How Much of Media Censorship is Appropriate?

To censor..or not to censor? It's a gray area and a tricky decision. What is viewed as inappropriate to one, may be subtle or not a big deal to another, especially in a heterogeneous society. Asian media have tighter guidelines on censorship as compared to Western media. However, censorship varies even within the Asian media itself, as some countries are lenient while others strict. 

Media censorship does not take away society's right to freedom of information, instead it helps to draw the line between what's morally right and what's immoral. It helps to influence the morality of a society. I believe that media censorship is also necessary in accordance to the society's conformity. I also believe that the person who has the accountability to censor what is viewed or heard by the whole nation must be well versed in the job. They cannot merely handle the task based on ethical guidelines given on a piece of paper. Instead, they have to be able to analyse critically what their job entails before making the cut.

Sadly, I see discrepancies in our media censorship. For instance, some parts of Beyonce's If I Were a Boy was censored simply because the lyrics said "Drink beer with the guys" (The word beer was censored). Same goes for the song Hey Soul Sister by Train where the word virgin was cut. My question is, what's wrong with the word beer and virgin? Virginity is a taboo topic in many Asian cultures, but what is taboo within a society does not necessarily be vulgar, does it? If words such as beer and virgin is inappropriate, how come the famous Smack That song by Akon is not? After all, if one were to analyse the lyrics, one would find a lot of vulgarities well described. The song of course got through simply because there was no taboo words in it. Or perhaps because the Smart Aleck does not understand the song at all!

This brings me to a new incident - movies. Just a few weeks back I went to watch Black Swan at the cinema, not knowing what it was all about prior to watching it. Today, I went to watch The King's Speech. Now both these movies are world's apart, but what connects them is that both contained scenes which are deemed inappropriate (to the Asian perspective). However, if they were to censor these scenes, audience wouldn't understand the story. Thus, I assume that's why these scenes were maintained. Good job! 

My next question is, if scenes of a person touching herself (in Black Swan) and another about a king swearing every vulgar word you can think of can be released without censoring, why does a scene of an innocent kiss in the classic movie Sound of Music censored? 

There are many more of similar incidents in our media. It is annoying when censorship is done without rationality. Where exactly do we draw the line between what's appropriate and what's not?