Cartoon Censorship: Good or Bad?

Censorship no, but a little restraint even in adult centered cartoons. While I do enjoy Adult Swim for instance, the big flaw is that a good portion of Adult Swim originals is that they're nothing more than shows with content for the sake of it because "we can do it". The shows that I believe does the adult toons right are Futurama, Harvey Birdman Attourney At Law, Venture Bros and Mission Hill.

Now for the censorship part:
1. I can see blood and gore akin to Friday The 13th being controversial, but a small stream of blood here and there isn't the end of the world.

I mean if a kid trips over and bleeds, what are you going to tell him or her?

2. While I'm not clamouring for cartoons to include the character smoking, I find it rediculous that parents complain about it, when a majority of them smoke in front of their children in the first place.

3. Then there's the whole playing nice so that everyone doesn't object. Frankly, the only way for a cartoon to be made without offending everyone is to render it in a Playhouse Disney or Nick Jr. tone.



1. Jet was killed off.
2. An entire nation were victims of genocide.
3. The fact that they were even able to bring up killing someone was an issue. An episode of Dungeons & Dragons (The Dragon's Graveyard) was regarded by the higher ups as a controverial episode for the fact that the kids considered killing Venger.
4. Then there's Ozai's scarring of Zuko. Not many kid shows would cover regular child abuse, let alone burning the child.
5. The commentary for the finale even states that Aang's decision not to kill was for character purposes, not censorship.
 
No offense, but self-censorship like that irritates me since it's essentially a cop-out on the studios part. It's even worse in those cases since they're specifically aimed at adults and not children.

I'm curious to know, how much influence do those watchdog groups like the PTC have over such a medium, and is it usually the network or S&P that gets final say on what goes to air and what doesn't?
 
Censorship is good most of the time to protect kids from exposing them to nudeness and major swear words but it's also annoying when it comes to edits.

Would it really affect a kid to show a little bit of blood? I know too much might freak a kid out but everyone is going to see blood when they scrape their knees or when they get nose bleeds in real life.

And doesn't using bleeps instead of the actual swear word mean the kids won't learn them? I don't know about most kids, but I never knew any swear words until I started middle school where my peers were swearing. :sweat:

In my opinion, it's pretty complicated. :sweat:
 
I think that its good and bad. I mean we don't need gore, sex scenes and swearing in kids shows, but some things are just silly. I'm okay with seeing people in cartoons smoke as long as it isn't glorified. I am also okay with hearing words like "death" or "dead".
 
But they still couldn't say certain words. So instead of a dumb bleep they just block them with something that fits the tone and style anyway. Irregardless these edits are not on the DVD's. I consider something like that better than putting a horribly drawn in bush over naked Goku.
 
A majority? This might be off the main topic, but I was under the impression that smokers were a minority - not that's definitive in whether or not to show characters smoking, but if so, then they can't be accused of hypocrisy.
 
If a parent regularly smokes in front of their kid, but throws a fit when cartoon characters do the same thing, then hypocracy is what it is.
 
While we're on the subject of Toon censorship in general, it should be noted that the old-school toons of the 30's and 40's were butchered to death. This is because most of the time, these cartoons were aimed at predominantly-adult audiences (not as adult as "Family Guy", as they had the ultra-restrictive Hays code back then). In recognition that these cartoons were now being shown to children, certain gags (and even entire scenes) were cut out. Among these were:

-Extreme on-camera violence
-Characters commiting suicide
-Use of (or references to) tobacco and alcohol
-Racial and ethnic stereotypes

These content elements were in ALL studios' cartoons at the time (even DISNEY!). For example, the Looney Tunes were edited in various ways over the years, and ABC was the most overprotective about content.
 
I can actually understand Disney being offended by one of their characters saying smoking looks cool. Lets be honest, about the only real reason anybody takes up smoking in the first place is because they think it makes them look cool. There's not another reason besides that. While what Matt had wanted Kim to say may be true. It's not something that THEY need to say. Kids and teenagers can figure that out on their own.

What really grates me about censorship is how cartoons aren't allowed to use words like stupid, idiot, or call people names. Even though shows like Kim Possible Season 1 were allowed to.

Matt Negrate, does make a valid point about censorship in cartoons. The question is where to draw the line at?
 
If the content is gratuitous then I agree with restraining ones self, but if it's mild and has a point to the story then it should be given consideration.
 
You also need to remember that most kids who saw the scene didn't understand what the purpose of shaving was, nor that there was actually a blade inside of the razor. They just saw that the guy using a razor blade to clean off his tongue. To me that's a perfect example of what the "imitable acts" censorship rule should be getting rid of, but it often gets applied to things that it shouldn't.

Using the same line of argument, there are people who don't have a problem with shock images, either. That doesn't mean that something like Heroes should have a brain-eating scene that's as graphic as Hannibal. It comes down to what the viewer is expecting to see when they sit down to watch the show. Things like the aforementioned scene in Deadly Force was not something that any kid would expect to see on a syndicated cartoon that usually ran in a timeslot near Aladdin and Goof Troop. Although the writers can't be blamed for the timeslot, they still should have known where a syndicated Disney should would be aired.
 
If parents would inform their kids that the razor is sharp and just put it out of reach, then the scenario you told me about wouldn't be an issue.

It's like the house fire supposedly brought on by imitating Beavis & Butthead. If the parents were more attentive and kept flammables out of reachs, the the fire would again be a non issue.

If a man and woman are going to have a child, they need to brush up on time management before such a thing is considered. If they unexpectedly have a child, they either need to go with time management or give the kid up to foster care. Any man or woman who honestly goes into parenthood thinking that child raising is a piece of cake (like playing house) they deserve every moment of frustration they get.



And while Deadly Force may be something unexpected, it didn't get out of control with the intensity. Aside from the small blood pool, the rest of the episode was blood free. If we were talking about Aqua Teen Hunger Force violence I could understand your reaction then.

Besides, considering that the first episode has nearly an entire clan of Gargoyles being slaughtered, an episode like Deadly Force is pretty natural.
 
Yes, it's a very good episode, and deserves to be proud of it, but he makes the point himself in the article.
Parents should HAVE to watch it with their kids. However, it's impossible to expect that parents would always be watching it with their kids whenever it was on. Not to bring up the "TV babysitter" debate, but you can't expect a parent to be constantly watching whatever their kid is.

In short, his heart was in the right place, but a syndicated cartoon was not the place to do it.



I'm only using the example of Deadly Force because I have person experience with it. I won't comment on things like the slaughtering. (although from what I've seen, it wasn't graphic enough to actually shock a kid)
 
You are so wrong. Terribly wrong.

I'm sure you'd prefer sunshine and lollypops for kids shows. This mentality is exactly what's wrong with TV today.

And you are the first person I have ever seen who has said this. Jesus Christ.
 
I'm not arguing that all shows should be Lollypops and Sunshine. I appreciated shows like Gargoyles and Batman's dark and more mature atmosphere and serious storytelling as much as the next guy. I just thing that the way the specific scene played out was a bit too intense for weekday afternoon animation. It would have been more effective as a DTV episode.
 
1. Then maybe said kid shouldn't watch TV when the parents are unable to be attentive.
2. If the parents want their kids to watch safe programming, fine. If they want to force safe programming on other viewers outside their homes, they are crossing a line by doing so. A more mature kid shouldn't have to put up with a censored episode of Gargoyles because the kid down the street couldn't.

Simple solution as opposed to censorship. Get rid of the cable in the household, and only purchase Pre School DVDs. That way everyone else can enjoy their programs and the parents can continue with the wonderous life of negligence.

If the kid doesn't want to see Deadly Force, it's a simple matter of changing the channel, putting in a DVD or turning the TV off. Hence why censorship is unnecessary.
 
Or, the more mature kid should have to buy a DVD of the uncensored episode so that the less mature kid doesn't have to risk running into it. You're right that in theory a parent should always monitor what their kids watch, but realistically it's not possible. It is possible, however, to monitor tapes/DVDs for content. It's not unfair to the person who has to buy the DVD any more than it would be unfair to the person who has to buy the preschool DVDs, like you suggested.

We do have V-chips and the such for that nowdays, though.
 
Back
Top