This question was recently closed by user vote.
I am not here to upturn your decision, but rather shed a light on how we can improve it in my own eyes.
Obligatory: My thoughts do not reflect the views of SE as a whole nor do they reflect what the other moderators believe. This is posted of my own volition only. Take it as such.
In Australia our TV is not that censored. We can watch the English version of Gordon Ramsey Kitchen Nightmare and hear every swear word.
In the American version they beep the word, add a defocus to his mouth so you can't lip read. I have even seen instances of where they defocus logos on caps and tea shirts.
The ultimate absurdity was Blazing Sadels from Mel Brooks where they placed horses neighing when the cowboys where eating beans in the famous fart scene. When this aired on Australian TV there was such an outcry that the scene was deleleted the TV station had to re air the show a week later with the fart scene in tackt. They appoligised and claimed they sourced that version from one of their other suppliers.
Why is censorship so strict in the US?
Initial text for the lazy.
This was the original form of the question. Although a bit rough in speech it raised a good point with a comparison for consideration. While further clarification can be brought into this, it is a good question at heart.
And then the proverbial feces hit the fan when this was added:
The children are often cited as the reason for censorship yet recent events show them using hand guns to kill their classmates. So maybe the skewed censorship laws are part of that. We can see moments of war on the news where people are bleeding and dying without censor ship as long as they don't swear.
I see where the user is coming from in adding this line, but with lack of sources and context, poor worded rhetoric like this triggers things that could be construed as exploiting recent tragedies (Sandy Hook the most famous obviously). And just generally talking in bad taste rather than to obtain information.
It tanked the question and pushed it into closing territory.
I do not believe this was @Doogfar's intent.
I do believe the intent is to get information on how American Censorship is different from another country's standpoint.
Now, no offense to @Stefan, but I don't believe his answer provides enough substance to be the "Accepted Answer" It is indeed a good point in itself but not enough to answer the question fully.
Now, @Dan, @Iandotkelly, and @ChristainRau all bring up excellent points in the comment section that can also be used to answer the question in an interesting and meaningful way. And that is why I would like to see this question improved and a bunch more answers on it.
It is this kind of content that is kind of controversial, upsets the established order and brings overall, a deep question that can be answered by many, each with equally correct points BUT also has one significant correct answer among them all to fit into the SE format.
So I say to you this: let's improve this question, get it reopened, and show what kind of brains behind the keyboards there are here.
As a side note, this is the kind of subjectivity that we must stay away from when bringing up these kind of issues. For example, this question originally had a line that was tounge-in-cheek about nudity in Holland.
That one line, that one singular little statement said to me that this question was just a "Let's bash on American Censorship gaise!".
Its a wonder what a single line can do to a question for me. Then again, I'm also a bit ban-happy on this site so my strictness is a hurdle to begin with.
However, @Doogfar was willing to take out that last bit and just from removing that, the question returned to what it was: A proper inquiry that piqued my interest and allowed me to start watching this question intently waiting for the next answer.
TL;DR This can be improved, let's do that and re-open it, kay?
