May 26 2009, 12:56 PM, updated 17y ago
QUOTE
Overzealous censors need to get priorities right
I JUST received the May issue of the National Geographic magazine on May 20.
You’ll be wondering why it is that the May issue only arrived on the 20th? It is because our censors have been “hard at work” blotting out some pictures deemed “offensive” or “pornographic”.
I wouldn’t know and I need whichever authority or government department which screens through all these magazines for the offensive bits and put their markers to censor them to inform me the reasons for the delay.
This is not the first time, mind you. I’ve got past issue where even a cigarette was blotted out. I can only guess as to the reason.
I am not having pornography circulating among the general public and I don’t think that the National Geographic can even be remotely associated with “pornography”. So this really begs the question why.
Why do we spend so much resources doing all these blotting work? Whichever ministry or department is involved, I think it’s high time that you get your priorities right.
LOONZ,
KUALA LUMPUR.
I JUST received the May issue of the National Geographic magazine on May 20.
You’ll be wondering why it is that the May issue only arrived on the 20th? It is because our censors have been “hard at work” blotting out some pictures deemed “offensive” or “pornographic”.
I wouldn’t know and I need whichever authority or government department which screens through all these magazines for the offensive bits and put their markers to censor them to inform me the reasons for the delay.
This is not the first time, mind you. I’ve got past issue where even a cigarette was blotted out. I can only guess as to the reason.
I am not having pornography circulating among the general public and I don’t think that the National Geographic can even be remotely associated with “pornography”. So this really begs the question why.
Why do we spend so much resources doing all these blotting work? Whichever ministry or department is involved, I think it’s high time that you get your priorities right.
LOONZ,
KUALA LUMPUR.
Source 2: http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=...77742&sec=focus
QUOTE
Censors must exercise common sense
I REFER to the letter “Overzealous censors need to get priorities right” (The Star, May 22) and could not agree more with the writer.
As if banning books has not done enough damage to our right to gain knowledge, there are people who also decide for us what is right and wrong to see.
It is not just National Geographic that is censored. Time and Newsweek are “victims”, too. We are paying subscription fees for these magazines to read them in toto. Censoring them is like buying a dress from a shop only to find that the slits are sewn up because the authorities say it is too revealing.
In another instance, a picture of children taking a dive in the river was also considered pornographic and was censored. Those who think that innocent children diving is pornographic should seek professional help and have no business acting as self-appointed moral police.
Who are these people with the markers? What right do they have to blot out pictures and art pieces? Most of the pictures taken are tasteful with an artful eye and what the censors are doing is blasphemous to art.
If they think that blotting out pictures of cigarettes and images unsuitable to the public will reduce smokers and crime, haven’t they already been proven wrong?
SAY-PIAU,
Seremban.
I REFER to the letter “Overzealous censors need to get priorities right” (The Star, May 22) and could not agree more with the writer.
As if banning books has not done enough damage to our right to gain knowledge, there are people who also decide for us what is right and wrong to see.
It is not just National Geographic that is censored. Time and Newsweek are “victims”, too. We are paying subscription fees for these magazines to read them in toto. Censoring them is like buying a dress from a shop only to find that the slits are sewn up because the authorities say it is too revealing.
In another instance, a picture of children taking a dive in the river was also considered pornographic and was censored. Those who think that innocent children diving is pornographic should seek professional help and have no business acting as self-appointed moral police.
Who are these people with the markers? What right do they have to blot out pictures and art pieces? Most of the pictures taken are tasteful with an artful eye and what the censors are doing is blasphemous to art.
If they think that blotting out pictures of cigarettes and images unsuitable to the public will reduce smokers and crime, haven’t they already been proven wrong?
SAY-PIAU,
Seremban.
Quote
0.0195sec
0.53
5 queries
GZIP Disabled