# Censorship - Film & Media



## Sammy Jankis

Here in Australia, over the past year or so, a couple of controversial films have been the subject of much heated debate. Last year Ken Park  was banned by censorship authorities for offending "standards of morality, decency, and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults". In 2002, the French film Baise Moi failed to make it past the Office of Film and Literature Classification. Just recently, the film Irreversible was deemed appropriate for release, much to the horror of the Australian Family Association and Christian Democrat Party member Fred Nile.

Advertising standards have also come under fire from conservative columnist Andrew Bolt.

*Is there not enough censorship, or is there too much?

What should be censored? Should there be no censorship at all?*


----------



## Eámanë

Ideally there should be no censorship whatsoever. Although I do support ratings on movies, I do not support a total ban on movies. I think certain things should be censored from certain audiences, but that it what ratings are there for. 
I dissagree with censorship on swearing, especially. Janet Jackson was censored for saying _Jesus_ on David Letterman. However I do understand that it may be offensive to some viewers... I don't know. I guess I'm contradicting myself to say I don't agree with homophobic, racist, or sexist comments being allowed in commercials. I know I was pretty offended to see that commercial for photocopy paper where the girl wearing a mini-skirt was kneeling on top of it and leaned on the copy button.

I can't understand why they banned Ken Park and Baise Moi here. R18+ is just that - for viewers over 18, who are legally considered adults. I think it is an insult to say they are unable to handle whatever is contained in it.
I don't think Kill Bill should have been rated R. Nor do I think Battle Royale should have been.

What does everyone else think?


----------



## Mrs. Maggott

Censorship exists, period. You could not make and show a blatantly anti-semitic/pro-Nazi or racist/pro KKK film in the United States at least not on the open market. Of course, I am sure that such films are created, but like porno films, their audience is "targeted". While the types of films listed above might not be "banned" by a specific establishment institution - either governmental or within the industry itself (like the old Hayes office in Hollywood) - you can bet that Hollywood would prevent such films from appearing at your local theater. 

Ergo, if in fact, there _is_ some sort of censorship in place, then certainly it should take into account societal and cultural "norms" over and above that which is currently considered "politically correct". Of course it is both politically incorrect and _wrong_ to make anti-semitic and racist films designed to encourage such atrocious feelings and the actions they engender, but it is equally wrong (if not necessarily politically incorrect) to allow blatantly anti-_Christian_ films which encourage and excuse assaults - physical and cultural - against people of that faith as well. 

Furthermore, why should we allow our "cultural atmosphere" to be polluted by films which preach mindless violence, cruelty, sexual perversion and other anti-social behavior? Indeed, as it now stands, such films have _carte blanche_ at our nation's theaters and everyone stands around scratching their heads and wondering about the increase in crimes of violence and sexual assaults. It's a "no brainer", frankly. When children are raised on a steady diet of such muck, it is not hard to understand why they become hardened and even tempted to "try it out". There is an old saying that applies in this case: "When you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas!"

At one time in the history of at least the United States, our cultural establishment's moral foundation was such that films of this type might have been made; they might even have been allowed exposure; but they would never have been successful because of a public whose standards of decency and morality would have rejected them utterly. And, of course, when there are no profits to be made, such things die on their own. Today, however, a national standard of decency and morality is no more and just about "anything (and everything) goes". That's why we will _not_ have the kind of censorship written about on this thread _with the exception_ of those films which can be considered politically incorrect in keeping with the strange standards of the day. In these instances there definitely _is_ a policy of censorship - although it can be overcome as Mel Gibson recently discovered.


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay

Mrs. Maggott said:


> While the types of films listed above might not be "banned" by a specific establishment institution - either governmental or within the industry itself (like the old Hayes office in Hollywood) - you can bet that Hollywood would prevent such films from appearing at your local theater.



Michael Moore aside, how many left-wing documentaries or films are you likely to see at your local suburban cineplex?



> Ergo, if in fact, there is some sort of censorship in place, then certainly it should take into account societal and cultural "norms" over and above that which is currently considered "politically correct".



I see no separation between censorship in the cause of “political correctness,” and censorship in defence of social and cultural “norms.” The latter is simply another form of political correctness.



> Furthermore, why should we allow our "cultural atmosphere" to be polluted by films which preach mindless violence, cruelty, sexual perversion and other anti-social behavior? Indeed, as it now stands, such films have carte blanche at our nation's theaters and everyone stands around scratching their heads and wondering about the increase in crimes of violence and sexual assaults. It's a "no brainer", frankly.



No. These have myriad “causes”—social and economic. Where is the irrefutable evidence to support the link between media violence and actual violence? Will actual physical and sexual violence disappear if we eradicate sex and violence from our cinema screens? I think the link is often made simply to avoid thinking about those other social and economic factors, which are more difficult to address. In _that_ sense, it’s a “no-brainer.”



> At one time in the history of at least the United States, our cultural establishment's moral foundation was such that films of this type might have been made; they might even have been allowed exposure; but they would never have been successful because of a public whose standards of decency and morality would have rejected them utterly. And, of course, when there are no profits to be made, such things die on their own. Today, however, a national standard of decency and morality is no more and just about "anything (and everything) goes".



This is an oft-heard lament. The pertinent question, however, is: can the government legislate morality? Should the government enforce a "national standard of decency and morality" (if anything deserves to be placed between scare quotes, it's that)? Beyond snuff films, films depiciting rape or bestiality, films depicting child sex, and the like--that is, films which raise serious issues of consent on the part of the participants--on what grounds can a government (or a government-appointed panel of morally-superior individuals) decide for we easily-led Pavlovian plebs what we can and cannot see?

As the examples cited in Sammy Jankis' initial post demonstrate, when self-appointed moral guardians decide to push for the censorship of a film they do not like, it can do wonders for that film's profitability.


----------



## Mrs. Maggott

I don't know where you have been, but you will see that most films have a decidedly liberal slant as far as "themes" and "messages" are concerned. Indeed, I was quite shocked to see a TV film the other night in which the villains turned out to be the Chinese communist government! It was so "out of line" with most of what comes out of Hollywood that I thought it must have escaped before they caught it! But ordinarily, the enemy is Uncle Sam or some "rogue agency" that has the backing of the government (unless a Democrat is president, that is).

As for the violence on television and films contributing to violence in the culture - enough studies have been done to show that it in fact, DOES contribute not only to acts of violence but certainly to a "depraved indifference" to human life among many young (especially males) who grow up on a diet of this stuff. You single out "snuff films", but frankly, it is possible with today's film technology to produce actual deeds of violence so convincingly on the screen that one need not "snuff" anyone in order for the audience to get all of the emotional responses to a murder or murders (and usually, very, very _bloody_ murders). Now, we're not speaking of "fantasy" and "sci-fi" films. In these, the audience knows that reality is _not_ being portrayed. I am speaking of the "nitty-gritty" street films of the kind that used to be labled "noir" in the 40s and 50s. 

Furthermore, unlike "the old days" where film makers were not allowed to show that "crime paid" and the good guys always won in the end, since the 60s, it is the BAD guys more often than not who wind up on the winning end of the film. Look at the difference between the 1950s version of The Invasion of the Body Snatchers and the later version of (I believe) the 1970s. In the end of the first, the invaders are discovered and at the end of the film one knows that they will be dealt with. At the end of the second film, you know that the _invaders_ have won and it's all over for mankind. And you see the same thing in so many films where no matter how hard "good" fights, "evil" wins in the end.

Censorship exists, as I said. No one wants our air and water polluted, so I see no reason to allow our culture to be any more polluted than it already is. What started as a little "nudity" in our films has resulted in main line films that are little different from many porn films except that they have been cinematic values. I doubt there is much that can be done now; things have gone too far to return to a more simple (and better) day, but it doesn't hurt to at least try. Who knows? People may actually _like_ films that aren't filled with sex and realistic violence. After all, doesn't the popularity of the LOTR films rather make that point?


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay

Mrs. Maggot said:


> I don't know where you have been, but you will see that most films have a decidedly liberal slant as far as "themes" and "messages" are concerned.



Yes, of course, what was I thinking? Braveheart, Rambo, Dirty Harry, True Lies, Black Hawk Down, The Patriot, Navy Seals, etc. Simply dripping with bleeding-heart liberal propaganda.

Your definition of what counts as “liberal” depends upon how conservative you are. But in any case, are you suggesting that the government should intervene to correct this “liberal slant”?



> As for the violence on television and films contributing to violence in the culture - enough studies have been done to show that it in fact, DOES contribute not only to acts of violence but certainly to a "depraved indifference" to human life among many young (especially males) who grow up on a diet of this stuff.



I found the following quote here:
"There is a correlation in Germany between the decline of the stork population and the falling human birth rate. That does not prove that storks bring babies."

Which studies prove conclusively that violence in the media causes violence in the streets—such that adults should be prevented from being exposed to it, and such that, if we only got rid of media violence, there’d be no more violence in the real world? There have been enough studies done to suggest that, in fact, media violence DOES NOT cause real-life violence. See [1], [2], [3], [4]. Heck, even Fox News has pooh-poohed the alleged link.

As media theorist McKenzie Wark comments here:



> Just suppose for a moment that there is a proven 'link' between the depiction of violence and acts of violent crime. If there was, some argue, then there would be a strong case for the censorship of depictions of violence. What, then, would we need to censor? This newspaper, for a start -- which brought its readers depictions of the Port Arthur killings, and of the genocide in Rwanda. Then we would of course have to censor the bible. The holocaust God inflicts on Sodom, not to mention the psychological torture of Abraham and Job. The ritual killing of Jesus is also clearly unacceptable. Shakespeare is out. Richard III, Macbeth, Julius Caesar -- psychopaths, serials killers. Indeed, where this logic pursued with any genuine rigour and consistency, its hard to see how we would be left with much besides reruns of the Brady Bunch and old back numbers of Quadrant.





Mrs. Maggott said:


> You single out "snuff films", but frankly, it is possible with today's film technology to produce actual deeds of violence so convincingly on the screen that one need not "snuff" anyone in order for the audience to get all of the emotional responses to a murder or murders (and usually, very, very bloody murders). Now, we're not speaking of "fantasy" and "sci-fi" films. In these, the audience knows that reality is not being portrayed. I am speaking of the "nitty-gritty" street films of the kind that used to be labled "noir" in the 40s and 50s.



Most adults are, of course, too stupid to tell the difference between cinema and reality. They need Big Brother’s protection.



> I doubt there is much that can be done now; things have gone too far to return to a more simple (and better) day, but it doesn't hurt to at least try. Who knows? People may actually like films that aren't filled with sex and realistic violence. After all, doesn't the popularity of the LOTR films rather make that point?



You’re the viewer: the popularity of the LOTR films makes whatever "point" you want it to make.

People may actually like films that aren’t filled with sex and realistic violence. There are, despite your concerns, plenty of them out there. This is not the issue. The issue is: should governments intervene to regulate the amount of media sex and violence that adults are allowed to see?


----------



## Mrs. Maggott

You are being a tad disingenuous when you name a few selective films and then suggest that they represent the majority of the stuff coming out of Hollywood. They don't. 

Furthermore, I am not taking about politics but sex (including sexual perversion) and gratuitous violence. Why shouldn't especially television be monitored for such garbage? At least in the case of films, one has to actually go to a theater so it can hardly be suggested that one was a "victim" of the films' contents. On the other hand, television is located in people's homes - often in several rooms including children's bedrooms. And it's no good trying to limit such programs to "evening fare" because most kids - even very young ones - don't go to bed until well after 9 p.m. these days. At least some cable fare can be "locked out" with parental controls, but for those channels that are "available 24/7, there should be SOME standards regarding what they can show and when they can show it. 

True, you cannot protect people from themselves, but as the Nanny State is already busy trying to do just that by "protecting" us from perfectly legal things like smoking and legitimately owning guns as well as a host of other things that it believes to be "dangerous" (including a possible "fat" tax and a nation-wide campaign against fast food), one wonders why it is so hesitant to halt or at least put some limits on the constant barrage of garbage bombarding the public airwaves! But then, perhaps it doesn't see such things as destructive. Either that or it considers one's lungs to be of more importance than one's mind.


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay

Mrs. Maggott said:


> You are being a tad disingenuous when you name a few selective films and then suggest that they represent the majority of the stuff coming out of Hollywood. They don't.



Where did I suggest that they represent the majority of films coming out of Hollywood? Flimsy evidence they may be, but they challenge your suggestion--based on no evidence--of a predominantly "liberal" slant to the majority of Hollywood films.

Define "liberal." And please indicate whether you think the government should intervene to correct the "liberal" slant of Hollywood films. And how? Re-introduce the blacklist?



> Furthermore, I am not taking about politics but sex (including sexual perversion) and gratuitous violence. Why shouldn't especially television be monitored for such garbage? At least in the case of films, one has to actually go to a theater so it can hardly be suggested that one was a "victim" of the films' contents. On the other hand, television is located in people's homes - often in several rooms including children's bedrooms. And it's no good trying to limit such programs to "evening fare" because most kids - even very young ones - don't go to bed until well after 9 p.m. these days. At least some cable fare can be "locked out" with parental controls, but for those channels that are "available 24/7, there should be SOME standards regarding what they can show and when they can show it.



I thought we were discussing what you can see in the cinemas, not what you can see on TV. I was always of the understanding that free-to-air television content is much more heavily-regulated than cable-TV or cinema, precisely for the reason you suggest: the government doesn't want children "exposed" to explicit sex and gratuitous violence. And in Australia at least, viewers are warned to the nth degree about the content of TV programmes. But surely, and especially in the case of late evening fare, isn't it the responsibility of parents to monitor what their children are watching? Why should adults forgo choice in their evening television programming, just on the off-chance that some "naughty" kids somewhere might be staying up past their bedtime to watch? 



> True, you cannot protect people from themselves, but as the Nanny State is already busy trying to do just that by "protecting" us from perfectly legal things like smoking and legitimately owning guns as well as a host of other things that it believes to be "dangerous" (including a possible "fat" tax and a nation-wide campaign against fast food), one wonders why it is so hesitant to halt or at least put some limits on the constant barrage of garbage bombarding the public airwaves! But then, perhaps it doesn't see such things as destructive. Either that or it considers one's lungs to be of more importance than one's mind.



Smoking has measurable detrimental health effects, not just on the smoker, but on other people as well. It's perfectly reasonable that non-smokers be protected from passive smoking, just as it is reasonable to suggest that measures should be taken to protect people from the negative health effects of any other form of pollution. It's also reasonable for a government to take measures to curb smoking altogether--whether these measures take the form of public education programmes, or mandatory labelling, or restrictions on advertising, or taxes--if only to keep public health budgets within manageable limits. Your taxes end up paying for the treatment of smoking-related cancer, gun-related injuries and obesity-related disease. 

The "destructiveness" of media sex and violence, on the other hand, is still by-and-large a matter of opinion and ideology, not fact. If you disagree, show me conclusive proof that media sex and violence affects the mind in the same way that smoking affects the body. Otherwise, if you don't like the "garbage" you're seeing on television, or at the movies, switch off. Don't tell me what I can and cannot see.


----------



## Mrs. Maggott

I have already stated quite clearly that I was not speaking about political matters, but rather portrayals of gratuitious violence and sex (especially sexual perversion and the connection between sex and violence). 

Secondly, Hollywood's liberal bias is not only well known, but in fact widely publicized by Hollywood itself. Therefore, it is hardly unusual that in the case of most films providing any kind of "message" at all, to find that message will be politically and/or socially liberal. I won't burden you with the matter but suffice it to say I have seen quite enough films (usually when they are replayed on television) in which somewhere along the line one of the characters voices the film maker's position on any number of issues - and nine times out of ten, if the character is sympathetic, the view is liberal whereas if he or she is a villain, well, of course, that person is an evil conservative. I don't care _what_ these people think, but it ruins a perfectly good film for me when that sort of ideological "advertising" is introduced.

As for the "black list", I think you will find that it has been highly over-stated. Indeed, there _were_ Communists in Hollywood in the 40s and 50s. No less a well known figure than actor Sterlin Hayden - and admitted Communist who repented of his affiliation with the Party - testified to the matter before a Senate committee. They made a very real attempt to co-opt the industry, especially through the use of various trade unions and, of course, through infiltrating and co-opting SAG itself. They were defeated and, in some few instances, several individuals (mostly writers) found themselves _persona non grata_ in some large Hollywood studios who feared a public reaction regarding these people's lack of cooperation with HUAC (remember, this was during the height of the cold war). However, as soon as the hoopla died down, they were soon welcomed back into an increasingly left-wing entertainment community. 

However, many actors, directors, writers and other members of the Hollywood community who were on the _other side_ of the issue, soon found _their_ careers in jeopardy or in fact, ruined. The great character actor Adolph Menjou soon found himself unemployed and whereas great stars like Robert Taylor and Jimmy Stewart were "immune" to the backlash from the left, several years ago when the city wanted to name a street after Taylor, many very important Tinsel Town personalities turned out to defeat the proposal. They never forgave the actor for being conservative. There is no doubt that Ronald Reagan's career in Hollywood suffered greatly from his stand against the Communists. Indeed, Hayden testified that Reagan virtually single handedly as president of SAG prevented a "Communist coup" in the film capital. Today there are conservative actors and actresses in Hollywood who have chosen to remain silent about their political affiliation because unless they are already very successful, their conservative views will damage their careers. 

I do think that some sort of censorship should be in place for programs using the public airwaves. As I said, we don't approve of the pollution of our air and water, so I cannot see approving of the pollution of the culture. But again, I am speaking of violence and gratuitous sex (especially perverted sexual acts such as rape). On the other hand, I _don't_ believe in "censorship" in films (although certainly a _serious_ ratings system should be in place to warn parents that certain films are unsuitable for children - and even for people of decent taste) simply because at this point in time, it wouldn't work. However, I would like to see people vote with their pocketbooks and simply stay home when a film is moral garbage; but that should be up to the individual. However, it is wise to remember the old computer addage when choosing which films to watch: garbage in; garbage out.

Finally, as far as smoking is concerned: if it is so terrible, then by all means make it illegal. I don't smoke, but at one time it was accepted in the culture. However, to keep it legal and collect exhorbitant taxes on the product at every stage and then decry it's use is hypocrisy at it's most blatant. 

As for guns: we have a Constitution which allows our lawful citizens to own guns (thank God). I don't own a gun, but there are situations in which owning and being willing and able to use one can save lives. New York City has had one of the nation's most stringent gun laws on the books for almost longer than I have been alive (the Sullivan law) and it has never stopped criminals from getting their hands on guns; it only stopped law-abiding citizens from being able to protect themselves. 

As for my taxes 'paying' for those who over-eat and smoke, well again, that is the fault of the Nanny State which - because it wants to "take care of us" from cradle to grave - has determined that this is where my taxes should go! We take meaning out of people's lives by doing all in our power to drive God and higher purpose from our social instutitions and offer instead the hedonistic pleasures of the world including food and sex and, yes, "entertainment" like films and TV. Then we wonder why people overeat, smoke, drink, get STDs and sit mindlessly in front of their TVs all day. But the answer seems to be instead of bringing higher meaning _back_ into the culture, why simply _outlaw_ or punish the overuse of much of that which is being used as a substitute! 

You cannot have it both ways! You can't preach "freedom of choice without consequences", then be horrified there are in fact, "consequences" - and attempt to legislate against them. That is not only the hypocritical to the extreme, but rather like trying to have one's cake and eat it too.


----------



## Eriol

The most recent proposed "blacklist" was the one against Mel Gibson on account of the Passion of the Christ. I don't know whether the movie industry will follow that intended blacklist since the movie was a hit, but I'm quite sure that the industry _would_ blacklist Mel Gibson if the movie wasn't a success. 

Does this make blacklisting commendable or meritorious? That it is lifted if the blacklisted artist makes money?

I draw two conclusions from this recent blacklisting attempt: (1) it is a leftist phenomenon (I won't say liberal, sorry AV, but I like that word too much to agree with its corruption in the US and other English-speaking countries. In Europe and in the rest of the world a liberal is still one that supports free trade, minimal government, etc. etc. I also strongly disagree with any political dichotomy, I see _at least_ four different groupings there. But we must work with the words we have). And (2) it doesn't require government help. 

"Don't tell me what I can or cannot see?" But that's what the movie industry does. And it intends to tell you much more than that. 

When was the last time a priest had a good-natured role in a movie? I think it was Bing Crosby's role. 

I don't have any easy solution. Perhaps the artists should be the target of a massive educational campaign so that they'd see how far from the real world their views are . I don't think censorship -- fighting fire with fire -- helps.


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay

Mrs. Maggott said:


> I have already stated quite clearly that I was not speaking about political matters, but rather portrayals of gratuitious violence and sex (especially sexual perversion and the connection between sex and violence).



Sexual perversion? I’ve yet to see a Hollywood film that glorifies paedophilia, or bestiality. What other kinds of sexual perversion are you referring to? (Wait—let me guess . . .)



> Secondly, Hollywood's liberal bias is not only well known, but in fact widely publicized by Hollywood itself. Therefore, it is hardly unusual that in the case of most films providing any kind of "message" at all, to find that message will be politically and/or socially liberal. I won't burden you with the matter but suffice it to say I have seen quite enough films (usually when they are replayed on television) in which somewhere along the line one of the characters voices the film maker's position on any number of issues - and nine times out of ten, if the character is sympathetic, the view is liberal whereas if he or she is a villain, well, of course, that person is an evil conservative. I don't care what these people think, but it ruins a perfectly good film for me when that sort of ideological "advertising" is introduced.



Assuming you are correct, and assuming you are not simply making an observation: what measures do you suggest should be taken to correct this “imbalance”? Does it require government intervention, and what form should this take?



> As for the "black list", I think you will find that it has been highly over-stated. Indeed, there were Communists in Hollywood in the 40s and 50s. No less a well known figure than actor Sterlin Hayden - and admitted Communist who repented of his affiliation with the Party - testified to the matter before a Senate committee. They made a very real attempt to co-opt the industry, especially through the use of various trade unions and, of course, through infiltrating and co-opting SAG itself. They were defeated and, in some few instances, several individuals (mostly writers) found themselves persona non grata in some large Hollywood studios who feared a public reaction regarding these people's lack of cooperation with HUAC (remember, this was during the height of the cold war).



I find it hard to believe that anybody can defend HUAC-related blacklisting, even with the lame excuse that it “was during the height of the cold war.” The Communists were targeted in the 1950s. In another time, it could have been the Catholics. In another place, it could have been the bourgeoisie.

Who cares if there were Communists in Hollywood? In a liberal democracy, nobody should be targeted for their political beliefs. It’s as simple as that. Whatever happened to: “I disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to death your right to say it”? At about the same time as the HUAC witch trials, the Australian government held a referendum to outlaw the Communist Party. It failed. Despite their fears about communism, and despite the fact that this also was at the height of the Cold War, Australians weren’t about to sell out of liberal democracy.



> Today there are conservative actors and actresses in Hollywood who have chosen to remain silent about their political affiliation because unless they are already very successful, their conservative views will damage their careers.



Whereas in the McCarthy era, liberal actors and actresses were required to remain silent about their political affiliations lest their views damaged their careers. How can you defend the one and attack the other?



> I would like to see people vote with their pocketbooks and simply stay home when a film is moral garbage; but that should be up to the individual. However, it is wise to remember the old computer addage when choosing which films to watch: garbage in; garbage out.



I take that approach to reality TV, lifestyle television programmes, infomercials, cheesy US family sitcoms, and tabloid news and current affairs. That pretty much covers 90% of what is shown on commercial television these days. I don’t think any of these should be censored, however.



> Finally, as far as smoking is concerned: if it is so terrible, then by all means make it illegal. I don't smoke, but at one time it was accepted in the culture. However, to keep it legal and collect exhorbitant taxes on the product at every stage and then decry it's use is hypocrisy at it's most blatant.



I agree. I also think it’s hypocritical to criminalise marijuana use whilst tobacco—a much more dangerous drug—remains legal. If you’re going to ban one, why not ban the other? (This is probably fodder for another thread).



> As for my taxes 'paying' for those who over-eat and smoke, well again, that is the fault of the Nanny State which - because it wants to "take care of us" from cradle to grave - has determined that this is where my taxes should go!



Should you ever find yourself requiring treatment in a public hospital, I hope you think better of your taxes being spent on public health. It’s a much more worthy cause than the military, IMHO.



> We take meaning out of people's lives by doing all in our power to drive God and higher purpose from our social instutitions and offer instead the hedonistic pleasures of the world including food and sex and, yes, "entertainment" like films and TV. Then we wonder why people overeat, smoke, drink, get STDs and sit mindlessly in front of their TVs all day. But the answer seems to be instead of bringing higher meaning back into the culture, why simply outlaw or punish the overuse of much of that which is being used as a substitute!



It’s called capitalist consumerism. And attempting to bring “higher meaning back into the culture”—and to solve all those nasty social problems—by re-inserting God into our social institutions sounds like a job for . . . the Nanny State! (Plus it would constitute a breach of the separation between church and state). Is that the import of your eulogy for Western civilisation?



> You cannot have it both ways! You can't preach "freedom of choice without consequences", then be horrified there are in fact, "consequences" - and attempt to legislate against them. That is not only the hypocritical to the extreme, but rather like trying to have one's cake and eat it too.



It is, of course, entirely a matter of opinion whether obesity, smoking, drinking, and sexually transmitted diseases are caused by film and television: you have provided no evidence to support this claim. And in any case, isn’t “freedom of choice” the essence of living in a liberal democracy?


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay

Eriol said:


> The most recent proposed "blacklist" was the one against Mel Gibson on account of the Passion of the Christ. I don't know whether the movie industry will follow that intended blacklist since the movie was a hit, but I'm quite sure that the industry would blacklist Mel Gibson if the movie wasn't a success.
> 
> Does this make blacklisting commendable or meritorious? That it is lifted if the blacklisted artist makes money?



It certainly worked for at least two of the films mentioned in the initial post on this thread (i.e. the censorship or attempted censorship made the films more profitable).



> I draw two conclusions from this recent blacklisting attempt: (1) it is a leftist phenomenon (I won't say liberal, sorry AV, but I like that word too much to agree with its corruption in the US and other English-speaking countries. In Europe and in the rest of the world a liberal is still one that supports free trade, minimal government, etc. etc. I also strongly disagree with any political dichotomy, I see at least four different groupings there. But we must work with the words we have). And (2) it doesn't require government help.



I wouldn’t call it leftist at all. I’d call it corporate ideology. I’d say Gibson’s film was a victim of the Hollywood studio system, which since the early eighties has been very reluctant to grant individual filmmakers too much control over studio-backed films, largely out of fear that said films will “flop”. Put another way, the big studios are big businesses, and they think and operate like big businesses. They didn’t think Gibson’s film would sell, so they refused to back it. “Blacklisting” nowadays is not the result of some leftist Hollywood conspiracy: it’s a profit-driven phenomenon. That’s why Hollywood backs the latest Eddie Murphy family-oriented comedy vehicle over something like The Passion—it thinks the former will sell. Often, it is wrong. But this has nothing to do with aesthetics or politics.

Would the studios have backed Gibson’s film if they had known it would be a hit? Would it have been as big a hit if it had received studio backing? We shouldn’t rule out media hype as a factor. Much of the reportage on the film represented it as “controversial”—and controversy usually breeds curiosity. And many churches actively encouraged their members to see the film, some even going to the extent of organising screenings. 



> "Don't tell me what I can or cannot see?" But that's what the movie industry does. And it intends to tell you much more than that.



There isn’t much I can do about the output of the movie industry. Much of it _is_ garbage—though I suspect my idea of “garbage” is not quite the same as Mrs M’s. Much of the “choice” on offer is of the Coke-vs.-Pepsi variety. I can choose not watch it. But I should at least be allowed to make the call. I don’t want the government or some well-intentioned busybody telling me what I can and cannot see as an adult. And I don't need to wrap my head in aluminium foil, lest I be "polluted" by what I am seeing.



> When was the last time a priest had a good-natured role in a movie? I think it was Bing Crosby's role.



When was the last time a Muslim or Arab was portrayed sympathetically in a mainstream Hollywood movie? 



> I don't have any easy solution. Perhaps the artists should be the target of a massive educational campaign so that they'd see how far from the real world their views are . I don't think censorship -- fighting fire with fire -- helps.



“Massive educational campaign”? I have this weird image of Pol Pot. Artists are entitled to their views: they shouldn’t be pressured into conforming to a particular worldview because their own is considered unpopular or unfashionable.


----------



## Malbeth

> When was the last time a Muslim or Arab was portrayed sympathetically in a mainstream Hollywood movie?



At the drop of a hat, Indiana Jones where John Rhys Davies' character is Indy's best friend.

In "The Siege" there is at least one sympathetic Arab.

Of course, the greatest example of liberal bias in Hollywood recently were the Oscars "The Cider House Rules", a pro-abortion pamphlet, won... I really do wonder if "The Passion" will be nominated for, at least, Best Foreign Language Film.



> They didn’t think Gibson’s film would sell, so they refused to back it.



This was certainly not the way they expressed themselves; there was an outcry of outrage against Gibson which began with the oh-so-objective The New York Times.


----------



## joxy

Arthur_Vandelay said:


> ....lame excuse that it “was during the height of the cold war.” The Communists were targeted in the 1950s. In another time, it could have been the Catholics. In another place, it could have been the bourgeoisie.
> Who cares if there were Communists in Hollywood? In a liberal democracy, nobody should be targeted for their political beliefs.


I think it would have been necessary to have lived through the 1950s to understand the way Communism was regarded then.
There was nothing "lame" about the "Cold War"; it was all too real, and substantial. Ask Hungary; ask the Czechs and Slovaks.
It wasn't comparable to the Catholics or to the bourgeoisie. People must have seen what was happening in the huge communist dictatorships of the time, must have compared it with what had happened so recently in the World War, and must have feared it with a unique intensity. That doesn't excuse the absurdities of McCarthyism, but it goes a long way towards explaining them.
Many people cared if there were communists in Hollywood, a place whose product had a major worldwide influence.
Communism, *in practice*, had nothing to do with liberal democracy, or even with political beliefs; and it still hasn't.


----------



## Eriol

Arthur_Vandelay said:


> That’s why Hollywood backs the latest Eddie Murphy family-oriented comedy vehicle over something like The Passion—it thinks the former will sell. Often, it is wrong. But this has nothing to do with aesthetics or politics.



"If Mel Gibson shows his face in this club again, I'll spit in his face"

"He will never work in any movie produced by my studio again"

"Mel Gibson will never find another job in the movie industry"

This is the kind of response from the media industry to Mel Gibson's movie (_before_ it was a success). I don't think you know what you are talking about, AV, when you say this was simply a business assessement, i.e., these guys just thought that the movie would fail. Note, these responses were registered _before_ the movie was completed.

If those responses are not blacklisting, what is?



> But I should at least be allowed to make the call. I don’t want the government or some well-intentioned busybody telling me what I can and cannot see as an adult. And I don't need to wrap my head in aluminium foil, lest I be "polluted" by what I am seeing.



Complete, full agreement. I never said the government should interfere. Quite the contrary, I think it likely that the present situation is the result of government interference. There is, after all, a governmental agency (isn't it the FCC? I don't know American agencies that well) dealing with these matters. 



> When was the last time a Muslim or Arab was portrayed sympathetically in a mainstream Hollywood movie?



Already answered by Malbeth, but basically irrelevant. I never claimed Catholics were the sole assaulted group. You should only be more aggrieved at the industry if you think Muslims are badly portrayed. 



> “Massive educational campaign”? I have this weird image of Pol Pot. Artists are entitled to their views: they shouldn’t be pressured into conforming to a particular worldview because their own is considered unpopular or unfashionable.



What, Pol Pot, the reknowned teacher? 

No, when I say "educational campaign" my words mean "educational campaign". Not terrorism or state coercion. I like to call things by their names. Some lessons in Logic, History, and Economics would do wonders (for the whole world, of course, but artists have a great weight in society, thankfully. They are the "antenna of the race" as someone said). They should learn things not because their view is "unpopular or unfashionable", but because it is _wrong_. Error has consequences. Supporting errors is bad. 

(I wouldn't except Mel Gibson from this necessity, by the way ). 

This is one way of facing the problem. The other way is for the parents of children to reassert their responsibility as educators and make it clear for them that the views expressed on TV and movies about many things is just cuckoo. But while the parents are satisfied in leaving their children at the school without taking care to avoid letting them become dumbed down by it, there's little hope.

Education is not an easy problem. It's been messed up in the last decades. It will take a while to sort that out, and I don't think it will be easy, because the State knows quite well that it is the most important post in society. It won't let education out of its grasp without a fight.


----------



## Thorin

Arthur_Vandelay said:


> Where is the irrefutable evidence to support the link between media violence and actual violence? Will actual physical and sexual violence disappear if we eradicate sex and violence from our cinema screens?


Nobody is saying that ALL violence and sex will disappear, or that getting rid of movie violence will clean up society. I find it very naive that one can think there is no correlation between violence in the media and violence in the world. That is what media is for. News, music, TV, movies all are made to affect society emotionally, idiologically, politically and spiritually. If you think that it is merely to inform and entertain, then you don't seem to understand the business. Influence is a big part of the media or they are wasting billions of dollars. You cannot be subjected to continual violence whether it be real or simulated and not be affected in some way. That doesn't mean that a movie should be blamed because some kook went out and killed someone (though that should give you a hint that the power of media over the mind is a strong element), but to say that there is no correlation is ridiculous and IMO, a cop-out to justify whatever is out there.


Arthur_Vandelay said:


> Beyond snuff films, films depiciting rape or bestiality, films depicting child sex, and the like--that is, films which raise serious issues of consent on the part of the participants--on what grounds can a government (or a government-appointed panel of morally-superior individuals) decide for we easily-led Pavlovian plebs what we can and cannot see?


So if the participants are consensual, it is okay to mainstream these movies into the nearest Cineplex? Is bestiality wrong because the animal can't consent? Come on AV, even you have to admit that moral decency based on societal values should be a mitigating factor. If you think that the opposite of censorship is 'anything goes' then how can we expect society to function morally? We create and follow our own morals in society? These morals would be our own law and this law could go against everything society stands for. Is it still okay?

If there is a market for everyone and it is all consensual, why don't we have brothels legalised? Why not have places where adults can have sex with whomever, be it man or beast or consensual teenagers? Shame on them for 'censoring' consensual sex between adults in such an environment. And if it is consensual, why can't it be filmed and shown to the mainstream for whomever wants to view it. After all, if they don't like it, they can stay home.Where do you draw the line, AV? 

Censorship MUST be enforced to some degree or you will have a chaotic and morally inhibited society.


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay

Joxy said:


> Communism, in practice, had nothing to do with liberal democracy, or even with political beliefs; and it still hasn't.



We shouldn’t lock people up or persecute them simply because we disagree with their beliefs.



Eriol said:


> I don't think you know what you are talking about, AV, when you say this was simply a business assessement, i.e., these guys just thought that the movie would fail. Note, these responses were registered before the movie was completed.
> 
> If those responses are not blacklisting, what is?



I still say that Gibson’s film was a victim of the profit motive, despite the rhetoric. I wouldn’t judge Hollywood by what it says—I’d judge it by what it does. The Hollywood studio system won’t back films that it thinks it cannot sell. It was proven wrong in this case—and perhaps in future it will adopt a bolder approach to films with overt religious themes, or films with subtitles—but only because such films have been proven to be profitable.

Is it “blacklisting”? Of course. I don’t see any distinction between political blacklisting and profit-driven blacklisting—and I think, Hollywood being what it is—an arm of corporate America—that the latter is likely to be far more prevalent than the former.

In any case, you should be thankful that Hollywood had nothing to do with Gibson’s movie. That gave him free reign to make the film he wanted to make. Many others don’t have that opportunity.



> No, when I say "educational campaign" my words mean "educational campaign". Not terrorism or state coercion. I like to call things by their names. Some lessons in Logic, History, and Economics would do wonders (for the whole world, of course, but artists have a great weight in society, thankfully. They are the "antenna of the race" as someone said). They should learn things not because their view is "unpopular or unfashionable", but because it is wrong. Error has consequences. Supporting errors is bad. This is one way of facing the problem. The other way is for the parents of children to reassert their responsibility as educators and make it clear for them that the views expressed on TV and movies about many things is just cuckoo. But while the parents are satisfied in leaving their children at the school without taking care to avoid letting them become dumbed down by it, there's little hope.



Or we could ensure that while children are at school they are being equipped with the requisite critical and analytical skills to engage properly with what they encounter in media and popular culture. Then, perhaps, viewers may start demanding something more from their television sets than fluffy infotainment and reality TV. 



Thorin said:


> That doesn't mean that a movie should be blamed because some kook went out and killed someone (though that should give you a hint that the power of media over the mind is a strong element), but to say that there is no correlation is ridiculous and IMO, a cop-out to justify whatever is out there.



IMO it is a cop-out to blame violence in the streets upon media violence, whilst ignoring other social and economic factors that are more difficult to confront. Correlation, by the way, is not the same thing as causation.



> So if the participants are consensual, it is okay to mainstream these movies into the nearest Cineplex? Is bestiality wrong because the animal can't consent? Come on AV, even you have to admit that moral decency based on societal values should be a mitigating factor. If you think that the opposite of censorship is 'anything goes' then how can we expect society to function morally? We create and follow our own morals in society? These morals would be our own law and this law could go against everything society stands for. Is it still okay?



(a)There is no universal agreement upon what constitutes “morality” or “decency.” Very few people would view miscegenation as immoral, for instance. Diminishing numbers of people view homosexuality as immoral. Some people question the morality of income taxes. Others question the morality of economic inequality and poverty.
(b)At any rate, it is not the role of governments to legislate or enforce morality. It is the role of governments to protect rights and liberties and (I believe) to strive to ensure an optimal standard of living in the community (through the provision of welfare, health services, education, infrastructure, addressing disadvantage, etc.). We can argue about what these rights and liberties should be, or what constitutes an “optimal standard of living.” It is not the role of governments to enforce moral behaviour through coercion—except in circumstances where someone’s behaviour infringes upon the rights of another.



> If there is a market for everyone and it is all consensual, why don't we have brothels legalised? Why not have places where adults can have sex with whomever, be it man or beast or consensual teenagers? Shame on them for 'censoring' consensual sex between adults in such an environment. And if it is consensual, why can't it be filmed and shown to the mainstream for whomever wants to view it. After all, if they don't like it, they can stay home.Where do you draw the line, AV?



You don’t seem to understand “consent.” An animal cannot possibly consent to sex. Therefore sex with animals is exploitative and inhumane. A person under the age of consent cannot—by definition—“consent” to sex. Any kind of non-consensual sex constitutes an infringement of the rights of one or more of the participants. That’s what makes it police business, and not private business. And that’s why it is absurd to speak of places where adults can have “consensual sex” with animals or underage teenagers or children: consent in these circumstances is simply impossible.

But a government cannot outlaw behaviour simply because it might be considered “morally offensive.” Otherwise, it would have to outlaw such things adultery, pre-marital sex, or divorce. I don’t have a problem with legalised brothels: as long as the employees have consented to work there, and as long as they are guaranteed the same rights and conditions as can be expected by everyone else. 



> Censorship MUST be enforced to some degree or you will have a chaotic and morally inhibited society.



Why?


----------



## Eriol

Arthur_Vandelay said:


> I still say that Gibson’s film was a victim of the profit motive, despite the rhetoric. I wouldn’t judge Hollywood by what it says—I’d judge it by what it does.



Fine, but wrong . I have an e-book about that, a .pdf file, if you're interested.



> Or we could ensure that while children are at school they are being equipped with the requisite critical and analytical skills to engage properly with what they encounter in media and popular culture. Then, perhaps, viewers may start demanding something more from their television sets than fluffy infotainment and reality TV.



Yeah, that would work too, but I think it is even more unlikely than the options I mentioned in my post . Education is a tough one.


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay

Malbeth said:


> At the drop of a hat, Indiana Jones where John Rhys Davies' character is Indy's best friend.
> 
> In "The Siege" there is at least one sympathetic Arab.



And off the top of my head, _Sister Act_, _Sleepers_ and _The Exorcist_ all portray priests sympathetically. In _The Exorcist_, a priest is the hero of the piece.

At least two articles would disagree with you about _The Siege_ (1 and 2), by the way. According to the second article,


> The main complaint of films’ portrayals of terrorism, however, has been the dehumanizing characteristics of terrorists who belong to non-fictional organizations. While Brad Pitt’s character in _The Devil’s Own_ is followed from an early age, usually the audience only knows a terrorist’s name, and perhaps a bit of background information on what is typically portrayed as a deranged villain. Most Middle Eastern terrorists in movies are never even assigned organizations, as if just being Middle Eastern or of Middle Eastern descent is enough to make a terrorist.



Hollywood films are pitched to a “mainstream” audience, and therefore they tend to portray ex-centric figures—such as Catholic priests, or Muslims, or homosexuals—stereotypically (whether those stereotypes are positive or negative). It’s a problem that shouldn’t be addressed by censorship, or government interference, but—as Jack Shaheen argues in this article—through lobbying.



Eriol said:


> I have an e-book about that, a .pdf file, if you're interested.



Sure: p.m. me about it--or let me know the URL if it available online.


----------



## Malbeth

> While the assertion made about True Lies may be true, the point of The Siege was actually to prevent a sort of racist ideal from developing, should a Muslim group ever terrorize the United States.



This quote is from the second article you posted; the Siege is, to anyone who sees it with an open mind and not through a politically-correct lens, a movie that warned against the militarization of US society as a possible result of a terrorist attack, and also against racist lumping together of Arabs and terrorists; one of the main characters is a good Arab who ends up in a concentration camp in a football field if I'm not mistaken (I've seen the movie once several years ago).

Another good example, of course, is a great number of characters on this year's _Hidalgo_, specially Omar Sharif's.

Also, Eriol has hit the nail on its head; most traditional monotheistic religions are under attack in today's Hollywood, not just Catholicism.

Of course, one of the greatest example of anti-Muslim prejudice was given recently by... the Passion haters; they (finally) admitted that "Passion" was not an anti-Semitic movie but expressed concern that its display in Muslim countries would lead Muslims into atrocious acts of anti-semitism.


----------



## Eriol

Arthur_Vandelay said:


> And off the top of my head, _Sister Act_, _Sleepers_ and _The Exorcist_ all portray priests sympathetically. In _The Exorcist_, a priest is the hero of the piece.



Sister Act? Sympathetically? Depicting how Whoopie Goldberg, the lounge singer (and perhaps a hooker), makes the lives of the nuns oh so much more fun? 

I haven't seen The Sleepers. I'll grant you The Exorcist . That makes the grand total of one, give or take another one. The Exorcist is a bit of an exception anyway because it is based on a true story and because it would be tough to paint the hero in a bad light. 

Should we now count the movies in which priests are jerks, pedophiles, or just plain evil? Dogma, Stigmata, the Richard Gere/Edward Norton movie which name I don't recall (involving a pedophile _bishop_), just the most famous ones. 

(I recalled another movie with a good priest, by the way, Guess Who's Coming to Dinner. But that's pre-70's.)

I'm not pushing for saintly depiction of priests, I'd just like to see ordinary priests, weak or strong, but priests. It won't happen, and I'll tell you why -- because the media doesn't _follow_ the stereotypes, it _creates_ them. Even in America I doubt that most people consider the priests in their town pedophiles or jerks automatically, just because they are priests. This stereotype was created by the media, not by the culture. (How could "a culture" create stereotypes anyway? No, it is the media who does it).



> Sure: p.m. me about it--or let me know the URL if it available online.



PM is not enough. It's a big file, no longer available online.


----------



## Malbeth

> We shouldn’t lock people up or persecute them simply because we disagree with their beliefs.



Just noticed that; would you include Nazis (who killed less people than Communists), homophobes and racists on this list? Should then "hate speech" not be a crime?

By the way, I'd say yes to all of these questions; I agree with what you stated, but I'm not so sure you do after some things I've seen on other threads.

Regarding this matter of the Communists, some of them were spies and agents of desinformation for the Soviets, as the Moscow files have shown. To be on the payroll of a foreign, enemy, nation can be considered as grounds for imprisonment, right?


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay

Eriol said:


> I'm not pushing for saintly depiction of priests, I'd just like to see ordinary priests, weak or strong, but priests. It won't happen, and I'll tell you why -- because the media doesn't follow the stereotypes, it creates them. Even in America I doubt that most people consider the priests in their town pedophiles or jerks automatically, just because they are priests. This stereotype was created by the media, not by the culture. (How could "a culture" create stereotypes anyway? No, it is the media who does it).



I don’t think you can really separate the media from “the culture”—the media is really just a part of the culture, and articulates the culture’s dominant beliefs and ideas. This doesn’t mean, of course, that the dominant beliefs and ideologies of a culture necessarily reflect the beliefs and ideologies actually held by a majority of people in a society (I think you’ll find the latter is likely to be much more heterogenous)—but rather those of the dominant or most powerful groups or classes or institutions in a society. So whether the media “creates” stereotypes or merely reflects the dominant stereotypes of the culture of which it is a part is really a chicken-and-egg question. 



Malbeth said:


> Arthur_Vandelay said:
> 
> 
> 
> We shouldn’t lock people up or persecute them simply because we disagree with their beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just noticed that; would you include Nazis (who killed less people than Communists), homophobes and racists on this list? Should then "hate speech" not be a crime?
> 
> By the way, I'd say yes to all of these questions; I agree with what you stated, but I'm not so sure you do after some things I've seen on other threads.
Click to expand...


Kindly point out where I have stated that people should be locked up for their beliefs. And please don’t presume to tell me what I think.

Incidentally, I wonder how many people who are opposed to hate speech laws would also be opposed to obscenity laws?



> Regarding this matter of the Communists, some of them were spies and agents of desinformation for the Soviets, as the Moscow files have shown. To be on the payroll of a foreign, enemy, nation can be considered as grounds for imprisonment, right?



Curious sentiments for a self-described anarcho-capitalist . . .

If espionage on behalf of another state is a punishable offence—punish the offender. But you can’t punish or outlaw someone just for espousing Communist beliefs.


----------



## Malbeth

> Kindly point out where I have stated that people should be locked up for their beliefs.



Sure, when you say that employers should be forced to provide a friendly working environment for gays, for instance; what should be done with them if they refuse? A fine? What if they do not pay the fine? Anything you suggest will eventually lead to, at least, imprisonment, probably death in case of resistance.



> Incidentally, I wonder how many people who are opposed to hate speech laws would also be opposed to obscenity laws?



I for one.



> Curious sentiments for a self-described anarcho-capitalist . . .



Indeed it is; I'm not sure if I agree with those imprisonments, but for anyone who believes in the legitimacy of the State (surely and unfortunately an enormous majority) some of those imprisonments (the ones who actually involved real spies) were justified.



> But you can’t punish or outlaw someone just for espousing Communist beliefs.



Again, I agree; it is an evil belief, but it has to be fought on the level of ideas; still, "black-listing" is not the same as imprisonment, is it? I don't know the details of this matter, but how many people were actually imprisoned?

Another thing to consider is that communist parties are, usually, international; in many instances, to be a member of a communist party was to be an ally of the Soviet Union. In some occasions (for instance in Brazil in the 60s) it meant a will to have a violent revolution to install a "dictatorship of the proletariat".

I do wonder what would be the status today of those who were black-listed if they were National Socialists (i.e, Nazis) instead of Communists... would they be so defended? I don't think so, specially considering how anyone from the right who opposed US entry in the second world war is condemned today as a "Nazi sympathiser", no matter how liberal (in the classical sense) they were.

I simply don't think Communism is any better than Nazism; they are both statist ideologies that caused millions of deaths (more than one hundred million for Communism) in the 20th century. So, I admit, I don't have any sympathy for either.


----------



## Mrs. Maggott

We are losing sight of the fact that the old "censorship" in Hollywood was mostly run in the industry under the Hayes office. Yes, there were legal criteria as well - it was illegal to show anything "pornographic" - but usually the most that happened is that the film was not shown and perhaps, at most, some sort of fine was levied for "lewd and indecent" activities very much as happened to people who were found to be engaged in prostitution. With regard to sexually questionable films, it never got to the point where people were imprisoned or even arrested. Furthermore, the sort of graphic violence we see today wouldn't have been countenanced by the most "over the top" film maker in the golden era of Hollywood. Heavens! The shower scene in Psycho caused a HUGE stir and you really never saw anything, even the girl being stabbed. It was left to the audience to "fill in the blanks" - which we did nicely, thank you!

But there is a tendency to think in terms of "legislation" which would result in legal penalties for behavior that was "frowned upon". Of course, the First Amendment of the Constitution protects speech - but not _all_ speech. It was certainly _never_ intended to protect obscenity or pornography or the violence that we find in far too much of today's 'entertainment' fare. It was specifically crafted to protect _political and religious_ speech - the more unpopular, the more the need for protection. That's why the Nazi's were allowed to march in Skokie and there was a functioning American Communist Party (which was, however, actually an agent of a foreign government, the Soviet Union, from which it took its "marching orders"). 

The famous "black list" had nothing to do with the government or the law and everything to do with a decision made in Hollywood by studio heads who were frightened at the possible reaction of the public to "commies" in their midst. The only people ever jailed were those who refused to testify outright. I believe that some claimed Fifth Amendment rights, but I do not know if any of them were jailed since it was their right not to answer under the Constitution. However, there is no legal right to simply say _nothing_ and that, I think is how some people came to find themselves with legal problems.

Nonetheless, there is an increasingly frequent equation of certain beliefs - and the statement of those beliefs - to "hate speech". There is also an increasing apparent desire to make such "hate speech" into an activity that can be punished by law. The problem with this is that even "hate speech" is protected by the First Amendment since one man's "hate speech" is another's declaration of truth. 

However, there is going to be a hugh "cultural crash" in the not too distant future when the cultural and governmental establishments' "protection" of certain advocate groups' agendas run afoul of the doctrines and beliefs of especially the country's religions. Most traditional Christian Churches and Jewish groups believe that _homosexual activity_ is "sinful" and that practicing homosexuals cannot serve in the clergy nor can their actions be tolerated within the membership of that particular religious community. When you place that unshakeable doctrine against the increasingly strident demand that everybody tolerate everything - or else - well you can see where these things may shake out in future, especially as the secular society becomes more and more hostile to traditional religion.

Only time will tell whether "political correctness" will win out over the Constitution and its guarantees or vice versa, but if the former triumphs, you are going to see a _very_ different America in the future.


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay

Malbeth said:


> Arthur_Vandelay said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kindly point out where I have stated that people should be locked up for their beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, when you say that employers should be forced to provide a friendly working environment for gays, for instance; what should be done with them if they refuse? A fine? What if they do not pay the fine? Anything you suggest will eventually lead to, at least, imprisonment, probably death in case of resistance.
Click to expand...


What should be done with employers who refuse to pay their taxes? What should be done with employers who refuse to ensure a safe working environment for their employees? What should be done with employers who sack or refuse promotion to employees who won’t perform sexual favours for them? I don’t know if you agree with them, but businesses are required to operate under certain laws and regulations (depending, of course, on the nature of the business). Some of these laws (depending on the country you’re in) may relate to workplace discrimination or harassment.

Should an employer who is in his spare time a member of a white supremacist organisation be fined or imprisoned because of his affiliation with a white supremacist group? No—not if he isn’t breaking any laws in the operation of his business and in his relationship with his employees. 

I’m not aware of any laws that stipulate that employers should be forced to provide a “friendly working environment” for gays, or blacks, or women: but I am in favour of laws that target workplace harassment and discrimination and that emphasise an employer’s responsibility in preventing gays, women, blacks, Catholics, etc. from falling victim to these (in other words, preventing a "hostile working environment"). Shame on me.

Such laws do not target anyone’s beliefs: they target a person’s conduct, and only in the context of a workplace.



> I do wonder what would be the status today of those who were black-listed if they were National Socialists (i.e, Nazis) instead of Communists... would they be so defended?



I think it’s highly significant that you never heard these words in 1950s America: “Are you, or have you been at any time, a Nazi?”



Mrs Maggott said:


> there is an increasingly frequent equation of certain beliefs - and the statement of those beliefs - to "hate speech". There is also an increasing apparent desire to make such "hate speech" into an activity that can be punished by law. The problem with this is that even "hate speech" is protected by the First Amendment since one man's "hate speech" is another's declaration of truth.



I think it is hypocritical to wax lyrical about “hate speech” laws and at the same time to support laws regarding obscenity and sexually explicit material. The latter is merely another kind of political correctness.



> However, there is going to be a hugh "cultural crash" in the not too distant future when the cultural and governmental establishments' "protection" of certain advocate groups' agendas run afoul of the doctrines and beliefs of especially the country's religions.



You have this thing called the separation of church and state. As long as governments don’t dictate to churches what their doctrinal positions should be on given issues, and as long as governments don’t trample on the rights of individuals to practice their religion (such as the French government has done recently), churches shouldn’t be able to dictate government policy or determine how individuals live their lives.



> Most traditional Christian Churches and Jewish groups believe that homosexual activity is "sinful" and that practicing homosexuals cannot serve in the clergy nor can their actions be tolerated within the membership of that particular religious community.



Well, I for one believe that’s a debate that should be worked out within the churches, and nowhere else.



> When you place that unshakeable doctrine against the increasingly strident demand that everybody tolerate everything - or else - well you can see where these things may shake out in future, especially as the secular society becomes more and more hostile to traditional religion.



Are you suggesting that the government should “preserve” the churches by enforcing their doctrines? 



> Only time will tell whether "political correctness" will win out over the Constitution and its guarantees or vice versa, but if the former triumphs, you are going to see a very different America in the future.



I’d be more worried by the threats to the Constitution and its guarantees posed by Guantanamo Bay and the Patriot Act.


----------



## Mrs. Maggott

We have already had government interference in churches. In Buffalo, the local police told various preachers that they were not permitted to preach in favor of civil disobedience in any demonstration against abortion. Small churches have been targeted by the IRS if they proved to be "conservative" in especially their moral preaching. Already there have been civil suits against some denominations because they won't employ active homosexuals in their churches. Of course, these acts are usually aimed at small and relatively poor Christian groups. 

However, the government has _already_ "crossed the line" in attempting to bring religious institutions into line with laws and policies that may in fact be diametric to the religious institution. Cathlic hospitals and medical schools have been threatened with legal action by the State if they do not provide abortions and teach the procedure in their medical schools. This isn't a "small" matter. Abortion is considered murder in both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches and neither Church is able to "comply" with secular law if it is in direct conflict to Church doctrine.

The Church doesn't need government to enforce doctrine. One belongs to a Church because one wishes to do so. If you don't like the doctrine, leave. However, the Church also doesn't need _or_ want the State telling Her what she can and cannot teach as doctrine - unless, of course, one's "religion" includes human sacrifice or cannibalism! 

The so called "wall of separation" between Church and State is a myth. Before the Supreme Court begins its session, the Court's "herald" asks God to bless the Court. Perhaps he should be asking God to preserve us _from_ the Supreme Court - and most of the rest of the judiciary given what judges presently understand their prerogatives to be!

In any event, I am unconcerned with alien terrorists who have already been "vetted" twice being contained so that they can't blow up any other Americans than I am with a government which allows our borders to be absolutely open so that anyone who wants to do anything to our citizens can waltz in at any time from our "friends" to the North and South! With friends like that, we don't need any enemies!


----------



## Malbeth

> I think it’s highly significant that you never heard these words in 1950s America: “Are you, or have you been at any time, a Nazi?”



You'd have a point if we lived in 1950s America... my point is that, incredibly, people today still see Communism as relatively beingn, to the point of using "black-listing" of communists as an argument 50 years after the fact.


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay

Malbeth said:


> You'd have a point if we lived in 1950s America... my point is that, incredibly, people today still see Communism as relatively beingn, to the point of using "black-listing" of communists as an argument 50 years after the fact.



I think that's because some would see economic equality and communal ownership (the goals of Communism) as less evil in the abstract than genocide and racial inequality (the goals of Nazism)--even if they don't consider themselves Communists. But that doesn't mean that they don't recognise and deplore the genocide, destruction, injustice and human rights abuses perpetrated in the name of Communism--although many Western Communists of the 50s and 60s could (as the editor of France's major Communist daily recently admitted) be accused of blindness to these atrocities. But I think many who might be more forgiving of Communism than of Nazism would see such atrocities as perversions rather than actualisations of the original doctrine; but perhaps they would also acknowledge the unsuitability of Communism as a state doctrine--for probably the same reasons as you do--it gives far too much power to the State. In any case, wherever states have been implemented Communist principles, they have usually tended to prove Orwell correct: "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

As for the, frankly, fascist practice of "black-listing"--that is condemned, and justly condemned, because it should never have taken place in any liberal democracy--let alone the country that fashions itself as a beacon of liberal democracy for the rest of the world. Its targets were Communists, but does that make it any more justifiable than if its targets had been, say, Jews, blacks, Catholics, or homosexuals?


----------



## Sarah

Censorship is UnAmerican


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay

Sarah said:


> Censorship is UnAmerican



Hear, hear!

Though I should also point out that labels like "UnAmerican" are also "UnAmerican."


----------



## Malbeth

> Hear, hear!
> 
> Though I should also point out that labels like "UnAmerican" are also "UnAmerican."



Heh... I think that's your first post I fully agree with


----------



## Mrs. Maggott

Many people believe that Communism is (not _was_) the "perfect" form of government because everyone would be "cared for" (the Nanny State) and no one would be permitted to fail or fall behind. They see it as another Celesteville (Babar the Elephant) where everyone lived in harmony, each putting into the society what he or she could and receiving in turn, what he or she needed to not just survive, but live comfortably. Of course, in the case of Babar, none of the elephants seemed to mind that there was actually a King (something that Communism doesn't accept ordinarily), but other than that, Communism's advocates present it as the only truly "fair" governmental system. 

Actually, Communism _does_ work on a very small scale. Monastic communities live in such a way, holding all things in common and with no individual "earning" more than another. However, the difference here is that monks _choose_ to be monks. When such a system is attempted even in a limited way, it invariably fails. One of the first American colonies tried Communism and the entire colony almost starved to death. However, when individual colonists were permitted to grow their _own_ food, _voila!_ there was food enough to go round and to spare! The problem with "everyone working for the common good" is that invariably there are lots of people who simply _don't work_, being content to live off the labors of their neighbors!

With Communism, rather than everyone being "equal" the "overlords" appeared virtually with the establishment of the system and it quickly turned out that some people were more "equal" than others. These individuals weren't czars or grand dukes, but "Comrade Lenin" and "Comrade Stalin" and all the other members of the government and bureaucratic hierarch who "ruled" in the name of the "proletariat" while the "proletariat" found that they had far less under their dear "comrades" than under the darned old czar - unless, of course, one wished to count fear and torture which they had aplenty! Indeed, Communism was such a grave evil that some historian (whose name escapes me) once posited that while Nazism was the kindergarten of evil, Communism was the university. 

Still with everything that history has taught us about the system and what invariably happens (unless one is a monk), much of our nation's educational elite is decidedly communist in its leanings despite Stalin and Pol Pot and the Cultural Revolution. These people simply believe that Communism is the answer, it just hasn't been "done right" - yet and/or the "right people" haven't been in charge! Unfortunately, for such ostensibly intelligent people, they seem to have missed Santayana's warning about learning from history.

As for "censorship": the word has a bad track record, but it is _necessary_. For instance, do we want people posting how to make bombs or nerve gas on the internet? Do you want your personal information including your credit card numbers publicized widely? Do you think everybody should know everything about everybody else? No? Fellas and gals - the protection of your privacy is, guess what, _censorship!_ Yup! Evil old censorship protects you from identity theft and from having your most personal information made public. Parental safeguards on children's access to the internet are forms of censorship - and thank God for them. Our intellegence community works diligently to learn the "other side's" secrets and protect our own! That's censorship. In World War II there was an old saying applied to civilians working in sensitive industries "loose lips sink ships!" That effort to get people not to speak about what they might know that would give aid and comfort to the enemy was - you bet! - censorship! Does anyone really want to broadcast all of our efforts to catch criminals, prevent terrorism and in general, protect society? How about a little note to Al Capone: "Dear Sir. Please do not pay your taxes this year because we intend to finally bring you to justice on this issue. This has been a warning from your friendly uncensored government." Yeah, sure! 

Censorship - like so many other issues - requires that each instance be examined and determined lest one make a decision which tosses the baby out with the bathwater and removes all of the safeguards put in place for our protection.


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay

Mrs. Maggott said:


> Still with everything that history has taught us about the system and what invariably happens (unless one is a monk), much of our nation's educational elite is decidedly communist in its leanings despite Stalin and Pol Pot and the Cultural Revolution. These people simply believe that Communism is the answer, it just hasn't been "done right" - yet and/or the "right people" haven't been in charge! Unfortunately, for such ostensibly intelligent people, they seem to have missed Santayana's warning about learning from history.



Rubbish. Although labels such as “Communist” and “elite” are often used nowadays to belittle people with left-wing or progressive views—inside academe or elsewhere—you’ll find very few “true blue” Communists among them. So there’s no need to exhume Sen. McCarthy just yet.



> As for "censorship": the word has a bad track record, but it is necessary. For instance, do we want people posting how to make bombs or nerve gas on the internet? Do you want your personal information including your credit card numbers publicized widely? Do you think everybody should know everything about everybody else? No? Fellas and gals - the protection of your privacy is, guess what, censorship! Yup! Evil old censorship protects you from identity theft and from having your most personal information made public. Parental safeguards on children's access to the internet are forms of censorship - and thank God for them. Our intellegence community works diligently to learn the "other side's" secrets and protect our own! That's censorship. In World War II there was an old saying applied to civilians working in sensitive industries "loose lips sink ships!" That effort to get people not to speak about what they might know that would give aid and comfort to the enemy was - you bet! - censorship! Does anyone really want to broadcast all of our efforts to catch criminals, prevent terrorism and in general, protect society? How about a little note to Al Capone: "Dear Sir. Please do not pay your taxes this year because we intend to finally bring you to justice on this issue. This has been a warning from your friendly uncensored government." Yeah, sure!
> 
> Censorship - like so many other issues - requires that each instance be examined and determined lest one make a decision which tosses the baby out with the bathwater and removes all of the safeguards put in place for our protection.



Sounds a lot like the “Nanny State” to me.


----------



## Mrs. Maggott

I think if you do the research you will find that I am quite accurate regarding the Marxist beliefs of many in academia (most?!). Some of our elite universities are further to the left than many of our most left leaning politicians. And while that might be acceptable as long as the educational system retained the concept of the open debate of ideas, I can tell you that it _doesn't_. Anyone who doesn't toe the "politically correct" line - student _or_ professor is not going to find life easy in the vast majority of America's institutions of "higher learning". 

The "Nanny State" is not necessary to insure privacy. Indeed, the Nanny State is distinctly _against_ its citizens having _any_ privacy, especially when it means that the State is ignorant of what you and I are doing. But perhaps we have a different understanding of what "censorship" means. I say that my privacy being kept until and/or unless I choose to expose it (purchasing something from a secure web site on the net) is my own individual "censorship" of information that I do not wish to be made public. I have the right to do that (at least for now) as an American citizen. How long I will _keep_ that right is no longer as "guaranteed" as once it was - mainly because of the Nanny State.

On the other hand, some entity - governmental or otherwise - which keeps certain things from certain people for certain reasons (film ratings etc.) is a more recognized method of "censorship". Sometimes it is warranted - film ratings, parental controls of internet usage and what children are exposed to in their schools (which, believe me, in many instances _requires_ censorship _big time_!) - sometimes it is problematic; telling an adult what he or she may see or read or even what he or she may eat or drink (or smoke as long as it remains legal). 

Like Milton, I oppose the censorship of _ideas_ but I have no problem with violence and prurient sex being kept off the public airwaves.


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay

Mrs. Maggott said:


> I think if you do the research you will find that I am quite accurate regarding the Marxist beliefs of many in academia (most?!). Some of our elite universities are further to the left than many of our most left leaning politicians. And while that might be acceptable as long as the educational system retained the concept of the open debate of ideas, I can tell you that it doesn't. Anyone who doesn't toe the "politically correct" line - student or professor is not going to find life easy in the vast majority of America's institutions of "higher learning".



I think you need to do a lot more research. As a person who has worked in academia, I am as qualified as anyone to tell you that your claims regarding the Marxist beliefs of many in academia are dead wrong. The humanities (and I think that’s what you’re targeting—because I don’t imagine a great deal of “Marxist” influence in the business or medicine schools) are at least as critical or suspicious of Marxism as they are of any orthodoxy—as they should be. The suggestion that people who don’t “toe a certain line” are marginalised is absurd. You are free to hold any opinion you wish, so long as you can adequately argue and defend it. 

In any case: are you proposing a government solution to this problem. Should the government vet students and/or teachers in educational institutions to filter out people with dangerously “politically correct” ideas?



> On the other hand, some entity - governmental or otherwise - which keeps certain things from certain people for certain reasons (film ratings etc.) is a more recognized method of "censorship". Sometimes it is warranted - film ratings, parental controls of internet usage and what children are exposed to in their schools (which, believe me, in many instances requires censorship big time!) - sometimes it is problematic; telling an adult what he or she may see or read or even what he or she may eat or drink (or smoke as long as it remains legal).



So you agree that the banning or attempted banning of the films mentioned in the initial post from theatres/screens that are only available for adult viewing is—to say the least—problematic?


----------



## joxy

Arthur_Vandelay said:


> As a person who has worked in academia, I am as qualified as anyone to tell you that your claims regarding the Marxist beliefs of many in academia are dead wrong.


Have you worked in academia in the US and in the UK?
Do you equate Marxism with communism?


----------



## Mrs. Maggott

To begin with, if you are indeed someone from academia, then that answers a lot of questions at least for me.

Secondly, I have only spoken of government involvement with the public airwaves over which government has control. I have never spoken of government involvement in any other area. It is possible for industries such as Hollywood to police themselves; it already has done so in the past.

Thirdly, I find far more desire on the part of those on the _left_ for the involvement of government in all areas of citizens' lives than is the case for those on the right whose biggest problems appear to be the sex and violence emanating from Hollywood which finds it way into people's homes. If the government were to limit its interest to that, I would have no problems. 

However, as for "vetting" professors, to my mind every parent should keep their kids out of just about EVERY college for four years, let them get a good menial job in the economy to learn the value of their parents' dollars - and, yes _including_ those jobs which the defenders of illegal aliens say Americans won't do - and I guarantee, the cost of "higher education" would plummet and all the indoctrination and other stupidity would cease. Right now throughout virtually our entire educational system - k through infinity - Americas are paying Rolls Royce prices for roller skate results. 

Heavens! American grade schoolers enter kindergarten 2 years above the performance of children from other industrialized countries - and come out of high school at least 2 years _behind_ those countries and some third world ones as well or we wouldn't be "outsourcing" jobs to India! On the other hand, we pay more than any other country per child for education. Does anyone see something wrong with this scenario? Unless one wishes to postulate that the problem lies with the children - ALL the children - then it would seem that the problem lies in the system itself. This is further buttressed by the fact that home schooled children almost _always_ perform better when they are graded against children educated in American schools. And what is the reaction of the NEA and the rest of academia? Why, more MONEY, of course!


----------



## Sammy Jankis

Mrs.Maggot said:


> However, as for "vetting" professors, to my mind every parent should keep their kids out of just about EVERY college for four years, let them get a good menial job in the economy to learn the value of their parents' dollars - and, yes including those jobs which the defenders of illegal aliens say Americans won't do - and I guarantee, the cost of "higher education" would plummet and all the indoctrination and other stupidity would cease.



"I'm sorry son - I know you are keen to go to university/college and study medicine in order to become a doctor, but you'll have to wait until the conclusion of the 'four year plan' instigated to cleanse our universities of left leaning propagandists before you can commence your tertiary education."

I'm sure every college bound high school graduate will be perfectly happy to pass up university in order to punish our tertiary education institutions for being Marxist indoctrination camps.

The notion that students are expected to conform to leftist thinking in order to succeed is baseless. While attending a politics course at a local University I found that a left or right stance on any issue was fine as long as reasons for that position were given. During discussion groups students were actively encouraged to debate their position by the tutor. No students were belittled for holding a conservative view, progressive students were made to defend their ideas - there were no 'free kicks'.

To support the claim of our academic institutions being hijacked by 'the left', people cite the existence of 'Socialist Clubs' and various activist groups on university campuses. They fail to acknowledge the existence of 'Conservative Clubs' or any other groups which may provide an outlet for right wing view points. They also insult the members of progressive groups by suggesting that they espouse these views merely because they are 'fashionable'. It seems it can't be possible that they have thought about these issues and come to such conclusions by themselves - they have been 'misled' by some Marxist academic.


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay

joxy said:


> Have you worked in academia in the US and in the UK?



No—in Australia. 



> Do you equate Marxism with communism?



No. If communism may be defined as the shared ownership of all property, this applies to many pre-literate societies, certain medieval religious groups, ancient Sparta, the Munster Anabaptists, the Jesuit Paraguay Republic; as well as Plato’s _Republic_ and More’s _Utopia_. In that sense, communism pre-dates Marxism in theory and practice.

Marxism itself can be divided into three strands:
(a) a critical social theory
(b) a vision of an alternative social order
(c) a theorisation of the historical mechanism whereby the current social order will “inevitably” be replaced by the desired alternative social order. (Interestingly, the _right-wing_ academic Francis Fukuyama has used this very aspect of Marxism to claim that US-style capitalist liberal democracy represents the utopian end of world history).

To make an enormous generalisation for the purposes of this discussion, where Marxism has been influential in the Western academies—although there is nothing beyond hearsay to suggest that the adoption of Marxist ideas in the academies is universal, or indeed to suggest that academics are to a man (or woman) leftist—I think you will find that:
1. almost nobody takes (b) seriously—whether you’re talking about Communism, Capitalism, or any other –ism
2. there is probably just as much scepticism towards (c)—and indeed toward any grand historical narrative, although some would agree in certain respects with Fukuyama’s appropriation of Marxist teleology (i.e. that capitalism has developed to such a point that it is resilient to historical change), even if they wouldn’t rejoice with him.
3. many have found (a) useful as a means of analysing relations of domination and subordination in modern societies, though not without some significant qualifications. Few, I think, argue for the primacy of class in social analysis without also acknowledging gender, sexuality, or ethnicity as other axes of social inequality. 

As I have said, this is an enormous generalisation. And I would say that, in particular areas of the humanities, Saussurian linguistics and French thought has been far more influential than Marxist/post-Marxist critical theory. And there are many who would be indifferent or hostile to either Marxism or French thought altogether. 

But let’s get down to the real issue here. The suggestion that the academies in the US, the UK or elsewhere are rife with Communists is a grotesque caricature. You know it, I know it and Mrs. Maggott knows it. 

What purpose is served by grotesque caricatures? Well, for one thing, they certainly don’t advance debate. No—their function is to belittle those who don’t share one’s views. Why would someone want to belittle the holders of an opposing view rather than engage with them? Elgee advanced a theory about this on another thread, which upon reflection I found wonderfully insightful. When one’s opinions are shared by the “majority” (though I wouldn’t put it this way: I’d say, “when one’s opinions are the received opinions”), the “minority” (those who don’t share the received opinion) are forced—by virtue of being in the “minority”—to defend their position through argument. Those who hold the received opinion, Elgee suggests, become complacent about their views, because they are so struck by the “obviousness” of the truth of them that they don’t feel they need to defend them. And I would add: rather than engage properly with the opposing view, they feel that ridicule or slander is only appropriate response to someone who is so “obviously” out of touch. 

Now, where have we seen this before? That’s right! “Political correctness.” We’ve been subjected to a litany of complaints regarding how terms such as “sexism”, “racism”, and “homophobia” have come to be applied in such a way as to shut down, rather than facilitate debate. But not a word is said about terms like “Communism”, “un-American”, “traitor” or “elite” which do _precisely_ the same thing.

I’ll give you another example. When I said a few posts ago that I have worked in academia, Mrs Maggott responded with the following:



> To begin with, if you are indeed someone from academia, then that answers a lot of questions at least for me.



Now I’m going to take a big guess. Mrs. Maggott has drawn some less-than-flattering conclusions about people who work in academia: indeed, she has openly said so. So anything I say from here on in is going to be coloured by the perceptions she has about people who work in academia: to the extent that she probably feels no need to pay much attention to what I have to say—not because of the merits or otherwise of my arguments—but because of the fact that I am (or was) “someone from academia.” My being “someone from academia” answers a lot of questions for her. I suspect one of these questions—the biggest one—might be: why doesn’t this person share my views?

What’s so bad about people who work—or have worked—in academia, I hear you ask? Well, Johnny, academics aren’t “real” people like you or me. They don’t live in the “real” world. They live in these places called “ivory towers”, so their views don’t count, and we don’t have to listen to them. 

Well, aren’t there any _good_ academics?

Why yes, Johnny. Those academics who share our views are the ones worth listening to. But they don’t live in “ivory towers”. They live in these places called “think tanks”, where they tell the President what to do. Those are the _good_ academics. The rest are Communist traitors.


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay

... continued



Mrs. Maggott said:


> To begin with, if you are indeed someone from academia, then that answers a lot of questions at least for me.



What is that supposed to mean?



> Secondly, I have only spoken of government involvement with the public airwaves over which government has control. I have never spoken of government involvement in any other area. It is possible for industries such as Hollywood to police themselves; it already has done so in the past.



And it still does. The films canvassed in Sammy Jankis’ initial post come from outside the Hollywood machine.



> Thirdly, I find far more desire on the part of those on the left for the involvement of government in all areas of citizens' lives than is the case for those on the right whose biggest problems appear to be the sex and violence emanating from Hollywood which finds it way into people's homes. If the government were to limit its interest to that, I would have no problems.



That’s funny. I though the right had problems with a whole range of issues: gay rights, religious tolerance, women’s rights, the rights of ethnic minorities (i.e. people who commit the unpardonable sin of being “different”), the incomprehensible notion that workers have “rights”, the absence of prayer in public schools, etc. etc.

Now this is undoubtedly an unfair generalisation. A “grotesque caricature”, even. But no less so than your appraisal of “those on the left.”



> However, as for "vetting" professors, to my mind every parent should keep their kids out of just about EVERY college for four years, let them get a good menial job in the economy to learn the value of their parents' dollars



Where I come from, it is the lot of all but the well-heeled students to balance their studies with menial McJobs. They get the “best” of both worlds: “character-building” unskilled employment that has nothing to do with their chosen career path, and compromised study time.



> - and, yes including those jobs which the defenders of illegal aliens say Americans won't do



(I like the term “illegal aliens.” Makes it easier to hate people if you don’t think of them as human)



> - and I guarantee, the cost of "higher education" would plummet and all the indoctrination and other stupidity would cease.



I don’t see how.



> Right now throughout virtually our entire educational system - k through infinity - Americas are paying Rolls Royce prices for roller skate results.



Funny to hear you describe the American system that way. The Federal Education Minister in Australia wants our system to be more like yours. “Rolls Royce prices for roller skate results.” I couldn’t have put it better myself.



> Heavens! American grade schoolers enter kindergarten 2 years above the performance of children from other industrialized countries - and come out of high school at least 2 years behind those countries and some third world ones as well or we wouldn't be "outsourcing" jobs to India!



No, you outsource jobs to India for the same reason Australia does. Economic rationalism.



> On the other hand, we pay more than any other country per child for education. Does anyone see something wrong with this scenario?



And yet in your high schools you have teachers giving classes in janitor’s closets. There’s _definitely_ something wrong with that scenario.



> Unless one wishes to postulate that the problem lies with the children - ALL the children - then it would seem that the problem lies in the system itself. This is further buttressed by the fact that home schooled children almost always perform better when they are graded against children educated in American schools.



Home schooling is just not an option for everyone.



> And what is the reaction of the NEA and the rest of academia? Why, more MONEY, of course!



Well, what else is going to pay for teaching equipment (in relatively good repair), quality staff, reduced staff-student ratios, and all these other difficulties that are the cause of the “roller skate results” we all decry? What say you to the idea that the government divert some of the funds it splashes around making America the most powerful country in the world into areas like health and education where it might just contribute to making America the best country in the world?



Sammy Jankis said:


> The notion that students are expected to conform to leftist thinking in order to succeed is baseless. While attending a politics course at a local University I found that a left or right stance on any issue was fine as long as reasons for that position were given. During discussion groups students were actively encouraged to debate their position by the tutor. No students were belittled for holding a conservative view, progressive students were made to defend their ideas - there were no 'free kicks'.
> 
> To support the claim of our academic institutions being hijacked by 'the left', people cite the existence of 'Socialist Clubs' and various activist groups on university campuses. They fail to acknowledge the existence of 'Conservative Clubs' or any other groups which may provide an outlet for right wing view points. They also insult the members of progressive groups by suggesting that they espouse these views merely because they are 'fashionable'. It seems it can't be possible that they have thought about these issues and come to such conclusions by themselves - they have been 'misled' by some Marxist academic.



Turn it up, Sammy Jankis. If you _hadn’t_ been brainwashed by some Marxist academic, you wouldn’t say that.


----------



## Mrs. Maggott

Sammy Jankis said:


> "I'm sorry son - I know you are keen to go to university/college and study medicine in order to become a doctor, but you'll have to wait until the conclusion of the 'four year plan' instigated to cleanse our universities of left leaning propagandists before you can commence your tertiary education."
> 
> I'm sure every college bound high school graduate will be perfectly happy to pass up university in order to punish our tertiary education institutions for being Marxist indoctrination camps.
> 
> The notion that students are expected to conform to leftist thinking in order to succeed is baseless. While attending a politics course at a local University I found that a left or right stance on any issue was fine as long as reasons for that position were given. During discussion groups students were actively encouraged to debate their position by the tutor. No students were belittled for holding a conservative view, progressive students were made to defend their ideas - there were no 'free kicks'.
> 
> To support the claim of our academic institutions being hijacked by 'the left', people cite the existence of 'Socialist Clubs' and various activist groups on university campuses. They fail to acknowledge the existence of 'Conservative Clubs' or any other groups which may provide an outlet for right wing view points. They also insult the members of progressive groups by suggesting that they espouse these views merely because they are 'fashionable'. It seems it can't be possible that they have thought about these issues and come to such conclusions by themselves - they have been 'misled' by some Marxist academic.



I think you will find that I was discussing reducing the ridiculous COST of so-called "higher education"; I said nothing with regard to this particular idea about the leftist state of our educational system. I still believe that if people weren't beating down the doors of our colleges, it may well be that it wouldn't cost more than a heart-lung transplant to simply attend one. 

There may be "conservative" clubs on college campuses, but if one looks at the data compiled by conservative groups regarding life on campus for conservatives, you will find that these are not generally "supported" by the administration and are frequently harassed if not by the college hierarchy, then by leftist "students". When this happens, conservatives seldom receive any support or protection from the administration. Furthermore, conservative students have even filed suit to prevent the student fees that they are charged being used to support leftist and other causes with which they disagree. Of course, these things are most obvious in those areas of the curriculum which relate to such matters. However, no area of study is devoid of the "spirit of the age" as it exists today. It is not for nothing that few if any American medical schools use the old Hippocratic oath which prohibits assisted suicide and abortion.


----------



## Ol'gaffer

Sammy Jankis said:


> Here in Australia, over the past year or so, a couple of controversial films have been the subject of much heated debate. Last year Ken Park  was banned by censorship authorities for offending "standards of morality, decency, and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults". In 2002, the French film Baise Moi failed to make it past the Office of Film and Literature Classification. Just recently, the film Irreversible was deemed appropriate for release, much to the horror of the Australian Family Association and Christian Democrat Party member Fred Nile.
> 
> Advertising standards have also come under fire from conservative columnist Andrew Bolt.
> 
> *Is there not enough censorship, or is there too much?
> 
> What should be censored? Should there be no censorship at all?*



Censorship is one tough cookie. 

I for one, am against most censorship that occurs, mainly because I believe that most people on the planet know what they can watch and take and what they can't. Then there is the majority of Americans who need to be told what they can take and what they can't.

While in Europe, censorship is quite lax. Movies such as Irreversible and Ken Park have been released here under K-18 rating, (the similar NC-17 in the states) and are open for anyone 18 and above to rent or buy. 

I have seen both movies, and while I feel that they are most certainly not for everyone, I feel that banning them is equal to banning their right for free speech. While people then would ask, "if they want to make a point, why must they do it in such a manner that get's them banned?" to which, the answer is simple.

It's exactly what the movie Se7en tried to bring across, "In todays world, a light tap on the shoulder will not get you any attention, people have to be hit over the head with a sledgehammer for them to actually pay attention." Which is exactly true. In todays society we're so accustomed to taking everything for granted with the majority of the people living in a "out of sight out of mind" mentality, so when a director brings out this reality infront of them, they are either censored, banned or then demaned "unappropriate or corrupting."

Then there are the people who claim that violent movies, violent everything, entertainment corrupts youth and makes them commit every lothesome act that is heard and seen of on tv. Which is complete rubbish. There is always something more to those cases than just films, and so far absolutely no one has done anything that has been reported of, solely because "they saw it in a movie" there has always been someting in the background, media has just chosen not to report it, or people have chosen not to listen.

So, is censorship good? In my opinion, they started out with a good idea, but it has gotten so out of hand, that is something isn't done, it's heading toward a real orwellian nightmare.


----------



## Inderjit S

*shift to literature.....*

What about books such as 'The Adventures of Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn' by Mark Twain and 'Heart of Darkness' by Joseph Conrad. Should they be censored because they use, what is now a derogatory word to describe black people in their books. Such words were part and parcel of their vernacular-should they be condemned as racist because their language is considered degrading? Twain was not a racist, he often campaigned for equal rights. And what about black writers or poets who use that word in their book, such as Toni Morrison in 'The Song of Solomon' and Alice Walker in 'The Color Purple' as well as Maya Angelou-do they have the "right" to use that word because they are black? And so, is it not the word itself but the context with which it was used which causes all the problems? So can we really censor writers for their misuse of certain words when that word was by no means a taboo at the time of writing but the norm? 

And what about rappers---do they have the right to use that word....it is a part of their common day vocab as much as it was a part of Twain's.


----------



## Malbeth

> There may be "conservative" clubs on college campuses, but if one looks at the data compiled by conservative groups regarding life on campus for conservatives, you will find that these are not generally "supported" by the administration and are frequently harassed if not by the college hierarchy, then by leftist "students". When this happens, conservatives seldom receive any support or protection from the administration. Furthermore, conservative students have even filed suit to prevent the student fees that they are charged being used to support leftist and other causes with which they disagree. Of course, these things are most obvious in those areas of the curriculum which relate to such matters. However, no area of study is devoid of the "spirit of the age" as it exists today. It is not for nothing that few if any American medical schools use the old Hippocratic oath which prohibits assisted suicide and abortion.



True; I've talked before about the episode when my friends and I wrote a right-wing newspaper in our university, how they were almost lynched by the other students, and how the university administration and the media was on the lynch mob's side against us. This was on a Catholic university that is considered by many to be conservative.

To go to any university here in Brazil you have to take a test of admission that covers all the things taught in school here in Brazil (history, geography, portuguese, biology, chemistry, physics, math, a foreign language). The history tests are decidedly left-wing, assuming the goodness and justice of any left-wing movement, no matter how violent... I had to hide my convictions in order to be approved, something I'm not at all proud of.


----------



## Mrs. Maggott

Inderjit S said:


> What about books such as 'The Adventures of Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn' by Mark Twain and 'Heart of Darkness' by Joseph Conrad. Should they be censored because they use, what is now a derogatory word to describe black people in their books. Such words were part and parcel of their vernacular-should they be condemned as racist because their language is considered degrading? Twain was not a racist, he often campaigned for equal rights. And what about black writers or poets who use that word in their book, such as Toni Morrison in 'The Song of Solomon' and Alice Walker in 'The Color Purple' as well as Maya Angelou-do they have the "right" to use that word because they are black? And so, is it not the word itself but the context with which it was used which causes all the problems? So can we really censor writers for their misuse of certain words when that word was by no means a taboo at the time of writing but the norm?
> 
> And what about rappers---do they have the right to use that word....it is a part of their common day vocab as much as it was a part of Twain's.


And how about the poor politician who was bemoaning a pittance of funding for something or another and said that the amount of money given was "niggardly". The poor soul was almost drawn and quartered!! Later it was determined he wasn't really evil, but he should have been "sensitive" enough to know that a word which even _sounds_ like "the 'N' word" should _never_ be used except, of course, by rappers and other inner city types since as everyone knows, because of their race, they _cannot_ be "racist"! 

Ah, political correctness! that modern exercise in mental constipation!


----------



## Sammy Jankis

Not too recently a documentary entitled "The Search for Truth in History" was screened in various cinemas around Australia. The documentary sought to demonstrate that the crimes of the Nazi's during WWII were fabrications or, at least, exaggerated (i.e. Holocaust denial). The documentary's creator, David Irving, has been denied access to Australia several times on 'character grounds'. Some applauded this as a noble stance taken by the government. Others saw it is as a violation of free political expression. Before and during the screening of the documentary, protests (organised mainly by Jewish lobby groups) took place requesting that the film not be shown, as it constituted hate speech.

Fortunately, during most of the discussion over the issue, people opposed to the screenings recognized that those defending the right of the cinemas to screen the film weren't necessarily defending the arguments within it. Some, unfortunately, failed to make the distinction.


Should the government have the right to censor/ban films widely believed to be historically inaccurate?

Does a documentary/film/book with holocaust denial as its theme constitute a form of hate speech? If so, should it be banned?

Is it fair to interpret the defense of a persons right to express an unpopular view as, either directly or indirectly, an endorsement of that view to a certain extent?


----------



## Mrs. Maggott

When testifying before HUAC, then SAG President Ronald Reagan stated that he did not want to see the American Communist Party outlawed (censored) until and unless it could be proven that it was an agent of a foreign government (the Soviet Union). Reagan declared that _ideas should be allowed to compete in the public forum_ and that he had faith that Americans would be able to choose correctly _as long as they knew all the facts_. Jefferson believed the same thing and that is why he said that nothing was as essential to the continuation of the Republic as a "free press" unaligned with any political party or ideology and willing to print the facts (_not_, by the way, _the "truth"_ which is, more often than not, someone's _interpretation_ of the facts). Both Reagan and Jefferson believed that Americans when presented with all the facts were smart enough to make the right choice. 

It is one thing to "censor" films showing actual cruelty to animals and people or "10 steps to making your own bomb" and that sort of blueprint for mayhem; it is even laudable to keep some information, films etc. from children as such things are inappropriate at a young age. However, it is quite another to attempt to censor _ideas_! To begin with, it never works; as the old saying goes, nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come. Secondly, any attempt to do so _is_ contrary to the First Amendment which protects the free exchange of ideas but _not_, contrary to popular belief, obscenity or pornography or bomb making or any such nonsense. Ergo, while it may be permissable and understandable to censor Howard Stern's program for its sexual content (or at least keep it off the air until later in the evening), it is _NOT_ permissable under the First Amendment to censor Mr. Stern's ideas. Of course, if he cannot express them without resorting to gross obscenity then, I'm afraid, he should be made to confine them to late night entertainment where they belong. But even in that case, it would not be his _ideas_ being censored, but their "delivery".


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay

An anti-Israel art display in Melbourne is currently the subject of much controversy--with Jewish groups and the State Opposition calling for its removal, citing the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act. (Full story)

A similar controversy broke out in 1997 over the display of an infamous work by Andres Serrano, which depicted a crucifix immersed in urine. The instalment was removed after two youths attacked the work with a hammer--the gallery director citing staff and visitor security concerns. Catholic Archbishop George Pell had earlier applied for an injunction against the exhibition on the grounds that it constituted "blasphemous libel."

And in 2002, a display in a Canberra public library critical of Australia's refugee detention policies had to be removed after library staff were threatened and harrassed by members of the public.

To my mind, all three cases constitute instances of censorship. But what do others think? Should censorship be used to protect religious organisations from vilification? Does art count as "free speech"? And is censorship still censorship if it hasn't been instigated by a government agency?


----------



## Malbeth

> A similar controversy broke out in 1997 over the display of an infamous work by Andres Serrano, which depicted a crucifix immersed in urine. The instalment was removed after two youths attacked the work with a hammer--the gallery director citing staff and visitor security concerns. Catholic Archbishop George Pell had earlier applied for an injunction against the exhibition on the grounds that it constituted "blasphemous libel."



If Andres Serrano has the right to offend Christians, then people have the right to offend gays, jews, blacks, and just about anyone else they want to... and there goes your idea that employers should be forced to refrain from offending minorities.


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay

Malbeth said:


> If Andres Serrano has the right to offend Christians, then people have the right to offend gays, jews, blacks, and just about anyone else they want to... and there goes your idea that employers should be forced to refrain from offending minorities.



Not in their capacity as employers, and not in the context of a workplace.


----------



## Ol'gaffer

But the thing is, you don't need to do much to offend Christians or the modern church. Pretty much everything these days is condemmend vile or blasphemous by them anyways..


----------



## Thorin

Ol'gaffer said:


> But the thing is, you don't need to do much to offend Christians or the modern church. Pretty much everything these days is condemmend vile or blasphemous by them anyways..


Which brings up a good point when it comes to racism and homosexuality. How much of it is truly 'discrimination' and how much of it is, "I just don't like the way you talk or say about this and I'm offended!"?

So much is branded as 'hate' and 'racism' when it is merely overly sensitive people wanting to have government and society cater to their whims. I agree with Malbeth (despite his being Catholic ). So many people scream, "RACISM!" "BIGOTRY!" "DISCRIMINATION!" against Christians, but death metal bands can blaspheme God, sing about killing and torturing Christians and Christ, worshiping Satan and exalting Him over God and nothing is even said about censoring that. "Free speech, by God! Gotta protect those first amendment rights!" Yet a Christian speaks out against homosexuality and they are branded as promoting hate and discriminating against homosexuals.


----------



## Mrs. Maggott

Ol'gaffer said:


> But the thing is, you don't need to do much to offend Christians or the modern church. Pretty much everything these days is condemmend vile or blasphemous by them anyways..


What on earth are you _talking _ about?! 

Most so called "main line" churches (and I won't call them Christian because many deny the divinity of Christ, the resurrection, the redemption and just about everything else that constitutes Christianity) embrace the "homosexual agenda", abortion, radical feminism and all the other "isms" that are beloved by the secular culture! Offended?? these "churches" are more often offended by traditional Christians than anything that the secular culture can produce! Right now the "Catholic Church" (many liberals within that Church have abandoned the "Rome" part) is being torn apart by a very real war between those who want to "modernize" (i.e. secularize) the Church and those who wish to follow the traditional faith of their fathers and grandfathers. It is not for nothing that Gibson had more trouble with the power structure within his own Church than with many Jews who saw the film and frankly admitted that it posed no problems for them. In fact, it was some liberal _Catholics_ who stole a copy of an early script and used it to condemn Gibson and trash the film before it was even finished!

So, please! Do not pretend that many who use the title "Christian" are "offended" by the culture. Indeed, they embrace it and are frequently in the forefront of advancing its agenda. It is far more probable these days that one will step on the toes of the PCNs (Politically Correct Nazis) than many groups calling themselves Christian. In fact, even when traditional Christians _are_ offended by photographs of urine immersed crucifixes and portraits of the Virgin in elephant dung, they are instantly labeled by the establishment (and their more worldly "Christian" brethren) as "intolerant" and "narrow-minded" and their complaints and concerns - however valid - cavalierly dismissed. 

So, please! No charges that the culture is being "held hostage" by those Neanderthal Christians who "insist" that everything be done their way! A mere glance at the facts will quickly put that contention to rest _big time!_


----------



## Sammy Jankis

Mrs Maggot said:


> Most so called "main line" churches (and I won't call them Christian because many deny the divinity of Christ, the resurrection, the redemption and just about everything else that constitutes Christianity) embrace the "homosexual agenda", abortion, radical feminism and all the other "isms" that are beloved by the secular culture!



There’s that word again. *Agenda*. I think the word "rights" is what people have in mind when they speak of the ‘homosexual agenda’. It’s just that _agenda_ has a much more sinister ring to it than _rights_, and it gives the impression that whatever _they_ seek to achieve/gain isn’t deserved or is to the detriment of _us_.

You appear to associate abortion, feminism and the “other isms” with only ‘secular culture’. You don’t have to be religious to oppose these things. Incidentally, which religious teachings condemn feminist ideology? Perhaps you could also list a few more of those ‘isms’.




> Offended?? these "churches" are more often offended by traditional Christians than anything that the secular culture can produce! Right now the "Catholic Church" (many liberals within that Church have abandoned the "Rome" part) is being torn apart by a very real war between those who want to "modernize" (i.e. secularize) the Church and those who wish to follow the traditional faith of their fathers and grandfathers.


Churches and religions change over time. I’m also interested in how a church undergoes secularisation. Are you suggesting that a liberal view on a given subject (such a homosexuality) is evidence of ‘secular culture’? Tradition, in itself, is not an argument for opposing changes in a church’s position on an issue, in the same way that simply stating “We need to modernise” isn’t an argument _for_ change.




> So, please! Do not pretend that many who use the title "Christian" are "offended" by the culture. Indeed, they embrace it and are frequently in the forefront of advancing its _agenda_.


 (My emphasis.)

That word again. 

Define ‘the culture’.




> It is far more probable these days that one will step on the toes of the PCNs (Politically Correct Nazis) than many groups calling themselves Christian. In fact, even when traditional Christians are offended by photographs of urine immersed crucifixes and portraits of the Virgin in elephant dung, they are instantly labeled by the establishment (and their more worldly "Christian" brethren) as "intolerant" and "narrow-minded" and their complaints and concerns - however valid - cavalierly dismissed.


False. It is understood and respected that people may find artworks, such as the one described, as offensive. You can’t blame someone for their immediate response to a political statement or artwork. However, I draw the line when moves are made to ban art/films/books because others find them to be offensive.

In Australia at the moment various MP’s are attempting to make it an offence to burn the national flag. Their reason? “It’s offensive”. No matter how unpopular it is, it must be recognised for what it is – a political statement. To ban it is an infringement upon the free expression of ideas. Period.


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay

Sammy Jankis said:


> In Australia at the moment various MP’s are attempting to make it an offence to ban the national flag. Their reason? “It’s offensive”. No matter how unpopular it is, it must be recognised for what it is – a political statement. To ban it is an infringement upon the free expression of ideas. Period.



Typo: replace "ban" with "burn."

Further to Malbeth's remarks:

I said that the three cases I outlined in my post were instances of censorship. I did not make a comment one way or the other about the rightness or wrongness of censorship in each instance. I want to know from others:

1. Do they constitute instances of censorship/attempted censorship?
2. Is the censorship/attempted censorship justified in each instance?
3. Under what conditions is censorship justified, if at all (clearly the central concern of the entire thread)?

Keep pushing your "employer's right to discriminate" wheelbarrow if you wish. But you might also like to address some of these questions, as well as those in my other post.


----------



## Malbeth

Sometime ago Elgee talked about an advertisement that a newspaper ran which had a sign of two homosexuals holding each other's hands, like a traffic sign, but with a red slash on it (as in forbidden); below it there was the reference to the Bible verse that says sex between two men is sinful. The Canadian goverment pulled it down, calling it "hate speech". Was this censure? I think some people on this thread who are now against censuring people who offend Christians were in favor of this ruling.



> Originally Posted by Malbeth
> If Andres Serrano has the right to offend Christians, then people have the right to offend gays, jews, blacks, and just about anyone else they want to... and there goes your idea that employers should be forced to refrain from offending minorities.
> 
> 
> Not in their capacity as employers, and not in the context of a workplace.



I don't see why an "artist" can use public funds to insult Christians but an employer can't insult whoever he wants on his company... it does look like denying rights to employers; even worse, it seems "artists" have a privilege that is denied to employers... so, since a privilege is something that is given by government to some people in order to encourage a behaviour government thinks socially useful, government thinks that it is socially useful to insult Christians (but that really does not surprise me).



> You appear to associate abortion, feminism and the “other isms” with only ‘secular culture’. You don’t have to be religious to oppose these things. Incidentally, which religious teachings condemn feminist ideology? Perhaps you could also list a few more of those ‘isms’.



Of course abortion is something related to "secular culture"; this does not mean that all secularists are for abortion (thankfully... it would really be worrisome if all secularists were murderous), it means that a Christian (or just about any other religion except the worship of Moloch) culture would never accept it.

As for feminism, it depends on what is the definition of feminism; if by feminism you understand the idea that women are just as valuable as men in the eyes of God, no religious teaching condemns it; Catholic teaching in fact, is wildly for it, calling one woman "the most perfect creature". If by feminism you mean the idea that women and men are absolutely equal, (what Mrs. Maggot called "radical feminism") than a number of religious teachings contradict it. The most obvious is the case of the Priesthood.



> Churches and religions change over time.


Not mine it doesn't! Not on its moral or doctrinal teachings.



> I’m also interested in how a church undergoes secularisation. Are you suggesting that a liberal view on a given subject (such a homosexuality) is evidence of ‘secular culture’? Tradition, in itself, is not an argument for opposing changes in a church’s position on an issue, in the same way that simply stating “We need to modernise” isn’t an argument for change.



Actually, (Sacred) Tradition is _the_ argument used by Catholicism and Orthodoxy to oppose changes in a church's position; the Catholic Church simply cannot change any of its received teachings. So, those who, belonging to the Catholic or the Orthodox faith, propose a "liberal" view on a given subject do so because of pressure from "secular culture".


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay

Malbeth said:


> I don't see why an "artist" can use public funds to insult Christians but an employer can't insult whoever he wants on his company... it does look like denying rights to employers; even worse, it seems "artists" have a privilege that is denied to employers... so, since a privilege is something that is given by government to some people in order to encourage a behaviour government thinks socially useful, government thinks that it is socially useful to insult Christians (but that really does not surprise me).



Serrano, in his capacity as an artist, and in the context of a public gallery or forum, does have the right to produce work that Christians may find offensive. 

Serrano, in his capacity as an employer, and in the context of a workplace, _does not_ have the right to abuse his Christian employees (i.e. beacuse they are Christian) or treat them unfairly or inequitably.


----------



## Sammy Jankis

Malbeth said:


> Of course abortion is something related to "secular culture"...



I was pointing out that one can be a part of the 'secular culture' (i.e. non-religious) and still be against abortion. Secularisation doesn't mean an automatic contradictory position to that of a church - it means people cannot be forced to observe the religious teachings of others.




> Churches and religions change over time.
> 
> 
> 
> Not mine it doesn't! Not on its moral or doctrinal teachings.
Click to expand...


I don't believe that the stance of a church on any particular issue is fixed. I believe the stance of a church is best defined by the position its members take on an issue, and the opinions and feelings of these people can change.




> Actually, (Sacred) Tradition is _the_ argument used by Catholicism and Orthodoxy to oppose changes in a church's position; the Catholic Church simply cannot change any of its received teachings. So, those who, belonging to the Catholic or the Orthodox faith, propose a "liberal" view on a given subject do so because of pressure from "secular culture".



Maybe they've listened to what the 'secular culture' has to say and changed their opinion after receiving a different view point. People can't be pressured into adopting a position on an issue - they change their stance as they've been convinced by an argument.



Arthur Vandelay said:


> Typo: replace "ban" with "burn."



Oops - that'll teach me to *proof read * a little more closely!


----------



## Malbeth

> I was pointing out that one can be a part of the 'secular culture' (i.e. non-religious) and still be against abortion. Secularisation doesn't mean an automatic contradictory position to that of a church - it means people cannot be forced to observe the religious teachings of others.



I agree with that, but every time someone argues against abortion, whether one uses religious arguments or not, one hears the argument "don't impose your religion on me", "if you believe abortion is wrong don't have one" and so on... these are the marks of a secular culture, and it is a fact that one of the things that differentiates secular culture from a Christian culture is its allowance of baby-killing. Of course one can be a non-christian and be totally against abortion; I used to be like that in fact.



> I don't believe that the stance of a church on any particular issue is fixed. I believe the stance of a church is best defined by the position its members take on an issue, and the opinions and feelings of these people can change.



This is not how authoritative Churches (like the Catholic or the Orthodox) work; it is not a matter of what you believe. If the Catholic Church changed its teachings about any moral or doctrinal matters it would cease being the Catholic Church.



> Maybe they've listened to what the 'secular culture' has to say and changed their opinion after receiving a different view point. People can't be pressured into adopting a position on an issue - they change their stance as they've been convinced by an argument.



When I talked about "pressure" I did not mean that there were some people who were protesting against a clergyman and he changed his positions because of that (but still there have happened here in Rio people who have applied such pressure); I meant that those people have breathed the air of "secular culture" and are now judging the Church on the basis of the culture, and not vice-versa; you have to understand that for a Catholic the Church simply cannot be wrong in matters of faith or morals, and so when there is a disagreement between the Church and the culture on such matters one has two options; to say the culture is wrong, or to cease being a Catholic (since a Catholic is someone who believes the church is always right on those issues).



> Serrano, in his capacity as an artist, and in the context of a public gallery or forum, does have the right to produce work that Christians may find offensive.
> 
> Serrano, in his capacity as an employer, and in the context of a workplace, does not have the right to abuse his Christian employees (i.e. beacuse they are Christian) or treat them unfairly or inequitably.



"Serrano, in his capacity as a heterosexual, has the right to marry anyone of the opposite sex who will marry with him"

"Serrano, in his capacity as a homosexual, does not have the right to marry anyone of the same sex who will marry with him"

But you see, some people have a vocation to be an artist, and others have a vocation to be an enterpreneur; to say that the fact that you are an artist gives you more rights than if you are a businessman is just as wrong as to say that the fact that you are heterossexual gives you more rights than if you are homosexual; if one's sexuality is something so closely related to one's identity that to discriminate against it is odious, why is it not odious to discriminate against a vocation, which is also closely related to one's identity?

I do think that the fact that it is a public gallery (i.e. something that involves government's money) makes it even worse; if you are going to offend people, at least use your own money and not the money that was taken from the very people you are offending.


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay

Malbeth said:


> "Serrano, in his capacity as a heterosexual, has the right to marry anyone of the opposite sex who will marry with him"
> 
> "Serrano, in his capacity as a homosexual, does not have the right to marry anyone of the same sex who will marry with him"



Not the same thing. Can Serrano simultaneously be heterosexual and homosexual? If you were to replace "heterosexual" with "white person", "opposite sex" with "same race"; and "homosexual" with "black person" and "same sex" with "different race" in the above statements, couls Serrano simultaneously be black and white?

Serrano can, however, simultaneously be an entrepreneur and an artist.



> But you see, some people have a vocation to be an artist, and others have a vocation to be an enterpreneur; to say that the fact that you are an artist gives you more rights than if you are a businessman is just as wrong as to say that the fact that you are heterossexual gives you more rights than if you are homosexual; if one's sexuality is something so closely related to one's identity that to discriminate against it is odious, why is it not odious to discriminate against a vocation, which is also closely related to one's identity?



The question is not who has more rights. The artist and the entrepreneur, as individuals, have the _same_ rights. The question is where and under what conditions those rights (e.g. the right to free speech) can be exercised. The artist has the right to have his work--however offensive to Christians (for example) displayed in a public forum (regardless of whether public funds are involved). He does not have the right to abuse his Christian staff, because such actions would be discriminatory. The entrepreneur has the right to publish an offensive article or paper--or even have his offensive artwork displayed, if he is so inclined--but he does not have the right to abuse his Christian staff, because such actions would be discriminatory.



> I do think that the fact that it is a public gallery (i.e. something that involves government's money) makes it even worse; if you are going to offend people, at least use your own money and not the money that was taken from the very people you are offending.



Some Christians probably don't approve of their taxes funding the teaching of evolution in public schools. I don't like my taxes spent locking refugee children up in desert camps for years on end. What can we do?


----------



## Malbeth

> Some Christians probably don't approve of their taxes funding the teaching of evolution in public schools. I don't like my taxes spent locking refugee children up in desert camps for years on end. What can we do?



Recognize that both having public schools and locking refugee children up in desert camps is wrong and fight to stop it.



> The entrepreneur has the right to publish an offensive article or paper--or even have his offensive artwork displayed, if he is so inclined--but he does not have the right to abuse his Christian staff, because such actions would be discriminatory.



Why is it discriminatory to offend people who freely chose to associate with you but it is not discriminatory to offend people who want nothing to do with you using their money?



> Can Serrano simultaneously be heterosexual and homosexual?



This puts us up to the question of how useful these categories are. People can be attracted to one sex then to the other in much the same manner that someone can be an artist and then an enterpeneur; they cannot go from black to white (unless they are Michael Jackson).


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay

Malbeth said:


> Recognize that both having public schools and locking refugee children up in desert camps is wrong and fight to stop it.



I've always meant to ask you about this: if public schools are wrong, and we should move to a fully-privatised education system, wouldn't this price a lot of people out of a good education (or out of education full stop)? Would you even consider this a bad thing?



> Why is it discriminatory to offend people who freely chose to associate with you but it is not discriminatory to offend people who want nothing to do with you using their money?



I think context is important, and I think you have it the wrong way around. As long as there is such a thing called "taxation" there will always be government expenditures that are objectionable to someone in some way. _If_ the exhibition is publicly-funded, a taxpayer has no direct control over that--though they can protest in other ways. But an offended person can choose not to attend the exhibition--or pay any more money towards it than they have to (i.e. nothing if the exhibition is privately-funded). Just as any television viewer offended by sex and violence on television can "switch off."

The abused Christian employee is _not_ able to avoid the abuse _unless_ he/she looks for alternative employment. So I guess that's "free choice"--the "choice" between abuse and unemployment, but in the sense that he/she has to suffer economically for being Christian, it certainly isn't fair. Just as a person being denied a promotion because he/she won't sleep with his/her boss is unfair (and discriminatory). You might object that a boss who abuses his staff in such a way will receive "natural" justice in the form of high turnovers and a bad reputation. This might be all well and good, I suppose, if he were to treat _all_ of his staff this way--though my concern for people's access to decent working conditions would prevent me from defending the boss's right to abuse his staff even if he was being an "equal opportunity" abuser. He definitely does not have the right to make certain members of his staff the target of abuse because of their religion or ethnicity or any other arbitrary and non-performance-related reason.

I'm only talking about the employer's professional conduct towards his employees. Outside of that context--in the public arena--he has the right to be as offensive as he likes. His actions in the public arena might colour in some way his professional relationship with his employees and colleagues. But that's irrelevant.



> This puts us up to the question of how useful these categories are. People can be attracted to one sex then to the other in much the same manner that someone can be an artist and then an enterpeneur; they cannot go from black to white (unless they are Michael Jackson).



That's all very well in theory--and I think sexual categories are as historically contingent as racial ones--but do you really think many people actually experience their sexual orientation this way, as a choice, as something they can just turn off like a tap? Do you experience your sexual orientation as a choice?


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay

What do you make of this?

From ABC News  Australia


> *Disney blocks new Michael Moore doco*
> 
> Walt Disney Company is reportedly preventing its Miramax division from distributing a documentary film by director Michael Moore critical of US President George W Bush.
> 
> A report in the New York Times says the film Farenheit 911 criticises Mr Bush's policies before September 11, 2001.
> 
> It also describes financial connections between the Bush family, its associates and prominent Saudi Arabian families, including the family of Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.
> 
> The documentary closely explores the US Government's role in the evacuation of relatives of bin Laden from the United States after the 2001 attacks.
> 
> A senior Disney executive says the company has the right to stop Miramax distributing films it deems to be against the interests of the company.



Censorship?

A cheap publicity stunt on the part of Disney and/or Miramax?

If they're trying to kill the movie (a la _The Passion_, ladies and germs), they're going the wrong way about it.


----------



## joxy

Arthur_Vandelay said:


> Serrano can, however, simultaneously be an entrepreneur and an artist.


His curious construction is fine as long as it's in a gallery.
If he moves it to his office where his employees can't help seeing it, and be offended by it, that's abuse.
Have I got that right?
I'm not saying I disagree with it; I'd just like to be sure - or not.


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay

joxy said:


> His curious construction is fine as long as it's in a gallery.
> If he moves it to his office where his employees can't help seeing it, and be offended by it, that's abuse.
> Have I got that right?
> I'm not saying I disagree with it; I'd just like to be sure - or not.



If they're offended by it, and tell him so, and he tells them where to go--yes, that's abuse--or at least grounds for the employees to take matters further. Though I was thinking more specifically of verbal abuse and bullying.


----------



## joxy

Mrs. Maggott said:


> What on earth are you _talking _ about?!


I think we all know that O'G, like a character in Alice, "just does it to annoy!"
He says "pretty much everything these days is condemned vile or blasphemous by <the churches>".
The next time I hear such a condemnation will be the first time.

To A_V: I think I might be more likely to trust the guys who smashed the stupid thing in the gallery more than most "censors".


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay

joxy said:


> To A_V: I think I might be more likely to trust the guys who smashed the stupid thing in the gallery more than most "censors".



Well, that has nothing to do with his right to exhibit it. It just demonstrates that his exercising such a right might have consequences.


----------



## Ol'gaffer

joxy said:


> I think we all know that O'G, like a character in Alice, "just does it to annoy!"
> He says "pretty much everything these days is condemned vile or blasphemous by <the churches>".
> The next time I hear such a condemnation will be the first time.




 

In case you need examples on such Christians, one should only search the web. 
For example, the site www.pluggedinonline.com focuses solely on how every form of entertainment mainly is corrupting and offending. They even fear that if you go to a Marilyn Manson concert there might be demonic posession.

And as for the churches, what about Monty Python? have you forgotten the protests that occured when it was released and re-released? 

I do not say this 'just to annoy' like Joxy in his 'wisdom' pointed out, but solely because it is how I feel about the current situation. From what I've read, and from what I've seen, it seems that the church and the majority of christians, mainly the one's living in America, seem to condemn nearly everything as corrupting, vile, and in the case of The Pythons, blasphemous. Then they refuse to listen to arguments on behalf the makers of the certain thing, because the church can't be wrong? can it?

PS: When you say that 'we all' whom do you mean? who all consider that my posts are solely made to annoy? other than you that is? don't let your ego expand as to start calling you as we.


----------



## Malbeth

> In case you need examples on such Christians, one should only search the web.
> For example, the site www.pluggedinonline.com focuses solely on how every form of entertainment mainly is corrupting and offending. They even fear that if you go to a Marilyn Manson concert there might be demonic posession.
> 
> And as for the churches, what about Monty Python? have you forgotten the protests that occured when it was released and re-released?



I don't think you have any idea of how small a minority fundamentalists are considering the whole world; for myself, I think Monty Python is the funniest group ever.


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay

Malbeth said:


> I don't think you have any idea of how small a minority fundamentalists are considering the whole world; for myself, I think Monty Python is the funniest group ever.


 
And fundamentalists--unless you live in a theocracy--are not the problem in any case. _Ken Park_ wasn't banned (in Australia) by fundamentalists (regardless of whether their appealing against its previous approval by the censors led to the censors reversing their decision). 

The problem is that you have a government agency that can ban a film on the grounds that it offends "standards of morality, decency, and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults" (whatever that means).


----------



## Malbeth

> The problem is that you have a government agency that can ban a film on the grounds that it offends "standards of morality, decency, and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults" (whatever that means).



I think you can imagine my thoughts about government banning any form of speech anywhere. The only provision I make is that since, unfortunately, government exists, anything that uses government money can be censored.


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay

Malbeth said:


> I think you can imagine my thoughts about government banning any form of speech anywhere. The only provision I make is that since, unfortunately, government exists, anything that uses government money can be censored.



Well, no Australian government money was used in the production or distribution of _Ken Park_--it's a U.S. film. The censors can ban _any_ film, on the rather less-than-transparent grounds to which I've referred, regardless of whether government funds were involved in its making. 

So I'm probably missing something in relation to your point.


----------



## Malbeth

I agree that the banning of Ken Park by a government agency was wrong.


----------



## joxy

Ol'gaffer said:


> For example, the site www.pluggedinonline.com focuses solely on how every form of entertainment mainly is corrupting and offending.
> And as for the churches, what about Monty Python?
> From what I've read, and from what I've seen, it seems that the church and the majority of christians, mainly the one's living in America, seem to condemn nearly everything as corrupting, vile, and in the case of The Pythons, blasphemous.
> When you say that 'we all' whom do you mean? who all consider that my posts are solely made to annoy?


Beginning at the end: come on, you know what I meant by saying "*we* all know Ol'G"; you should take that as a compliment.
And I didn't say your "posts are solely made to annoy".
Back to the beginning: where do you find this stuff - Colorado Springs - where on earth is that? Couldn't you find something in Helsinki?! Anyway, I've had a quick look through the site, and I didn't see any of the sort of stuff you claim is there. If it is there, who cares? They may be Christian, but they don't seem to represent any church or anyone but themselves, and they're self-evidently a tiny minority - anyone can set up a web site these days for next to nothing.
So, on to "the churches": Which Monty Python - do you mean Life of Brian? That was ages ago, long before you were born surely? Who cares about that these days? No church that I know of could care less.
Finally: from what you've "read, and from what I've seen, it seems that the church and the majority of christians, mainly the one's living in America, seem to condemn nearly everything as corrupting, vile, and....blasphemous". First the majority of Christians don't live in (the United States of) America. Second, I don't know what you've been reading and viewing in Finland, but you're not going to read and hear that sort of stuff, the "condemning", and the words "corrupting, vile, blasphemous" anywhere else. As Malbeth says, you're talking about a tiny minority; it's such a tiny one that, as I said, the next time I see it will be the first.


----------



## Inderjit S

The problem with theocratic regimes is that they are intrinsically autocratic. They assume that since they are carrying out the word of god then they are always rights since god is infallible and so they too are infallible, they carrying out god's will. Therefore such a thing is dangerous. A very superficial analysis, maybe, there are of course exceptions to the rule, and theocratic regimes will have a essence of heterogeneity like everyone else...but using god as a justifier for your laws and such is a very dangerous tool.

If the leaders of a theocratic regime manage to stay moralistic and rule to benefit the people then it may be of course, find and dandy, but a theocracy is far from my ideal polity. 

Look at, for example, the Tsar's during the 19th century. They thought that they were put in power due the divine right of kings. They were of course backed by the Russian orthodox church. They wanted to modernise like the rest of Europe, democratise and educate the working classes but their religious and monarchical beliefs meant Russia's progress was of course, slow and any reform limited and when people got any reformations they wanted more and more and so the Tsar's got more autocratic....it so easy to laugh at people a century or so on.


----------



## faila

The Government should not be involved in any form of censorship. But it is perfectly finefor individual or groups to complain to the companies and for the companies to censor themselves for this reason.


----------



## Mrs. Maggott

faila said:


> The Government should not be involved in any form of censorship. But it is perfectly finefor individual or groups to complain to the companies and for the companies to censor themselves for this reason.


On the whole, I agree. However, when it comes to the "public airwaves" over which most television and radio is broadcast, then as the Government regulates it, they (or rather, _we_, the public) should have some right over what is shown and/or heard. I don't think anyone would accept a blatantly racist (or what is presently understood in the p.c. culture as "racist") or anti-semitic broadcast. In the same way, we should be able to limit morally offensive material at least to times when only adults (ostensibly) would be able to hear or see it. 

Gone are the days when people were limited to a few stations on radio and TV. With the net and cable, people can watch just about anything they want if someone wants to offer it - so no one can cry "censorship" if morally offending material is kept off public airwaves except late at night or even altogether. I do not consider this to be the censorship of "ideas" - which is what the First Amendment is really all about - but the same sort of "clean up" which turned Times Square from a cesspool into an acceptable center of the City of New York. There have always been "red light" districts, but they shouldn't be shoved down the throats of the vast majority of people who don't want to see (or hear) them and what they "offer".

As a society, we shall soon descend into oblivion if we continue to "foul our own nest" with salacious filth. Indeed, given what is now "acceptable" in the culture compared to what only a few decades ago was considered the acceptable "norm", proves that Western Civilization is actually on the verge of extinction. Unless we begin to "raise our sights" from the gutter, we will find ourselves going along the path of the old Roman Empire. God knows there are enough "barbarians" out there who want nothing better than to hasten our demise. We can ill afford to help them to do so.


----------



## joxy

Inderjit S said:


> ....the Tsars during the 19th century. They thought that they were put in power due the divine right of kings.


Wasn't it rather that the fact of being king automatically conferred the divine right of kings? Up to the Stewarts our kings - and queens - had much the same idea.
btw How did this get into Film and Media Censorship?


----------



## Mrs. Maggott

joxy said:


> Wasn't it rather that the fact of being king automatically conferred the divine right of kings? Up to the Stewarts our kings - and queens - had much the same idea.
> btw How did this get into Film and Media Censorship?


Yes, kings were supposed to rule by "divine right" - which was often confusing when someone usurped the throne of a "divinely appointed" king only to become himself, the next ruler by "divine right". Of course, in countries with a Christian background there was the correlation between the "kingship of God" and His supposedly appointed sub-rulers on earth. It is not for nothing that kings were crowned and consecrated in churches rather than palaces or other secular shrines. 

Of course, the concept of "divine right" lost something with the marginalization of the power of the monarchy in England and the monarchs of that country became so-called "constitutional" kings and queens. The old autocracy remained in France until the French Revolution and in Russia until the Russian Revolution after which there was no real monarchy again. Even the restoration of the French monarchy after Napoleon was short lived and never gained the popularity that the British monarchy has yet to lose (at least completely) to this day. 

However, most "censorship" - at least in the area of morals - had more to do with religious rather than political sensibilities and was far more likely to be supported and expounded by the middle-class than either the wealthy (noble or otherwise) or the poor. It is not for nothing that we have the concept of "middle-class morality" which in effect means moral views that are more conservative in nature than those espoused by people who are higher and lower on the financial scale.


----------



## Sammy Jankis

Mrs. Maggott said:


> As a society, we shall soon descend into oblivion if we continue to "foul our own nest" with salacious filth. Indeed, given what is now "acceptable" in the culture compared to what only a few decades ago was considered the acceptable "norm", proves that Western Civilization is actually on the verge of extinction. Unless we begin to "raise our sights" from the gutter, we will find ourselves going along the path of the old Roman Empire.



Can you offer a direct explanation of how failing to censor various films and magazines will cause the extinction of Western Civilisation? I suspect you speak of _your_ ideal version of Western Civilisation, or of _your_ ideal society. And when you speak of ‘cultural norms’ I should remind you that there was a time when slavery was ‘the norm’. There was a time when denying women voting and property rights was ‘the norm’. There was a time when openly racist laws and government policies were ‘the norm’…

Culture isn’t fixed – it evolves. Because something was deemed unacceptable a few decades ago (homosexuality for example) doesn’t necessarily mean it should be viewed as such forever.


----------



## Mrs. Maggott

There was a time when honesty and integrity were considered the norm. Now, a poll taken in academia has recorded over 75% of students admit to cheating on tests - and worse still, this apparently doesn't bother too many people. Furthermore, no one is ignorant of the pillaging of how many companies by greedy CEOs and scandals in government at all levels are constantly in the news. What happened to honesty and integrity? It has been abandoned in our "do your own thing", "no absolutes" culture where the only crime, seemingly, is getting caught. 

There was a time when slavery _was_ the norm _in a very limited area of our country_ but because Christian men and women had toiled for years, slavery was eventually outlawed and this nation fought a bloody civil war to end the practice. THAT is the "norm" which you should consider - a "norm" bought with the blood of those who saw slavery as a great evil and were willing to put their lives on the line to end it.

There was a time when at least ideally (and, of course, the "ideal" is the golden standard to which men ascribe even if they cannot reach it), when Christian morality was the foundation of our country (read the documents and papers of the Founding Fathers) but now members of the judiciary "pass laws" which itself is against the "law" of the Republic (Jefferson greatly feared an "active judiciary" who would usurp the power of the executive and legislative branches of government). These "judge-made-laws" are the opinion of a few which are often set against the desire of the majority. Whether you agree with what that "illegal law" is it or not, the usurpation of our legislative process by the judiciary is called tyranny.

As well, I never said _anything_ about films and magazines and I wish those who continue to make that point get over it. I spoke only about the PUBLIC airwaves which - as a member of the public - I believe should be censored by our representatives in keeping with the opinions of a majority of their constituents always supposing that those opinions are in keeping with the _legitimate_ laws of the land. There are plenty of other places people can go if they wish to watch pruriant garbage; God knows looking at the listing in my e-mail box no one would have to search very hard to find just about anything!

Finally, if you think that the ever increasing acceptance and even lauding of depravity, selfishness, greed and gluttony in our society doesn't signal signs of cultural extinction, you should read some history. I suggest something on the Roman Empire would fill the bill. Santana once said words to the effect that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. There is still time to stop our slide down that long, slippery slope to oblivion - but not much...


----------



## Sammy Jankis

Mrs. Maggott said:


> As well, I never said anything about films and magazines and I wish those who continue to make that point get over it.



This thread deals with government censorship of films, literature, artworks and the like. So when you offered a doomsday prediction of us all sliding “down that long, slippery slope to oblivion” I assumed you see lack of government censorship of “prurient garbage” as a cause. If that assumption is incorrect and you were just making a general statement on the direction of society then I apologise



> I spoke only about the PUBLIC airwaves which - as a member of the public - I believe should be censored by our representatives in keeping with the opinions of a majority of their constituents always supposing that those opinions are in keeping with the legitimate laws of the land.



Define public airwaves more clearly and what is it on the public airwaves that you would currently like to see censored?

The films discussed in the opening post were to be shown in smaller cinemas known for showing a variety of films other than the usual Hollywood ‘Blockbusters’. They weren’t going to be shown on TV at 4pm on a Monday afternoon as the kiddies arrive home from school.

I have no problem with the government classifying films, I think it’s important that people can make _informed decisions _ about what they watch. I don’t, however, believe that what people can and can’t watch should be decided by the government.


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay

The following is from the online edition of the San Francisco Examiner, Wednesday, May 26, 2004.



> *Last straw for art gallery*
> Threats and attacks over Iraq painting force owner out.
> 
> A North Beach art gallery owner who has been attacked and threatened for showing a controversial painting of American soldiers torturing Iraqi prisoners has decided to call it quits.
> 
> After having her life repeatedly threatened, her business egged and her face spat upon, Lori Haigh papered up the windows of her Powell Street gallery, Capobianco, on Tuesday.
> 
> "I'm totally disheartened by this -- this was my dream," Haigh said. "I felt like this was a legacy I could leave my children; that we had a gallery in North Beach."
> 
> The painting, titled "The Abuse" by East Bay artist Guy Colwell [which can be found here], shows Pfc. Lynndie England and another soldier smiling gleefully as they look upon a trio of naked, hooded Iraqi prisoners who are hooked up to electrical wires. In the background, a third American soldier is escorting a Muslim woman in a dress into the torture chamber.
> 
> The painting is black and white, except for American flag patches on the soldiers' uniforms, which appear to be splattered with blood.
> 
> A week ago, Haigh realized the nerve the painting had struck when she arrived at work to find the place egged and heaps of trash dumped at the gallery entrance. On her computer and voice mail were stinging messages calling her anti-American for showing the artwork.
> 
> Even after she took the painting out of the front window, she received six threats against her life. The last straw was when a man spat at her. (Full article here)



Related article from _The Guardian_ here.

Isn't "free speech" wonderful?


----------



## Sammy Jankis

I thought I'd put this thread back on the radar...

Politicians in the U.S. are pushing hard to make it illegal to desecrate/burn the flag.



> *Burning stars and stripes could be outlawed*
> Wed 21 July, 2004 02:05
> 
> By Thomas Ferraro
> 
> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A proposed constitutional amendment to outlaw the burning of the American flag has won the approval of a Senate Judiciary Committee split largely along party lines.
> 
> Raised by some Republicans as a mark of patriotism this election year, the measure passed on a 11-7 vote and was sent to the full Senate for final congressional approval. While the Senate has repeatedly rejected such measures in the past, both sides predict a razor-close vote this time.



Full article here.

Is this amendment a form of censorship?


----------



## joxy

Arthur_Vandelay said:


> Isn't "free speech" wonderful?


Isn't trying to make money by selling a painting of an atrocity sickening?



Sammy Jankis said:


> Is this amendment a form of censorship?


Is it a bit of childish nonsense, very much like the idea of same-sex "marriage"?


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay

joxy said:


> Isn't trying to make money by selling a painting of an atrocity sickening?



Then I suppose you'd be equally sickened by galleries and vendors which sell, say, prints of Goya's _The Shootings of May Third 1808_. Perhaps you're nauseated by all those cinema chains and distribution houses which made money selling tickets to _Schindler's List_--a movie which depicts the atrocity of the Holocaust. I believe the cast and crew of that particular film were paid (i.e. "made money") for their services. Stomach-churning, isn't it?

Besides, there was nothing in those articles to suggest that the painting in question--Guy Cowell's _The Abuse_--was indeed for sale. According to this article, "The painting was part of a larger show of Colwell's work that mostly featured pastel-colored abstracts." 



> Is it a bit of childish nonsense, very much like the idea of same-sex "marriage"?



For someone who considers the idea of same-sex marriage trivial, silly, childish and nonsensical, you do seem to be rather pre-occupied with it. I don't know if it has escaped your attention, but this thread happens to be about censorship, not same-sex marriage.

But do as you please. I'm off to open a thread on _I Love Lucy_ in the "Guild of Tolkienology" forum.


----------



## joxy

Arthur_Vandelay said:


> Then I suppose you'd be equally sickened by galleries and vendors which sell, say....Goya's....Schindler's List....
> ....there was nothing in those articles to suggest that the painting in question--Guy Cowell's....was indeed for sale.
> ....same-sex marriage....you do seem to be rather pre-occupied with it.


Even Guernica wasn't produced within a few weeks of the event. This case *is* different.
I assume money was intended to come into the matter, in some way, at some stage; the gallery is described as a "business".
I like to relieve the monotony occasionally, with a casual aside, and what better subject from which to derive an aside than that which has occupied by far the largest area of the Inn?


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay

joxy said:


> Even Guernica wasn't produced within a few weeks of the event. This case *is* different.



How? Are you saying that either the artist or the gallery owner should have waited a few decades, until we're all at a "safe distance" from the event?



> I assume money was intended to come into the matter, in some way, at some stage; the gallery is described as a "business".



The gallery wasn't established solely for the purpose of displaying that particular artwork. And are you suggesting that newspapers, television and radio stations (all of which make money) that ran news items on Abu Ghraib are guilty of profiting from the atrocity? 



> I like to relieve the monotony occasionally, with a casual aside, and what better subject from which to derive an aside than that which has occupied by far the largest area of the Inn?



That's as much your fault (and others) as it is mine.


----------



## joxy

Arthur_Vandelay said:


> How? Are you saying that either the artist or the gallery owner should have waited a few decades, until we're all at a "safe distance" from the event?
> 
> The gallery wasn't established solely for the purpose of displaying that particular artwork.
> 
> And are you suggesting that newspapers, television and radio stations (all of which make money) that ran news items on Abu Ghraib are guilty of profiting from the atrocity?
> 
> That's as much your fault (and others) as it is mine.


No. I'm saying they should have allowed what used to be called a "decent interval" to elapse before reaping their rewards.

One of the numerous reasons for establishing it was self-evidently to exhibit and sell art works, of which that was one.

To develop my previous theme, news reports *are* a different matter.

No fault, quite the reverse!


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay

joxy said:


> No. I'm saying they should have allowed what used to be called a "decent interval" to elapse before reaping their rewards.



How long is a "decent interval", and who determines this?



> One of the numerous reasons for establishing it was self-evidently to exhibit and sell art works, of which that was one.



The articles suggest that the work in question was _on display_, part of a show of that artist's work--it doesn't say that the work was _for sale_. Not all works in art galleries are for sale.



> To develop my previous theme, news reports *are* a different matter.



How? Don't news reports of Abu Ghraib--especially those accompanied by pictures--constitute depictions of the atrocities that occurred there? Aren't the media corporations who produce these news items run for profit (for example, wouldn't the capacity to sell more newspapers be a factor in a decision to place a story about Abu Ghraib on the front page as opposed to somewhere back near the classifieds)?


----------

