Motor Accidents and Censorship

Every country has has media banned for being offensive, to a greater or lesser extent (Australia is particularly bad for a developed nation). The question is always asked by defenders of free-speech: "If you find it offensive, why are you exposing yourself to it?"
Any sensible, free thinking adult should be able to make a decision for themselves about what they read, watch, look at or play, based on their own thoughts and feelings as to what is offensive. Claiming that something should be banned for being offensive is like walking out into the middle of a busy road, getting hit by a car, and then calling for motor vehicles to be banned. Insanity; logical thought dictates that if you don't want to get hit by a car, you shouldn't step out into the road in front of one.
So why would you expose yourself to something that you know will offend you, or make you uncomfortable?

I can choose not to watch it, but other people will.
This is equivalent to seeing someone else step out and get hit by a truck, and then calling for a ban on vehicles; and thus, is an invalid argument.
People are different, with different thoughts; so what they consider as offensive may (usually will) be different to others. By the time a person reaches adulthood, they should be able to make their own educated decisions about this. Situations where they can't, as a result of stunted mental development, lack of upbringing, etc. are anomalies, and are in no way grounds for a decision affecting the majority.
No person should ever be able to make decisions for another individual who is equally capable of making that same decision, which affects only them.

And of course, every anti-free-speech contenders favourite "ace up the sleeve":
Think of the children.
I'll bite. A lot of what people attempt to get banned is, generally, unhealthy for a child who's mind isn't fully developed, and their access should be restricted (as it is, in situations where it doesn't actually fall victim to the ban-hammer.)

So why are the children getting access to this "offensive" material; where are the parents?
No semi-competent parent would let their child haphazardly play on the streets, at the risk of getting hit. Why isn't the same care put into restricting what their children are being exposed to? Lets look at the various stages:

(PRE-MEDIA): As a baby, pre-crawling, the child has no control whatsoever of where it goes. Likewise, it shouldn't be exposed to any media, really. Not to say the G-rated kids shows and the like are going to have a negative impact, but the child really isn't gaining anything aside from looking at pretty colours (baby toys satisfy this requirement) or listening to the voice of a guardian reading them a story (talking to the child, even making stupid baby noises satisfies this requirement.)
The child has no control whatsoever of what its exposed to; just as it has no control whatsoever of whether or not it gets hit by a car.

G-RATED: As a toddler, the baby is now able to crawl/walk. However it still doesn't really have much forethought as to where it is moving to, beyond "that toy looks nice, I'll go pick it up." Aside from blatant negligence on the part of the caretaker (which is an anomaly), the child will still have no means whatsoever of getting itself onto a road. By the same token, the child is now mentally developed enough to take in very basic media; simple books, toddler's TV shows, etc. However, they still should/will have very limited choice, if any, as to what they watch. "You can choose between 'The Very Hungry Caterpillar' and 'Gruffalo'", as opposed to "We're in a book store, pick anything you want me to read you."
The child is starting to get the ability to take in information in the form of media, just as it has the base requirement, as primitive as it is, to relocate itself onto a road (in the form of crawling/toddling). The parent still should be restricting heavily what the child can actually be exposed to, like they would restrict the ability to leave the house and head onto a street.

PG-RATED: The child is now older, coming towards the end of its single-digit years. A qualified parent will give the child somewhat more freedom with regard to being on the street than before; it may be allowed to play in the driveway, or go out walking along quiet roads, but the parent will constantly enforce the correct crossing "method" (look left, then right, then left, then cross), but will still keep an eye out, and hold the kid's hand across busy/semi-busy roads.
As such, the child is developed enough to take in more complex information than before, and will have free reign to watch or read what the like, within the range of "PG" material. The parent still should have a heavy involvement in what the child is choosing to expose itself to, and ensure no more mature material (the "busy roads") are slipping through.

M-RATED: The child is a young teenager, and is now pretty much capable of navigating the streets by itself. The parent will still, however, remind her/him to "be careful on the roads". The teenager will be able to walk sidewalks of essentially any road safely, but will still be heavily encouraged to only cross at designated crossings, as they probably will still not be able to accurately judge distances/speed of oncoming vehicles. If the parent catches their child being unsafe, they will get involved and explain/remind the child about road safety.
The teenager now is pretty much open to any media aside from Restricted R16/R18 material. Although some content in M-rated stuff will go over their heads, nothing will be detrimental to their mental development. They will be able to choose for themselves what to read, watch, or play, and have access to it on their own. The caretaker will still have a (more distant) involvement in the teen's exposure, to monitor and make sure no R16/R18 material is slipping through.

R16: The child is almost an adult. Trying to navigate across a main road without the aid of a crossing, but up to this point, they are fully able to maintain their safety in the street. If they get into any accidents/near accidents though, the parent will intervene, and more-so if this becomes a trend.
Aside from strictly adult material (R18), the teenager is free to expose themselves to whatever they please. Still, the parent is still involved, and will ensure no R18 media is getting to them, unless they deem it acceptable. If breaches of this become a trend, the parent gets more involved.

R18: The child is now an adult. It is solely responsible for what happens on the road, and is solely responsible for what it exposes itself to. Assuming proper raising, and with the assistance of regulatory warnings (traffic signs/indicators, and restriction labels noting what content may be offensive) they can make their own informed decisions about how to be safe in the street, and what they are exposed to.
They are responsible for themselves.


This brings us to the final topic: Restrictions.

First of all, certain, very select things should be banned outright: Anything involving child pornography, anything involving rape (real, not acted), or violence to people or animals (real, not acted). These should be banned on the grounds that as a requirement for their development, they will infringe upon the basic freedoms expected in society.

As for everything else, if it is acted, described in writing, or drawn, it shouldn't be banned, but it should have restricted access to certain age groups depending on the severity of the material.
In order for this to work, the ratings need to be objective, representative of the masses, and enforced properly. Ratings boards need to also be rotated frequently, to avoid corruption.
Ratings boards should be like a jury: made up of regular adult citizens, chosen at random, and with enough people to be able to come to a conclusive decision. Of course, unlike juries, it should be optional, otherwise people might be forced against their will to view something they find objectionable. The letter of summons includes a description of the material they are being called on to rate, so they can decide if it might offend them.
Once a decision has been made, all decisions are subject to re-evaluation, by public nomination. A government forum is created and made open to the public, listing all the ratings and reasons, and feedback may be submitted by anyone, agreeing or disagreeing with a decision. If enough disagreements are submitted, the material gets re-rated.
As far as enforcement goes, harsher punishments for people selling to younger viewers, along the lines of what is in place for people selling liquor, cigarettes to minors.

What we need is less censorship; in its place we need parenting, we need objective ratings representing the majority, and we need harsher punishments for people who intentionally expose minors to content which may be affect them.

"Gay is unnatural" is a redundant comment

A lot of anti-gay types will make this statement: "Homosexuality is unnatural." That's the entirety of their anti-gay argument. "Unnatural". I'm not going to talk about about whether or not that's true (its not); but rather demonstrating why it really is irrelevant to the greater issue of gay rights, and why homophobes who use it need to at least come up with something a bit more original.

Lets pretend for a moment that being gay is in fact a personal choice, or a product of environment; that its unnatural. By using this as a reason for why homosexuality is wrong, you're making the (incredibly bold) statement that "unnatural = bad". Very little of what we utilise on a daily basis is natural. Computers, calculators, abacuses; all are man-made. Video games, television, books; the majority of our entertainment is a result of human ingenuity. Aeroplanes, cars, trains; any form of transport aside from walking is unnatural. Anything that makes use of a wheel is not in tune with nature. All of these unnatural developments have contributed so much to our society, that any typical modern person would be at a complete and utter loss without the effects of humans challenging nature. Thats just the tip of the iceberg of what fits into both the "unnatural" and "good/beneficial" categories.

And those are just products. Humanity as a whole is, by nature, selfish and competitive. At the very core, the basic primal goal of any creature, not just people, is to continue its existence. And yet, throughout history there have been countless examples of people going against this natural instinct and sacrificing themselves for the betterment of their peers. Often people who they have no connection with beyond sharing the same opinion on a matter. The aims of a movement supersede the natural instinct.

Of course, this is a direct result of humanity being granted, by nature, the blessing of sentience. However, if you're going to claim that this renders all of the above as being a result of nature, then you'd have to agree that any choice or social conditioning which leads to being gay is also resultant of nature.

By claiming that "unnatural = bad", you're also suggesting that "natural = good".
One only needs to look over the major news headlines of the last few years to see that this is completely false. Tsunamis, hurricanes, earthquakes; all of these are terrible occurrences as a result of nature (they're called "natural disasters" for a reason.)
And no one can argue that nature is exclusively bad, given that at the very least it provides the essential requirements for life; and a lot more on top of that.

Clearly, then, the naturalness of something has absolutely no influence on whether something is right or wrong; the only factor in that is the end result of the product, characteristic or behaviour in question.
From this, I think we can safely assume that anyone who pulls out the "gayness is against nature" statement (I refuse to call it an argument) is simply a bigot for the sake of bigotry, relying on empty clichés because they have no legitimate argument to back up their claim.