happened in the past was actually not so bad or ok. School board meetings have become raucous and contentious. I'm just glad, I no longer have kids in this state's school system and they didn't have to suffer through all of this nonsense that is happening now. It is scary to watch.
I would suggest you start complaining about the Bible. Everything those hypocrite prudes object to can be found in it. And make banning the Bible stick until all other books are unbanned.
Your husband would have had a fit some years ago when there were Lätta ads with a topless woman. 😂
But yes, even only reading about the legislation concerning schools for example in Florida makes me very afraid for that generation.
FA Werbung? Good Memories 😂
He hardly would have had a fit. Luckily for me, he's an easy going and open minded guy. He just wasn't used to seeing this. I'm very lucky in that respect. ☺
@@supernova19805 It's just a saying.
I find the concept if "functional nudity" really appealing. I mean ... I think the fault lies in that nudity is sexualised, not in that nudity is inheriantly sexual. The less you sexualise the normal appearance of the human body, the more relaxed you can go about it. And the more you actually see people, not their bodies.
I am from Austria, and most people adhere to this concept. As a family, we visit saunas, nudist camping grounds, and similar places. We appreciate this simplification because it allows us not to worry about things like wet clothing, which color is currently trending, etc.
An important but often overlooked aspect is that our children are exposed to various body types, which broadens their perception of what is considered normal. It's not the carefully curated, photoshopped images often portrayed on (social) media. Instead, they receive an unfiltered view of what's truly normal (as in sense of majority). I hope this helps them accept themselves, especially during puberty, instead of aspiring to unrealistic body standards.
WOW! Wise words! I could not have said this better. (German guy, here.) Dave Allen from Ireland once pointed it out. And, minding this context, this is not even so funny: "what if?..."
Dave Allen about Adam and Eve.
Pls try to find that one. Why is it not about the nose? Silly. But so very true, in my book.
The naked body isn't sexy - but put a thong on it, and it suddenly is.
You probably know the Finns are the happiest people on Earth; they grow up seing their parent and grandparent naked once a week.
The media can't fill them with bs about what a body SHOULD look like - they KNOW what it looks like - in all it's stages!
Where it especially strikes me is breastfeeding. Especially if you consider that not feeding a hungry baby is basically starving it. If fed, its not hungry, it's not crying, but no we can't have that because some people can't get their minds out of the gutter...
An other thing: When I see at litlle girl in a bikini top, I litterally get nauseaus.
Yes, I do! It is the very top of sexualizing a child.
We didn't wear clothes on the beach until we asked for it - around the age of four or five, I think.
But Ameristani morals are moving in on us!
Peace and love from Denmark.
I live in Switzerland and I encountered more than one naked statue. We actually had one honoring the unknown soldiers right next to the playground near the forest. We kids did laugh about it and sometimes we would dress him up in blankets, but no one found it obscene or thought anything bad about it.
Seems to me that normal and harmless things like that only become obscene when people hyperfocus on the sexual aspect of nudety, otherwise it wouldn't be such a problem.
Same thing with swearwords. Like.. I don't want my kids to cuss too much and I'm telling them that it's a word they shouldn't use just like that, but neither is it worth making a drama out of it. And lets be honest. Some situation justify some solid cussing, it can make one feel better!
I Copenhagen there was recently a bus advert for boob jobs, I think it was. The obvious picture to put on the side of the bus for such a procedure is obviously a woman with a large pair of perfectly formed breasts. It was hilarious!
The thing is, at least to me, nuditdy is not sexual, not even alluring. A half dressed woman in lingerie is sexual, but a completely naked one is just, naked. It's the context that matters. Why is she naked? Is she just sunbathing? Is she taking a shower? Is she in the process of undressing to have sex? In only one of those examples is her nakedness sexual to me.
this is why I think slurs should not see so much stigma.
@@heinoustentacles5719Slurs are different. Using a slur is in and of itself an act of violence against a minority or one of its members.
Using a slur is not an act of violence lmfao, unless you define violence as being offended but for most people violence will be a word associated with something that is inflicted physical and of much more serious consequence as well as done by breaching consent. Using a slur is an act of disregarding manners, but to get to the point where you would perceive a word being thrown at you as violence? Well, that's say more about the socio-economic conditions of your surroundings then it does about anything.
What you describe is far to vague and colored in open ended language that could mean any and everything with the right rhetoric, it's has thus become meaningless fluff(Outside of the fact that you just copied someone's definition because I know what work you referencing, something I think you don't since you most likely just picked it up from random internet people).
Is calling you a troglodyte an attack on a member of a minority of now extinct humans lmfao?
You are talking about racial slurs, which aren't the only type of slurs out there. It also makes me wonder how you see the world, like do you always see the world in groups of people or why are you jumping from someone person talking about not making a drama out of the occasional cussing at home to "VIOLENCE AGAINST A MINORITY"?
How is that the first image you managed to reconstructed in your brain when thinking of such a vague word as "slur", lmfao?.
Calling you stupid isn't an attack on stupid people since no one would willfully think of themselves as stupid or part of a minority which consists of stupidness.
Pig, dickhead, maniac, psychopath, nazi, cunt, failed miscarriage, spoon, incest-child, and whatnot are all attacks on individuals and their individual behavior or creative wordplay on known outcomes of certain actions (such as incest being much more likely to cause birth defects that can negatively impact the life of a child; [In case this wasn't obvious].)
I like you to try to spin this into an applicable definition, what framework will be required to make those words make sense under your prescriptivism?
It's nice that you're trying to be politically active, but that doesn't make being hyperbolic or tunnel-vision acceptable behavior (it might and most likely will hinder progress instead).
Less groupthink, more paying attention to context and more thinking on your own homie.
For example, you could start with getting into the habit of asking yourself "Am I contributing anything worthwhile to this conversation in particular with what I am about to say?" first before suddenly throwing something as wild as what you wrote into the mix.
Good job!
One type of censorship you didn't mention has got to do with the privacy of suspects of crime. Here in the Netherlands, as one of very few countries it seems, names and faces of criminal suspects are always censored. Their faces are blurred and their names get shortened to their first name + first letter of their last name, such as "Jan B.". Only when a supposedly dangerous suspect is on the run their uncensored picture and name will be shown, as soon as they're caught everything will be censored again.
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong here, but I think this might be a EU thing.
Same as for the victims by the way, as long as they themselves don't make it public, and for both groups I deem this extremely important.
@@LunaticDesire it's definitely not a rule in Belgium, even if most media adhere to it to some degree. For instance, if a media figure or politician is in hot water, redactions will decide more often that releasing the name is of societal importance, while private citizens' names are generally censored. So it's an anonymous murder suspect who's been arrested, but it is radio presenter Marc Jannsens(*) who is arrested for CP, while his co-defendants are referred to as A.B. and B.C.
*ficticious name, you can find who it is on a Belgian news site, but it's irrelevant to the story.
That is SUPER fascinating. Very, very different from the US where the full name and mug shot are broadcasted on the evening news... even for not-so-serious crimes like petty theft.
@@TypeAshtonI work in journalism in the Netherlands. As an addendum I would add that this isn't government censorship, but an agreement between journalists. We aren't obliged to by law and individual journalists and newspapers apply the unwritten rules differently.
For example: the names of famous people will not be censored. But when do we consider someone famous enough to be a celebrity?
A boy was murdered a couple of years ago, (allegedly) by a man called Jos B. During a manhunt his full name was released to the public. The national tv-news organisation NOS went back to B. afterwords. Local newspapers still use his name as they consider him 'famous' now.
(And the government has no say in this. Although I suppose a law might be made, if journalists stopped self regulating)
@@gstar1084 I'm fairly sure that in Germany it is a law though. You are anonymous until proven guilty.
The Greek ban had to do with curtailing gambling: it was found that game consoles at arcades were often rigged to transform to slot-machines, and the government admitting inability to control this imposed a carpet-ban. Home gaming (console, PC) was not banned at any point.
And nowadays, we have that issue with loot boxes.
Making a carpet ban on a normal function because you're trying to remove gambling is still serious overreach.
That sound like the thing that wiped out video game arcades in Germany: Playing games for money was seen as the same thing as putting coins in a slot machine, and as minors have to be protected from gambling arcades had to implement an age screening. The appearence of home consoles did the resst.
I mean gambling is something that should be gotten rid off
@@pascalsch14 Gamblers are more or less the same as religious believers, so if you want to get rid of one you have to get rid of the other.
Amazingly! - as a lifelong artist, now in his seventh decade - I remember, when at college, I was actually teased by one or two male peers during life drawing class because I was enthusiastic about the actual drawing of the model, rather than gaping at the nude figure spread on a blanket before me. I was actually there to draw as an attentiveness exercise, not to letch at the model! Thing is, that I'd seen it all before. My dad had one or two European mags that he used to read and I had drawn from them a few nudes. Neue Revue was the magazine. I just thought that was just part of the art scene and I'd been to museums and galleries on school trips and had some art books. My mother was quite prudish. My father, being of Germanic origin, clearly wasn't. What some of these Conservative notionalizers - I won't call them actual thinkers as they are far more believers than anything else - don't seem to grasp - maybe they do, but they are incompetent in their reactions to it - is that something that is hidden/censored is way more empowered simply by that fact. Ask any burlesque performer about the nipple covers and those humourous fun twirly bits! What is hidden are empowered far more and actually enhances their power. To be honest, as a heterosexual man, I can look at a nude and, frankly, see it as an object of analysis. I leave arousal regarding someone who I care for and love. As with much else that is censored, most of it is based on dumbed down and infantile attitudes. Usually politically/religiously based that with a decent education would fade of into the ridiculous and obscure. How can a species be mentally healthy and not practically schizoid when it practices so fervently to be so uncomfortable with the way it's body both looks and functions!? No wonder there are so many crossed signals and mental problems!
Everyone in the EU consider David or Venus as masterpieces of art. Nudity (full monty) is literally an Adam and Eve's costume, natural, not meant to offence anybody.
I once tried to have a discussion with someone who thought porn was dangerous but couldn't really grasp my comparing it to crime novels or movies. Why is only one of those dangerous, and not the other? It makes no sense. But they seemed unable to understand the actual argument.
@@KaiHenningsen Quite. There is a complete surfeit of violence - which reflects the sheer inane stupidity of that side of human nature, yet the side of human nature that actually perpetuates the species is confused and wrought with superstitious inanity. How is it that some cultures can't even allow women to wear their hair openly. It's keratin, for crying out loud, of a form not to different from fingernails! Any emotion put upon it is apart from it's basic function. Hair evolved it's form as a function of insulation, it's only incidental as a sexual attractant. Only people who believe everything and every form was placed for the satisfaction of the human being don't understand that! And what a complete bampot mess that lot make of people's lives too. That goes for their mirror counterparts in the US as well and their shambolic evangelical egos! What a bunch of moronic twerps. So much we could actually get on with and sort out were these catatonic beliefs dropped.
I don't get that "prudency" tropes at all, human body is just that, a body, i grew up in croatia in communits times, yeah even then we had a lot of nude beaches and western tourists, germans, austrian and italians mostly liked them a lot, but people got naked on any wild beach if there wasn't much folks around.
What's even better, on regular beaches, like crowded town beaches for families, tourists and locals, my mom was most of the time topless, we kids thought nothing of it, half tge women, at least the younger ones in their 20s and 30s were topless, kids until school age were always naked, it was just normal, the tragedy of it all is that nowaday you'll see far less topless women on a regular beach than you did in the 80s ir 90s and that's actually sad.
@@dannyboy-vtc5741 I think one needs, historically, to look at the warped attitudes of the Puritans to see, at least in recent history, where a lot of the difficulties stem from. If they were suddenly to find themselves on your beaches they would all be covering each other's eyes, or fixing their eyes downwards to the sand, uttering religious oaths and desperately seeking an escape route.
very difficult to find the right balance between (excessive) censorship and (necessary) protection ...
and also to find (impossible) global standards for global media in our current global world ...
as an example, i once saw ratings for some movie that were very similar in the usa and in germany: the original version was age restricted to ages 16-17 while a censored version was only restricted to ages 12-13 (whatever the ratings for those ages are named in the respective rating systems). but the reason for censorship was quite different, just as the cuts that were done for the less restricted version: in germany a total of 10 seconds of violence had to be cut from 2 or 3 scenes while in the usa a total of 10 seconds of naked people had to be cut in some different scenes.
Very good point. I also think that it is important to think about censorship as a continuum. Looking back on movies just from the 90s, there seemed to be a lot more steamy sex scenes in movies that weren't overtly about sex - and it doesn't feel like that happens as much today. Its more "eluded" to than direct, unless that is the central theme of the movie (such as with 50 Shades of Grey, for example).
There is no such thing as a standard for global media. There is no world government. And what is necessary protection? Who decides this? You mean like a Serbian Film? The public should be protected from that? Yes and local laws dictate these things.
I absolutely adore this video! I was always fascinated with the different kinds of censorship in different cultures (namely US/Western European/Latin American - all very different).
What drives me nuts is, that in Europe we're getting more and more "americanized" in what gets censored (e.g. bleeping words, blurring images) but don't get the freedom parts (e.g. video games, graphic novels for adults, possibility to comment on copyrighted material).
We should stand up against this, and promote our european way against the americans...
I think it’s most useful to think about the different meaning of freedom of speech and freedom of opinion. The latter is the fundamental right in Germany. A lie about reality is not protected, as it is not an opinion.
This is also for me a big difference between USA and EU.
EU restricts more public expressions (laws against racism, hatespeech, inciting violence, false accusations, disrespecting officials/police, there are only highly regulated opportunities to protest with required permission, ...), that some foreigners might be surprised by as they assume 'the west' = 'america' and I can shout whatever I like.
Whereas in the USA there is more social backlash on the private person being different/unamerican/morally objectionable/socialist/atheist and thus less freedom of opinion/thought.
@@TheBayru No. In the US, you can't shout whatever you like and in Germany and most of Europe you can. Only some sorts of censorship and public things are regulated, because the public law is governmentally or politically controlled. In the US, on contrast, every citizen has the same rights.
@@TheBayrudemonstrations in Germany are not highly regulated for political reasons, but for safety reasons.
When you want to have a demonstration somewhere, you need to write an application to the city, they will talk about it with police and fire department and decide, if the place/route is safe/can be secured, because there have been quite a few clashes between demonstrators and people, who oppose the theme of the demonstration.
If you think that’s „highly regulated“ okay. But I think public safety is more important than the „discomfort“ of writing an application for a demonstration and maybe having to change the place/route.
@@jennyh4025 And it has to be noted: Demonstrations don't need a permission. Large scale demonstrations just need to inform the city, so that they can re-direct traffic, block streets, etc.
@@SennaHawx thanks, that‘s what I wanted to say! You don’t need permission to demonstrate. But for bigger demonstrations a „safety assessment“ has to be made and agreed upon with everyone involved in the planning (city officials, police, etc). Safety concerns are the only reason I know of, why demonstrations have ever been not allowed. And even then they have just been delayed (too little safety staff because of other things) or routed another way.
A lot comes down to the difference between freedom of speech (as in the US) and freedom of expression (as in much of Europe). In Europe, some speech may be banned where it would not be in the US, but this is where there would be ground to believe it could cause harm (such as overt racism, incitement to violence etc). However showing the human body, and realistically representing normal behaviour with swearing and sex, is more normalised in Europe, in films, TV, books and theatre. In some cases there are caveats (British TV has a 9pm 'watershed' before which there are more restrictions) but a lot of what is normal would be illegal or otherwise banned in the US (there are lots of 'culture shock' UA-cam videos where US tourists are amazed by the British nude dating show "naked attraction").
Everyone in the EU consider David or Venus as masterpieces of art. Nudity (full monty) is literally an Adam and Eve's costume, natural not meant to offence anybody.
UA-cam has it's own rules, opinion on [values] in terms of protecting minors, e.g. No swear words. Always dancing around what and how to express itself without fear of de monedazation. So Ashton utters "s#¡t" and mothers spelling words for kids not to pickup foul language. And why kids know them all anyways. But in a trash movie like coceine bear gore depiction of violence is accepted and ridiculed.
The problem with that is that political discourse is stifled by bans on speech. What is 'overt racism' to a liberal, is in reality often nothing more than healthy ethnocentric instincts which are required for a society to survive instead of being taken over by invaders just like the Roman Empire was by the Huns. Europe has degraded to the point where the European Human Rights Court upheld a fine for an Austrian woman who referred to Mohammed, the prophet of islam, as a child rapist.
If I want to say that Mohammed nonced a 9-year old, I should be allowed to. The real problem isn't that people make these statements, the problem is that Mohammed nonced a 9-year old and is still regarded as a holy man by 1.6 billion people despite being a vile scumbag. Censoring 'overt racism' has led to this Kafkaesque situation where telling the factual truth is an offence yet venerating a child rapist is protected by freedom of religion. Bizarre isn't it?
@@classicallpvault8251 I do not agree at all. If you say something likely to cause mental (bullying) or physical (incitement of violence) harm, that is not free speech, that is being at best an arsehole, at worst a bully. By that, insulting a deity should carry less weighting that saying the same to a real person.
@@charlesunderwood6334 you realize, that your threshold for what is 'bullying' may be totally different than other person, so it is a pipe dream to regulate speech by subjective opinions.
@@classicallpvault8251 Everyone was a nonce 1400 years ago... You are making the mistake of putting modern sensibilities on a 7th century person, if you are capable of such an elementary mistake as that then what else do you get wrong? 🙄 The vast majority of your ancestors were nonces to use your childish vernacular. So were mine. Now if you are as predictable as people like you often are you will now accuse me of condoning child rape. *sigh*
The "Grapes of Wrath" was banned from school libraries in Northern California until the 80's. It seems the locals weren't happy with a book about their families' sins even if it was one of the most profound literary work written in US
Books about curing gays/ gay conversion therapy are still banned in school libraries
The censorship continues I guess
Very few people like a look in the mirror like that.
The approaches to the different types of censorship have evolved over time, too. It was common that German versions of video games had the violence turned down - often as acts of self censorship by the developers who wanted to target certain age ratings. The main issue was that even games rated 18 weren't immune to that, because they could be placed on the index, preventing them from being advertised (like you said in the video). That has become very rare during the last 10 years though. If a game is rated 18, almost anything goes nowadays.
We've also seen more mass market games during the last decade (that target an age rating of 18+) to feature nudity. It's usually games by European studios though - two recent examples: Cyberpunk 2077 by CD Projekt Red and Baldur's Gate 3 by Larian Studios. Both of these games were not censored in the US, and were very successful, so there isn't really anything that *prevents* US studios from doing the same. I guess they just don't because of cultural reasons.
Heh... yep, saying "there was no censorship" would be inaccurate, but you are right, in a lot of cases it was done by the makers of games to have a version the BPJS (Bundes Prüfstelle für Jugendgefährdende Schriften / Federal Inspection Institution for child-endangering writings, now BPJM, the M for Medien /Media) would not put on the "no advertising for you" index.
That gave us curious things like games with green blood and removed bloodsplashes or Half Life 1, where all the scientists and enemies were replaced by robot versions that would just sit down peacefully when you "disabled" them by shooting them
Games with an age rating of 18 can’t be put on the "Index" anymore. This is the reason why "everything goes" nowadays
I remember what a big deal it was in the us when they found out GTA San Andreas contained sexual contend :D I just thought, this game is rated 18+, so who cares, at 18 you can get real hardcore porn, so when the game is rated 18+ allready, it can also contain sexual stuff too, no problem at all.
I also heared about the idea to create another age step, like 21, and rate all the uncencored foreign versions of games 21+ to get rid of cencorship and lame versions of the games here.
@@denzzlinga In the US hard core porn is X-rated, not 18-rated, movies and games go out of their way to avoid an X or an R because those two ratings could kill your sales. GTA:SA removed the sex scene to avoid an X-rating.
@@krashd but in germany, and europe in general, its the same rating, 18+. And the game got the 18+ rating for violence allready, so they could have included the sex scenes in the eu-version without issues because it wouldn´t have changed anything, 18+ is 18+, no matter for what reason. So if you´ve got the 18+ rating once, you can say that "everything goes", because it doesen´t get more restricted than 18+ (for normal games, if you overdo it completely it might get banned).
My first thought when you mentioned Michelangelo was not David, but the Last Judgement on the wall of the Sistine Chapel (which popped up briefly as a picture). There was a time when clothing had been painted over the frescoes because people were so disturbed about the nudity (in a church of all places!). The make-over has long since been removed.
I once saw a documentary on American TV that I had previously seen in Germany on the evolution of humans. One scene showed two very, very distant ancestors (more ape-like than human-like) copulating. They were tiny, tiny figures on the screen, seen from a distance, and nothing even resembling details could be seen, but it was obvious what they were doing. On American TV, a blurry circle had been superimposed over the lower regions of the bodies.
Europeans are often baffled at Americans who seemingly have no problem showing violence of all kinds on television, yet go absolutely crazy if there is even the slightest bit of (semi-)nudity or any hint of sex.
I'm not American, but whenever I watch American stuff where some swear words are bleeped out it feels so arbitrary. Certain things are bleeped, other things aren't. I've seen things where "shit" was bleeped but "bitch" wasn't. I don't get it. Is there an official list of what's acceptable and what isn't?
@@DanDanDoeWell see, misogyny isn't real profanity because women aren't real people... (this is sarcasm BTW)
I would love to see an average americans reaction to the Norwegian TV series called Trekant (threesome), which was an educational series about sex aimed towards the teens. This series was aired around 2013 or so. But as a teenager myself in the 80s we had a serie called Kroppen vår (Our body) which was an health and sex education serie aimed for kids of 7 years and up. It did show nudity of both genders in prime time TV.
In Germany the teenager magazin Bravo had a section about questions on sexuality often with two pictures of a naked boy and a naked girl of all sizes to show "normal bodies". I wouldn't wonder if such a magazin would only be sold in adult stores in the USA.
We had the same in Denmark. The danish national radio and television had a series directed towards kids from the age of ten called “Body Bio” - I believe it can be found on UA-cam - where the main subject was the human body, sex and the choise you may have towards sex. There was nudity and even gay sex explaining about the pros and cons of that.
No big deal.
Americans would lose their minds. Depending heavily on how much they are stuck on religion or not.
Sweden had a similar program ”Fråga Olle”, although it was geared for adults/general public. It openly discussed and explained not only sex but also a wide variety of kinks and fetishes.
My university dorm used to watch it every week when it had re-runs 😂 it generated interesting discussions as many of them came from all around the world.
@@Why-D I think it would probably be seen as child pornography. Since they're underage and naked.
I think one problem I see with the way many Americans but also people elsewhere look at their rights is that they'd like them to be absolute. Which they simply can't be. One person's right to free speech can't be upheld if they use it to attack and slander others. Society as a whole doesn't work without compromises and it stops working if some try to bulldoze other people's rights in favour of their own.
"One person's right to free speech can't be upheld if they use it to attack and slander others"
Of course it can. Slander (and libel) are limited, specifically actionable offenses against particular persons. They must involved actual lies, not mere insults. And this never justifies censorship beforehand -- only an order to provide compensation afterward for damages caused. That's the US constitutional view -- there is no compromise or balancing when it comes to being able to express oneself freely. There's no way I can 'bulldoze' your rights to speak by any speech of my own. It is somewhat sad how some countries in Europe have strayed from the legacy of Voltaire.
@@markweaver1012... and yet, even in your description, "free speech" is not a defense against accusations of slander (using actual lies, as you say). The OP didn't even mention censorship (beforehand or otherwise). Certainly, different countries draw those lines at different places, *but they all draw a line somewhere.* _None_ of those rights are absolute.
Of course, some places recognize rights others don't. For example, Germany recognizes a right to human dignity (the first of all recognized rights) - the US, as far as I can tell, doesn't. That right is actually what we base our slander and libel laws on.
Here's a small extract from the blog of the German Constitutional Court (yes, they do have a blog) about a court case involving an US citizen:
[...]
_2. The holding of the Court, as far as the constitutional right to human dignity itself is concerned, is straightforward enough: A citizen of the United States of America was sentenced to 30 years of imprisonment in Italy - in absence and without notice or representation by a lawyer. The German Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht) allows his extradition from Germany to Italy, relying on a European arrest warrant and considering it to be sufficient that a new evidentiary hearing for him in Italy is “at least not impossible” („jedenfalls nicht ausgeschlossen“)._
_His constitutional complaint is successful: The Constitutional Court finds a violation of his right to human dignity (Art. 1 sec. 1 Basic Law) and refers the case back to the Regional Court. The right to dignity protects the principle of individual guilt, which mandates “minimum guarantees of the rights of the accused in criminal trials” (cf. §§ 52, 56, 59, 76, 83 f., 107)._
_To be criminally sanctioned, your guilt must be established in a judicial process with at least a minimum standard of fairness. If you are sentenced to 30 years in jail without a meaningful chance for your day in court this falls short of the minimum standard._
_As the long standing case law of the Court also makes clear, this must have consequences for extraditions, too (cf. § 60). German courts have an independent responsibility to ensure (“Gewährleistungsverantwortung”, cf. § 59), that those minimum guarantees will not be violated._
_To extradite somebody who was sentenced in absentia like this, you have to make sure enough that he will get a new evidentiary hearing. It is not enough to content yourself with the prospect that such a hearing is “at least not impossible”. The right to dignity demands more._
[...]
@@markweaver1012 I don't consider it censorship, if certain types of speech (e.g. hate speech, denying the holocaust and similar things) are prohibited, since those are pretty clearly cases where someone's dignity has to be protected against the right to say whatever garbage someone feels has to be aired. The plus to this is that it allows third parties to take actions and it's not necessarily the attacked who has to defend their rights.
@@markweaver1012 You're either very naive or dishonest. There's most certainly ways you can infringe on other's right to speak by speech of your own - American politicians do so every day. Making you afraid of actually using your right is still infringing on it. Riling others up to take hostile action against you because of your opinions is infringing on it. Both can be done entirely through speech.
@@Llortnerof alluding to Jan 6 are we? indeed speech like this would have garnered the pussygrabber two very short trips. one to the station in cuffs and one to court. and from there to jail. cos judging by his past actions one cannot be sure he would not do it again and therefore a fine is out of the question. same with other media. if Tucker or any newsmax cronie had done their stick over here they'd be behind bars till St. Patrick's Day.
btw: netter name, den du dir gegeben hast ;)
A couple of thoughts.
The US idea of censorship seemsto be best summarized by saying "Make war, not love" - violence is fine, but one nipple is exposed on a live show, and the entire nation freaks out. I could understand that from 13 year olds, but...
And I couldn't care less if Google and advertisers weren't pushing US ideas worldwide.
European censorship... I gave up on Brussels caring about freedom of speech or opinion when they made Ursula von der Leyen president of the Commission. You do not make someone known as Zensursula (Zensur = censorship) for pushing through internet censorship with good old "think of the children" BS your president if you care about any of that.
And it hasn't gotten better since then, just the "hard to disagree with" excuses got broader.
Back in 2009 von der Leyen as Minister for Families personally ordered an entire Rammstein-Album banned in Germany because she thought one particular song was too graphic in its description of (consentual) BDSM. Turns out, the song (ich tu dir weh - "I hurt you") was actually about deriving sexual pleasure out of self-harm and banning the entire Album for what was essentially one single line within one single song was entirely overblown - not even speaking about her exceeding her competencies as a minister by ordering an independent commission to ban it.
Conclusion: The Album was unbanned about half a year later and the Ministry had to reimburse the band for damages.
Has it? Do you have any resent things she have personally pushed for and passed? And not things pushed by parliament and the council who actually make the agenda for the commission to work towards?
I am a scholar in the Netherlands in ancient and medieval history. As far as I know for centuries after the collapse of the Roman empire the censorship on nudity and sex was forced upon all kinds of arts by the catholic church. Later also the protestants were upposed to it as well. And for recent history it always surprises me that most authoritarian states also have a problem with sex and nudity. My opinion is that if you let people have pleasure and liberated lifestyle, many of them are less focused on follow the rules of the state
It was relaxed first in France in the late nineteenth century and then in Germany during the Weimar Republic but the Nazis tightened up laws again in the 30s followed by the USSR in post war Eastern Germany. Scandinavia was the most relaxed about it in the post war period.
Any die-hard religion or doctrine messes up society . The rise of dictatorships and extreme forms of any religion , either christians , muslims, jews and others(?) in their extreme forms is quite troublesome .
Opposed*
Then you got the Renaissance centred around Italy, which was about an attempted return to the pre-Christian classical period centred around Rome and Greece. This led to the reformation of the church by Martin Luther in Germany and the Enlightenment in England. Then followed the overthrow of the monarchy in France and England though there was a return to the monarchy in England as Cromwell was even worse.
I do think that my country, The Netherlands, is very free in speech and expression. Nothing is bleeped or blurred (only for privacy protection) and no live event is played a few seconds later to have time to correct. The Scandinavian countries are the same as far as I’m aware and Germany is a bit more conservative and thereby not allowing everything. But of course there are rules and laws in my country, like in every country, but they are used after the fact, not before, like in the US. I don’t think we even have a censor organization, we do have an organization that gives (parental) advice/guidelines for movies and tv series, like ‘age 14 and older’, this film contains ‘foul mouthing’, or ‘sexual explicit content’. So people know and parents know upfront what kind of movie or tv series they let their kids look at.
We're getting the crazies here now too, it's come over from the USA, spurred on by the likes of Thierry Baudet. Think of the Lentekriebels outrage last year.
as far as i know the only real censorship here is racism and hate crimes when it comes to free speech
Basicly- US: Boobs not Ok, Blood ok ....Europe: Guns not ok. Boobs ok!
Very good and timely topic, well researched and presented. Thought provoking too!
As to protecting children, I remember well how my mother said to her friends: "They won't permit our children to watch natural nudity, nor learn about classical art or read certain literature, yet as they walk down the street to school, the walls and billboards are covered with the lewdest pornographic graffiti!"
I also remember how I tried to "protect" our daughter from listening to the rude versions of popular music when I heard her singing certain lyrics with "foul language" and I didn't want her to get used to using such phrases in normal conversation as if it were 'normal' or polite speech.
When she spent an exchange year in the US midwest, she was confronted with a lot of censorship that to her (and at times to us) was not logical.
BTW, I had to go find this week's video because although I am subscribed, it did not pop-up as it usually would have.
“The road to hell is paved with good intentions” is an old proverb that is a good way to describe censorship!
As someone living in Canada, we have some interesting views as well. I live in Saskatchewan, which has a fairly strong religious (no particular denomination) background and some of our rules regarding censorship are quite unique. For example, you are not allowed to serve alcohol in the same area where nudity or partial nudity is occurring - so any 'strip clubs' either A) don't serve alcohol (or if they do it is the "non-alcoholic" kind, or B) serve alcohol in a separate building that although being attached, is considered a different area ... which means you have to go to building A to get your booze (and drink it there) then walk over to building B to watch the strippers.
Which has lead to 2 rather unique occurrences.
1) back in the early 90's there was a community event going on near the river bank which included bands, demonstrations, and various other community groups showing their skills/services. Near one particular venue was a beer garden, now about 50m-75m away from this beer garden was a stage set up for some of these demonstrations and one of the groups that performed was a group of aerobics instructors. These instructors were wearing appropriate garments (for those who are too young to remember the aerobics phase, google "Lets get physical - Olivia Newton John video) and it turns out that they were 'arrested' (not sure if they were formally charged) for "Performing lewd acts in a state of undress too close to where alcohol was being served". 90% certain it was a 70+ year old woman who lodged that complaint.
2) While it is illegal to have strippers perform where alcohol is being served, it however is perfectly legal to have Chippendales (again those too young think 'Magic Mike') come in and perform in any nightclub (that serves alcohol). So, it is illegal for women strippers to perform where alcohol is being served (despite the fact that there are massively huge bouncers everywhere to make sure that no patron gets within 5 feet of the women), but it is perfectly fine to have male strippers perform where alcohol is being served. AND I have been told from a friend who has been to both a female strip club and a Chippendales club, that the women are 100x more rowdy that any male.
Standing up for free speech is never easy. Here in Sweden because we don’t have the blasphemy law that Finland has we haven’t been allowed to join NATO because Turkey only allowed Finland in. Some people have been burning religious books and much of the Middle East have been boycotting Swedish things because we don’t stop it. But we can’t stop it because it’s protected by law. Even though it has had consequences for national security.
Yeah, as much as I'd want us to get rid of the blasphemy law, it isn't a very high priority. Between 1990 and 2018 it was used only about 20 times, and many of those were against Jews or Muslims by far-right people. Or one example being someone on the internet telling people to burn down churches and r*** nuns. Like, yeah, we probably should get rid of the law at some point but... its definitely not a priority. There are bigger issues to solve when it comes to freedoms in this country, although some of them were solved by the last govt. Now just hoping the current govt doesn't fuck up things too badly.
And we should not ban such acts, even if I personally find it not so great in the context of national security.
And I generally do not like book burning.
The law in finland is not meant to ban blasphemy but to protect freedom of religion. I can mock any god in public without police interfering, I just cannot do it among people practicing their faith. As the law covers all gods, police would have hard time arresting people who bad mouth Zeus.
You should check the news more often, Turkey dropped its veto some time ago.
As a German historian I am against burning books, doesn' t make anything better, shows a simple mind.
I dont know how long I am following your channel now, but I have to say it is awesome to see, how much effort and work you put into these videos. I just wanted to say thank you for all that work and all the things I learned here.
I came at a time where I wondered and was curious why america is so drasticly different than europe/germany and why the americans I met didnt seem to think critical really about their own country even thogh it has obvious flaws in my opinion. I also thought that our way of handling things was "obviously" superior. Even thogh I dont think we handle them all well and need to improve a lot actually. Now I actually dont care who is better, I am looking again for what can be learned from or shared with each other. And part of that change of thoughts is thanks to you and your videos.
What I love most is that you are not going for the usual this is good/bad or better/worse. You gather facts, historical, social etc. present them and let people make up their own mind. I learned a lot about the american culture and how it developed as well as a huge amount about how your social systems work (purpusfully left out "security" here). Thank you!
9:04 This was so sad, a teacher fired for doing her job.
The difference in conceptions of what ought to be censored versus what falls under a constitutional right is fascinating. In general, I think the overall mentality toward nudity, the body, and the line between personal freedoms and social wellbeing is substantially healthier (not to mention more sensible) in Germany. Although, to be fair, the puritan link between nudity and morality did originate from Germany :)
I still don't understand why Instagram is censoring/banning the female nipple? Or why "nipplegate" in 2004 was such a big thing?
And why the rest of the world has to follow those rules even so only a few countries ( including the USA) have a problem with this body part.
instagram censors quite a bit when it comes to it potentially offending someone. i have literally been flagged for explaining how humans are animals, wich is factually true.
I remember clearly as a Canadian driving down from skiing at Feldburg into Freiburg to a full side of the building with an advertisement of a woman in just ski boots in 1988. We too took a while to follow locals nudity in baths in Baden Baden. FKK camping was also very popular. After a few years we just regarded it as normal. On the other hand, as an English only speaker, leading up to the Gulf war, I had NO idea there was any tension in that area. Today, one wouldn’t understand the lack of media coverage back then. Today it is very much the opposite. I find I can not rely on factual well rounded information. We have people like you that can help us.
Thank you for the topics you choose and the research that goes into it.
In Denmark, we have an actual childrens cartoon called "John Dillermand", with the last name being slang for penis, and it's basicly about a man with the worlds longest... dillermand... which constantly gets him in trouble.
It is 100% a cartoon for kids, and a TV station made for young kids picked it up and aired it, alongside all the other cartoons you would see on a normal Saturday morning...
But after a storm of parents complained about it, both the people behind it and the TV station that aired it, responded that the show in no way used his, well, penis related exploits in a sexual way, and only in a comedic and entertaining way, as you never outright see it, as it's always covered by his VERY stretchy clothes, and if you have a personel problem with your kids watching the show, you can do what any parent would, and just not let your kids watch it.
And so far, the show is viewed as not much more than a curiosity on danish TV, as it offends parents, while kids think it's hilarious, and both the government, creators and the TV station, along with a lot of experts, agree that it's no more harmful to kids than anything else a kid would watch on their phone or PC on any given day with a quick Google search, and by having a show aired in a controlled and "official" way like this, could even help spark more open discussions between parents and kids about similar topics.
Maybe it‘s just a wording issue, but it‘s important to emphasize, that there is absolutely no censorship in Germany. Article 5 of our constitution (Grungesetz) not only says, that there is no censorship and that people are free to express themselves in any possible way, this article is even one of the 20 articles, that fall under the eternity clause.
An important element of censorship is the preceding examination of e.g. Publications, that would either lead to approval or ban of it. This is not happening!
If something is banned in Germany this is usually related to other laws. You mentioned the GDPR laws for example: US publications are not banned, the publishing organizations are just not able or willing to follow the legal guidelines of European privacy laws (which is, I grant, not an easy task and therefore perhaps not relevant for the publishers, considering the too small audience in Europe). If they would run servers in the EU or could ensure to meet the EU privacy standards, publication would be completely ok.
In many cases blocking of contents from other areas is just a licensing issue: the platforms do Not have streaming or broadcasting licenses for specific regions (or don’t want to violate copyright laws accidentally).
For hate speech your work can be forbidden and you can be sued, but only after it happened. And even then works of art or satire are especially protected (ref. the case of Jan Böhmerman insulting the turkish President Erdogan).
Or it is related to youth protection laws: even then it cannot be banned, the publisher has to ensure, that kids don‘t have (easy) access to it, by age verification Checks or broadcasting times or the FSK ratings (parental advisory).
I am quite sure that you are aware of this, Ashton, as I really appreciate your systematic, deep diving approach. But in times, when a growing number even of Germans believe in a big conspiracy of media and politics, it is important to be clear about the terms censorship or banning of contents….
Keep up with your good work!
Böhmermann did not insult Erdogan.
The public prosecutor's office did not even start a trial because they did not found any hint of evidence that Böhmermann did insult Erdogan.
The Böhmermann case is very interesting, since it is a good example, where the difference between freedom of opinion and insult is.
Nudity! 😂 We had a few interesting situations while living in different countries. Our US and UK friends could not believe that we would let our kids run around naked in the summer in our private garden and pool and they all explained it with: "Ah ok, you're German!" That was their explanation. So this means we have a reputation of nudity, correct? 😅
Well, you did popularize Naktkultur which gave rise to nudist parks and resorts and later beaches.
My son actually played in the kiddies pool fully naked once (long, long time ago), and then unbeknownst to us jumped on his bike to cycle to a toy shop and look for toy trains there. When he entered the shop the shopkeeper looked at him with a twinkling eye and said "Ah, nice to see you, lad, but I suggest you put some pants on next time you come here". Where we live? Germany, of course. 😁
Yea, yall are weird
@@tonyyoung3985 honestly I wasn't aware that was a German thing until I met Americans 😂
@@sabine563 Thanks for having a good sense of humor about it because it's a way more serious discussion in my film. So serious in fact that my actress refused to shoot the scene discussing the early days of naturism because of a discussion about eugenics -- which is also very American in a way.
There was far more nudity in the 80s and 90s than there is today. I remember watching my favorite cartoons on Sunday mornings and during the commercial breaks there were tons of naked people advertising shower gel, deodorant and the like. No one would have thought that this was anything bad. You would have been more likely to be laughed at if you had complained about something like that. Even on the European islands on summer vacation,
It was difficult to find a woman who didn't go around topless. Later I realized that this is something to be proud of, because this freedom doesn't exist everywhere.
We changed to suit American tourists, sadly. Unlike other tourists when American tourists see something they don't approve of they have a tendency to complain and try to get it changed for when they come back.
Am watching old nordic comedy show from 80s and one sketch series had running joke of elder person reading adult magazine. It not only had name of the paper but also naked female on the cover unedited (she isn't covering herself either). And this used to run prime time both on original runs and also during various reruns in 90s and maybe early 2000s. I am pretty sure nowadays these parts would either be edited out (the sketch cut out completely), censored the paper cover or show would air at a later time.
Haha, that's really sweet that Americans even notice something like that. Comedians were actually naked all the time. There isn't an episode of the German comedy show "Klimbim" without nudity. If there was one thing you knew, it was what the comedians looked like naked. Haha.
If you are interested in classic European comedy, I recommend the German show "SketchUp" or "Loriot".@@samamies88
I watch most videos at 1.5 - 2x speed but yours I have to slow down to normal because they're so data and information dense. I love it.
Thank you!
I was shocked yesterday when I watched a YT video about country names in Europe and saw and heard them talking about a country they called Monten. It took me a while to understand they were talking about Montenegro. tsk tsk
I really like the approach "the best way to combat wrong information is to present correct information". Thus I like the community notes in X (former Twitter).
Now imagine, you are a minority and some people are telling lies about you to harm you and to bring up the majority of people against you. Since you are a minority, your ability to inform is limited, which means you read the lies 1000 times while your information show up only twice.
We in Germany once experienced, where it did end: Auschwitz.
So you have to stop the liers at some point. And this isn't a proplem at all, since the room for debate is still enormous huge. You only kicked out those, who abuse others and destroy freedom of speech by turning it into the opposite: taking other peoples freedom.
Thanks for another excellent, well researched, video! To answer your question, I believe that the individual user should be able to chose what they want to see, maybe the platforms could classify the uncensored content into categories like 'fake news', 'nudity', 'violence', 'hate speech', etc, then let the user know that the post has which categories present, then allow the user the option to see it if they want. As a European resident, I would prefer if there was absolutely no censoring of content, but maybe require the platforms to warn the users if there is objectionable material present (something like that). The platforms should be required to explain their censoring rules, which are used to prioritize their search results.
In the UK a senior court ruled that: nobody has a right in law to not be offended. In other words you can't litigate against sombody or something just because you are offended by what they say/do, presuming that what they did/said doesn't breach any of our anti discrimiation laws etc.
15:36 You seem to have missed the big controversy over Wolfenstein 3D happened years earlier, which prompted Germany to crack down on video games with Nazi imagery of any kind. That was a bigger deal in Europe than Carmageddon, and had more widespread and longer-lasting effects. It was only a few years ago that Germany reversed course to allow games to show Nazi imagery if certain requirements are met.
Blood Gore and Violence are okay in the so called land of the free it's not but nudity oh no that's forbidden how ridiculous.
Hey America there's nothing wrong with nudity Blood Gore and Violence is wrong period.
Once again a great video Dr Ashton keep up the great work👍
And greetings from the Netherlands🇳🇱
In the age of the Internet and streaming services, bans on nudity on broadcast TV and the radio are kind of irrelevant anachronisms. Broadcast TV and radio form a MUCH smaller fraction of the media that people consume compared to past generations. And obviously there's no shortage of nudity on the US Internet (or on HBO for that matter).
Nudity is bad,guns are good
@@rogertaylor6386 No, and no. It *always depends on the context.* 🤔
Both can be inappropriate, but I’ve never heard of a person shooting people with their penis or vulva! 😅
@@UprightBassist I can see the news cast now. "An unarmed student broke into the clock tower and exposed them self to the uncaring crowd below who continued to class. Sadly no injuries to report and this news caster will be looking for a new job tomorrow."
I laugh that my home state, some years ago, declared pornography a "public health crisis", ignoring the horrible air quality that could get so bad, you could maybe see a hundred meters. You could taste it.
When visiting my sister in law in California, what really got me was movies shown even in the evening censored the female breast, but the movie Predator was shown uncut on a saturday afternoon.
After my first comment got hidden for containing links, here a second one without links:
While most video games in Germany aren’t banned, there is still the possibility of a ban, citing §86a StGB or §131 StGB. These games are not only illegal to sell to minors , but illegal to distribute in general. Prominent examples are games like "Hatred" or "Mortyr: 2093 - 1944".
While these bans are rare even games on the "Index" can be confiscated if the mail gets opened by border control (which is quite rare tbf).
After living in Germany for 60 years in the meanwhile, I observed that the attitude to functional nudity has changed completely. In the 80ies and in the first half of the 90ies of the last century, nobody cared about that subject. Swimming clothes were mandatory only in municipal pools, i. e. institutions that were maintained by the government. At the banks of the rivers or lakes or at sea shore, nobody cared about wearing a swimming suit or cared about if other people wear. Meanwhile the younger people are very much concerned if others would see their naked bodies. No idea, where this comes from.
Done it again Ashton. Sunday morning and I'm thinking of impossible to solve problems.
For me, I'm happy to let the government deal with this, as I will always have more trust in the government than I have in companies. At least in many European countries the government is not fully controlled by companies yet, and there is at least some control from representatives of the citizens. Private companies are often only controlled by eccentric people with too much money and too little understanding or respect for the "normal" person, at least the ones with the most influence.
Yeah, it has always surprised me that Americans (mainly right-wing Americans) put more faith in companies than they do in government when the sole role of government is to look after people while the sole role of a company is to make profit.. often at the expense of people.
Interesting that you 'self-censored' your images of David by not showing his, rather modest, meat and two veg. Presumably to avoid UA-cam censorship.
In terms of social media I think if people were obliged to post as themselves and not hide behind anonymity, their comments would be a great deal more considered. I wouldn't post anything I wouldn't say to your face, so I am perfectly happy not to use a pseudonym.
Forcing real names on the Internet would be the biggest act of censorship in all of human history.
Why?@@Tokru86
@@Tokru86You're confusing censorship with privacy. Forcing real names on internet would be the biggest anti-privacy act ever.
@@rafarequeni822 I don't think you have a right to privacy if you are going to use it abuse others, sexually groom, scam, lie, cheat and generate and perpetuate false information. And that, frankly, is the internet from top tp bottom. Not that you would ever do that, of course.
@@IanHaywardCalvadosI think you wanted to reply to @Tokru86. I was just clarifying the difference between free of speech and right to privacy. You can have free of speech while not being anonymous, and suffer censorship while being anonymous. They're two completely separated things.
I live in Nevada. We have many, many brothels which advertise in newspapers and on billboards, casinos (which will hire prostitutes for customers), guns carried on education campuses, numerous stores selling legal recreational marijuana, no minimum legal age for marriage, ‘Fifty Shades of Grey’ is shown mid-afternoon on tv. However, the statue of David is considered inappropriate, words like ‘bl..dy’ are bleeped out on tv, you can be arrested for taking a drink of alcohol in the street, etc. 49.3% of births are to unmarried mothers, sex-trafficking is a serious problem, 19.1 deaths per 100k are firearms related.
But, legally, I can’t offer a 20 year old a glass of wine in my own home.
As a permanent resident here from the UK, I am confused, slightly amused and totally bemused.
Wrong priorities which you have illustrated in your, once again, excellent video.
When a subject is censored people always imagine something worse. 😅
I dont often comment on youtube, but this was a really interesting video. I just resently found your channel, really enjoy your informative content!
Again great research-work and an excellent video. IMO the right free speech ends when you hurt the rights of others. In Germany we don't have the "freedom of speech" but the "freedom of opinion" (Meinungsfreiheit), what makes a slight but important difference. I guess the main driver behind US-censorship is the puritanism and prudism of a loud and influential part of the society, mostly with a lot of economic power and influence on the administration. At least they sugarcoat this as "protection of the juveniles"
You realize that this difference between 'freedom of speech' and 'freedom of opinion' is a weak point, that creates a vulnerability for Germany to be overtaken by some tyrant in the future ?
@@wikingagresorjust like the USA? Because once you have enough people believing your (legally allowed) BS, you can overtake the USA by winning enough elections to install a tyranny… you already had one anti-democratic (read wannabe dictator with his own reality) as a president in recent years…
@@wikingagresor Except it's the complete opposite. The US is the country in danger of tyranny because you can say any misinformation you like on TV and you can say it to tens of millions of people - that is how you get a tyrant in to power. The EU's take on freedom of speech keeps misinformation, conspiracy theories and Qanon-esque stupidity at bay while in the US you can go on live TV and tell 340 million people complete lies to try and swing their vote in your direction. Hell, you only have to look at 2016 when the US literally did elect a tyrant who would ask supporters at his rallies if he should try to abolish term limits so he could be the president forever.
You tried at least. I have no idea what your thinking was, but you tried.
Lol it's rèpressive tolerance principle. Politically incorrect things only offend people's feelings.
@@wikingagresor Look at Trump and the republican party *today,* and you see that freedom of speech doesn't protect you either.
over here in france the concept of "blasphemy" doesn't actually exist in law.
Thank you for your positive energy while covering these complex issues.
While it is true that today the banning (or changing) of video games is not happening that often anymore, this was something really different in the past. This started to change in the early 2000. There we had an event at a school in Erfurt which I would consider as our Columbine (at least if I look at the media attention this event got). This lead to many changes in the law. I remember that two of these changes were about video games.
First the age rating on the games were now a sale restriction. If a shop sells a game to someone younger than the rating, the shop can get a really high fine (I believe is was a multiple of 10k for every sold game).
Secondly (and more importantly) if a game was checked by the USK (which is our rating agency) and the game got an rating, it is impossible to ban a game. In some rare cases the USK may refuse to give a rating to a game, but this is very rare.
This second change meant for the most part that games that don't get a rating are not published in Germany. Therefor banning itself doesn't really happen anymore. However it is still possible that a game must be modified to get a certain rating.
Since the 20-something years since this started the culture around games also shifted a lot. In the past it was enough if a player has to kill humans to get banned. This is the reason why many games changed the human enemies to robots/zombies/aliens. This change in culture is especially odd if you look at very old games. Something like "River Raid" from the early 80s was once banned for being to violent and about 20 years later it was released but now the new rating was something like "for all ages".
Also I want to mention that there is not just one ban. We have basically two list for all media. Both lists have in common that it is forbidden to advertise for the media on the list. One list contains everything that can still be sold, but can not be displayed in a shop (this is the list most games land on when they are considered banned). The other list contains media where it is still allowed to own the media, but it is against the law to sell it.
Falls du den Index für Jugendgefährdende Schriften (heute Medien) meinst, der hat in der Tat 2 Teile. Teil A enthält alle Medien, die nicht aktiv beworben oder ausgestellt werden dürfen. Teil B enthält alle Medien, gegen die eine sofortige Beschlagnahme- und Vernichtungsverfügung erlassen wurde. Medien aus Teil A kannst du besitzen, darfst sie verkaufen, darfst sie aber nicht über dem Ladentisch sichtbar haben. Medien aus Teil B darfst du weder verkaufen noch besitzen. River Raid z. B. ist auf Teil A gelandet, Wolfenstein auf Teil B. Doom 1 ist wegen exzessiver Gewaltdarstellung auf Teil A gelandet, hätte aber auch wegen den Wolf-Leveln auf Teil B landen können. Titel, die auf Teil A landen, haben die Chance, nach einen Review wieder vom Index genommen zu werden. Bei Teil B besteht diese Chance nicht.
I love your content because it is objective, supported by facts, and interesting. Please keep up the good work.
I appreciate that! Thank you 👍
TA, great video. Censorship is such an interesting issue to study. Maybe in the future you can do another episode on how YT censors creator. There are some really dystopian things going on here. I actually just released a video on the talent agency Johnny. My video doesn't talk about their horrible past or use/show any explicit terms, like sexual assault. The video was only on their recent name change. Yet, my video was deemed to have content that needed to be restricted. Good luck on getting YT to tell you why or what can be done to remove these limitations. Anyway, thought you would have fun covering that topic. ;)
In my youth theatrical plays in England were censored by the Lord Chamberlin's office. The Lord Chamberlin is a member of the Royal Household and a hereditary position. Famously the publishers of D H Lawrence's Lady Chattely's Lover was prosecuted under the Obscene Publications a t. The jury acquitted.
The image if Germany as a big censor of video games has a lot to do with the trade restrictions and the seemingly absurd self censorship that followed (e.g. turning the protagonists of „Contra“ into robots.
In Utah, the _Bible_ was banned from a school library.
The Bible! In Utah!
@peter_meyer
..because rightwing moms and the Reps are idiots. As the book contains various problematic contents, according to their own made up law in the wage of trying to ban books about freedom of expression and black history, a clever parent used their law and it had to banned.
Maybe one of the two German absurd reasons let the Games be sensored:
- Nazi Symbols when used in a non artistic protected context (violation of the dignity of the survivors of the Holocaust)
- glorification of violence (moral reasons)
Other examples: In Carmageddon the pedestrians were also robots.
C&C Generals was self censored after a few weeks on sale already, because someone complained. Still hoping they might redo that.
Older C&C games had also robots instead of humans.
"Praise of war" is one reason a game could get restriction. But it is also true that the view on games changed a lot.
Yes, someone used recently introduced censorship legislation to show how ridiculous it is.@@peter_meyer
Censorship has always been a facinating subject to me as well, especially when comparing the EU and US versions of it.
As a gamer, i've seen alot of censorship over the years. the Carmageddon case for example(still a great game btw) was hilarious since the people who were complaining about it really had no clue what they were talking about, wich is the case with most censorship cases since the complainers never played or had even seen what it was they were complaining about and just were going with the flow.
Btw, Germany was very strict on video game censoring in the past, i know that from personal expirience when i went to shop there(i'm from the Netherlands) and everything was dubbed to german without the option to change but i can imagine it changed now.
As for a country that takes video game censorship to the exstreme, its Australia.
Mention drugs(the word) in ANY context and the game gets banned instantly, its like a anathama there were mere mention of it gets u into trouble with the goverment.
Of course, the more u ban something, the more of a black market that creates for those who do want to play banned games, especially since most of the games are banned for the strangest of reasons.
As for things like the ESRB rating and its EU counterpart, they are completely controlled by video game companies, with all the people on the board being directors of video game companies so not really independent or useful for that matter.
Besides, its not like most people or stores care about the ratings anyway, i only look at them if i want to buy a game for my nieces who are still small.
I am a gamer and I played a lot of violent games, yet I still don't approve of the carmagedon type of game.
For me the violence needs to serve a purpose, random violence against random persons is not something I approve of in any form. It maybe doesn't need a ban, but it is in bad taste certainly. If it sells, it just reflects poorly on us as a society.
Would you approve of a game where you need to kill all Muslims or Jews or Christian? Would you approve of a game where the goal is making money from child pornography?
If you approve of carmagedon and the like then you should not have problems with these other examples. But I expect that like me you would find such games in bad taste at least I hope.
It's very difficult to draw a proper line. As I said you would just hope there is no market for poor taste.
@@bzuidgeest As u said, its had to draw the line, but in case of Carmageddon if found that the reason people got upset about it was becouse they thought people would mimic it in real life, who no one did after all, its a game so its fine, understand what fantasy and reality are is something the loudest people tend to have trouble with.
As for religion, its something u should't drag into videogames since thats always a sensitive topic for alot of people, and religious zealots don't have a sense of humor, thats a fact.
Im glad that you brought up people having different values and definition of things.
Here in the US and on the internet, i have seen so many people exclaim, what most people would define as a difference of opinion, as hate speech.
The ironic thing i see about this is that most of the time the people accusing others of hate speach are actually the ones spreading hate. At least from what I've seen.
When you shield people from the realities of life, especially when they are growing up, they tend to be unable to handle those aspects adequately later on. It's important that there is some form of guidance along the way (parents, teachers, friends,...) to fill in the nuances but ignoring it or designate something 'unspeakable' does not improve ones morale essence. There is nothing wrong with cursing (everybody does it) or the absence of clothing (we all know what a human body looks like). What is important is knowing when things are appropriate and when they are not, and that means talking about it, discussing it, not hiding it or censoring it...
I'm not sure if this is true at all.
Every freedom comes with responsibilities. Even freedom of speech.
If you are not willing to take responsibility for your words, don't phrase them.
Does this also apply to the freedom of religion, do believers have a similar responsibility for their words?
there is a saying that words are stronger than swords, and yet some countries put almost no limits on words besides relatively harmless cursing (and yes, the limits on weapons are also questionable). imho, the limits of the freedom for words and weapons are, where other people are potentially directly or indirectly severely effected by them, and that includes public statements and actions by all religions and their followers against other and their own religions (problems probably arise more from churches/sects than from the religions themselves)
Say all dictators and reactionaries
@@oldebarneveldt5326 Yes, they should. You should keep your religious practices in places where they are appropriate, like your place of worship, or your home. But keep the preaching out of public places, unless you can also accept being mocked or verbally attacked for any of your controversial beliefs. Physical violence, however, should be prohibited and enforced against. No matter what.
But yeah, in other words: "Freedom ain't free."
Dead Rising 3 was banned in Germany and is still not available in Germany and it had nothing to do with symbols. It was done on the basis of human like enemies and violence. There are quite a number of games that Germany has banned that have nothing to do with those symbols. I don't think they are doing it with new games. Technically they don't say they banned the game they just denied to rate it and you can' sell it without rating it so that is effectively banned.
These days, they demand of online platforms like Steam to make sure that only adults can buy 'adult' (read 'with sexual content') games, which means a lot of slightly-risqué visual novels are not available to anyone from Germany, simply because Steam and other platforms can't 'guarantee' they're 18+ and won't implement any new functions just for one country.
German Command and Conquer had robots instead of humans, "bleeding" oil because it may be a game about a global war, but you can't go kill people...
there are also two different "ban lists", one that "only" prohibits public advertising for it (including to display it in a shop), and one that makes it illegal to sell or trade in any form (which includes games that not only display symbols as part of the artwork, but expressly are meant to promote such extremist ideologies).
example: i once saw a game in a shop that was censored and marked "16+" and after talking with the salesperson and asking why it was 16+ and that there should be a "full version", he gladly reached under his table and sold me the "18+" version. that game in its "18+" version was from that first of the two lists and could easily be sold if you asked for it. (although i didn't understand why the full version didn't only have the increased rating but was "shadow banned" too when it could be advertised in its "16+" form to indicate that it existed at all)
it was that old time when computer games were a new phenomenon and doom and similar were either restricted or censored or banned. nowadays, many of those games are no longer banned, and/or got lower age restrictions. but anyway, i consider restrictions and bans because of child/youth protection to be something completely different from general censorship towards adults (in most cases).
Hello Ashton, Jonathan and Boys! Happy Sunday and thanks for the great video!❤
As quadrilingual European.
Remembering my trip to Florida.
I cuss a lot when something goes terribly wrong or pisses me off.
So when this "nice" superficial lady thought it might be a good idea to slam her Dodge in our rented car (with car cams in the back and front). And then try to put the blame on me in a sugarcoating voice, I verbally left no good hair on her. It's liberating.
The police couldn't prove my "insulting" but her misheavior due to the footage. (Driving and Messaging)
A "pure" language doesn't make you a good human. It just hides your true character.
An other big part of censorship that you entirely ommited in this video is synchronisation of foreign works. Many tv series or comics have been censored during/with their translation, which is something that you never notice unless at some point get the comparison to the original work. Especially anime and manga, which frequently are a lot more vocal and visual about sexuality and violence, still get censored although this trend has been steadily declining.
The only case I think censorship to be permissable is when dealing with childreen. But the correct balance here is important. I remember a few movies that had me scared as a child with my parents being surprised by it. And I also know of many publically discussed cases of censorship being WAY overprotective.
You should always try to look and listen to works in their original language.
For depicting violence or nudity, I agree. For stuff like hate speech, I think that censorship can be necessary.
Great video and interesting topic, Ashton. One thing I'd like to mention. The concept of "political correctness" would have been an interesting thing to discuss in this video as well. Although political correctness does not refer to what is censored by law, it does refer to what speech is deemed socially unacceptable in practice (which very much determines ones sense of social freedom). So-called "cancel culture", as we see on some universities, is an example of an expression of political correctness. Political correctness and cancel culture has been responsible for universities cancelling lectures by esteemed intellectuals such as Prof. R. Dawkins. It seems more like an American phenomenon. Would have fit nicely in this video. Enjoyed it a lot! :)
cancel culture also exists in Europe
@Habakuk_ So what? It doesn't impede free speech. Free speech doesn't include the obligation to offer a free stage for BS.
@@dirkvornholt2507 Such views are what made the right-wing populists so strong.
@@Habakuk_ Never seen a strong right wing argument. Just whining and pretending to be victimized.
„Cancel culture“ is a dog whistle.
Universities have always cancelled lectures if there were good reasons to do so. In case of Richard Dawkins, there are good reasons.
Additional things which are considered "legal because it's free speech" in the USA and which are illegal in many other countries:
1) individuals or organizations contributing direct financial support to political campaigns in any way other than membership fees,
2) paying for advertisement supporting a political campaign which is not officially your own,
3) telling your subordinates to vote for "our good friend [candidate whatever]".
don't newspapers also state the political candidate they support? or is that old?
I was born fully clothed and have never been naked.
There is also cencorship in animes to make them look "less sexual" in America. Europe TV Stations are using (or used) often these version, which made American censorship influence European programm a bit.
But there are other stuff: The "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" were "Teenage Mutant Hero Turtles" in Germany TV. They also cut all the scenes where Michelangelo was using his weaponn. As a kid I always wondered why he is never using his nunchucks.
I remember hearing that Canada has some kind of very strange law regarding nunchucks. Not swords, guns or bats, just nunchucks. 🤷🏻♂️
I know the name was changed in the UK because over here ninjas were deemed unsuitable to be heroes for children, seeing as ninjas are basically assassins, also nunchucks were cut because they are the one weapon in the show most closely identified with assassins. So they changed the name to Teenage Mutant Hero Turtles and cut some scenes. German TV might have had the same problem as we did but it's far more likely that your TV network just bought the UK version of the show instead of the US version.
As usual, very interesting subjects well explained, in a simple and understandable fashion.
Today's episode reminded me that one very interesting subject briefly alluded in the video, was the weight of European regulatory laws on the world.
By some degree, by it's size and focus, by the fact that EU is formed by democracies ( some not so liberal, true...) and by the bloc's aggregated economy, it is becoming the de facto regulator of the world.
That would really be an episode of Type Ashton on it's own.
Only the EU could regulate Apple to switch to a standard USB charger avoiding loads of proprietory plugs, cables, accessories. Less electronic waste! Doing it the Apple way, of course, allowing Right to Repair, but throw in some hardships to repair it DIY.
Well, the US had that role for most of the time since WWII, so ...
@@KaiHenningsen Yes. In some way that was true. Specially over the post war era, where Europe had to rebuild and the US was the most industrialized nation on the planet.
Technology, particularly digital electronics, are globally US led. The internet, the portable telefone network, microprocessors (though recently the world is transinioning from intel, motorola, amd and the like, to ARM which is british IP. Granted, without apple or qualcomm ARM wouldn't have reached so far.).
But somehow we didn't end up with imperial units or the like. Even US urbanistic development even though highly regarded up to the seventies, started to be gradually repelled in Europe. It was really inadequate for the continent with it's higher density, less free land, historical encroached infaestructure, and now it's regarded as enegy and financially inefficient.
It is another whole Type Ashton episode just how much of Europe's advantages today were fostered by the US during the post war period. Social Security, universal healthcare, was not common on pre ww2 Europe... Funny how much of it was supported by the US overseas, but not so much state side...
@@GLOBOLG English by DeepL: Social legislation
👤Otto von Bismarck
Social legislation or social laws, also known as Bismarckian social legislation, were an attempt by the German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck to respond to the social hardship of the working class in the late 19th century that had arisen in the course of industrialization. Bismarck had recognized the political explosive power of the extreme social contrasts and wanted to counteract them, not least to remove the breeding ground for the socialist movement. The aim was to prove to the still young nation that the state had more to offer than the political representations of the working classes, and in this way to bind them firmly to the government.
Political representation was demanded by the SDAP and the ADAV from 1875 jointly as the SAPD and ADAV, which called itself the SPD in 1890. In addition, the repressive Socialist Law also made a balance necessary ("carrot and stick" politics). Bismarck's long-term intention was to secure the government's authority against the strengthening proletariat.
de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sozialgesetzgebung
Sozialgesetzgebung
Otto von Bismarck
Die Sozialgesetzgebung bzw. Sozialgesetze, genannt auch Bismarcksche Sozialgesetzgebung, waren ein Versuch des deutschen Reichskanzlers Otto von Bismarck, auf die - im Zuge der Industrialisierung entstandene - soziale Not der Arbeiterschaft im ausgehenden 19. Jahrhundert zu reagieren. Bismarck hatte die politische Sprengkraft der extremen sozialen Gegensätze erkannt und wollte dem entgegenwirken, nicht zuletzt, um der sozialistischen Bewegung den Nährboden zu entziehen. Es galt, der noch jungen Nation zu beweisen, dass der Staat mehr zu bieten habe als die politischen Vertretungen der Arbeiterschaft, und sie auf diese Weise fest an die Regierung zu binden.
Die politische Vertretung forderten die SDAP und der ADAV ab 1875 gemeinsam als SAPD und ADAV, welche sich 1890 SPD nannte. Außerdem machte auch das repressive Sozialistengesetz einen Ausgleich notwendig (Politik mit „Zuckerbrot und Peitsche“). Langfristige Absicht Bismarcks war es, die Autorität der Regierung gegen das erstarkende Proletariat abzusichern.
de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sozialgesetzgebung
BIG discussion to address Xi as dictator by German Minister of Foreign Affairs, Xi "elected" in an one people party system. We had that in GDR. Certainly autocratic. What are their CHINESE [values] e.g. bio-engineering, CRISPR/CAS genetic modifying. Land grabbing in Africa, Road and Belt initiative, deploying infrastructure, securing rare materials, metals, mines.
I'm really impressed by the quality of your videos, the amount of research involved, the balanced presentation but also the depth. This is much work ! and good work. It makes me think a little further, and I like this. Good job ! 💚
All of this can evolve over the years too. I remember, when I was a teenager in the 1980's, around 7:30 PM just before the evening news every saturday on one of the 2 most important French TV channels of the time, you had this comedy show called Cocoricocoboy, featuring short sketches. The last sketch of the program always ended with the playmate doing a topless strip tease. It most certainly shocked lots of people at the time, but the show lasted a few years, so I guess it wasn't thought as worth censoring.
Nowadays, I can't imagine that such a show would be possible. Although the censorship would probably not come from the law.
There should be no censorship as in "this can not be shown" what so ever. Though I support censorship in terms of setting up different forums for different kind of content so it is possible for each individual to self censor by choosing for themselves to not go the places where they might encounter the things they are not interested in getting exposed to.
There have always been laws against fraud and defamation, racism/hate speech and such. That is a form of censorship. I see no reason why those should not apply to what's said on the internet.
There are and should be limits to what you can say and do. And even if you make an expression almost free you should make people suffer the consequences of their speech at the very least. If you tell people that eating lead is good for your health you deserve to go to prison at the very least. You cannot shift responsibility for your behavior on freedom of speech.
@@bzuidgeest I get what you are trying to say but your wording is wrong or maybe you even believe what you are saying in which case you are wrong. It is every person's right to decide whom they wanna engage with and if their sole reason for not wanna have any engagement with you is the colour of your skin that is equally as justified as saying I don't wanna have anything to do with you because I think you are an idiot, that is freedom of speech and a right to choose. One might not be very liked by many people, but that is their free choice. Is it racism? yeah one might argue it is, should there be any laws against it? absolutely not. On the other hand, if someone say I'll kill you or harm you because of the colour of your skin that is also racism but the crime punishable by law is not racism but the kill or harm you part which is enticement to violence. Or having committed said violence if it went that far. And yes that should absolutely be punishable by law, just as well as any other sort of violence is. The shit that are spewed currently where everyone get offended if you fart and the wind happen to be in an unfortunate direction is just ridicules and people should for real stop being all crybabies about everything.
@@badnewsbadger6660 so you want to limit speech that leads to violence, but racism speech is fine.... What if racist speech leads to violence? Hint, it usually does. I very much understand what you are saying and you are tieing yourself in some serious knots there. You want to limit speech only if it has consequences. Surprise, all speech has consequences. Are people a bit overly sensitive these days? Certainly. But that doesn't justify letting go of every rule. Freedoms without rules is just anarchy. Your freedom should only stretch to the point where it impinges on the freedom of others and that goes for speech as well as everything else.
@@bzuidgeest No I don't want to limit speech even if it leads to violence. When that is said it should be perfectly reasonable to hold people to account for what they say. As a society we generally do not like when someone is violent so we have some rules as to how to deal with those who are violent in various ways. Even so some choose to be violent anyway. The same should apply to speech. That is why I say if someone want to live their life according to ideas based purely on how people look like they are free to do so. They are even free to express that vocally. So in essence we agree on the last part of your statement "Freedom of speech should only stretch to the point where it impinges on the freedom of others" but even in that statement you acknowledge that it is not really the speech that is the intolerant part but the part where it cross the line of affecting the freedom of others. That is why it is very important for people to know that freedom of speech is NOT the same as freedom of accountability for said speech. It is like if a white person was to shout "I hate Niggers" in Harlem, it is not the freedom of speech that prevent them from doing so but the knowledge that it would probably not turn out to great for them doing so. I would argue someone should be able to do so without risking their life (important to state here, not without any consequences at all) as that statement in it self does not interfere with any ones personal freedom, where as if they were to yell "I wanna kill all of you" they have now made a statement to inhibit the freedom of others and as such is now in unacceptable territory and the bad outcome is justified.
@@badnewsbadger6660 shouting "I hate niggers" also impinges on the freedom of others. It's a very negative sentiment that has subtle but problematic consequences. We also have the option of prevention of consequences and not wait until somebody is hurt. Therefore I accept far more limits on speech than you would.
You seem too think that expression of opinion does not have consequences. It very much does. Yes in most cases you should just ignore people and I even agree that a lot of people are too easily offended. But speech is also far more dangerous then you think. The right words can be insidious. They have toppeld countries and destroyed empires. Influencers abusing their freedom of speech rights to promote dangerous and toxic, cure all's and quackery. Avoiding liability by claiming people should have know better or something like that.
The US: video games make you violent
Also the US: Hey, you are old enough -- here have a .22/shotgun for your 12th birthday.
...
Many thanks! I don't remember who said this, but I believe it was in the 50s or 60s - if violence in movies is causing violence in the streets, how come comedic movies don't cause more comedy on the street? 🤷♂
Here in America we are approaching a realization of "Orwell's 1984", and Farenheit 411...we are doomed as a society, all at the hand of a political movement.
wait did i just hear an intellectually honest ad for a VPN?
im genuinely positively surprised 😂
Here you can even find that.
Video game censorship in Germany is a real thing. At least it was when I was most involved with it in the early 2000s as a teenager. Maybe it has changed since then, but once you are over 18 you don't really care anymore because you have access to everything. Back then violence was heavily censored/altered. If you fought humans in games they were often changed into robots/zombies like you showed. Blood was removed or colored differently, like green for example. Back the there were "blood patches" for many games which restored the original uncensored look. And some games straight up were forbidden completely. Mostly, like you showed, for having Nazi symbolism in them.
That‘s because Display of Nazi Symbols for other than historical educational purposes is in general illegal, not just in video games.
It's also important to say that this was not censored based on a decision by the state but a side effect of quite strict youth protection laws. The game companies themself changed the games preemptively to be able to sell to younger people or avoid the risk of being banned. Even the Nazi symbolism thing wasn't really an explizit ban and could have been lifted way earlier, if a company would have been willing to bring this to court.
@@DoomTobi To my knowledge, the Nazi symbolism was the only explicit ban. But I might be wrong in that.
I bet not every parent knows about the "blood patches" e.g. a defeated monster just vanish rather than seeing the gore action of a chain saw in full display. And tiny fingers know how to switch when mother comes in surprisingly .-)
@@marge2548 Yes, it's generally banned except for arts, research and educational content. Even controversial tv shows and movies are using nazi symbolism all the time and they are allowed to do so. "Through the darkest of times", a clearly anti fascist game lifted the ban, but it's very likely that it could have been lifted earlier by argueing that video games are a form of arts. No video game company dared to start this discussion though
Adding Japan into the fray is interesting. From what I can tell from informal observation, Japanese parents have a higher freak out point than American and European parents in what they can deal with their kids being exposed to. So a lot of the manga and anime that Americans and Europeans assume were for the 16 and older crowd were for elementary and middle school children in Japan. During the 70s and 90s, the freak out point seemed even higher than it is now.
I was a Kid in the 80s and was exposed to a lot of TV as well as "children's book" content that I really wish I had not seen (violence, not sexuality) as it gave me nightmares and a generally pessimistic view of the world.
Great video Ashton - and this is so complex indeed. AI generated content adds even more complexity as AI driven bots can be a huge issue on democracy and people's mindset. No human censorship will be able to catch all of those messages, and bots can basically also start flagging normal human messages (that voice opinions contrary to the bot's target). This could soon become a war of bots, where governments likely can't do much against unless requiring all social media accounts to have a verified state ID on record, which is again very controversial.
Censorship is a tool used by people who don't have convincing arguments. On social media, the problem isn't bad/evil opinions, but harassment and spam: Censoring an honest participant, even with repulsive opinions, is wrong in my book. It is easy to ignore the single idiot, which also is a skill you should definitely pick up, and it robs the idiot of a chance to stop being an idiot. Yet, measures against propaganda efforts (orchestrated misinformation), targeted harassment and de-platforming are well justified, since this isn't directed against an opinion but the act of spamming, which in my opinion, should be treated as a more serious crime anyway.
your approach is commendable but comes with unpleasant consequences on a larger scale like social media and political movements aiming to form a goverment
Yeah, right, now try the same, but as a member of a minority or as a woman. Advocate for cycling or against fossil fuels.
The amount of idiots believing the amount of disinformation put out there by big businesses is staggering.
Just existing online as a young woman is exhausting. From having a female voice during a game or the constant drip, drip, drip of sexism out there.
@@embreis2257 That is democracy. You know, most people "declare themselves" to be correct, and therefor the other person a "liar". Such things as "misinformation" is simply information you don't like.
As always: Thanks for the very well researched, timely and interesting video! One additional thought: What disturbs me most about violent video games is the incessant practicing of OTHERING. The player hunts the Other, destroys the Other; the entire sense of one game after another after another is the annihilation of something - or worse, someone - Other. That kind of constant practice produces a mentality that see the world in "us and them" - which is how aggressive societies like their young people, especially young men. Do we really want that?
Where the government defines online fact or free speech all you get is a government lying to you, and nobody is allowed to point it out. Lessons learnt in Australia.
As an Austrian: Our blasphemy-law has (afaik) not been used in decades same in Finnland. Yes, it is a problem that these laws are still on the books, but just ignoring them is the next best thing.
But there are countries in the EU that still have and use these laws on a semi-regular basis: Greece is one, Cyprus and Malta be too.
I never forget that i was in Spain ,wearing a shorts in Catholic Church as my wife was taking photos. The priest told me that i had to leave the empty Church because i was wearing an shorts but i refused because i wear shorts in Catholic Church in another hot country which was accepted. The priest called the police but police agreed with me. I pointed paintings of naked people in the church to compare that with me..priest lost his argument
Was that other hot country Italy? Catholicism isn't as rigid in Italy as it is in Spain or Ireland despite it being the birthplace of Catholicism.
Everytime you have the feeling you are not welcome as a tourist and wonder why.... Keep that story in mind
And dont try this in the Vatikan. Some well trained and funny dressed guys will kick you out
Would not call that censorship.
More a respect issued.
If you are invited to a party where a suit is expected and arrive with shorts and don't get in, I would not call it censorship.
You are allowed to wear shorts, it's not a crime but they wanted you to not wear shorts in their house.
@@lemsip207 There are signs at the entrance of many churches in Italy to dress decently. Not too short skirts, not too much cleavage etc. And especially in the Vatican you WILL be barred from entering.
@@lemsip207 ,South Africa
Trying to find a censorship for social media which fits everybody, will be impossible. But if we look into the future and consider the use of AI, everybody could have it’s personal AI censor filter. The danger of it is, that you will create a lot of polarized people, who will fight it out in real life.
Guess we have to keep doing it the old way, and all give and take some. Although I get the idea that a lot of people these days are only familiar with the concept of taking.
The thing with banning things is that it becomes all the more appealing.
Somehow, she forgot that when Elvis Presley made his first appearance on the Ed Sullivan Show, cameras only showed his upper body, because his dancing was considered obscene...
I'm for self-censorship, nothing else. After the corruption we've witnessed in the current US administration, the election interference, and vaccination scheme, I say this as a German. I'm all for decency, but let anyone write online what they would say on the street as well. Seeing that we can't censor anyone's mouth on the street either.
You can´t say, what you want on the streets, because yu are not anonymous. You are responsible for your actions. No limit for insulting others, false claims, pornography?
But there is a difference: When you shout out lies on the street, people will here and ignore it or call you crazy. There may be 1 or 2 who agree with you. And the end you might recognised that you are wrong.
Posting in the internet is a different think. All the fools of other towns and around the world will read it and agree. so all of a sudden you get 1000 or 2000 people who confirm your lie. In comparison still a minor amount. But for you, who get the confirmation, it is a lot and you will think that you are right and keep going. Same for the other fools. Than people who are not sure are not that smart start thinking that the lie is a valid point if 2000 confirm it and the lie starts rolling and growing.
I remember when they tried to ban the rap group " the 2 live crew " in the 80 s. It was like, why? Then again, if you listened to them, you can see or hear why.
Just made more people want to hear it, like me 😅
Yes, I went out and ordered both albums of theirs 😅😂
It's like listening to WAP now.
The UK has two banned books, just two. Both are books that describe terrorist techniques. How many books are banned in the USA?
Thanks for this video! Going to share it with one of my classes for a censorship discussion.
By pure coincidence, I just saw a video of people talking about words/expressions that are banned at their school. I think most, if not all, of the contributions there were from the US. I don't know what's going on in German schools today, but when I attended high school in the 90s, there was no such thing, because what students talk about privately between classes or during breaks is none of the teachers' or the school's business and there is no private talk during class in the first place. Besides, constitutional rights apply to everyone, regardless of age. So as long as it was not illegal, we could say whatever we wanted, and if it is illegal, it was the government and not the school that banned it, the school would only enforced the set rules.
In the 90's people didn't sue school boards because "my child learned X at your school". Just like in every other part of society schools districts are trying to protect themselves from litigation.
Suing someone for the slightest indiscretion is just another gift from America to the world.
@@krashdyou should consider stop blaming America for your own country’s woes. It gets old and in the vast majority of cases, is factually incorrect.
Great observations, analysis and editorials. Thanks for sharing.
Tschuss!
Although I feel we currently have a lack of real political talent here in the Netherlands I do feel that because of our model we do end up with the most "widely supported" rules and guidelines (which in case of speech means we ban certain speech) however this model does hamper us when needing to address things like climate change or corporate power.
Anyways excellent video with lots of food for thought!
Nudity, it’s just our bodies. As a British person, we never had nudity as some sort of hang-up. Go on holiday and people are either fully or nearly nude. When I was a kid, it was normal to see a TV advert with nudity in some of the ads.
I could never understand why Americans have major hand ups about nudity, everyone can own a gun with violence attached often.
I am always amazed at the hypocrisy of people. No matter if in the USA, Europe or the rest of the world! Especially when it comes to the subject of sex and nudity!
But what I find fascinating in the U.S. is the censorship of videos and games. And at the same time, the very free handling of guns in many states.
06:30: That was about the most appropriate integrated ad I've seen in a YT video. Well done! Regarding social media, state censorship happens here and there in Germany, but it's not really a big thing in my perception. Much worse is the informal conformity pressure created by a relatively small number of very loud participants. I can say a lot of stuff in a newspaper's moderated comment section that would result in a shitstorm if I said it on social media. As a consequence, I don't use social media at all. I have a pretty thick skin and I think people should cultivate that in public communication, but all too often it's not worth it, considering there usually isn't a real debate going on on social media at all.
I remember from quite a number years ago, there was a doctor, who was against violence in movies and games. Not because he felt they made people more violent, but because he feared, that people would underestimate the effect of physical violence.