|
Post by Timid Wily Lava Child on Aug 13, 2005 19:00:04 GMT -5
...if the reason they are censoring is b/c of fear of reprisals, tell me how that is any different than actually suffering the reprisals. My answer is that the fear of reprisals may have no legitimacy. Acting on it seems to give it some, and that can be a false read. The FCC gave no warnings to anyone about showing that film, which had been done before. So had Schindler's List, complete with its penises. This situation reads more like this to me, a neighborhood: "Hey, the Templeton's won't put their flag out anymore." "Why not?" "Because they're afraid the Drakes will set their house on fire if they do. Remember how they beat up that guy who molested their daughter?" "Those damn Drakes! Who do they think they are? They're unAmerican!" It legitimizes an unfounded charge, essentially creates an accusation. The people who didn't air Ryan weren't victims, they were either cowards, or opportunists. ah, the boob...the psych wards in hospitals are now filled with those young people who witnessed the boob and were irreparably damaged by the glimpse of the wayward boob, as are jails and juvrnile halls...not to mention the cemetaries...yes, that wasnt blown out of proportion or anything... It's only our God given tendency to forget that keeps us from remembering the months we spent staring close up at a boob in the beginning of our lives, otherwise we'd all be insane, and we'd never have sex for fear of all the boobs, and then we wouldn't be here. Boobs. i daresay, private ryan being what it is, it was a pretty defensable target, and as such may have been chosen to prove a point. if so, it was a point that the fcc needed to have made to it, in its crazed fury following he boob... I appreciate that acknowledgment, and you may be right - even about the need of a point being made to the FCC. My point is that we should hold responsible those who are, not those who might have been if we had done a thing. The FCC isn't to blame for Ryan. They are for the boob. That one is theirs, but it weakens the argument to hold them accountable for what you think they might have done. but i agree w/mike. when private ryan is a target, for any reason, this stuff has gone too far... If it was, and . . .well, it just wasn't. Sorry, guys, that's a phantom. as ive said, even broaching this topic means you are an indefensabley out there nut case, and are in no way capable of a civilized conversation or discussion, and shouldbe ostracized from public discourse...thats even broaching the topic... The topic of censorship? ...the fact that, say, people in china and the soviet union are subjected to fierce punishment for significantly lessser "crimes" Well, if you're referring to my censorship distinctions, that extreme isn't part of my view. When I delineate censorship from non-censorship, I don't refer to the levels of punishment, but to whether a thing has been prevented from an outside source, or has not been. ABC stations choosing not to air Ryan was not. Walmart deciding to not carry a certain magazine, for whatever reasons they may have, from "We don't like the content" to "We're simply eliminating the magazine section altogether to put in a fruit stand" is not. They can stock, or not stock, anything they damn well please for any reason they want. The Senate banning Private Ryan from all broadcast (air and cable both), and relentlessly hunting down DVDs etc., while a silly example, would be censorship. Walmart crusading to ensure that all stores stock only the magazines they stock, that no access be had to magazines off their approved list - that would be censorship. In this country, actual censorship is a hard thing to come by, because there is so much access to things. Okay, here's one. The Evil Dead 2, in Indianapolis in its theatrical run. Now this was an era when home video was not ubiquitous, and most still didn't have cable. The *only* way one might reasonably expect to ever see this is at the movie theater. The only way you will *ever* see this may be at the movie theater. So you go, and they not only won't sell you a ticket, but they have police at the door to the auditorium. If you're under 17 (or was it 21?), you have been a victim of censorship, hands own. Now I disagree with Mike when he says: "What we had here were stations that were trying to guess at what a certain group of people MIGHT find offensive." No, we had stations assuming that the FCC *would* find offense, and by acting on that, legitimized undue blame on the FCC for something it had no part in. Mike: "In some areas, there is no cable. All the people have to choose from are their local affiliates. These people are being deprived of something." Again, that's incorrect. Listen, gents, we live in a world where once a film is released on the big screen, it is thereafter *never* not available to us. This position works only if ABC is the sole pipeline to this film, and it in no way is. The Evil Dead 2 thing is no longer applicable, because assuming lack of other access is now simply unreasonable. Mike: " They did not have the choice of whether they wanted to watch the program or not. That choice was made for them." You know what? They don't have that choice right now either, because no one is broadcasting Ryan right now either. Who's censoring it right now? And the DVDs, were those pulled from the shelves that night? What about people with no TVs, shouldn't someone project the film into their houses for them? If not, that's censorship, right? Wrong. There is a huge difference between preventing something, and not being a party to presenting it. No one *has* to show, or make available, or broadcast, or play on a radio station, or sell . . . *anything* that they don't want to, for *any* reasons they may have, ...even their own cowardice. If I own a CD store, I'm not having any Springsteen in it, because I don't like him. He's a sung fart. And if it's my store, I don't have to carry his stuff, just as Stace doesn't have to have copies of CHICAGO on the shelves of his video store. Stace and I don't have to do these things, even if we are the *only* such places in town! The stores... are *ours* to do with as we please. If not carrying something would amount to censorship, then we would both have to carry everything, me every CD ever produced, and Stace every film. I realize censorship is a crusade with both of you, and it should be. It is wrong, when it actually happens, but I just don't think you're both very clear on when it is and is not happening, and where the blame ought to lie when folks react to unmade threats, however reasonably we may assume they may have been assumed.
|
|
|
Post by Michael West on Aug 13, 2005 20:42:23 GMT -5
The people who didn't air Ryan weren't victims, they were either cowards, or opportunists. I will agree with you to some extent, Dave. There are those who did not air Ryan because they wanted to grab headlines. But cowards? Yes, they should have run it and said, "To hell with these 'parents' groups. This is a tribute to our heros in uniform. We will run this on Verteran's Day." But there was also a very real financial concern. If they did run it, and if the FCC did hear the complaint, and if they did find it offensive, then they would fine the stations for each instance--fines they had just been given the authority to raise to outrageous levels. The FCC isn't to blame for Ryan. They are for the boob. That one is theirs, but it weakens the argument to hold them accountable for what you think they might have done...No, we had stations assuming that the FCC *would* find offense, and by acting on that, legitimized undue blame on the FCC for something it had no part in. Okay, let's look at Ryan: Now did the FCC say, "We forbid you to run this because it is objectionable"? Of course not. That, I think you will agree, would have clearly been labled censorship by everyone (except these "parents" groups, of course). Now, here's what they did say: "We only respond to complaints. If a complaint is offered, we will review it and see if it warrants investigation." Here's what the "parents" groups said: "If they air this thing uncut, I'm sure we will have something to say about it." Clear translation: Air it, we will complain. We complain, FCC may investigate. If they say nothing is objectionable, you're fine. If they find something objectionable, you're screwed. Now, how it really turned out...they (the "parents" groups) did complain, FCC said there was not enough to warrant an investigation, and that was that. But could the affiliates have been 100% certain that is how it would play out in the aftermath of "the boob"? I don't think they could. The FCC has given these "parents" groups the power to threaten, and they are drunk with it. Mike: "In some areas, there is no cable. All the people have to choose from are their local affiliates. These people are being deprived of something." Again, that's incorrect. Listen, gents, we live in a world where once a film is released on the big screen, it is thereafter *never* not available to us. This position works only if ABC is the sole pipeline to this film, and it in no way is. The Evil Dead 2 thing is no longer applicable, because assuming lack of other access is now simply unreasonable. So...Dave, because of the fact that the movie is available SOMEWHERE, there is no censorship if a station blocks the broadcast? Webster: censorship n 1: The action of a censor esp. in stopping the transmission or publication of matter considered objectionable. These affiliates own transmitters. Those transmitters weren't transmitting Saving Private Ryan to the people they were supposed to serve. You know what? They don't have that choice right now either, because no one is broadcasting Ryan right now either. Who's censoring it right now? And the DVDs, were those pulled from the shelves that night? What about people with no TVs, shouldn't someone project the film into their houses for them? If not, that's censorship, right? Wrong. There is a huge difference between preventing something, and not being a party to presenting it. You're right. If I own a bookstore and don't want to stock a book by Martha Stewart, am I censoring Martha? Hell no. You can buy her book anywhere. You just aren't going to get it right now. I can go to a lighting store in search of a certain lightbulb I want. If they don't have it...same thing. BUT...and I think this is one helluva distinction...my bookstore and that lighting store are not being told we will be fined huge sums of money if we do carry it, and my bookstore does not have to have a FEDERAL LICENSE from a government agency to serve the community.
|
|
|
Post by obliv326 on Aug 14, 2005 16:35:48 GMT -5
My answer is that the fear of reprisals may have no legitimacy. Acting on it seems to give it some, and that can be a false read. The FCC gave no warnings to anyone about showing that film, which had been done before.
well, as mike mentioned, the threats were from a parents group. the question, then, is whether or not the fcc would follow through. given the overreaction to the boob, and the overreaction to howard stern, why would you not believe they would do the same w/private ryan? howard stern's thing (and honestly, i believe it happened befor the private ryan stick...the day after the boob, or pretty close?) was not like a new, more offensive thing he just tried. it was like his old schtick, and they threw the book at him. why, then , would you not believe they might do the same, given their overreaction to stern/the boob that they would not give creedence to the unfounded complaints by the parents group? i mean, sure, its stupid. its an overreaction. bu then again, the fcc decided they were going to be sticklers and really follow through on what was broadcast, since a boob was exposed on tv for a millisecond, runing millions of lives.
I appreciate that acknowledgment, and you may be right - even about the need of a point being made to the FCC. My point is that we should hold responsible those who are, not those who might have been if we had done a thing. The FCC isn't to blame for Ryan. They are for the boob. That one is theirs, but it weakens the argument to hold them accountable for what you think they might have done.
If it was, and . . .well, it just wasn't. Sorry, guys, that's a phantom.
again, given the fact that they SAID they were going to be tough and impose fines, how can you be sure. it was the fcc that stepped over their bounds. fearing this reprisal, which they said they were going to do, cant be immediately assumed to be an act of cowardice.
The topic of censorship?
no, the question of censorship as a solution to anything, on any level.
Well, if you're referring to my censorship distinctions, that extreme isn't part of my view. When I delineate censorship from non-censorship, I don't refer to the levels of punishment, but to whether a thing has been prevented from an outside source, or has not been. ABC stations choosing not to air Ryan was not. Walmart deciding to not carry a certain magazine, for whatever reasons they may have, from "We don't like the content" to "We're simply eliminating the magazine section altogether to put in a fruit stand" is not. They can stock, or not stock, anything they damn well please for any reason they want.
in my opinion, it is a matter of the reason. if you once allowedd something, and then stop, b/c of a minority view about it bing "offensive", then its censorship.. intent really does matter. if wal mart is removing magazines b/c they arent economically viable, and putting in a fruitstand b/c they wil make more money, then it is not censorship, b/c they are not trying to silence an opinion or voice. if they decide they need to get rid of rolling stone b/c dr james dobson has decided it is an immoral voice in america, then sorry, it is censorship, b/c they want to limit an opinion.
The Senate banning Private Ryan from all broadcast (air and cable both), and relentlessly hunting down DVDs etc., while a silly example, would be censorship. Walmart crusading to ensure that all stores stock only the magazines they stock, that no access be had to magazines off their approved list - that would be censorship. In this country, actual censorship is a hard thing to come by, because there is so much access to thing
yeah, but when wal-mart decides to limit access, do you think the group that "won" there will stop? do you think their focus is just to limit access in wal mart? no. they want whatever it is, be it roling stone or eminmem cd's, GONE, completely. by caving in in the first line of defense, be it walmart, 7-11, whatever, then the next line they have a little more momentum. if these retailers voluntarily give in to the minority opinion,, then soon, someone along the line will have to stand up and fight them, at their own cost.
how does this relate? if you overreact to a boob, then you go aftr howard stern, its really not too long before moral scolds think they have a foothold, and they DO go after saving private ryan. its really that easy and that direct, essentially,b/c it happened...the parents group was emboldened to go after saving private ryan. they thought they had that much strength....and that is a problem in america.
No, we had stations assuming that the FCC *would* find offense, and by acting on that, legitimized undue blame on the FCC for something it had no part in.
mike got this covered pretty well, but i would add...why would you NOT assume they would do what they said they would? b/c you can defend your right to show saving private ryan...maybe you can defend your right...in court...using expnsive lawyers...against the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT...maybe you dont want to have to spend the money, so you bend over backwards to try and comply to even the most illogical, irresponsible acts of censorship attempted by the mst extreme "parents groups" in america...maybe they cant win, but then again, maybe the fcc tries to pull something like this and it ends up bankrupting you and putting you out of buisness...it can happen. ask the dead kennedys.
You know what? They don't have that choice right now either, because no one is broadcasting Ryan right now either. Who's censoring it right now? And the DVDs, were those pulled from the shelves that night? What about people with no TVs, shouldn't someone project the film into their houses for them? If not, that's censorship, right?
Wrong. There is a huge difference between preventing something, and not being a party to presenting it.
No one *has* to show, or make available, or broadcast, or play on a radio station, or sell . . . *anything* that they don't want to, for *any* reasons they may have, ...even their own cowardice.
and if you do that because someone decides its offensive, well...its buckling to censorship. like i said, they arent going to stop w/you. these people arent satisfied with stopping thigs from being projected into your home. they want to stop adults from being able to make decisions for themselves what they can show in their own home.
he flipside of your argument, dave...if someone doesnt have to be a party to showing something...well, no one has to be pary to watching it either...if you think saving private ryan, or howard stern, or whatever, will offend you...hey, DONT WATCH IT...EVERY sinlge one of their arguments falls apart in the face of that...
as i was saying, the target of these people would be, say, censoriing ozzy albums, or prince, or keeping adults from being able to watch porn, the idea that they will be satiated at any point until everything in the world is at the level of barney is naive.
If I own a CD store, I'm not having any Springsteen in it, because I don't like him. He's a sung fart. And if it's my store, I don't have to carry his stuff, just as Stace doesn't have to have copies of CHICAGO on the shelves of his video store. Stace and I don't have to do these things, even if we are the *only* such places in town! The stores... are *ours* to do with as we please. If not carrying something would amount to censorship, then we would both have to carry everything, me every CD ever produced, and Stace every film.
well, i WOULD stock chicago, or springsteen...why not make money from their fans, if you own a store?
its quite a different thing, though, if you Do stock chicago, and i storm in and insist you remove it, because I dont like it!
the reaction of these parents groups is NO DIFFERENT than that, except for the fact that their choice to be offended is not actual quality, but merely limitd to content.
I realize censorship is a crusade with both of you, and it should be. It is wrong, when it actually happens, but I just don't think you're both very clear on when it is and is not happening, and where the blame ought to lie when folks react to unmade threats, however reasonably we may assume they may have been assumed.[/quote]
well, the problem is, the threats were made...the parents groups most certainly DID say they would complain. and had they won, the next target would have been even closer to the mainstream...what would it be? a rerun of friends?
these people are insidious. they never stop, and anything that emboldens them just starts a new round of attacks. i , thereefore, am unwilling to give ANY ground, even the first step. i grant them nothing, nd will fight them with every single effort to stop me that they make...the first time they try and make a move, they mus be stopped.
|
|
|
Post by Timid Wily Lava Child on Aug 15, 2005 0:10:50 GMT -5
Clear translation: Air it, we will complain. We complain, FCC may investigate. If they say nothing is objectionable, you're fine. If they find something objectionable, you're screwed. Now... let's consider something else. There are broadcast standards. We all know this. They used to be more stringent, and more strictly followed. They have both become more liberal, and been less enforced - perhaps until the boob. But let's be clear about something, SCHINDLER'S LIST and SAVING PRIVATE RYAN unequivocally break those standards. Bust right through them. So if ABC shows Ryan, and if anyone complains, parents group, anti-patriot group, whomever, and then if the FCC investigates, do you know what they'll find? That there *is* a violation. ...or that there is not. The fine will not be for having been unfairly complained about, but for having broken known standards, standards you and I know about, and the station managers know better. If, on the other hand, a parents' group, or an anti family values group, whomever, were to complain about the offensive content of Full House, and the FCC were to investigate... same standards. If you and I form a group, and threaten to lower the FCC boom on any station that dares to run Full House, those stations are in exactly the same boat. Difference? They know that the content of Full House warrants no fines. The content of Ryan does. We all wish it didn't, because we all think it's important, and that the FCC should look the other way in support of a film whose value we affirm. And they may, for a while. But they don't have to. And it doesn't become a police state when they start up again. See, and that's now us wanting to have influence over what gets broadcast, just like the parents groups. The parents groups don't want exploding faces on TV for anyone, because they personally don't want to see them, or don't want their kids to. They get their way, we lose out. They've imposed. We *do* want the thing broadcast, because we think it's an important film, and these days affirming the transmission of anything is deemed noble, so it is broadcast - not on pay cable, but scattered in the airwaves. Some of them have older TVs without V-chips, and their kids, in the other room, flip past it, stop, and see heads and faces blown off of... well, bodies and other heads, I guess. They're too young to process, or for explanation to mean anything - child scarred for life. And yes, Ryan is that effective. Now we've imposed. What's the difference? Well, other than our perceived nobleness of our side, there is the fact that these folks bought a TV knowing the standards, just as we do. If you and I get our way, those standards are broken. If they get their way, the standards are followed, but you and I get morally incensed. So...Dave, because of the fact that the movie is available SOMEWHERE, there is no censorship if a station blocks the broadcast? Roll your eyes all you like (that is what that cartoon is doing, right?), no station blocked the broadcast. They chose not to air it. I made that distinction before. You acknowledged it. Even your definition below bears it out: Webster: censorship n 1: The action of a censor esp. in stopping the transmission or publication of matter considered objectionable. These affiliates own transmitters. Those transmitters weren't transmitting Saving Private Ryan to the people they were supposed to serve. They weren't "stopping" anything. They weren't stopped by outsiders, nor were they stopping. They chose not to do it. Their choice - theirs to make. And the statement "Those transmitters weren't transmitting Saving Private Ryan to the people they were supposed to serve" implies that those transmitters belong to the people, or that 'service' means those stations were supposed to show Ryan. They're not supposed to do anything they don't want to do. Those transmitters serve the American Broadcasting Company, who own them, not the people. And they didn't broadcast dead air, so they were serving. It wasn't what you wanted served, but it was whatever they wanted to serve you. Please get over the idea that if something might offend someone, people are more honor bound to broadcast it. Or that if someone else gets to see it in a certain forum, so should you. Stace is right about one thing (about a lot of things, actually, but I'm targeting this one), if you don't want to see it, don't watch it. But it's also right to say, "If you want to see it, go get it your damn self." It's plenty available. No one owes you a free show. Even if others are getting a free show. If I own a bookstore and don't want to stock a book by Martha Stewart, am I censoring Martha? Hell no. You can buy her book anywhere. My point exactly. Same with Private Ryan. You can get it anywhere. You really can. BUT...and I think this is one helluva distinction...my bookstore and that lighting store are not being told we will be fined huge sums of money if we do carry it, and my bookstore does not have to have a FEDERAL LICENSE from a government agency to serve the community. That's because people have to go to your bookstore and pay you to release the book to them. They have to pry it from your hands with payola (normally we just call this "buying", of course). They have to leave their houses. They get to peruse the books, then they have to pay for them, and deliberately transport them into their homes. The books aren't flying in all by themselves, or passing by the windows such that the people in the house should have to exercise their freedom to close the shades if they don't want to see your books fly by - so others *can* see the books fly by. A broadcast station is exactly that - stuff scattered out into the airwaves for all to smack into when they turn on their sets. Can they just not turn on their sets? Can they just skip this or that channel? Sure. But sorry folks, they shouldn't have to. We have standards because the majority want to be able to have a television they don't have to have a relationship with, don't have to set up a V-chip, and an S-chip, and an L-chip... don't have to babysit. And they should be able to have that, because if you want porn, you can go get it. If you want to see someone's body violently deprived of its insides, you can go get that that too, and you can show it to your kids and explain to them the horrors of war. You can go get it yourself, and pay for it yourself, and watch it yourself. Other people shouldn't have to dodge your minefields just because you think you have superior sensibilities, more 'sophisticated' or 'progressive' ones, if really you want to pat yourself on the back. These standards exist for the same reason we don't have scenes from the new CHAOS film playing on billboards by the malls for all to see. It's why strip clubs look like bunkers - no windows. People with only broadcast television have this right, if only by the pre-existence of a kind of social contract, to not have to be on alert for your preferred content, because that was the deal, it still is the deal, and frankly, you don't really need it to be there. You want it? You make the effort. And that's why we have these standards, and why the FCC has fines. This way everyone has the option to get what they want, yes, even the backward people you don't like. You get to see Private Ryan by making some effort. They get the peace of mind of knowing that they don't have to militantly monitor every televised second their kid watches. You're deprived nothing. They're deprived nothing. You don't get to tell other people what they have to avoid for your conveniences (and as long as we're following the light definition of censorship, where we apply the label no matter how ubiquitous a thing otherwise is, that's all this is about - convenience). When you say that you should get to, you're the Moral Majority. You're the PMRC. The sword has two sides.
|
|
|
Post by Timid Wily Lava Child on Aug 15, 2005 2:26:40 GMT -5
Now, of course you realize that when I say, above, "Well, you just damn well go get it yourself!" and the like, I, Dave, am not saying, "You, Mike, go do this damn thing, you!" I'm just representing the passionate comeback of the other side.
You see, the word censorship is too easy to toss about, too easy to rush to defend in any case where it's named. It too easily arouses passions. That it arouses passions is good, but the ease isn't necessarily, and we must remember that in any debate, passion has no currency. At best, it is equaled by both sides, as I suggest above - I may passionately think I have a right to see Ryan on ABC. Meanwhile someone else passionately thinks they have a right to turn on the TV set on a Sunday night without having to worry about what may pop on uninvited, especially something that is already supposed to be restricted in this one very limited avenue of distribution - freely broadcast commercial airwaves. So they're mad and fiery eyed. So what? So I'm impassioned and incensed. Who gives a flying screw? Am I right, that's all that matters. Just as anger has no privilege, so passion has no weight on the scales. It's just how I feel, how you feel. It matters friend to friend because we care about each other, but it doesn't make us right, nor our issues unchallengeable. It's a reaction. Untempered with reason, as the sole force, it can only power reactionary arguments. It's the thing that convinces the family of a slain relative that the innocent man is, in fact, guilty, no matter how exonerative the evidence, because they have so much emotion wrapped up in this, that any potential target *must* be the one, even if that potential is shown to be lacking warrant.
And that's the worst of it - passion makes us feel correct, whether we've thought through a thing or not. We should do the one without leaving the other undone.
I share your passions. You know this. In my case generally it's targeted at the restriction of ideas. I don't particularly care how freely porn is distributed, or some other things probably, but I do care about the free and open discussion of ideas. In my case it's the sensitivity censorships I abhor - I always wind up most disliking the fashionable wrongs. I think all cards should be on the table, so I'm dismissive of polite society censorships, things like "One shouldn't discuss politics and religion in polite society" or "Religion should be a private, personal matter", both of which mean "keep it to yourself".
I say bollocks to that.
But there are allowed to be times and places for things. When Saving Private Ryan made 100 mil at the box office, has been released twice on DVD, has run extensively on pay cable, *will* run extensively on basic cable... it's okay to have Sunday night at 8pm on ABC *not* be the time and place for something to run which, however well intentioned, breaks well known broadcasting rules to extreme degrees. This is a movie Steven Spielberg wasn't going to let his own children see. he knows the power of images. I think that I will never forget the shot of Hanks turning his radio operator toward him, to discover that said operator's face has recently been caved into his head. I saw the movie once. I was an adult.
There are reasons to resist the free-for-all approach to... everything. I don't think either of you are advocating that, but it sounds like it may be the logical extension of your positions.
... and uh... this was going somewhere . . .
|
|
|
Post by obliv326 on Aug 15, 2005 5:08:15 GMT -5
a couple of things...and since i cant get the quote thing to work on my computer, i will paraphrase. if i get the idea wrong, then feel free to correct me...
you used an example...private ryan comes on, kid flips past it, scarred for life...
not sure its that straightforward, the scarred for life part...it may be an image he never forgets, but we cant assume this is a bad thing. it may have the intended example on the kid (was is a violent, bloody thing, and this happens even when we never see it...or when it is a popular war, since there are plenty of movies about the horrors of vietnam, for example, but not about wwii).
but another thing...its not like ABC was going to do this as a surprise, or as filler when a football game runs short. i dont watch abc, or network tv much at all, and i knew it was going o happen. again, there was warning...by deciding that their rights as a parent superceded the rights of ABC to show the film, uncut, in this specific manner (was it memnorial day, and done as a sort of tribute or something?) they are, in essence, asking us again to raise their children for them. essentially, despite the numerous warnings, trhey didnt want to have top do the job of making sure their kids werent near a tv for those 20 inutes of extreme violence in that movie...and you know, they also probably dont want to sit their kids down and speak to them about why. rather,they would prob opverreact and panicked-ly insist the child NOT be anywhere near a tv, which would only make the child want to see it more...
the point is, they were given the tools to do what tever job they wanted to do with the program. its not like they werent given ample warning before and during the broadcast. if you dont want your kids watching it, well, sit them somewhere and atch them until the show is off...again, no one is forcing them to see it.
ah, the old "broadband tv" argument (its free, it is pumped into my house, therefore it should meet my standards).
a cou;le thjings. you mentioned this standard having been set to the majority opinion. i dont think thats the case. the majority may have agreed to abide by it, but it is clearly aimed at protecting the easily offended minority. i dont think that was your point, in any case.
you (dave) seem to have a problem with the word censorship, in guess b/c you believ it is used too broadly. fine, call it what you will. your definition of censorship may not be going on a lot, but there is certainly no shortage of a vocal, easily offended minority trying to apply their standards to not only movies, but pop culture in general.
perhaps it just goes back to how we were each raised. your parents seemed to have a pretty realistic view of movies/music, and didnt seem really restrictive. mine...well, not the case. i still havent seen terms of endearment b/c my mom deemed it too filthy...which has not kept me from renting it in the years since, i know, but that was the atmosphere in which i was raised.
my parents went to a church that believed the very act of going to a movie, any movie, was a sin. i was frequently forced to hear my momsay somethint, in response to having not been to a movie, that there was nothing "fit to see", all the while not having any clue what was actually out at the theatre. my parents didnt get cable until 1996 b/c of the same reason.
the thing about these people is that they are not willing to let people pursue the, well, pursuit of happiness. their goal is to keep anyone from seeing anything they personally object to. they will use whatever faulty pseudo science fits their needs, claiming that movies/music CAUSE certain societal issues, ignoring all other potential causes or the various and plentiful benefits movies have. i havce told you how music saved my life. the same music that my mom would not buy for my birthday b/c of an arbitrary sticker placed o its label.
having grown up with these people, i know that their quest, while not popular and not really viable for the moment, is always there in their minds. it was part of the culture war that pat buchana sought to wage. robert bork's book, slouching towards gomorrah, had a chapter devoted to "the case for censorship." these people, whoever they are, most definitely desire to impose their slim moral standards on everyone else, consenting adult or otherwise.
while we can arguue the merits of this particular case, if they can go after saving private ryan, in that climate, what chance does dawn of the dead have? or a public enemy album? or mike's novels? it may seem to you that this case is ridiculous and the people quacking about it were simply overreacting...well, the fcc said it would listen, and lookmwhat the parents groups did. thank God they went after saving private ryan and showed everyone how extreme and unreasonable they were, because if it had been something else, a late night, basic cable showing of, say, an edited for tv broadcast of showgirls, for instance, they may have gotten some people to agrre with them, and the bal may have begun rolling.
the fact is, no one has to have a tv. instead of trying to force everything to to fit the most narrow standards available, they should just get rid of their sets if they are that concerned.
nowhere does it say that anyone has the right to live their lives unoffended. i daresay, the vast majority, and i would guess the overwhelming majority, probably has not seen anything on tv, ever, to offend them, save, perhaps, bad writing and acting (in which case, your example of full house most certainly should be yanked from the air and censored...), and that being the case, giving any prchase to the easily offended is simply our being polite. i find it extremely interesting that me and others like me, who strongly disagreee with censorship or any restriction of free speech, we have no desire to FORCE people to watch films that they would consider offensive...case in point, my wife will not watch horoor movies with me, for the most part. i, however, have been forced to watch the sweeteest thing, and chicago with her (or at least as much of the latter as i could stomach before i left the theatre and sat down in return of the king)...
but i digress. as much as i may want them to, just because i think they are good films, i dont want to MAKE anyone watch dawn of the dead or boogie nights...or, as much as i would love everyone in the world to buy a copy, i know the wide game probably isnt for everyone!
these other people, though, absolutely do want to force me to deal only with what they want to experience on a personal level...and frankly, i dont want to live in a world where anything above the level of barney is punishable by law..the very standards, by the way, of the communications "decency" act, which was written and sneakily popped into legislature a few years back.
granted, it lost, but what happens if these people manage to find a way to get that firstlaw passed?
it is this reason that the saving private ryan thing was so scary. if abc was taking every precaution to watch out for them, that should have been good enough. instead, they tried to test their luck with an fcc which had claimed it would be sympathetic to their cause. again, if abc had not raised such a noise about it, we may not have ever heard it, and i promise you that the complaints would not have stopped there.
in my opinion, targeting pop culture is the wrong allocation of sources. like ive said before, when your idea is to limit what everyone can see because it fits your narrow definition of decency, you are off the table, past the extreme margins, and undeserving of a place at the table of social discourse.
so, rather than nitpick over what words we call the thing, or whether it is really censorship if it is acted upon by person A or group B, i think we stop worrying about that at all, and spend our time dealing with real issues. Heaven knows the money wasted by the fcc in lawsuits against howard stern could most certainly be spent in a better way.
its not a fight worth having. there is no merit to their case, whatsoever...even if you can squeak them by under the letter of the law, or even the spirit of the law...its a misguided law...
if you, dave, decided to try and ban springsteen from ever making a record, ever, and to destroy his past recordings, simply because you dont like them, no one would agree with you. i promise you, evcen the most ardent springsteen hater in the world (which, unfortunately fpr this particular example, probably is also you...) wouldnt agree with you...in my book, that case actually has more merit than the "morally superior" argument...
now, does this mean i dont think there are any standards, whatsoever? of course not. the assumption that, just because a particular check is not in place will result in the most extreme violations of that barrier taking place are just wrong. people tend to be civil with each other. not being civil generally gets you either ostracized, chastized, or otherwise treated badly...and it usually means people arent so willing to listen to you the next time the occasion rises.
if you take away every single concerned parents group, family values crusader, et alk ad nauseum, i promise you that almost nothing would change. if abd chowed a show that people found "ofdensive"...too offensive for mainstream tastes, it wouldnt succeed. simple as that.
so, thats my point, really...rather than a semantic argument about what name should be given to an action, or who is the most cowardly in a particular situation, in my opinion, the people trying to silence, whather they were particularly effective or not, are always wrong.
|
|
|
Post by obliv326 on Aug 15, 2005 7:30:36 GMT -5
well, i just sent this long thing that i spent hours writing, but it didnt seem to make it...so ill have to recap, and maye thats for ithe best...
the idea that someone was doing this so they woudnt have to "militantly monitor" what their kids watch...
sorry, doesnt float...in this case, specifically, or in life in general. for that assumption to work,we would have to believe that the person didnt see any of the numerous promos abc ran prior to or during the show. not only that, but that they didnt know what the movie was, and whatb it contained.
they were given the tools to do whatever job they wanted as parents. essentially, what you seem to be defending is their option to NOT HAVE TO react to anything shown anywhere. its not like there was no warning. the only people upset about this are the oes who a)want to be able top turn their kids loose in their rooms while the parents do something ese, in essence, to have the tv babysit, or b)the person who is so ignorant of what is on tv and what the movie is that they just "stumble" onto the violent part of the film.
in instance a, im not responsible to babysit their kids. they were given ample warning to do the parebnting that they wanted...franklyl, the warnings were just FOR them. abc made them, prbably at consderable cost, so they could do the parenting job they felt necessarily. the promos sure werent for me.
in instance b)...well, you referred to the whole topic, a few paragraphs back, as a "phantom". if anything is a phantom, the idea that someone would naively stumble across the film w/o knowing what they were getting...well, thats it. statistically probably so low as to not even rate.
but you know, lets stop this assumption that the parents groups were just these innocent, concerned fol;ks who wanted to protect their fragile little kids. this was a straight up political test case by extremists to see ifthe fcc would put its money where its moputh was. if they were SO concerned abouut this film, where were the complaints the LAST time it had been shown in this same form on the same networks.
no. if abc and anyone concerned about their reactions are any of the names you believe they deserve (cowards, etc), then so are these people...in addition to being slippery political opportunists. its not like these groups are without a political agenda...i mean, they STARTED someting called a culture war...
also, saving private ryan is the EXCEPTION. MOST things on tv do not require this type of warning that they were generously provided prior to and during the broadcast. if you are consistently offended by what is on tv, well, then you exceed the very generous barriers established to cater to your side...and its time to get rid of the tv. sword has two sides? the thats your answer. i mean, if we are going to use daves argument about saving private ryan falling outside the agreed upon standards to cater to vocal, easily offended minorities, then the stuff that we all agree falls inside these standards is safe, and if you dont agree, then its your fault, and we are under no obligation to cater to even more extreme minorities...frankly, there is no need to "militantly monitor" at all. the shows are very clearly marked, and it requires very little effort to keep this under control. sorry, if that doesnt work for you, then dont ask me to have to watch only barney so you can let the tv babysit your kids...
now, a bigger point, if mike and i do what you believe to be "overrreacting: when something like this happens,thers a reason.
i grew up around people like these. their goal, as stated by their own discussions and literature, is the eradication of any kind of material they find offensive (culture war, again). to assume any purity in their motives is a mistake.
having grown up around these folks, and done a great deal to monitor them, their stated objectives are to use whatever they can to get a foothold...i mean, they know they could never win if they came out and said what they wanted...but if they can use certain issues (family values/protecting the chilfdren/copycat crimes, ) to further their methods, they will, and do. and every second and cent alocated to it is a complete waste of time and could have been used for anything else, and it would have been better use.
that is why, when i see this type of thing even broached, i dont see it as having any merits on its own, but rather as a tip of the iceberg in their larger agenda...and this is not just a "reaction". i have seen it happen too many times to igbore it. i dont believe, not only, that their cases have no merits at all, but that they are simply ruses to try and further their agenda. call it a passionate overreaction, whatever you want, but ive seen it happen too many times to ignore, or believe that it is anytghing else
when i see them go after something like howard stern....well, i dont really care about howard stern, but i know if they get that foothold, that it will be easier for them when they go after the next one, and there will be a next one, because they are in existence to try and control what exists in pop culture.
again, i have grown up around these people. i have read their literature and website material, heard lectures where they admitted as such...but hell, do i need to? i mean, robert borks book had a chapter called "the case for censorhip."...and again, cultiure war. they started it.
thus, when i see any effort made in this direction, i think it would be foolish to naively assume that the single issue is the one they are concerned with. while i think any effort in this diirection is without merit, when yo factor in a larger agenda, it merits a strong, immediate, and direct slap down, with as much strength as you can muster. they cannot be given not only any legal or actual victory, but mst not be given any moralk courage or victories at all. they have demonstrated on many occasions thjeir desire to restrict my adult mind access to material that they defined as immoral...i give them no purchase. for this reason, their defeats must not only be complete and total in a legal sense, but preferably noted and derided as whatever will discourage further action. if this means we call them censors, so be it...they deserve it. whatever stops these people in their tracks is worth it
|
|
|
Post by Michael West on Aug 15, 2005 8:35:09 GMT -5
Stace, Instead of hitting "reply" at the bottom of the post, hit "quote" at the top of it. That will bring the entire post up on your reply. Then, you will need to cut and paste the before and after thing that makes it a quote where you want it to appear. ;D If you've already tried doing this, and it still doesn't work, I don't know what's wrong.
|
|
|
Post by obliv326 on Aug 15, 2005 15:39:56 GMT -5
Stace, Instead of hitting "reply" at the bottom of the post, hit "quote" at the top of it. That will bring the entire post up on your reply. Then, you will need to cut and paste the before and after thing that makes it a quote where you want it to appear. ;D If you've already tried doing this, and it still doesn't work, I don't know what's wrong. i think thats what ive been doing, and this is the result... i think it might be my browser. i use firefox. sometimes it gives you some weirdness.
|
|
|
Post by obliv326 on Aug 15, 2005 15:40:58 GMT -5
HEY! IT WORKED!
WHOOPWHOOPWHOPPEE
(dozens of daffy ducks whoop and bounce around crazily)
|
|
|
Post by obliv326 on Aug 16, 2005 1:15:33 GMT -5
HEY! IT WORKED! WHOOPWHOOPWHOPPEE (dozens of daffy ducks whoop and bounce around crazily) now im just showing off... but you know, i think we are going to reach an impasse here on this topic. i dont think w are going to change anyones mind here, and i am certain dave, who appears to be the most common poster other than myself, knows where i stand on this. i dont come by my opinion on this easily, and it is the one issue that i fel most strongly about as a political issue. i dont believe dave feels quite as strongly, which is why he is able to sort of take the devils advocate position, and correct me if im wrong, but for the most part i think dave agrees w/mike and myself. since its sort of turning into an arguemt of semantics, and worse, its starting to get heated, i would say we should just shake hands and agree to disagree...otherwise, i think we will just go round and round and never give up any ground and just spend hours upon hours arguin w/each other. well played, dave, and well matched.
|
|
|
Post by Michael West on Aug 16, 2005 11:14:56 GMT -5
Well said, Stace.
A lively debate all. The site's first "flame war."
I will now put the topic to rest. ;D
|
|