Your cart is currently empty!
Why Do We Censor Words but Not Violence?
This past Saturday, I had the rare pleasure of an hour to myself and full control of the TV remote—a precious commodity in my household. It’s like a scene from The Hunger Games, where only the strongest and most fearless can claim it. Spoiler alert: that’s never me, as my kids tend to intimidate me a bit.
There it was, the remote, left unguarded on the couch, so I took a chance. I kicked off my shoes, kicked back, and began channel surfing like a pro. (Okay, let’s be honest; I’m not very skilled with remotes. There are just too many buttons for me to handle without my kids’ tech support.) Eventually, I landed on the UFC 188 prelims. Don’t judge! It was 2:00 PM on a Saturday. My choices were mixed martial arts or some landscaping show on the Home & Garden channel. Watching fighters go head-to-head is way more thrilling than watching someone plant roses. Just saying.
As I lounged on my couch, snacking away and witnessing blood fly across the screen as one fighter pummeled another, I had an epiphany. The real absurdity was the bleeping sound censoring the foul language—words like “shit” and “damn,” covered up so that impressionable kids wouldn’t hear them. I get it; it was 2:00 PM, and many children might be watching. Parents want to shield their little ones from profanity, fearing it could lead to bad behavior.
But let’s get real: I was watching two semi-naked men in a cage, beating each other senseless. There was blood everywhere, including streaming down one guy’s face and splattering on the floor with every punch. I’ve seen less gore in episodes of The Walking Dead.
While the fighters were covered in blood, the curse words were bleeped out to protect the innocent ears of children. But this was UFC, not a scripted show. There were no special effects here; those were real people getting hurt—not actors pretending to wince in pain. And yet, we’re more concerned about a few choice words than the actual brutality happening on-screen.
Is there really a segment of society that finds certain four-letter words more disturbing than actual bloodshed? I’m not sure I’d want to meet them.
Now, I’m not saying that UFC or other mixed martial arts broadcasts should be censored. In fact, I was genuinely entertained and enjoyed the athleticism on display. However, I’m puzzled by the notion that we prioritize censoring language over violence. If we’re worried about children mimicking behaviors they see on TV, then we need to rethink our censorship priorities. If little Johnny drops an F-bomb at dinner, the worst that could happen is Grandma gasping on her mashed potatoes (and maybe a light punishment, depending on his parents). But if he tries a flying armbar on his friends, that might lead to a trip to the ER!
Clearly, it seems more logical to censor the blood and the hits rather than the words. Words themselves aren’t dangerous; it’s the intention behind them that can be harmful. You’d think that in a world rife with violence—mass shootings and rising crime rates—we’d be more concerned about kids watching bloody brawls than about them hearing a few bad words.
Maybe I’m just overthinking it. My kids have definitely been known to have a colorful vocabulary.
In this messed-up world, I don’t have all the answers. Perhaps enrolling Johnny in martial arts could teach him discipline and respect, along with combat skills. And let’s not forget to sign his sister up too; she might need to know how to counter that sleeper hold someday. For more on this topic, check out this resource on IVF and family planning at NHS.
In summary, it’s time to reevaluate our priorities when it comes to censorship. While we’re quick to bleep out words, we need to take a closer look at the messages surrounding violence in entertainment.