11.24.00 - Censorship Rant (this is a long one): I remember back in middle school (although it seems like it was a long time ago, it really wasn't nearly as long ago as I wish it were), a hot new game was coming out to video game consoles. It's name was simple: it's two words brought up imagery which was undeniably vital to the game's success. It was even spelled in a gimmicky manner. Mortal Kombat. It's ominous name surely meant to implant images of death and brutality in the minds of it's readers. Of course, if the name didn't do it, the then ultra-violent nature of the game would do it for you. Video games had often been considered violent, but in a more playful, benign way. Mortal Kombat, though was one of the first two-dimensional hand to hand combat games taken in by the mass market. Competition was the name of the game. People would go head to head against a friend, punching, kicking, throwing, maiming… all in the name of fun. And when all was said and done, the victor had the opportunity to slaughter his or her opponent in a messy, violent manner. This shocked many a parent. Was this game teaching people that violence was ok? That violence was good? This mentality trickled up to our legislators, who eventually caught anti-video game fever. The result of this sudden interest in the direction of video games was a series of proposed laws to help censor the products before they got into the hands of impressionable children. Nintendo of America took a hint and decided to not approve the Super NES release of Mortal Kombat with blood, and some of the more graphic finishing moves. Owners of a SNES couldn't take control of Sub Zero, and have him remove his opponent's skull from it's body. Instead, they could freeze their opponent into a block of ice and turn them into numerous ice cubes. Doesn't quite have the same 'punch' to it. No matter how many times one player would hit the other, his opponent would not bleed, but instead spray out Walden sized ponds of grayish fluid (supposedly sweat, so I hear). I felt screwed. I wanted the video game I spent my hard earned and saved money on to be as close as possible to the actual arcade version, violence and all. It was at this point in time, that I realized that someone who has never met me in my life has assumed that I can't handle a certain type of stimuli without suddenly going berserk and harming someone. Someone who didn't know me, had never met me, and had decided that they were actually capable of deciding what was best for me. I suppose that was the first time I actually noticed censorship. I felt betrayed by my elected officials (although I wasn't capable of electing them). I felt denied of my own personal level of maturity by a group of right wing moral conservatives. People had made a judgment as to what I should be exposed to me, when their beliefs did not necessarily correspond with mine. This whole messy issue has lingered ever since. In the back of the minds of every moralist right wing legislator, there's the idea of censoring our entertainment. People like to be able to say what's right for other people, based upon their own personal experiences. But this is pretty touchy-feely: not everyone's experiences coincide. In fact, far from it. I can't think of one person off the top of my head that has had an identical life to any other person, much less interpreted their surroundings similarly. So, because a group of people think that something is too violent, too disturbing, etc, that the rest of the society isn't capable of handling it? Yeah, pretty much. And we really don't have a choice in the matter, at least none that I see. We elect people who don't hold our exact same opinions as us. Are they supposed to? That's up to debate, a debate that's probably going on right now in some small room in Barrows Hall. Did we go wrong by creating a system that has people who aren't us decide what's best for us? Probably not. Having every opinion in a democracy of this size is unfeasible and futile. That's why we have legislators, after all. Doesn't make it right, though, and doesn't mean we can't complain. After all, someone had to complain in the first part to get this whole thing started. It doesn't stop at video games, as we all are aware. Not too long ago, there was a movie that came out, by the name of "South Park: Bigger, Bolder, and Uncut", or something to that effect. That movie was about as graphic as I thought it got. And of course, our friends, the Motion Picture Association of America, or whatever that acronym stands for, had several scenes edited out in order for it to not get the dreaded "NC-17" rating. Were people still sufficiently shocked at the movie? Lord yes. I was shocked myself at some parts (although, never really offended, because, after all, constant exposure to that sort of thing has desensitized me to it). Was that the complaint, though, that it was shocking? Not really, that was part of it, but the main concern was that the cartoon-like qualities of the characters (because it's a cartoon) appealed to children, who couldn't properly handle the material given to them. Pish-posh, I say. The problem is, if the child grows up in a censored environment, then of course he wouldn't be able to interpret the material. It seems ridiculous to believe that because someone hasn't been exposed in one way or another to something (and of course, told what was right and wrong with the material) that they would understand it. It was never said anywhere that censorship was a teaching mechanism. Instead, it is used to keep people ignorant of unpleasantness that is, quite frankly, a part of life in some form or another. While I was wrestling with this idea in my mind, though, I stumbled upon one particularly interesting thought: by saying that no one should be able to tell me or anyone else what is good for them to see and experience, isn't that, in a sense, telling people what's good for them? Was my initial reaction to censorship the actual act of censorship or was it a rejection of the idea that people would tell me I can and can't do? I don't know. I'm sure, though, personally that I would feel a lot better with the country if I could have my way. Why? I guess I just like telling people what's good for them.