Escape Artists
The Lounge at the End of the Universe => Gallimaufry => Topic started by: wakela on May 21, 2008, 11:43:49 PM
-
I saw this (http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=1669)entry on Twenty Sided video game blog. Basically, a PC game featuring a nude scene was released in Europe, but the nudity was edited out in the American version. This is because Wal-Mart refused to stock the game with the nudity in it. Some commentors compared government censorship in the UK to corporate censorship in the US.
I'm not really interested in getting into a huge flamewar about censorship or Wal-Mart. What interested me was that there were a several comments coming from the UK favoring government censorship to corporate censorship. The argument was that one can petition the government to change the law, but you can't petition a corporation; they can do what they want.
As an American I found this attitude very surprising. If I have to have censorship (and we all do in one form or another) then I can't see how government censorship would be better. So I wanted to bring this up with this group of international, informed, intelligent folks. Am I missing something? Is it regarded as easy to change laws in the UK? Are UK citizens less sensitive about censorship?
Again, I don't really want this to get off on why censorship is teh suxors, I'm trying to get a handle on how the British feel about it.
Edited. Added link.
-
I'm kind of ambivalent about censorship of this nature, which is generally "it is a criminal offence to expose people under the age of x to this media", where x varies between 12 and 18.
On the one hand, it means you're far less likely to get people calling for an outright ban on violent or sexual games / movies "for the children". And it makes it very easy for parents to give a good reason why their 16-year-old kids can't go and see the latest 18-rated movie.
But, on the other hand, it obviously makes it harder for parents to decide that their kids are mature enough to handle a given movie. Though as this only really applies to sale (or at least, is only enforceable for sale), once it's in the house parents have all the freedom they want.
So, yeah. Good points and bad points. I can see why it seems illiberal from an American point of view, but I'm not sure it really is.
-
I think watching This Film is Not Yet Rated changed my opinion on this. As much as I dislike censorship, it should be done with as clear standards as possible. Otherwise, it's for too easy for another agenda to enter into censorship. In US film, homosexual sensuality is censored far more heavily than heterosexual sensuality. Comedic violence is tolerated far more than documentary violence. I really dislike the idea that the agenda of our media can be set by hidden people with hidden agendas.
On the other hand, the US has much more robust protection for political speech. Falwell v Hustler means Americans can basically say whatever they want about any public figure unless it's a deliberate lie and meant to harm. It's much easier to win a libel suit in England.
-
I think the push for ID in science class and abstinence only sex-ed (hang on I'm getting there) show the danger of letting the government have control of these things. Groups start getting people into positions of power just to legislate morals.
In movie sales there is the same corporate problem. Wal-mart has restrictions for movies with nudity. Exploding heads are OK, but if there's nudity, it goes in the "adult"section if the store has one. To counter-act this many movies are released in two versions. One version is Wal-mart friendly and then there's the directors cut or added scenes version which is sold everywhere else. The other stores also like this, because they can sell something that is "exclusive" to all non-wal-mart stores. They should have done the same with the game.
-
I saw this (http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=1669)entry on Twenty Sided video game blog. Basically, a PC game featuring a nude scene was released in Europe, but the nudity was edited out in the American version. This is because Wal-Mart refused to stock the game with the nudity in it. Some commentors compared government censorship in the UK to corporate censorship in the US.
I'm not really interested in getting into a huge flamewar about censorship or Wal-Mart. What interested me was that there were a several comments coming from the UK favoring government censorship to corporate censorship. The argument was that one can petition the government to change the law, but you can't petition a corporation; they can do what they want.
As an American I found this attitude very surprising. If I have to have censorship (and we all do in one form or another) then I can't see how government censorship would be better. So I wanted to bring this up with this group of international, informed, intelligent folks. Am I missing something? Is it regarded as easy to change laws in the UK? Are UK citizens less sensitive about censorship?
Again, I don't really want this to get off on why censorship is teh suxors, I'm trying to get a handle on how the British feel about it.
Edited. Added link.
The interesting thing about thgis is that, certainly regarding computer games, censorship in this country is meaningless. When GTAIV was released over here, the Breakfast News attempted to bleat about it being sold to kids and had it pointed out to them, yet again, that the computer game industry is incredibly tightly regulated here. There are TWO seperate rating schemes, the people I know who work in game retail are ordered to ask for ID if someone even looks like they might be under age and in the end, it amounts to absolutely nothing.
Because parents will just buy the game, or the movie, for them.
I'm not going to go into whether or not that's a bad thing, because it's a complex issue and because I was getting into 18 movies from when I was about 14 (6'1 for a looooong time) but what irritates me is the fact that the industry is trying very hard to regulate itself, doing a good job and STILL being criticised and restricted for something which isn't even under it's control.
-
Government or Corporate censorship is simply censorship at the wrong level. "What is the right level?" You are.
The whole mealy-mouthed whinefest over children possibly seeing a penis or a gangsta smackin' a ho is WAY over-blown. No, I don't show these things to my children... but I don't expect WalMart or the government to do my previewing for me. I decide what I will bring into my home; if I don't want them to see it, I don't bring it in. And if they go to someone else's house, I make sure I trust that person's judgement first.
But even the most attentive parent HAS to take risks that their child will eventually come into contact with something unsavory in the world. I had an example this week; my 9-year old son (who is deeply into Goosebumps lately) was in the car when Creepy Doll by Jonathan Coulton (http://www.last.fm/music/Jonathan+Coulton/_/Creepy+Doll) popped up on the iPod. I figured he'd like the song because he's in 3rd grade and obsessed with monsters and scaring the crap out of himself.
He seemed to really dig it... until bedtime, when he freaked out and didn't want to go to sleep.
Now, should I sue JoCo for writing a song like that? Last.fm for hosting it? Escape Pod for getting me hooked on JoCo? Louisville Slugger for making bats? No. I shouldn't.
Sure, you could probably come up with all kids of scenarios where something really horrible gets to their sensitive little eyeballs that I can't control... but I believe that you take assume that risk by living here (on the planet), and it shouldn't be up to WalMart to protect you. Frankly, I think religious literature and self-help books are far more dangerous than any porno, but which one do my children see every time we walk through a grocery store checkout or WalMart book section?
You do always have a choice in these matters, and even though it is extreme and difficult and incredibly stupid to do so, you always have the option of that vacant Unabomber cabin in Montana to hide yourself from the Evil world. Personally, I think my children are pretty bright, and I'm involved enough to help them figure out which things they see are "good" and which are "bad."
-
Government censorship can be changed with votes.
Corporate censorship can be changed with currency.
If I want something that Wal-Mart won't sell me I'll just go somewhere else to buy it. Sucks to be Wal-Mart. However, if the government of the majority feels like they should impose their morals on someone with legislation all that can be done is vote against those who are in power (or risk punishment for breaking the law). I like the corporate side a lot better.
TAD's comment about personal accountability is dead on. If someone wants to raise their kid on slasher movies I may have a moral objection to that, but I should't have the right to remove their right to raise their kid as they wish.
-
By the way, can someone explain American (or should I say anglo-american) conviction that nakedness is something horribly harmful for children? It is something hard to understand for someone who lives is a country where families go to the sauna together - often until children are on their teens.
-
By the way, can someone explain American (or should I say anglo-american) conviction that nakedness is something horribly harmful for children? It is something hard to understand for someone who lives is a country where families go to the sauna together - often until children are on their teens.
No, but I can reccomend reading Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex (http://www.amazon.com/Harmful-Minors-Perils-Protecting-Children/dp/1560255161/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211563243&sr=8-1), for an excellent explanation of why the European model is far superior.
-
Thanks tpi for asking that question, I've always wanted to know that myself. Why is nudity viewed as something that might harm a child's development while violence is often not (please see examples in previous posts in this thread)?
Coming from a country where nudity within the family is a way of raising a child to be comfortable with their body, a country where sunbathing in the (semi-)nude in public parks does NOT necessarily lead to being arrested for 'indecent exposure' as is the case in my current country of residence and the US (at least in some states, as far as I remember) and a country where figures on teenage pregnancies are generally much lower than in the UK or the US (since we are speaking of raising children, teenage pregnancies seem very relevant, IMO), this whole issue puzzles me again and again. If someone can explain this from an American perspective it would maybe help shed a light on the censorship question.
-
Let me preface my comments by stating that as a general rule, I'm opposed to censorship. *But*, if it is a forgone conclusion that there will be censorship on an issue, then I would prefer it to be (democratic) government regulated than corporation regulated.
As Chodon points out, corporate censorship can be changed with currency. However, the nature of corporations is such that it will only ever change in one direction - that of increasing the level of censorship.
To show this, lets take an example. Imagine that a new movie comes out where the main character constantly spits food on the people he eats with. About half of the population think it's justified because it's used to a comedic effect. Another 45% or so of the population are turned off by this, but they just don't watch the movie. The last 5% are really upset. "Movies are teaching our kids bad table manners!" they shout. They start a letter writing campaign to Blockbuster, Best Buy, Walmart, and other major retailers of movies and tell them to take the movies of the shelves.
Imagine that Walmart reacts by pulling the movie, and none of the other comapnies do. Well, if you want that particular movie, you will go to Best Buy or Blockbuster. But for all your other purchases, you'll still go to Walmart. On the other hand, Best Buy and Blockbuster will keep being pressured to remove the movie. They will have to deal with a large volume of mail, and with protestors outside the store, and with people calling up on radio shows and TV talk shows and saying "Blockbuster and Best Buy are ruining our youth!". After a while, they'll find it easier and cheaper to just remove the movie. Now, there is no longer any way to get the movie. So no-one gets the $10 you would pay for it. But the loss of $10 per movie is significantly less than the cost of dealing with a negative publicity campaign.
Now, of course there could be a counter-campaign raised by anti-censorship groups, but the problem is that they have to fight each censorship battle. The offended sides, however, will differ per issue. Sometimes it's religious people, sometimes its anti-religious people, sometimes it's anti-racism groups, sometimes it's anti-gay groups, and so forth. So there are a lot more of them, and they have fresh resources/energy each time. Some battles against censorship may be one, but the war is stacked in the favor of the complainers.
And corporations don't have to wait for complaints. A movie that might cause offense? Never stock it. If you have it on the shelf and remove it, people might hear about it, but if it was never there? You might never notice. Say Walmart silently decides that they will not stock movies that offend scientologists. Someone makes a documentary about Scientology, and Walmart never buys it Most people don't watch documentaries, so they don't care. They still shop at Walmart for other movies. Even most of the documentary crowd will not notice, as they will simply get a different documentary. They aren't aware that something is missing because they never heard about it.
Government censorship - in a democracy - has several advantages. One of them is that governments have a harder time to do things quietly. It's still possible to do so - stick a provision in some unrelated law or some other trick - but governments must publicize their laws, and people will notice. A corporation is under no legal obligation to report its censorship policies.
But most importantly, the equation is as follows:
- Government censorship can allow the majority to silent the minority. Therefore, it is bad.
- Corporate censorship allows majorities to silence minorities AND minorities to silence majorities. Therefore, it is far worse.
-
a country where sunbathing in the (semi-)nude in public parks does NOT necessarily lead to being arrested for 'indecent exposure' as is the case in my current country of residence
Well, depending on what you mean that's not true. Women cannot be arrested in the UK for "indecent exposure" by going topless, only for lower body nudity. It is possible to run afoul of "causing a public disturbance" laws, though.
-
a country where sunbathing in the (semi-)nude in public parks does NOT necessarily lead to being arrested for 'indecent exposure' as is the case in my current country of residence
Well, depending on what you mean that's not true. Women cannot be arrested in the UK for "indecent exposure" by going topless, only for lower body nudity. It is possible to run afoul of "causing a public disturbance" laws, though.
Oh, that is good to know, thanks for that eytanz. I was misinformed then, Excellent piece of information, I've always wanted to walk around topless just to piss people off, well now I know I won't be arrested, I might just do that this weekend. :P
-
a country where sunbathing in the (semi-)nude in public parks does NOT necessarily lead to being arrested for 'indecent exposure' as is the case in my current country of residence
Well, depending on what you mean that's not true. Women cannot be arrested in the UK for "indecent exposure" by going topless, only for lower body nudity. It is possible to run afoul of "causing a public disturbance" laws, though.
Oh, that is good to know, thanks for that eytanz. I was misinformed then, Excellent piece of information, I've always wanted to walk around topless just to piss people off, well now I know I won't be arrested, I might just do that this weekend. :P
And eytanz, how do you know that actually? Did you check? Did someone who was planning to visit ask you to clarify in order to avoid an encounter with law enforcement officers, or was that the intention in the first place? ... encounter law enforcement officers, that is. I know a few women who have a bit of a uniform fetish.
-
And eytanz, how do you know that actually? Did you check?
Yes.
Did someone who was planning to visit ask you to clarify in order to avoid an encounter with law enforcement officers, or was that the intention in the first place? ... encounter law enforcement officers, that is. I know a few women who have a bit of a uniform fetish.
No.
(Specifically, I used to know some people who were in a New York based pro-nudist advocacy group and went to one of their protests once, where I was educated on a whole lot of public nudity laws around the world).
-
Government censorship can be changed with votes.
Corporate censorship can be changed with currency.
If I want something that Wal-Mart won't sell me I'll just go somewhere else to buy it. Sucks to be Wal-Mart. However, if the government of the majority feels like they should impose their morals on someone with legislation all that can be done is vote against those who are in power (or risk punishment for breaking the law). I like the corporate side a lot better.
I think my opinion differs because of my opinion on media conglomeration (which has been discussed elsewhere). The MPAA has a virtual monopoly on movies played in theaters because big chains won't play movies rated X. Thus war documentaries with explicit violence can be kept out of the publics view by a corporation for unclear reasons. If a government did that, the nature of the censorship would be much clearer. Or consider movies, companies like Walmart and Blockbuster dominate the market of DVD sales. Sure, I can find alternative sources for alternative movies, but these companies can keep alternative views out of the market place of ideas in a very real way.
Another example comes from the Danish cartoon controversy. No major US newspaper would print them. CNN pixelated them when it aired them. Borders pulled a magazine from its shelves when it printed them. Sure, they were fairly easy to find online, but they were effectively removed from the national discourse and people were able to make these outlandish claims about cartoons that were really not that offensive.
The worst is when the corporate media implicitly conspire with government objectives. How many dead Iraqi civilians have we seen on TV? The Lancet says 600,000 Iraqis are dead while the most conservative estimates exceed 80,000. In the last half of 2007, US soldiers killed at least 600 Iraqi civilians.(http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/beyond/the-price-of-loss/ (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/beyond/the-price-of-loss/) ) These stories are kept out of mainstream US news and thus out of the public discourse.
[Sorry if this turned into a bit of a rant]
-
The problem with government censorship is the fact that it is absolute. If the government says you can't have something and you're caught having it you go to jail. Go directly to jail. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200. On the other hand, corporate censorship makes things more difficult to get (eytanz made that point exceptionally well), but it is still not impossible. Blockbuster and Wal-mart may not carry "Men Alone 2, the KY Connection", but if I want to get it from some seedy porno shop I don't have to fear arrest, fine, or imprisonment.
My point is, if you want something bad enough you can find it, no matter how taboo it may be. The fact that you can't pick it up while you're buying Huggies and Coors Light doesn't matter. If, however, the government says you can't have it you are risking a whole lot more by obtaining it.
I should also add that I think any form of censorship is bad, and on further thought I think "corporate censorship" is a bad phrase. It's more "appealing to their target market".
All the more reason to not shop at Wal-mart.
-
By the way, can someone explain American (or should I say anglo-american) conviction that nakedness is something horribly harmful for children? It is something hard to understand for someone who lives is a country where families go to the sauna together - often until children are on their teens.
I think it comes from our Puritan/Quaker roots. For some reason some Americans make the connection between seeing boobies and putting one's mortal soul in jeopardy of eternal damnation. I can't say I follow, but that's the take I have on it. The people against nudity are just a very vocal minority from my experiences.
-
The problem with government censorship is the fact that it is absolute. If the government says you can't have something and you're caught having it you go to jail. Go directly to jail. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200. On the other hand, corporate censorship makes things more difficult to get (eytanz made that point exceptionally well), but it is still not impossible.
I think there is a difference between Hayes code style/FCC style censorship and criminalization. Outlawing child pornography could be seen as a form of censorship, but it's much more about the harm done than the speech itself. My biggest objection to censorship is not that it makes certain materials hard to access, but that it blocks certain ideas from the national forum. The FCC can't effectively censor anti-government views because that would cause a big news story/lots of publicity and thus make those views even more heard. Corporate control of the public forum is much more insidious. For a long time, normal homosexual relationships were effectively banned from movie theaters. Documentaries showing the violence of war have to be toned down to be able to be presented to the public.
For me, the difference comes down to who's watching the censors. Most of the time, the news media watches the government very closely. If ITunes or Amazon or Walmart decide not to stock something, however, it is effectively erased from the public forum and no one asks why. This is dangerous.
-
By the way, can someone explain American (or should I say anglo-american) conviction that nakedness is something horribly harmful for children? It is something hard to understand for someone who lives is a country where families go to the sauna together - often until children are on their teens.
I think it comes from our Puritan/Quaker roots. For some reason some Americans make the connection between seeing boobies and putting one's mortal soul in jeopardy of eternal damnation. I can't say I follow, but that's the take I have on it. The people against nudity are just a very vocal minority from my experiences.
I'm sure once I say this, everyone else will come in and say "But I'M American and that's not MY experience"... so I'll qualify that in MY experience, that's the most basic explanation for it.
Overtly, the logic is taken from scriptures that speak about "keeping your thoughts pure". The one we used to be hit over the head with in my Sunday School was Matthew 5:28 (http://bibletab.com/l/lust.htm) "...but I tell you that everyone who gazes at a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart."
Obviously, if you follow that link, you'll see more in a similar vein. And this one shows several parallel translations of Colossians 3:5 (http://bible.cc/colossians/3-5.htm); I point you to it to show how scary it can sound to people when something as vague as "sexual immorality" is forbidden. Imagine the most stern and fearsome authority figure in your life sticking a finger in your face and reciting the King James Version. You might not know what it is, but you will fall down and promise never to do anything that seems to come close just to avoid having your members put to death!
Sorry for throwing Bible verses around, but you asked... and for nearly all of the moralists I have known in my 30+ years, that's where it comes from. Pure, ignorant, mis-translated fear.
-
(snip)
If ITunes or Amazon or Walmart decide not to stock something, however, it is effectively erased from the public forum and no one asks why. This is dangerous.
That was true at one point, but with instant global communication that is no longer the case. I think that this forum and group of podcasts are evidence of that fact.
-
I'm sure once I say this, everyone else will come in and say "But I'M American and that's not MY experience"... so I'll qualify that in MY experience, that's the most basic explanation for it.
Overtly, the logic is taken from scriptures that speak about "keeping your thoughts pure". The one we used to be hit over the head with in my Sunday School was Matthew 5:28 (http://bibletab.com/l/lust.htm) "...but I tell you that everyone who gazes at a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart."
Obviously, if you follow that link, you'll see more in a similar vein. And this one shows several parallel translations of Colossians 3:5 (http://bible.cc/colossians/3-5.htm); I point you to it to show how scary it can sound to people when something as vague as "sexual immorality" is forbidden. Imagine the most stern and fearsome authority figure in your life sticking a finger in your face and reciting the King James Version. You might not know what it is, but you will fall down and promise never to do anything that seems to come close just to avoid having your members put to death!
Sorry for throwing Bible verses around, but you asked... and for nearly all of the moralists I have known in my 30+ years, that's where it comes from. Pure, ignorant, mis-translated fear.
It's so strange that we're a country founded by people fleeing religious persecution because of their puritan/quaker beliefs, but also such a violent and conflict driven nation. If we were such a violent group of people why not fight it out in our original countries?
Maybe it's a sign of the diversity we have here, but sometimes the very same people who thump the bible are the ones who are the most violent. It's just an interesting duality, especially when the bible explicitly makes its stance on violence (but then contradicts it a bunch of times). :-\
-
(snip)
If ITunes or Amazon or Walmart decide not to stock something, however, it is effectively erased from the public forum and no one asks why. This is dangerous.
That was true at one point, but with instant global communication that is no longer the case. I think that this forum and group of podcasts are evidence of that fact.
Is it still available? yes
Will some people still care? Yes
Will it affect the national debate? No.
If availability on the internet was the criterion for cultural relevance, then Ron Paul would win the presidency. Obviously ideas do not have to reach a large audience to be good or worth hearing. Systematic exclusion of ideas from mainstream channels of distribution can still marginalize those ideas. Although this is now changing, how many normal homosexual relationships did you see in popular culture before this decade. Will & Grace and Queer Eye for the Straight Guy did a lot to change public perceptions of gays because they were a part of the public forum. People were aware of them, even if they didn't watch them. The "new atheist" books have similarly entered the public consciousness even if people haven't read them. But there are still images and ideas that are virtually banned from the public forum without discussion by corporations which for, whatever reason, don't want them aired. Chief among these is the horrific collateral damage of war. We don't know what the wars we support look like because unelected bureaucrats keep the descriptions and pictures out of the main channels of distribution. (Though Fahrenheit 9/11 does represent an exception.)
-
But there are still images and ideas that are virtually banned from the public forum without discussion by corporations which for, whatever reason, don't want them aired. Chief among these is the horrific collateral damage of war. We don't know what the wars we support look like because unelected bureaucrats keep the descriptions and pictures out of the main channels of distribution.
This is one of my long-standing points of exasperation with the American public at large, and I'm not sure it can be blamed completely on the military PR staff -- nobody is easier to fool than the person who wants to be deceived.
Large numbers of Americans seem to harbor the notion that something as randomly violent and confusing as a sustained combat operation can be carried out without anybody getting hurt who doesn't somehow deserve it. When you start sustained combat, you know the following things willl occur:
- Economic displacement will blight the lives and future prospects of some number of people in the combat area. In most cases, these losses will be very difficult to compensate. The longer it goes on and the wider the area, the more people this will happen to.
- Civilians will die as a direct result of operations. More civilians than soldiers died in every war during the 20th century. No reason to think the 21st will be any different. For all our improvements in targeting, intelligence failures will occur, mistakes will be made in passing information, equipment will fail, and scared people without enough sleep will screw up. And they'll screw up with really, really lethal means.
- Your soldiers will commit atrocities. Some will simply make bad decisions, others will find the temptation of being armed and unsupervised in a vulnerable population too great to handle. We will (and should) punish them after the fact (usually), but we have no business acting surprised when it happens.
These are, as Donald Rumsfeld famously put it, part of the "known knowns." If your objective isn't worth that price, then you need to find another means to that objective, or give it up. For some reason, we can't seem to get this through our heads.
-
This is one of my long-standing points of exasperation with the American public at large, and I'm not sure it can be blamed completely on the military PR staff -- nobody is easier to fool than the person who wants to be deceived.
I have a dear friend of (Holy Crap!) nearly 20 years who still says to me, "You argue better than I do, you know more, and you're smarter than I am... but that doesn't mean you're going to change my mind about this." Usually after I present exactly the same arguments you just presented.
Her other favorite line is, "You may be right, but Saddam still had it comin'."
And she would cry over what you said about our soldiers. Somehow "some of your soldiers have committed atrocities" translates to "I hate all soldiers everywhere, and spit on their graves" in her mind. I'm a goddam veteran and she still won't listen to anything I say on this count. The facts of Abu Graib, Haditha, and the Blackwater fiasco merit a "Gee, that was bad, but not as bad as the media made it out to be."
Very. Very. Frustrating.
-
There have been a couple recent studies of how different political ideologies treat information, and for better or for worse, roughly, conservatives tend to be better at ignoring information than liberals are. Now, you can go either way on this (not having the full picture is bad, too much information muddles the important things), but there is a real percentage of the population on both sides that will not accept new information that does not help their worldview. Conservatives seem somewhat better than liberals at this.
-
I'd never put this much thought into censorship, and none into corporate censorship. Thanks yet again for broadening my horizons. But on this corporate censorship business, I'm pretty conflicted. I can understand the points that have been made, but it sounds like the flip side of this coin is forcing businesses to sell something they don't want to. Don't they have a right to set their own standards about what they choose to sell? Or is it just that corporate censorship is one of those things where the "cure" is no better than the "sickness."
-
Don't they have a right to set their own standards about what they choose to sell? Or is it just that corporate censorship is one of those things where the "cure" is no better than the "sickness."
You raise a very good point. Although sometimes I would like to force people to read or watch something, personal autonomy is simply too important. I think the only time I could really see compelling a content provider to include content is if they are broadcasters because the spectrum is a public good. The only palatable solution I can imagine is the boycott of stores which refuse to stock media on political or religious grounds. This is just one more reason not to shop at Wal-Mart. The only real change in my behavior is an aversion to Borders resulting from their pulling Skeptical Inquirer when it published the Danish cartoons.
-
There have been a couple recent studies of how different political ideologies treat information, and for better or for worse, roughly, conservatives tend to be better at ignoring information than liberals are. Now, you can go either way on this (not having the full picture is bad, too much information muddles the important things), but there is a real percentage of the population on both sides that will not accept new information that does not help their worldview. Conservatives seem somewhat better than liberals at this.
<<struggling to remember Mass Communication curricula from the mid-80's>> There's a lot of inherent "stickiness" to what people believe, and we come at a variety of different ways. Ignoring new inoformation is just one of them. Others include greater skepticism about information that conflicts with your world-view than information that confirms it; being more likely to seek out information or information sources that confirm your world-view, etc.
It's a wonder anybody changes their minds about anything at all...
-
I'd never put this much thought into censorship, and none into corporate censorship. Thanks yet again for broadening my horizons. But on this corporate censorship business, I'm pretty conflicted. I can understand the points that have been made, but it sounds like the flip side of this coin is forcing businesses to sell something they don't want to. Don't they have a right to set their own standards about what they choose to sell? Or is it just that corporate censorship is one of those things where the "cure" is no better than the "sickness."
No, I don't think that's the flipside, at least not to my way of looking at things. The reason I'm not only against corporate censorship but I actively prefer government censorship is that it puts the burden of public outcry on the government, where it belongs. Individual corporations can still decide what they want, but if the system is working properly, they will be under considerably less pressure to implement censorship that they don't otherwise want.
The question you should be asking - why are the corporations setting standards? Is it because the corporation is taking a stand, moral or otherwise, about the content of their goods? If so, they should be allowed to do as they will. Is it because they don't give a damn about the issue, but feel that if they don't set a standard then they will have to deal with vocal minority watchdog groups? I don't think that's a fair position, for either the corporation itself or the general public. A market driven by political agendas is not a free market; a (properly functioning) system for government regulation will actually free the market up to let corporations set their own standards.
-
By the way, can someone explain American (or should I say anglo-american) conviction that nakedness is something horribly harmful for children? It is something hard to understand for someone who lives is a country where families go to the sauna together - often until children are on their teens.
I think it comes from our Puritan/Quaker roots. For some reason some Americans make the connection between seeing boobies and putting one's mortal soul in jeopardy of eternal damnation. I can't say I follow, but that's the take I have on it. The people against nudity are just a very vocal minority from my experiences.
I'm sure once I say this, everyone else will come in and say "But I'M American and that's not MY experience"... so I'll qualify that in MY experience, that's the most basic explanation for it.
The reason it seems most Americans don't have these feelings is that most Americans don't. The ones who do are just really loud. Menawhile the rest of us say, "don't get your panties in a wad."
Overtly, the logic is taken from scriptures that speak about "keeping your thoughts pure". The one we used to be hit over the head with in my Sunday School was Matthew 5:28 (http://bibletab.com/l/lust.htm) "...but I tell you that everyone who gazes at a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart."
That menas I committed adultery about twenty times this morning while I was sitting on a couch, enjoying my Latte, listening to my iPod, and watching the people stroll by.
Obviously, if you follow that link, you'll see more in a similar vein. And this one shows several parallel translations of Colossians 3:5 (http://bible.cc/colossians/3-5.htm); I point you to it to show how scary it can sound to people when something as vague as "sexual immorality" is forbidden. Imagine the most stern and fearsome authority figure in your life sticking a finger in your face and reciting the King James Version. You might not know what it is, but you will fall down and promise never to do anything that seems to come close just to avoid having your members put to death!
Last guy that stuck a finger in my face ended up kneeling in front of my begging for me not to break it clean off. I'll talk to anyone who wants to have a respectful conversation, but yelling and finger pointing just push my buttons and not in a good way.
Sorry for throwing Bible verses around, but you asked... and for nearly all of the moralists I have known in my 30+ years, that's where it comes from. Pure, ignorant, mis-translated fear.
I left this part just because I agree with it.
Edit: tupo
-
I have been following this thread for some time now and have been struggling with my response to it, for fear of pissing people off. So I'll keep it short and simple and will try not to be too biased. But for one thing I want to say that censorship, in the sense that it limits people's (democratic - ok, I know this could go into a whole other discussion here, but maybe not) right to get ALL the information and then have the opportunity to choose freely what they want to believe, IMHO that kind of censorship should be avoided if possible. ... and yes, I know this is a very idealistic view ...
Given that censorship is something no society can do without (BTW, Thomas More's Utopia is one of my favorite works of fiction, in case that helps .. as is Huxley's Brave New World, but on an entirely different level) I chose governmental censorship over corporate censorship, as governmentally instituted censorship laws are regulated by democratic means (in a democracy, of course), at least it should be, whereas corporate censorship is determined by materialistic objectives entirely. Of course I absolutely agree that in a free market economy, (at least if there really is such a thing, I doubt it, but never mind) the 'market' and the consumer determines what gets produced and what sells. But the problem with that is that the consumer does not KNOW what he isn't getting. People who shop at Walmart will not be aware of the fact that there is something different, that there is something missing. Which means that a whole section of the population will not get the whole picture without even realizing it. And *if* we want to argue that social determiners influence who shops where etc. we can also argue that social determiners will in effect determine which section of the population gets what kind of product and what kind of information.
Governmental censorship regulations can hopefully ensure more equality. Or maybe not...
There's a lot of inherent "stickiness" to what people believe, and we come at a variety of different ways. Ignoring new inoformation is just one of them. Others include greater skepticism about information that conflicts with your world-view than information that confirms it; being more likely to seek out information or information sources that confirm your world-view, etc.
And as to Windup's quote, I agree with what you are saying in principle, but not every member of the population will make an informed decision and SEEK OUT information that confirm their world-view, a lot of people will just take whatever is most easily accessible.
Ok, I could go on for hours, but will postpone that ...
-
I hear a lot of people choosing government censorship over corporate here. Why not chose neither? Also, nobody has addressed that when the government censors something it becomes a criminal act to posses it! You are risking jail time by having that copy of GTA IV instead of just having to buy it down the street. I'm just shocked how quickly everyone wants to run to the government to solve their issues because they think it can be more easily removed than corporate censorship. Corporate censorship may be more difficult to change, but it is absolute!
Everyone is using Wal-mart as the most extreme example of corporate censorship. Sure, they don't carry music with explicit lyrics or movies with sex. Fine. Because of this (and a host of other reasons) I have never even made a purchase at Wal-mart. Ever. I don't want to support them because I disagree with their business practices. Do I have difficulty finding the music I want or movies with sex in them? No. Do I still know about them? Yes. I don't know what examples anyone has of something that has been censored by a corporation that didn't make it to the public realm, but I can't think of one. Maybe because it was censored so well, right?
An example of extreme government censorship is China in the 1980's. Did they have any idea of anything going on in the outside world? Not without some extensive contacts and the risk of death or imprisonment. Even now China censors the internet and only allows in acceptable products and thoughts. It's getting more difficult to control, but the government still regulates the flow of information. And you are favoring this? Seriously? Do I misunderstand your view of government censorship? If so, what is to prevent a small censorship program from turning into a complete blackout like China?
Finally, if we do eliminate corporate censorship that means they will need EVERY book on their shelves. We're removing the business owner's right to run their business the way they want. Christian bookstores will need to carry the Satanic Verses. Even if it's the worst book ever written or the worst movie ever produced and it will collect dust on the shelves for decades stores will need to present it in the interest of fairness, right? We need to have all the options presented, even if it impacts the businesses' bottom line.
I think we all agree that NO censorship is the best situation. I think we differ the most in our opinions of interference with business owner's rights to run their business the way they want.
There have been a couple recent studies of how different political ideologies treat information, and for better or for worse, roughly, conservatives tend to be better at ignoring information than liberals are. Now, you can go either way on this (not having the full picture is bad, too much information muddles the important things), but there is a real percentage of the population on both sides that will not accept new information that does not help their worldview. Conservatives seem somewhat better than liberals at this.
Do you have any links to this study? I'm curious if they are talking socially liberal or fiscally liberal? I consider myself socially liberal, but fiscally conservative so I wonder where I fall?
-
Is it because the corporation is taking a stand, moral or otherwise, about the content of their goods? If so, they should be allowed to do as they will. Is it because they don't give a damn about the issue, but feel that if they don't set a standard then they will have to deal with vocal minority watchdog groups? I don't think that's a fair position, for either the corporation itself or the general public.
I agree with that, I think (I have to qualify this with an "I think" because I still haven't sorted out all my thoughts on this new-to-me concept of corporate censorship (I had never before considered a business's decision to not sell something as censorship)), but who are we to determine the motives these businesses have for not selling a product? Meaning no disrespect, Eytan, but it sounds like you automatically think it's the latter rather than the former, which brings up yet a third question: to which side should the burden of proof fall? I haven't put tons of thought into it yet, but my initial reaction is "neither," which sounds to me like there's something wrong with the initial premise of your argument. What it is (if indeed anything), though, I haven't figured out... hm... are we sure that "censorship" is the right word to use here? I'm putting that out there as a serious question, not rhetorical in any way.
-
Sitting, as I am, only a few kilometres from the remains of the Berlin Wall I have issues with government censorship. You can argue about the whole democracy thing but, as Chodon stated, as soon as a government (any government) censors something it becomes illegal. So how then are you going to fight for your freedom of choice to be passed by legislature if it is illegal to want it/have it/do it at the time?
-
Sitting, as I am, only a few kilometres from the remains of the Berlin Wall I have issues with government censorship. You can argue about the whole democracy thing but, as Chodon stated, as soon as a government (any government) censors something it becomes illegal. So how then are you going to fight for your freedom of choice to be passed by legislature if it is illegal to want it/have it/do it at the time?
I haven't seen the MAUER for a while now, given that I have lived in the UK for the past 7 years, but I remember very clearly how it *symbolically and literally* affected the first part of my life, having grown up on the wrong (!) side of it, which probably should make me even more against government censorship than I am. And just to emphasize that again, I am against ANY censorship. Basta. But if I have to choose between governmental and corporate CS I'll choose the former. And yes, I do think we need to clarify the definition of 'censorship'. I was not talking about censoring things so they will not be available AT ALL. But I was still thinking about rating computer games, movies etc. which started this discussion in the first place.
One of my problems with corporate censorship is also that is seems so closely linked to 'moral' censorship as corporations are often 'ruled' by a very homogeneous and biased group of people (thinking Axel Springer Verlag, or Rupert Murdoch, etc.) who make decisions based on personal preferences, whereas (democratic - and here we are again) governments have oppositions to contend with and will not be re-elected if they piss off the public (if that public bothers with giving their vote, that is).
-
Meaning no disrespect, Eytan, but it sounds like you automatically think it's the latter rather than the former, which brings up yet a third question: to which side should the burden of proof fall? I haven't put tons of thought into it yet, but my initial reaction is "neither," which sounds to me like there's something wrong with the initial premise of your argument.
I'm not sure what you mean by "burden of proof" in this context, but I'm not automatically assuming it's one or the other. Rather, I'm explicitly addressing cases where corporations first stock items *then* remove them and amend their policies. I'm assuming that in most these cases, if a corporation is willing to carry something until some outcry started, that means that they didn't have a self-imposed policy against it first.
Furthermore, there is another simple test. If a corporation takes an explicit position with regards to an issue, it will usually be public about it. On the other hand, if it's just avoiding stuff that might be controversial, it will normally keep those policies quiet.
There are other tests too. If there is variation between what different corporations do, then it usually means some sort of internal decission making. If everyone starts acting the same, I'd look for external pressure as the culprit.
What it is (if indeed anything), though, I haven't figured out... hm... are we sure that "censorship" is the right word to use here? I'm putting that out there as a serious question, not rhetorical in any way.
Probably not, at least not in the strict sense of the word. But the net effect is the same, so I'm happy to go with it.
Sitting, as I am, only a few kilometres from the remains of the Berlin Wall I have issues with government censorship. You can argue about the whole democracy thing but, as Chodon stated, as soon as a government (any government) censors something it becomes illegal. So how then are you going to fight for your freedom of choice to be passed by legislature if it is illegal to want it/have it/do it at the time?
Well, everything I said is contingent on the government being an (at least semi-functional) democracy. In a democracy, you can challenge the laws. And you don't get arrested for thought crime - it's never illegal to *want* something. It may be illegal to obtain it, or - in some extreme cases, like child porn - to actively seek it - but it's not illegal to start a campaign to legalize it.
Again, I'm not saying I support censorship in any form (except, again, some extreme cases like child porn), but I think censorship by a democratic government is the lesser of the evils here. Having just moved from the US to the UK, I can really appreciate how much more freedom people here have (in some aspects of life), specifically because there is more government oversight rather than because there is less.
(And note that as a general rule, I will always prefer giving individuals the freedom to make their own decisions than giving business entities such a freedom).
-
I'm having a little trouble with the whole notion of "corporate censorship." To me, it seems an awful lot like "editing" which is just what editors do. Is Steve somehow "censoring" all the stories he doesn't select for Escape Pod during a given week?
The only point at which I see this becoming relevant is when a very small number of entities effectively lock up a given market, such as bookselling. In that case, even independent decisions not to carry a given work can effectively prevent it from reaching the public. Right now, for example, if Amazon, Barnes & Noble and Borders all elect not to carry a book -- for reasons that may range from incindiary political content to insufficient publicity support from the publisher -- the book is pretty much DOA.
Though here, I think the answer is more along the lines of "enforce anti-trust law" (novel notion in the US these past eight years or so) than doing anything special to prevent "corporate censorship."
-
One factor that I'm kind of taking for granted is court oversight of government censorship. The government, in the US and to an extent in the UK, is prevented from oppressive censorship, e.g. you can't ban a political party.
Chodon, I will give again the example of images of civilian death in Iraq and Afghanistan. Media could run them, but choose not to. The movie Redacted does a good job of documenting the things that Americans are insulated from. Unsurprisingly, you can't find this movie in major stores.
-
I'm not sure what you mean by "burden of proof" in this context, but I'm not automatically assuming it's one or the other.
Well, your further exposition makes "burden of proof" a little less necessary, but in the case of a product whose controversial nature is revealed to the public at large after it hits the shelves (which was my impression of whichever GTA caused all the ruckus years ago), then who's to say that a business's reasons for pulling it was motivated by their standards as opposed to the bottom line? That was what I had in mind by "burden of proof." Does that make sense?
Rather, I'm explicitly addressing cases where corporations first stock items *then* remove them and amend their policies. I'm assuming that in most these cases, if a corporation is willing to carry something until some outcry started, that means that they didn't have a self-imposed policy against it first.
Furthermore, there is another simple test. If a corporation takes an explicit position with regards to an issue, it will usually be public about it. On the other hand, if it's just avoiding stuff that might be controversial, it will normally keep those policies quiet.
Oh, I see what you mean, now, and that makes more sense. Still, there's some gray area there. One buyer's idea of acceptable standards may not be the same as the CEO's idea, and that may not come to light until after the fact. Furthermore, I think these types of issues with these types of corporations is a relatively new area that is being explored, so if a company revises its standards, it may be because their standards were inadequately defined rather than they are trying to pander to a vocal minority. I hope I'm not coming across as simply trying to play devil's advocate; I just think these are just real-life scenarios.
Probably not, at least not in the strict sense of the word. But the net effect is the same, so I'm happy to go with it.
yeeeahh.... mmmaaaaybe.... I'm not totally convinced of that, yet, I don't think.
I mean, if the market (for materials that the big guys feel is too controversial to sell in their store) is there, don't you think there's someone out there with enough entrepreneurial spirit to sell those materials and make sure that the industry keeps making them? I think there is, personally. That may getting off on a capitalism tangent, but that's not my intent. This is just a really murky area for me. I'm not convinced that corporate censorship truly is censorship.
-
Chodon, I will give again the example of images of civilian death in Iraq and Afghanistan. Media could run them, but choose not to. The movie Redacted does a good job of documenting the things that Americans are insulated from. Unsurprisingly, you can't find this movie in major stores.
But it is available, right? Obviously, because you have seen it and are commenting on it. It's available, but major stores don't carry it because they don't perceive a market for it. If it were censored by the government it would be illegal to possess and you could be in prison for having a copy of it. In fact, you even talking about it in this forum could be considered a violation of the censors. I would rather have to work harder to get the information I want than risk imprisonment to get it.
Also, I don't really know what you're proposing. How do you get businesses to carry Redacted? Government legislation? Unlikely. Protesting? Angry letters? I don't get how you are proposing to solve this "problem".
-
I'm scared to say that I'm with Chodon on this one.
The thing with government censorship is that they "are the law of the land" and if they say no that's it. It is not available. Then you have to go through the work of over-turning the system. If a company says they're not distributing something, there is the oppourtunity that another company will.
Also you people act like you can somehow force a company to provide everything. It doesn't work. If you made a law that Wal-Mart had to stock every titty flick, companies would make five hundred different titty flick a month and price each disc at $500. They would then take Wal-Mart to court for not paying that price for them. My example is extreme, but where is the line?
Every store stocks according to their business plan. Wal-Mart stocks cheap garbage. That's their spot. You have no right do mandate that they change. You can only tell other people what you think of the stores and convince them to vote with their money.
One last point. If you allow in government censorship (kiddie porn and stuff is outside of my arguement.), you'll still have companies only stocking what they think is right for them to stock. You're just agreeing to have both.
Vote with your money in the stores and tell the companies what you're doing.
-
I hear a lot of people choosing government censorship over corporate here. Why not chose neither? Also, nobody has addressed that when the government censors something it becomes a criminal act to posses it! You are risking jail time by having that copy of GTA IV instead of just having to buy it down the street.
As the government censorship model under examination is the British one, let's examine how that specific model actually works:
It is illegal to sell a movie that has not been submitted to the British Board of Film Classification to be rated (exceptions include non-fiction documentaries and features acted entirely by non-humanoid puppets).
If a movie is rated 12, 15, 18 or R18, it is illegal to sell or rent that movie to someone below that age. If a movie is rated R18 (reserved for hardcore pornography), it is illegal for any business other than a licensed sex shop to sell it. Similarly, specially licensed cinemas may show such a movie.
In theory, it's a criminal offence to sell (but not to buy or own) movies that have been refused a certificate, or whose producers did not apply for a certificate, but despite the brisk trade in imported titles I'm unaware of this ever having been invoked.
The American model is to shame stores into not stocking movies or games that might possibly be harmful to young children, making it difficult for people to get hold of such titles, even if they're old enough to make their own decisions.
I'm just shocked how quickly everyone wants to run to the government to solve their issues because they think it can be more easily removed than corporate censorship. Corporate censorship may be more difficult to change, but it is absolute!
...
An example of extreme government censorship is China in the 1980's. Did they have any idea of anything going on in the outside world? Not without some extensive contacts and the risk of death or imprisonment. Even now China censors the internet and only allows in acceptable products and thoughts. It's getting more difficult to control, but the government still regulates the flow of information. And you are favoring this? Seriously? Do I misunderstand your view of government censorship? If so, what is to prevent a small censorship program from turning into a complete blackout like China?
China is not a democracy.
People are favouring government regulation within a democracy, because it means that the power is in the hands of the people, and not a corporate oligarcy. One might as well complain that if the East India Trading Company of the 18th Century didn't carry a particular good, then it was unavailable to everyone in America, and therefore corporations deciding for themselves what to carry is a bad idea!
Is that really what you reccomend?
Finally, if we do eliminate corporate censorship that means they will need EVERY book on their shelves. We're removing the business owner's right to run their business the way they want. Christian bookstores will need to carry the Satanic Verses. Even if it's the worst book ever written or the worst movie ever produced and it will collect dust on the shelves for decades stores will need to present it in the interest of fairness, right? We need to have all the options presented, even if it impacts the businesses' bottom line.
Now you're being silly. Did you even read other people's replies, here?
-
One last point. If you allow in government censorship (kiddie porn and stuff is outside of my arguement.)...
Anything involving coercion of the unwilling is outside the argument, as are "snuff" materials. They are rightfully illegal, and nobody with even a minute scrap of decency supports the making and distribution of such.
-
Wintermute: There are better articles on this, but I'm a bit rushed and this is the first one I found: http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-politics10sep10,0,5982337.story
-
Wintermute: There are better articles on this, but I'm a bit rushed and this is the first one I found: http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-politics10sep10,0,5982337.story
Maybe I'm just proving this theory right, but let's see: conducted by UC Berkley and dubious correlations between hitting or not hitting a button and accepting new ideas. No wonder liberals came out as so accepting. I think I'm on the skeptic's side of that study.
-
Wintermute: There are better articles on this, but I'm a bit rushed and this is the first one I found: http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-politics10sep10,0,5982337.story
Maybe I'm just proving this theory right, but let's see: conducted by UC Berkley and dubious correlations between hitting or not hitting a button and accepting new ideas. No wonder liberals came out as so accepting. I think I'm on the skeptic's side of that study.
It wasn't conducted at UC Berkley. From the article:
In a simple experiment reported todayin the journal Nature Neuroscience, scientists at New York University and UCLA show that political orientation is related to differences in how the brain processes information.
Even if it was, that wouldn't do anything to disprove the study, but I'll grant that it might provide a reason to look more carefully at the methodology. The correlation was between the ability to adjust to changes between a letter and political orientation. Certainly not enough to make any definitive conclusions, but possibly suggestive. The biggest weakness, in my opinion, is in extrapolating from quick reactions to measured decisions. Being able to adjust quickly to an unimportant change probably says little about being able to adjust rationally to an important one.
On the issue of "fixing" corporate censorship. The only suggestion I made about compelling anyone to distribute anything applied to broadcaster's based on their use of a limited public good. I agree that the only acceptable solution is market pressure by citizens who, by changing where they get their information, change what is mainstream and what is marginal. This does not mean that corporate censorship is not a problem. In fact, it is the very reason that corporate censorship is worse than government censorship. The voters and the courts, in the US and the UK, can and do change how the government censors things.
There is a trade-off between the public accountability of censors and their efficacy. In other words, government censors can restrict material more but are more easily controlled by the public. On a separate note, government censorship doesn't always mean criminalizing the possession of certain media. It might mean outlawing its sale to minors or dictating when certain material can be aired. Nobody went to jail when Janet Jackson's breast was shown during the Superbowl. Bono wasn't punished for saying "fuck" in his acceptance speech. So the claim that government censorship is equivalent to criminalizing material is just plain wrong.
-
As the government censorship model under examination is the British one, let's examine how that specific model actually works:
It is illegal to sell a movie that has not been submitted to the British Board of Film Classification to be rated (exceptions include non-fiction documentaries and features acted entirely by non-humanoid puppets).
If a movie is rated 12, 15, 18 or R18, it is illegal to sell or rent that movie to someone below that age. If a movie is rated R18 (reserved for hardcore pornography), it is illegal for any business other than a licensed sex shop to sell it. Similarly, specially licensed cinemas may show such a movie.
In theory, it's a criminal offence to sell (but not to buy or own) movies that have been refused a certificate, or whose producers did not apply for a certificate, but despite the brisk trade in imported titles I'm unaware of this ever having been invoked.
The American model is to shame stores into not stocking movies or games that might possibly be harmful to young children, making it difficult for people to get hold of such titles, even if they're old enough to make their own decisions.
A couple of issues with the UK system. First, who appoints the British Board of Film Classification? What if they are a bunch of Quakers and make everything R18?
Second, isn’t this just government-sanctioned “corporate censorship”? By rating films R18 they aren’t available in mainstream stores, the same as Wal-mart won’t carry some films. The only difference I can see is Wal-mart does this without government mandate, but instead they make the judgments regarding what they think their target customers will want.
China is not a democracy.
People are favouring government regulation within a democracy, because it means that the power is in the hands of the people, and not a corporate oligarcy. One might as well complain that if the East India Trading Company of the 18th Century didn't carry a particular good, then it was unavailable to everyone in America, and therefore corporations deciding for themselves what to carry is a bad idea!
Is that really what you reccomend?
First of all, the East India Trading Company was a government sanctioned monopoly, totally different than modern companies in an almost pure competition. The East India Trading Company is a very poor analogy to modern day superstores, especially since the explosion of the internet.
In a free market corporations don't decide the products they carry, the consumers do. If people want something a corporation is not providing some other company will step in. If the corporations did decide to try to "change the market" they would find themselves out of business in very short order. Are you suggesting government regulation for what businesses must offer? I'm really confused. Something could be rated 12 in the UK (or lower if a lower rating exists), but not carried by UK stores because it's crap. So yes, I do recommend stores get to make their own decisions about what they put on their shelves. The market and consumers will decide if it is the right decision or not. We aren't in a situation where consumers are corralled into one store. There is a huge variety of places where people can get their media now.
Now you're being silly. Did you even read other people's replies, here?
I was taking the points made by others to an extreme to make a point. I haven't heard anyone suggest how to end corporate "censorship". There is no way to distinguish between targeting a market and censorship. I think the examples given previously are arbitrary at best. I'll use the example of Redacted again. There really isn't a market for a film showing killed Iraqi civilians in the US. I know I don't want to see it. Does that mean that a company is censoring it by not carrying Redacted? No, they are simply filling their shelf space with something that will sell instead of something that won't (and will probably get them all kinds of angry letters). If there are consumers who complain about a certain film is it worth it financially to risk losing their sales revenue to keep a marginally selling item on the shelves? Hell no! Even if they had a moral obligation how would it be enforced?
My point is this: removal of “corporate censorship” is the removal of a free market and the removal of the freedom of a business owner to run their business as they see fit.
-
Wintermute: There are better articles on this, but I'm a bit rushed and this is the first one I found: http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-politics10sep10,0,5982337.story
Maybe I'm just proving this theory right, but let's see: conducted by UC Berkley and dubious correlations between hitting or not hitting a button and accepting new ideas. No wonder liberals came out as so accepting. I think I'm on the skeptic's side of that study.
It wasn't conducted at UC Berkley. From the article:
In a simple experiment reported todayin the journal Nature Neuroscience, scientists at New York University and UCLA show that political orientation is related to differences in how the brain processes information.
I stand corrected. A professor from UC Berkley, but unrelated to the study, commented on it. I still don't see the correlation between reaction time/following instructions and open-mindedness (much as quints pointed out better than I).
Edit...added:
My big question is how they didn't define "liberal" or "conervative". They should have just said "republican" or "democrat". What if someone straddles the fence like me?
-
As the government censorship model under examination is the British one, let's examine how that specific model actually works:
It is illegal to sell a movie that has not been submitted to the British Board of Film Classification to be rated (exceptions include non-fiction documentaries and features acted entirely by non-humanoid puppets).
If a movie is rated 12, 15, 18 or R18, it is illegal to sell or rent that movie to someone below that age. If a movie is rated R18 (reserved for hardcore pornography), it is illegal for any business other than a licensed sex shop to sell it. Similarly, specially licensed cinemas may show such a movie.
In theory, it's a criminal offence to sell (but not to buy or own) movies that have been refused a certificate, or whose producers did not apply for a certificate, but despite the brisk trade in imported titles I'm unaware of this ever having been invoked.
The American model is to shame stores into not stocking movies or games that might possibly be harmful to young children, making it difficult for people to get hold of such titles, even if they're old enough to make their own decisions.
A couple of issues with the UK system. First, who appoints the British Board of Film Classification? What if they are a bunch of Quakers and make everything R18?
They're appointed by the government, who are elected by the general public. Thus, if the public disapproves of the BBFC's actions, they can take direct action at the polls through a technique we like to call "voting".
Having said, that I'm surprised that you're not happy with the answer that "you can still go to your friedly neighbourhood sex shop and buy it there.
If the MPAA rates something innocuous but politically sensitive as NC-17, thus ensuring that it won't get shown in cinemas, what do you do? Write a snarky letter to the the CEO of Universal Studios?
Second, isn’t this just government-sanctioned “corporate censorship”? By rating films R18 they aren’t available in mainstream stores, the same as Wal-mart won’t carry some films. The only difference I can see is Wal-mart does this without government mandate, but instead they make the judgments regarding what they think their target customers will want.
Well, if a retailer "chooses" not to stock a title because doing so is illegal, I would say that is very different then them choosing not to do so because Jack Thompson writes apparently-persuasive editorials.
China is not a democracy.
People are favouring government regulation within a democracy, because it means that the power is in the hands of the people, and not a corporate oligarcy. One might as well complain that if the East India Trading Company of the 18th Century didn't carry a particular good, then it was unavailable to everyone in America, and therefore corporations deciding for themselves what to carry is a bad idea!
Is that really what you reccomend?
First of all, the East India Trading Company was a government sanctioned monopoly, totally different than modern companies in an almost pure competition. The East India Trading Company is a very poor analogy to modern day superstores, especially since the explosion of the internet.
Yes, you're right: it's a very poor analogy. Almost as poor, one might dare to suggest as using censorship in a totalitarian democracy in which the Government own all media outlets as an analogy for censorship in a mature western democracy. If any one government can stand in for any other in your argument, why can't any one corporation stand in for any other in mine?
In a free market corporations don't decide the products they carry, the consumers do. If people want something a corporation is not providing some other company will step in. If the corporations did decide to try to "change the market" they would find themselves out of business in very short order. Are you suggesting government regulation for what businesses must offer? I'm really confused. Something could be rated 12 in the UK (or lower if a lower rating exists), but not carried by UK stores because it's crap. So yes, I do recommend stores get to make their own decisions about what they put on their shelves. The market and consumers will decide if it is the right decision or not. We aren't in a situation where consumers are corralled into one store. There is a huge variety of places where people can get their media now.
Agreed.
Now you're being silly. Did you even read other people's replies, here?
I was taking the points made by others to an extreme to make a point. I haven't heard anyone suggest how to end corporate "censorship". There is no way to distinguish between targeting a market and censorship. I think the examples given previously are arbitrary at best. I'll use the example of Redacted again. There really isn't a market for a film showing killed Iraqi civilians in the US. I know I don't want to see it. Does that mean that a company is censoring it by not carrying Redacted? No, they are simply filling their shelf space with something that will sell instead of something that won't (and will probably get them all kinds of angry letters). If there are consumers who complain about a certain film is it worth it financially to risk losing their sales revenue to keep a marginally selling item on the shelves? Hell no! Even if they had a moral obligation how would it be enforced?
My point is this: removal of “corporate censorship” is the removal of a free market and the removal of the freedom of a business owner to run their business as they see fit.
No-one has argued that a company shouldn't be free to carry what they want, and not what they don't want. Really, they haven't. Read the thread again, and see if you can find such a suggestion, if you don't believe me.
What people have suggested is that it is possible to create a system in which the moral decisions about what should be accessible happen at a more public and more transparent level, and are geared towards keeping such media out of the hands of children while still allowing adults to make their own decisions. If a retailer believes that product X will not sell, and so chooses not to carry it, in order to make room for product Y, then fine. No-one will begrudge them that freedom. On the other hand, if they decide that Product X is injurious to public morals, and that they will refuse to sell in (for the children!), regardless of the degree of demand, then I'm somewhat more torn; just because you're free to do a thing doesn't mean that it's a good idea. If the store is one that sets itself up as a moral authority (such as your local Christian bookstore), then I'm more inclined to accept such behaviour from them than from a corporation whose sole aim to to make a profit. Especially as their target demographic is far less likely t show demand for whatever it is their preacher is railing against this week.
Basically, if people are going to decide what it would be moral for me to buy / watch / read, the I want to have some buy-in into that decision-making process. True, I can choose to shop only at places that don't consider my moral development to be any of my business, but that seems like an inefficient solution, to me at least.
-
I'm not really interested in getting into a huge flamewar about censorship or Wal-Mart. What interested me was that there were a several comments coming from the UK favoring government censorship to corporate censorship. The argument was that one can petition the government to change the law, but you can't petition a corporation; they can do what they want.
Yeah, so it sounds like we're doing just what wakela didn't want. Sorry. I'll leave it at this: businesses should be able to run things how they like, no matter their size. If they want to pander to a vocal minority they do it at their peril since it's their business. I don't like government censorship because it's more absolute (law of the land) and, as Russell said, it's a lot of work to overturn a government system.
The responsibility lies with parents and individuals to make informed decisions about what is and isn't appropriate for them and their family. The buck stops there. Censorship is the suxors.
-
Basically, if people are going to decide what it would be moral for me to buy / watch / read, the I want to have some buy-in into that decision-making process. True, I can choose to shop only at places that don't consider my moral development to be any of my business, but that seems like an inefficient solution, to me at least.
Bear in mind I'm still trying to figure all this out, and sincere apologies for the mass snippage, but isn't our "buy-in" the option whether to shop there or not? If the bottom-line is all Store X is looking at, then decisions will be made thus, regardless of minority outcry... sure, Store X may pull ItemABC temporarily, but if their sole reason for pulling it is fear of loss of business, then, if ItemABC is truly a mass marketable product, Store X will see the profits Store Y (who chose to continue selling it) is making. I would think that then Store X would weigh the profits they'd make by retracting that decision against the losses that they'll incur by stocking it on their shelves. If it looks like the business gained will overcompensate for the business lost, don't you think they'll retract their decision? This is, of course, if they decide that ItemABC fits their marketing image (e.g. it wouldn't make sense for Wal-Mart to sell Tiffany Crystal because that's just not addressing their market; being in marketing myself, there are a lot of decisions based on whether it just looks right for a business to sell any given product).
-
Basically, if people are going to decide what it would be moral for me to buy / watch / read, the I want to have some buy-in into that decision-making process. True, I can choose to shop only at places that don't consider my moral development to be any of my business, but that seems like an inefficient solution, to me at least.
Bear in mind I'm still trying to figure all this out, and sincere apologies for the mass snippage, but isn't our "buy-in" the option whether to shop there or not? If the bottom-line is all Store X is looking at, then decisions will be made thus, regardless of minority outcry... sure, Store X may pull ItemABC temporarily, but if their sole reason for pulling it is fear of loss of business, then, if ItemABC is truly a mass marketable product, Store X will see the profits Store Y (who chose to continue selling it) is making. I would think that then Store X would weigh the profits they'd make by retracting that decision against the losses that they'll incur by stocking it on their shelves. If it looks like the business gained will overcompensate for the business lost, don't you think they'll retract their decision? This is, of course, if they decide that ItemABC fits their marketing image (e.g. it wouldn't make sense for Wal-Mart to sell Tiffany Crystal because that's just not addressing their market; being in marketing myself, there are a lot of decisions based on whether it just looks right for a business to sell any given product).
If a retailer believes that product X will not sell, and so chooses not to carry it, in order to make room for product Y, then fine. No-one will begrudge them that freedom. On the other hand, if they decide that Product X is injurious to public morals, and that they will refuse to sell in (for the children!), regardless of the degree of demand, then I'm somewhat more torn; just because you're free to do a thing doesn't mean that it's a good idea. If the store is one that sets itself up as a moral authority (such as your local Christian bookstore), then I'm more inclined to accept such behaviour from them than from a corporation whose sole aim to to make a profit. Especially as their target demographic is far less likely t show demand for whatever it is their preacher is railing against this week.
-
Hmm.... Okay, but why begrudge them the freedom to not sell it for any reason, since we have the freedom to not shop there? Maybe you don't begrudge, since you also said that freedom to do a thing doesn't make it a good idea... maybe you're just saying it's simply bad business and it irks you? Also, why is the "refuse-to-shop-there" solution inefficient?
-
I'm not really interested in getting into a huge flamewar about censorship or Wal-Mart. What interested me was that there were a several comments coming from the UK favoring government censorship to corporate censorship. The argument was that one can petition the government to change the law, but you can't petition a corporation; they can do what they want.
Yeah, so it sounds like we're doing just what wakela didn't want. Sorry. I'll leave it at this: businesses should be able to run things how they like, no matter their size. If they want to pander to a vocal minority they do it at their peril since it's their business. I don't like government censorship because it's more absolute (law of the land) and, as Russell said, it's a lot of work to overturn a government system.
The responsibility lies with parents and individuals to make informed decisions about what is and isn't appropriate for them and their family. The buck stops there. Censorship is the suxors.
I'm amazed at how I agree with everything you say here and yet our positions feel so different. Absent a few obvious caveats (e.g. businesses should not be allowed to commit fraud) I'm against unnecessary government regulation. That said, the argument which has been brought up by a number of people that I don't think you've addressed is that those business's freedom is the problem with corporate censorship. The MPAA's raters are not only unelected, their identities are actually kept secret. Even worse, the standards they use to rate (which, in practice, means censor) movies is unknown. When a movie maker appeals his case to the MPAA, he is not even allowed to cite precedent to criticize a rating.
It's also important to remember that courts can provide a check on government censorship when it oversteps the lines. The Supreme Court can protect the right to demonstrate in Skokie, but not in a shopping mall.
-
A couple of issues with the UK system. First, who appoints the British Board of Film Classification? What if they are a bunch of Quakers and make everything R18?
In deference to our Quaker friends (boom boom!) you'd probably struggle to find Quakers willing to serve on such an authoritarian body. And if you could, they'd probably let most things go as a matter for the individual conscience.
Now, back to our regularly scheduled programme...
-
… the standards they use to rate (which, in practice, means censor)….
Wow! I've never considered rating the same thing as censoring... am I alone in that? If I am, can someone explain how they are the same?
<edited to clarify that any tone of smartassedness was unintended>
-
A couple of issues with the UK system. First, who appoints the British Board of Film Classification? What if they are a bunch of Quakers and make everything R18?
In deference to our Quaker friends (boom boom!) you'd probably struggle to find Quakers willing to serve on such an authoritarian body. And if you could, they'd probably let most things go as a matter for the individual conscience.
I think Chodon was thinking "Puritans" when he/she said "Quakers"
-
… the standards they use to rate (which, in practice, means censor)….
Wow! I've never considered rating the same thing as censoring... am I alone in that? If I am, can someone explain how they are the same?
<edited to clarify that any tone of smartassedness was unintended>
Rating does not equal censorship, but it is a tool of censorship. Classifying things into groups is the first stage in declaring one or more of those groups out of bounds. This has happened, de facto, with movie ratings in the US, where NC-17 rated movies are not screened in most markets.
-
For an example of the ratings system leading to censorship, how much male (or female for that matter) frontal nudity is there in (US) films? Or when it does appear (like in Forgetting Sarah Marshall), you barely have time to register what you're seeing before it's off screen, because while breasts and butts of both genders are fine for limited periods in R movies, almost any actual depiction of a penis gets you sent to NC-17, and less than a hundred theaters, without passing Go and collecting $200. If you want the whole story, This Film is Not Yet Rated (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_Film_Is_Not_Yet_Rated) is a good guide.
-
A couple of issues with the UK system. First, who appoints the British Board of Film Classification? What if they are a bunch of Quakers and make everything R18?
In deference to our Quaker friends (boom boom!) you'd probably struggle to find Quakers willing to serve on such an authoritarian body. And if you could, they'd probably let most things go as a matter for the individual conscience.
I think Chodon was thinking "Puritans" when he/she said "Quakers"
Sorry the funny hats throw me for a loop. I did mean puritan.
(http://tommcmahon.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/quakeroo2.gif)
(http://www.apex-ephemera.com/FloridaLabels/graphics/puritan.jpg)
(Let's see how long these hijacked photos last)
-
For an example of the ratings system leading to censorship, how much male (or female for that matter) frontal nudity is there in (US) films? Or when it does appear (like in Forgetting Sarah Marshall), you barely have time to register what you're seeing before it's off screen, because while breasts and butts of both genders are fine for limited periods in R movies, almost any actual depiction of a penis gets you sent to NC-17, and less than a hundred theaters, without passing Go and collecting $200. If you want the whole story, This Film is Not Yet Rated (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_Film_Is_Not_Yet_Rated) is a good guide.
I recall seeing Graham Chapman's "full monty" rather prominently in Life of Brian, which was rated R in the USA.
-
For an example of the ratings system leading to censorship, how much male (or female for that matter) frontal nudity is there in (US) films? Or when it does appear (like in Forgetting Sarah Marshall), you barely have time to register what you're seeing before it's off screen, because while breasts and butts of both genders are fine for limited periods in R movies, almost any actual depiction of a penis gets you sent to NC-17, and less than a hundred theaters, without passing Go and collecting $200. If you want the whole story, This Film is Not Yet Rated (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_Film_Is_Not_Yet_Rated) is a good guide.
I recall seeing Graham Chapman's "full monty" rather prominently in Life of Brian, which was rated R in the USA.
True, but the ratings board has changed a bit since '79.
-
For an example of the ratings system leading to censorship, how much male (or female for that matter) frontal nudity is there in (US) films? Or when it does appear (like in Forgetting Sarah Marshall), you barely have time to register what you're seeing before it's off screen, because while breasts and butts of both genders are fine for limited periods in R movies, almost any actual depiction of a penis gets you sent to NC-17, and less than a hundred theaters, without passing Go and collecting $200. If you want the whole story, This Film is Not Yet Rated (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_Film_Is_Not_Yet_Rated) is a good guide.
I recall seeing Graham Chapman's "full monty" rather prominently in Life of Brian, which was rated R in the USA.
True, but the ratings board has changed a bit since '79.
Harvey Keitel equally uninhibited in 1993's The Piano, which also had an R rating. Oh, and there was Basic Instinct, too....
-
This was very interesting. Now that we are discussion Harvey Keitel's shlong I suspect the discussion has run its course.
question 1: does the breakdown between those who prefer government censorship to corporate censorship and those who go the other way coincide with nationality?
question 2: For the people who prefer government censorship if I say "corporate censorship is wrong, but there isn't much we can do about it because the corporation has the right to sell what they want. Government censorship can be fought more easily and openly. This is why corporate censorship is worse." would you agree?
-
This was very interesting. Now that we are discussion Harvey Keitel's shlong I suspect the discussion has run its course.
question 1: does the breakdown between those who prefer government censorship to corporate censorship and those who go the other way coincide with nationality?
question 2: For the people who prefer government censorship if I say "corporate censorship is wrong, but there isn't much we can do about it because the corporation has the right to sell what they want. Government censorship can be fought more easily and openly. This is why corporate censorship is worse." would you agree?
Emphasizing once again that both are ineffective and misguided approaches, I think they each have their relative merits. They can both be made to seem as sinister or innocuous as you like; "corporate" being a decision made by a company, which in the U.S. is treated as an individual (with no accountability for hir actions, of course) and "government" being a decision made by the representatives chosen by the voters (who tend to be completely ignorant of who their "representatives" are, or who "contributed" to their campaigns).
Personally, I like "ratings" of some kind... the way Steve does it is usually pretty helpful. The stupid "PG" or "R" stuff on movies doesn't tell me anything, even with the new "descriptive phrases" they add. The Piano should say "Warning: dong shown within - one time, oh, and there's some hitting." That way, I know why it's rated whatever it's rated, and I don't know whose dong it is (could be Holly Hunter's, right?) and give away the ending.
But that's what reviews are for. And putting ANY rating should not keep a film (or any other thingy) from getting circulated. We tout the triumph of our free-market society so much, we should let our dollars do the voting. Oh, that's right... the $2-billion/year porn industry actually kind of prefers it the way it is. ;)
Aw... I've exceeded my "quotation mark quota" for the evening. Better "go to bed".