Censorship
 

I don't really understand censorship sometimes. I know it's there because little Timmy's head will explode if he sees a woman's nipple (but it's fine to sit him down in front of unbelievably violent video games for hours on end.)

There's one thing I don't understand, though. Why do we censor things like the Twin Towers?

For example, a Spiderman (if I recall) game was delayed about a month because they had to take out all images of the World Trade Centres. This was over a year after the attacks..

Also, they won't show the "Simpsons Go To New York" episode on any networks now, because it contains the World Trade Centres.

Why? I don't get it. Who is going to be so mortified by seeing these images (of the Towers in perfect condition, at that)?

Don't get me wrong, the attacks moved me at the time of their happening. I don't like to see images of the flaming towers. But seeing the towers in their former condition doesn't exactly send me spiralling into a pit of depression. What about Battlefield 1942? Vietcong? Won't war veterans be horrified to see their own hell portrayed in this way?

If it's all that easy to traumatize you, all you would have to do is think about the towers right after the attack. It seems to me like these companies are conforming to a very small minority, and it sucks.

For the record, I was only using the WTC as an example, this can be applied to several other things.

I agree with you wholeheartedly, and quite frankly, it's time Jenga was outlawed.

Jay Z released a remix of a Biggie Smalls song called Juicy that had the lines

"Now I'm in the limelight cause I rhyme tight
Time to get paid, blow up like the World Trade
Born sinner, the opposite of a winner
Remember when I used to eat sardines for dinner"

And the word "World Trade" was cut out of that, I never really understood why.

Exactly, do you have anyt idea how many times I've been involved in... I mean heard of Jenga related kill frenzies?

it's not like that anywhere else, just in the good old USA...the land of the free.......................(free?...WTF?)

Actually they delayed the Spiderman movie because there was a scene in which a helecopter is caught in Spidermans web between the two towers. They took it out, touched it up and most people don't know the difference.

It may have been Duke Nukem Manhattan Project. But either way..

Agreed, cencorship is going waaaaaaaaaaaaay too far in this country. I posted this quote in another post but I think its relevant here. I don't know the direct quote but it was by a former prime minister of Canada who said, "If you never see anything that offends you are you really living in a free country".

I don't know about you, but I've seen the Simpsons episode you're referring to about 4 times on TV since the attack.

Didnt you ever see the southpark where AIDS finally became funny? You have to wait 22.5 years before you can joke about something tragic;) Then its funny.

Fenton-J-Cool what do you have against video games? As far as I know, video games have been on someone's target list just like the other cencorship items you mentioned. When a child does something violent, the news flashes images of doom and quake. :rolleyes:

In regards to 9/11, having been present to watch the towers collapse here in NYC, it's about SENSITIVITY. As for the boobs, I cannot even begin with that topic just look at my sig and you'll see how I feel about that.

I lost a number of friends, collegues, fellow New Yorkers. ALL 8 million New Yorkers were traumatized in some fashion, add to that the roughly other 8 million that commute into the city some who watched from Ferry boats, trains, busses, and cars as the Towers burned and collapsed.

My wife's mother happened to be across the street from the towers that day. She has flashbacks when she HEARS a plane fly over head. Not ALL planes, but when the engine hits a certain pitch she freaks out.

The vietnam stuff, the WWII stuff, it took many years for people to finally come around. And even now, for some of those survivors there is still some issues. Just happens to be there are less of them alive right now.

For me, I need to see the images, that's how I'm dealing with it for myself.

Here's an excerpt from my journal.

You know what, that could be implemented for anything. Yes, people were traumatized. They have flashbacks when they think of planes. What about the huge number of people in the world who are afraid of clowns? No more clowns on TV?

Again, September 11th was just an example, and the best one I could find.

Allow me a rant:

Yanking the WTC from Spiderman has absolutely nothing to do with censorship. Not airing the "Simpsons Go to NY" episode is not censorship.

Sure, there's a conscious decision by someone not to include the WTC in Spiderman, or not to air the Simpsons episode, but, considering that it comes from some guy in some corporation, it's not censorship.

The government preventing, by fining or imprisoning or otherwise coercing, people or companies from saying/printing/broadcasting certain things is censorship. Because the directive comes from the government.

The people that run the corporations, however, have every right to include or remove specific images or ideas in their products. The WTC was removed from Spiderman essentially for marketing reasons. Not due to government coercion.

If you want to see censorship in action, watch the FCC crack down on "offensive content."

Italics are mine. Here's the LINK.

Okay, I'm done ranting... for now....

sure. if there were enough people who had issue with it, it probably would be instituted as such. People call in, write to complain about things that they find offensive. It just doesn't galvanize because there aren't so many of them in comparison.

Working for a media conglomerate, I hear people say stuff about censorship all the time.

first lets make sure that we are talking on the same wavelength

Recently CBS, a member of the Viacom family was being blamed for censorship because they refused to air a Moveon.org and PETA commercials during the SuperBowl.

Remember that media is driven by $$$. The media has some of their own agenda which is to turn a profit. They put on what they feel people want to see and hear. CBS felt that it wasn't appropriate to air those two advertisements because they do not allow ANY of those types of ads at all. Censorship? Possibly by that definition above.

But remember here in the USA, PRIVATE companies are allowed to spew forth whatever they can chose within the guidelines of the FCC. It is the governement hat is NOT allowed to censor anyone private citizens OR corporations by the tenets of the US Constitution.

I don't know if it's censorship or not, but when they bleep out words like "jesus" or "retarded" on television, that pisses me off.

Then again the same goes for when they blur pics of breasts and shit like that, but then again I am from Europe, so all I know is of decadence.

Actually there are no guidelines by the FCC... but they can fine people for breaking them. Ironically they refuse to publish any clear guidelines because Michael Powell claims that it would somehow violate (and thus harm) the first amendment.

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publi...C-245663A1.pdf

Of course, between you and me -if the FCC actually published a code... Then they couldn't fine people arbitarily as they have been doing -because people could just point to the code and claim that they're complying. If they do write guidelines and it somehow violates the first amendment -then obviously the guidelines would be struck down. (Although with THIS Supreme Court anything is possible.)

you and i have had this debate before. There are no clear exact word for word guidelines, but there are guidelines even though they exist as ambiguous as they are.

I've spoken with MTV Legal, Rights and Clearances, and Standards of Broadcasting departments on this and they have a very hard time with it because there are no definitive words to work with. But that is where the FCC is smart, since language ever evloves and lives, slang and words ebb and flow and change over time. Words considered profane in the past, are no longer, and words not are now considered.

The good part of censorship is that it relieves you of the necessity of thinking for yourself. Our government seems to want to releive us of that responsibility with many of their actions. How can a 5 second delay protect us from the violence around us every day in the city. How can one less nipple on view protect us from the violence of poverty and homelessness. Let's start looking at real issues and not the ones those in power want us to consider.

We have but I didn't have such a great quote from Michael Powell. Doesn't this trend towards applying ambiguous rules on free speech disturb you? Do you honestly trust the decision makers in the FCC to do what's best for us? You get into cases where one party is favored while other parties are not. The present FCC guidelines allow for favoritism. As long as there is a grey area and artists venture into it: then they can fine whoever they want for whatever they want.

Of course, there's already a discussion thread about this too.

http://tfproject.org/tfp/showthread....0&pagenumber=1

I guess my question is: "Aren't you disturbed by this?" Even if you like the current trend by the present FCC to arbitrarily determine what is allowable... Don't you see that when the lines are indistinct and blurred they will allow the FCC to make decisions based on favoritism. Whether or not the FCC rules "Ebb and Flow" -I believe that the rule of law states:

And that abridging this right -even allowing a loophole (by not specifically stating what is allowed) is a kind of coercive hand. Even if one trusts the present Government to make the right decisions for us. How can one trust that the next administration or the one's after that will be as fair?

ObPedant: The government prevents anyone else from playing "The Simpsons go to New York". Fox chooses to prevent itself. So, technically, if the government didn't enforce the current infinite duration copywrite, one could eventually see "The Simpsons go to New York" even if Fox didn't want you to.

That's not entirely true. That scene with the World Trade Center towers was NOT in the movie, ever. It was the first teaser trailer for the movie. I still have it from when you could download it. That trailer was never going to be in the movie itself. The production team explained that the teaser trailer was done independently of the movie, and had no part in the movie itself :)

Also in Metal Gear Solid 2 (videogame), in the beginning of the game Snake dives off the George Washington Bridge in New York City. The game was delayed for a couple of weeks so the crew could take out the WTC in the background.

Astrocloud,

yes, I agree with everything you've posted now and in the past. We aren't on different sides of opinion.

Looking back in history one can see where the government is wrong and how the people eventually change it. As times change and cultures change I'm very sure, that it will change equally.

I'm not entirely sure where you're going with this, but I have to add my two cents:

First, in the US, there is no "infinite duration copyright." Works copyrighted by an individual are protected for the life of the author plus 70 years, works copyrighted by a company are protected for 120 years. A long time, but finite.

Second, there's a difference between the protection of intellectual property, as in copyrights, and censorship. Copyright allows the creator of a work to control how and when and where it's disseminated. Censorship means that the government has that power.

What gets me is that The superbowl is 90% beer commercials and they say it's family entertainment. Why is it a kid can be bombarded with ads showing how fun it is to drink and party, but they can't see a boob?

/me goes back to listening to KMFDM, I'm tired of being polite and PC.

For the last 60-odd years, every time copywrite has been in danger of running out of time, they have extended it by another 20 years.

While at any time, copywrite is finite in duration, if you extend it by 20 years every 20 years (retroactively), copywrite is for all intents and purposes, infinite.

Imagine if you where in jail for 1 year, but every year they could extend your jail sentance by a year. Imagine if they had been doing this for the last 60 years. Would you call that a limited sentance?

(The supreme court considers it to be a limited sentance: they covered this issue relatively recently, when the last "extend copywrite for 20 years and keep mickey mouse out of the public domain!" law was passed.)

The government enforces the right for a corperation to deny you the right to say something. The source of the power of copywrite lies in the hands of the government. Hence, pedantically, copywrite enforcement is a form of censorship.

This is why there is a balance between "freedom of speech" and "the right to determine who can publish a work". Both are constitutional rights, and they oppose one another in practice.

And I was being pedantic, but copywrite, trademarks and, with the insane patents being passed nowadays, patents, are indeed a forms of censorship. My speech rights are limited by the trademarks and copywrites of others, and the government can criminally prosecute me if I violate them. (as well as enforce civil judgements against me)

Yes, the government enforces the right a corporation to deny you the right to say something provided it's something that they have protected by copyright. Same goes for things in which an individual holds copyright.

What if I came over to your house and threw a blowout party, raiding your fridge and liquor cabinet in the process? Could I claim my "right to assemble" as justification for throwing a party at your house without your permission? For taking your booze without your permission? For eating your food without your permission?

Of course not. So why should it be any different with intellectual property? Why should "free speech" be justification for taking something which I have originally written (or invented), and therefore belongs to me?

I understand you were trying to make a point, but I don't see how copyright of intellectual property limits your right to free speech any more than laws against trespassing on private property limit your right to assemble.

The short version of my rant is this: The first amendment places limits on the powers of the government, not on the exercise of the property rights of the citizens.

Because intellectual property is a figment of people's imagination, far more so than property.

The existance of government enforced monoplies on ideas comes from "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;" in the constitution.

You original wrote or invented it.

Thus, in order to promote such actions, the congress of the USA can secure for limited times the exlusive right to it.

You do not "own" it. You simply have the exclusive right to it for a limited time. This is only somewhat similar to property, hence the term, but it isn't the same beast.

If someone drinks your beer, you can no longer drink it.
If someone prints your book, you can still print it.

If invisible aliens arrived and took all the water in the world, we would all go thirsty.

If invisible aliens arrived and copied every note of music in the world, we wouldn't even notice.

In effect, I disagree with your "and therefore belongs to you". Thoughts, words, and ideas are not property. They do not behave like property, the history of how they are delt with legally isn't like the history of property, and the constitutional justification behind laws dealing with them is different than those that justify property.


But, like I said, I was being Pedantic, as in over literal, as in only true if you arrange definitions in annoyingly specific ways.

It is government-enforced content-sensative restrictions on what you can say or print or show: a form of government censorship.

intellectual property doesn't mean you aren't allowed to talk about it, there's no censorship there.

You just cannot PROFIT from it in any way.

Thus I cannot print a Mickey Mouse image onto a tshirt, but I can take Mickey Mouse and make a parody picture of him and print that on the tshirt. I'll probably have to defend my design in a court of law, but it certainly is not censorship.

Mattel's Barbie within the song,"I'm a Barbie Girl" with Barbie being a "public" figure was well within rights of being included in a song. Courts sorted that out a couple of years ago.

Remember there's parody that allows for someone to speak of intellectual property and copyrights.

Actually, I read an article about a kid who went on a shooting spree and then burst into flames after seeing a nipple slip at the Oscars this year.