Strickly speaking (meaning legally) it is not "censorship" when an individual, group, or even a business/company objects to or limits the use of certain words or visual images. Only the government can impose any form of "censorship". Individuals, groups, and businesses can not. They can voice their own opinions, and within the the area of their control and legal purview (e.g. a homeowner not allowing words to be spoken or porno in their home; a group excluding from membership someone who does not agree or follow their philosophy, or a business which prohibits what it considers to be conduct, to include some speech that others may take offense at, within its workplace environment because it is considered by management to not positively reflect on company and thus could possibly interfer with prosperous business). I don't want to get in to the legal too much, but if a website or business or a person objects to someones language, that does not mean they have imposed "censorship". No one has a "right" per se to what others consider offensive language in the workplace, or in someone elses home. They do have the "right" to terminate you for something like that and someone has the "right" to ask you to leave their home. In public areas, they have the "right" to turn their back and simply walk away. However, in many jurisdictions, if you follow and continue with a negative verbal "assault" it can be construed as harrassement or threatening language and actions and is against the law. That is simply that no one has the right to threaten or limit the safety or free movement or threaten another. Being a public nuisance is another matter...e.g., the person who stands in front of a public school and yells "shit, shit, shit" over and over and over. Not to mention they really need to see a doctor and then get a life after treatment. The laws are local and statewide for the most part on this, but the bottom line in Federal law, which takes precedent, is that it has been well decided by the Supremes for decades that "censorship" does not exist from person to person and in the workplace. The concept of "Free Speech" is not absolute and was never intended by the framers of the Constitution to be for all speech in all environments.
A better though is that if you have to resort to a stream of "profanity" to express oneself in most situations, you simply show all listeners the limits of your intellect as well as the limits of your education and emotional self control. None of that is valued in any society on the globe. People around the world are more likely to listen and listen thoughfully to a well spoken idea or argument than to someone whose argument is laced with needless profanity that adds nothing to the idea but actually distracts from it.
But it is not censorship to object to it. An example is Mr Mark owns/manages this website. He is free, and it is not censorship, for him to limit what is said, or the topics, and even limit who he allows on the website. The idea is that this is his "property" which he allows others, at his complete and total discretion, to participate in, or not, how he sees fit and choses to at any given point in time. Not allowing someone to join or post, or editing or deleting their posts, or declaring any subject "off limits" is within his purview. He has that right. Period. If anyone does not like it...that is too bad. Your options would be to accept Mr. Marks rules and abide, leave and start your own, leave and find another, or go in your backyard and pound sand until you feel better.
Of course,what is and is not on TV is a function of where you are? Topics and words said in Asia would never be shown in most of the Continental European countries, and some of those not shown or aired in the UK, and then some of those not in the US. That is just societal norms and is a melding of a free enterprise system in a capital economy. If people "want" and "like" and "accept" something, the market will dictate it is shown and sponsors will pay to show it and the artistic folks will comply with making it. But if the artistic folks want to say "fuck" on TV, and the market analysis is that it will offend or turn off a demographic that will pay the bills with sponsors, it probably won't find a sponsor and thus not get on TV. An example, in small scale is a garage rock band. They think they are "artists" and love to make music that has "cunt" laced in it describing all women. If a venue manager thinks it will turn off his regular patrons, he won't book them. A producer judges that while the market for their music is there, it is so small that it is not commerically viable to sign a deal with them and produce, manufacture, market, and sell a CD that will only be bought by them and their relatives. The sales will not cover the costs, so they don't get a deal. This is not censorship, no matter how much the "artists" may scream and rant and rave it is "censorship". The problem is that they are not "very good" as "very good" is defined as commercially marketable and able to generate income to cover the costs of their enterprise. But They have ever right to play all they want any way they want in their garage.
uke:
