"When you were 7, did you see advertisements for gay porn whilst watching the 3
stooges?

Would your parents have explained that to you? "Its okay son, anal intercourse is
natural! Here, watch us do it."."

Can't say I saw any such advertisements but yes my parents would have explained it to me.  Though I certainly hope they would have used slightly more tact than you.

"ok, how about, would you be ok, with a nazi organization funding anti-Jew propaganda through buying airspace during the commercials of a program intended for toddlers?"

Sure, I would advise my children not to watch that program and certainly explain why said advertisement is wrong, again with a letter to the people in charge of the station along the lines of "Do you really think this is appropriate?"  If they do more power to them.

I fully accept that some people will always excercise the right to expression in ways I don't like.

"what about an advertisement for a gun that was a war simulation on a billboard 10 feet from your bedroom window, with a high volume, that made it impossible to sleep."

Well that's not really an issue of censorship that's disturbing the peace.

"silencing their message is consorship even if their method disturbs the peace."

Ok I'll give you that.  I was thinking along the lines of, "It's not the message it's the medium" but I certainly see your point.

"and what if it was silent, but huge and impossible not to notice whenever anyone came or left your house, including your children?"

Well two things to note one I didn't think of but could have been brought up earlier.  If I'm ever so poor I'm living next to a billboard I shouldn't have children and the basement rafters are looking mighty friendly.  However since this is hypothetical yes I would be perfectly fine with that.  I'm very much a live and let live individual, unless it comes down to them or me in which case it's live and kill quick.

I think that the victim's market disturbs the peace and disrupts the free market. Dont you?

"you are for a lack of cencorship, correct? so if what you support happened, the hosue across the street could make extra money letting some company put some uber large billboard either on his lawn or on the side of his house, no matter how wealthy you are, there could be a billboard placed somewhere that was impossible not to notice, a grotesk one, like drew carey in udnerwear, but you support people doing that?"

Certainly.  I might have words with the person or beat the crap out of them but I certainly have no right to stop him.

"another hypothetical, what if someone decided to write "whore" on your daughter, would you erase it and censor the person who did it, or would you tell your daughter not to wash it and to keep it visible?"

well that raises the question of whether removal of defacement is censorship.  I'd say no and tell her to wash her face.

"The problem with your understanding is that you are thinking for yourself. You aren't thinking about what other people might think, or how other people might want to raise children."

You are absolutely right because in my view they don't matter.  The only people's who's thoughts and opinions matter to me are mine and those of people I respect.  If you don't want kids to be exposed to offensive material that's your option and there are numerous technologies availalbe to have your own TV block material you don't want.

....surely stopping someone killing people goes beyond censorship and into humanitarian territory?

....the allies stopped the nazi's so using this argument we were in the wrong for using censorship to stop the massacre of millions of jews....censorship is good if used within the correct context....such as censoring the news (due to possible risk of further endangerment to others) or censoring documents that could put the security of others at risk....

....what i disagree with are the liberals who think that everything should be open and transparent for others to view....how open do you want the powers-that-be to be?....do iwant to know where (exactly) nuclear weapons are being stored/dismantled?....no....do i want to know if there are paedophiles living near my children?....yes.....do i want (or care) if  some politician is corrupt?....no (they all are!)....there has to be rules to govern people and those rules have to be governed and those that govern have to be watched and scrutinized and so on....censorship (to a degree) is a good thing....knowledge is power and power corrupts....too much knowledge is dangerous to us all and the establishments around the world....if we outlawed censorship then we are all screwed.

....also the freedom of speech in the UK is different to that in the US and other countries....for instance you may (as a group) march against something you disagree with....but not near central London....there are rules within the freedoms....so these rules (you may or may not agree) in turn are a censorship on the rules regarding censorship....

And I posted something about one type of censorship which I find ridiculous while explaining why similar "censorship" (nobody is "exposed" to broadcast media like they are their physical surroundings. There's no parallel.) is not as ridiculous [, dumbass].

>>ok, how about, would you be ok, with a nazi organization funding anti-Jew propaganda through buying airspace during the commercials of a program intended for toddlers?<<

No company would sell such an organization advertising; they'd lose viewers and others advertisers the day they did it. They would go out of business and cease to be able to air such propaganda. It would take care of itself. Your examples are already prevented by the free market--How are you giving us any defense of the need for censorship by giving us examples of where it is not necessary?

>>what about an advertisement for a gun that was a war simulation on a billboard 10 feet from your bedroom window, with a high volume, that made it impossible to sleep.<<

Also already prevented, in this case by laws regarding noise pollution in residential areas. If your local government allows such signs near your residence, you should probably write them a letter.

>>silencing their message is consorship even if their method disturbs the peace.<<

Who wants to silence their message? I see no problems with gun advertisements. The sort of firearms used in crimes are verrrrry rarely the expensive firearms that would be advertised if such advertisements were on billboards. If their message does not disturb the peace or violate local residential zoning laws, let them advertise their firearm. Who cares? A picture of a 9mm on a wall or billboard isn't going to ruin my day... or effect it in any way.

>>so if what you support happened, the hosue across the street could make extra money letting some company put some uber large billboard either on his lawn or on the side of his house, no matter how wealthy you are, there could be a billboard placed somewhere that was impossible not to notice, a grotesk one, like drew carey in udnerwear, but you support people doing that?<<

Local laws (especially in residential areas) already take care of this all across the country (and globe, presumably?). Unless you live in a slum surrounded by the poor and desperate who would sell the side of their house for such a billboard (which would suggest they live in an area where nobody would pay for such an advertisement anyway) where such would actually be allowed by local elected officials (which is 0% of the places I've ever been), it's not a problem. I think anyone living in such an area should have bigger concerns than what their neighbor painted on their home and how they bought dinner today. Enforcing ridiculous and unnecessary censorship laws would require taxing people more and only make this situation worse for the person you propose censorship laws would protect. As if they're not already protected by laws in every community anyway.

>>another hypothetical, what if someone decided to write "whore" on your daughter, would you erase it and censor the person who did it, or would you tell your daughter not to wash it and to keep it visible?<<

It's fitting that your example is absolutely retarded, because that's all you've been posting: absolutely ridiculous "examples" that do not support the point you're trying to make because you've got nothing coherent to post here. There are no examples not already prohibited by other laws that violate basic decency--because those examples are beyond censorship and violate basic decency, so communities across the globe already prevent them for reasons other than censoring content. You're proposing that anyone who doesn't support censorship shouldn't have a problem with someone writing whore on their daughter or they're a hypocrite? That's retarded. Honestly.

>>The problem with your understanding is that you are thinking for yourself. You
aren't thinking about what other people might think, or how other people might
want to raise children.<<

Let them raise their children however they want. That's the idea. Get the hell out of their business. You're proposing imposing your preferences on people in order to protect them from people imposing preferences on them... Hello hypocrisy!

>>You have been given a set of examples each displaying in some way why censorship
MIGHT be important and even applicable.<<

Absolutely retarded examples which have exemplified why censorship is unnecessary--the abuses and violations of basic decency in said examples are already prevented by laws without censorship.

>>one could say someone advertising on the side of his house is defacing the neighborhood.<<

And every neighborhood has a local government and can decide what it wants to do for itself. Where do you come in?

>>sigh, because you're being irrational, im gonna have to do the most extreme example i can think of. someone expresses himself by killing people; stopping him from killing people would be censorship, do you not support stopping such an individual?<<

In case your whore example was not retarded enough, you've gone beyond it to an even more retarded "example" of the fact that you do not understand that every law man has ever created from the earliest laws are not "censorship." And if you insist that every law ever is censorship and so that must be what people defending freedom over censorship are defending, let me correct you: It's not.

How [ ]ing stupid is this? Seriously? Someone must have spiked my lunch with LSD, because I refuse to accept that anyone is this dense.

You just defined prohibiting writing on another human being and prohibiting murder as censorship. I'm not going to entertain this bullshit.

just dont videotape the vasectomy and put it on a giant video billboard... because then i'll be offended and want it censored.

you say my definition is wrong, when i dont present one, and you are unable to provide your own definition

ignorant? dude i went to college, saw that shit.  i'm not going to censor you for writing shit on me when im passed out drunk because that was me being an idiot.  kids will do stupid shit to each other day in and day out because that's what stupid kids do.  what you cannot do is go write on an 8 year old if you feel like it.  if youre going to use the "write whore on a girl" line then specify who so we know to laugh at you even harder, thanks.

"No, I have not. And prohibiting such is not censorship."

you claim to knwo what is and isnt censorship yet you're still unable to share with us its definition. if preventing messages that you deem not appropriate isnt censorship, what is censorship?