I'm guessing it's censorship on the (presumably) Australian TV channel that the show has been syndicated to, from which this clip is taken.

And mainstream media's self censorship continues
http://www.alternet.org/media/msnbc-correspondent-i-was-canceled-because-i-criticized-networks-pro-israel-coverage

Just so it's clear, if a dude scanned his junk and sent it to people he'd probably be arrested too. Article 175 of the Japanese legal code prohibits the distribution of "indecent" materials which has traditionally been interpreted to mean "porn" and that's probably how the police are viewing this case--as porn distribution.

Also, those penis parades are fertility festivals and they have vagina counterparts. Do a Google image search for "Hime no miya matsuri" and prepare to have your mind blown at the complete lack of hang-ups Japanese people have about genitalia.

Therefore, it's basically a legal issue, not a cultural one. Because Japan's constitution technically does not allow censorship (Article 21) this lady might have a case if she can convince the courts that she's engaged in art and not commerce. Then again, the courts here are total crap shoots and I sometimes think you'd have a better chance of finding justice in some 3rd world kangaroo court than the Japanese court system.

.

I don't know. I don't think this is censorship. I think it was just edited out for time, because this really doesn't present any new information. As he said, he's just quoting the 9/11 report. We already know that we had all of the information necessary. Everyone knows. It was widely, widely reported.

It's not really censorship if they put the full interview up for all to see, it's editing.
True enough, it's editing not just for time but for content apparently, seemingly to further an agenda and to obfuscate facts that don't further that agenda, and that's certainly NOT what a true news organization would do (I'm looking at you, Fox). They should be called out on it...but properly, for bad edditing. Censorship to me would be if they stripped that from the online 'full' interview and pretended he didn't say it.

I agree that what Snowden is saying here is important -- and I personally agree with the concept fully. BUT, that being said, I don't necessarily think that NBC is guilty of "censoring" him here as a result of some hidden nefarious agenda.

The whole interview posted here is 43 minutes long. I'd guess that it is has been trimmed of some comments from Greenwald and probably the other journalist that it was mentioned made the trip to Russia with NBC. Tack commercials on top of that and you have what I'd assume is a 1 hour show on TV.

I'm sure that NBC recorded *way* more interview footage than could be crammed into a single hour, and I'd wager that his comments here didn't make the cut not because of censorship or in an effort to alter the thrust of his message, but rather simply in an effort to fill the time allotment of the show with the most interesting and relevant content possible (as judged by NBC).

So, while I'd jump at a chance to legitimately criticize the media in general and NBC specifically here, I don't think that accusing them of censorship is particularly fair. On the other hand, I might disagree with NBC's choice to cut this particular content because I do find it very interesting and relevant personally... And that in turn makes me wonder what *other* interesting stuff didn't make the 1 hour cut!

Nice, but would have been nicer if she could have defied gravity at a higher resolution. At 240 she could be naked and digital censorship blocks would be almost superfluous.

Nipplegate 2004.

As American boys were creating 4.5 million orphans in a foreign war fought on a pretext shown to be a lie, American mothers lost their minds when Justin Timberlake exposed Janet Jackson's breast for half a second during the Superbowl halftime.

The FCC received 511 complaints in 2001. In 2004, nearly 1.5 million complaints triggered by Nipplegate forced the FCC to bring the all-powerful broadcasting industry to heel, handing out record fines and ensuring ongoing censorship of 'offensive material' that continues today.

The National Coalition on Television Violence estimates that an American child will witness 8,000 murders and 100,000 acts of violence on television by the time they finish elementary school. But an exposed female nipple...

"It's just not safe for children anymore."

Why do they hate Family Guy?

And why is it only Muslims who still get upset enough at irreverent media to seriously deter its production with predictable threats of violence? To hell with all chilling effects and censorship based on outrage based on bronze age myths. Every threat against a speaker should and usually does spawn dozens more like him in solidarity with the threatened speaker. On the internet this is known as the Streisand effect and it's pretty much inevitable. The assholes making death threats against cartoonists are way behind the times. "Islamophobia" acquiring the opprobrium of racism is absurd. Religion is a choice like becoming a member of the asshole tea party, not something unchangeable that you're born with like skin color. One might as well coin a term "Republicanophobia" and apply it to any harsh critic of the Republican party. All religions are rotten to the core just as all major parties are rotten to the core. But some religions are worse than others and some parties are worse than others, notwithstanding individual variability.

Too bad Conan didn't pull a Stern and go to some channel with no censorship.

I think that's because most Sifters find drive-by comments that don't show even a hint of critical thinking (I'm referring to his first post) more egregious than posts by racists, homophobes, or religious zealots who at last make a token effort to provide support for their own views (no matter how flawed that support may be).

BTW, it took me longer to write the above than to think about it. Yes, I am proud of myself.

Maybe we could have a little less drama and a little more reasonable argument from your posts on this topic? You know that people on the Sift will comment on shit like this (i.e. "censorship"/bias on the Sift in the form of downvotes) forever... if it doesn't look like they're going to get drawn into a flame war in the process.

All I'm saying is that the tone comes off as confrontational. Two commenters above me have already self-censored responses to you pretty much for that very reason. If your goal is to get people to think seriously about this topic, then you'll probably need to change the way you post about it. Of course, if your goal is to troll or sit on your high horse and let the rest of us know how bad our shit stinks then please let me know now so I can put you on my ignore list.

Those beeps are so annoying. We all know they are saying "fucking", so say it. This censorship of curse words is ridiculous and juvenile.  Grow up America.

Try to post too many stories that they don't think are important, and they control it at the source and ban you. Not exactly my idea of an "open" site that many people believe Reddit to be. The flow should be controlled by up and down votes, not single admins that simply say "nope".

Don't get me started on how they try to promote their site as a "social" site, when there is a heavy dark line that prevents you from posting "whatever you want". That line is controlled by people behind the scenes. Basically, the site has censorship, and doesn't want you to know that it has censorship.

First of all, prejudice against race and prejudice against religion aren't quite on equal footing, since one is something you're actually born with and the other is something that you can actually affect later in life with your own decisions. Prejudice against how people are born, something that's totally beyond their own control, that's just insane on the face of it. Prejudice against their religion or lack of it though, since that is either the result of them actively thinking about it and coming to a conclusion, or perhaps more commonly actively not thinking about it and just going with what they were told when they were young... There's room there for a healthy dose of prejudice.

Secondly, censorship isn't the answer, not even on YouTube.

But overall, DAMN it feels good to see stuff like this. Gives hope that maybe, just maybe one day this world won't be so bad after all.

@VoodooV as much as you'd like to fantasize about me being hurt and crying in a corner, I assure I'm just pointing out that you're wasting time trying to troll me instead of arguing like someone with the least bit of intellectual honesty, so you'll hopefully realize it doesn't work.

I guess you didn't, and now you're just being juvenile, even quoting my entire post after I asked you not to. This begs the question, why haven't you insulted my mom yet? Seriously, it's the logical next step. Why can't you be honest about being a troll? I already have the thumbnail, is this the best you can do?

There are no rules for us talking, you can do whatever you want, really, just troll like you've been doing since all this started, I won't be impressed. You think debating requires enforceable rules? Rules that involve some kind of coercion, like a fine, maybe prison time? Is that why you've been acting like a brat, to illustrate the need for what... censorship?

As much as I'd like to see you booted from the videosift community, I can't pull any strings around here, but that wouldn't be coercion if I did, because no one has a right to post on videosift. Censorship, on the other hand, would involve sending a police officer to your house and arresting you for excessive trolling. Can you see the difference? Does that example help illustrate what "coercion" means?

When I say no one cares about this internet argument, I'm hoping you'll stop trying to impress the huge crowd you think is reading this BS you've been posting. You do realize your antics are useless on me, right?

What emotional content am I resorting to when I use the words "freedom" and "coercion"? I dare you to prove to me how I'm being emotional about them. Prove it. PROVE IT. lmao

My initial question didn't involve gun control at all, it was broader, I was asking, "won't people be less inclined to be responsible if they have less freedom?", it's about how having less freedom makes people tend not to be so responsible.

Over time, when we take people's freedoms away, they tend to be less responsible about the decisions we're not letting them make. There's no way they can learn about any different (good or bad) outcomes related to decisions they couldn't make, and they can't be held responsible for them either, so they can hardly become more responsible.

You keep avoiding this simple explanation and shouting about everything else. What are you so afraid of?

P.S.: if you want to admit to trolling me, just quote my entire post again. I dare you.