Religious censorship?

[Jae Onasi]

Does this mean I shouldn't expect a response to post #32?

I'm getting there, I'm getting there....

Addressing various points below....

I realize that I'm not exactly addressing your argument though, because you specified "gov't censorship", however since I did not reference gov't censorship in my post, I think it's okay to reinforce my point rather than argue your unrelated point.

Point on the gov't vs. non-gov't censorship, since you hadn't mentioned gov't specifically. I lumped it in.

 

If 85% of E!'s customers are Christian (or at least a majority), and Griffin's saying something that's likely to offend them, what are you going to do as a business person? Allow her rant on the free speech principle and risk an FCC fine and lose customers, or censor it? I don't think E! wanted to risk losing viewership to make Griffin happy.

Source please?

Sources on change in language/content on TV? Come on. Watch any show from the 70's and compare with shows from today. Compare the amount of times 'ass', 'hell', and assorted other expletives are used. Compare how often people jump in bed and how much skin is showing--it was huge news when a butt showed on NYPD Blue in the 90's or when the famous towel got dropped for the football player on an ad a couple years ago--that _never_ would have made it past the censors in the 70's. Compare how much graphic violence there is. I'm sure you've seen some shows from perhaps the early 80's if not 70's, and you and I both know that the content and language has changed a lot since then. If you really want a source, Nick at Nite is a good start for you to see the difference between then and now.

Wait, wouldn't the wardrobe malfunction had to have been intentional in order for it to be considered a risk?

You believe the infamous 'wardrobe' malfunction was an accident? Especially after Timberlake later admitted it was planned? Jackson did it to create controversy to get more media coverage to sell more records.

In which medium? Television?

Yes, I was thinking TV instead of movies, since we were talking about a show that was going to air on TV. I agree movies haven't changed that much in the last 30 years, particularly war movies. Rambo is as violent as ever.

Yes, with regards to music and television, you're probably correct. Not sure what causal relationship you're trying to establish though.

There wouldn't have been a firestorm 30 years ago about whether Griffith's remarks were appropriate or not. They would have been censored, end of story, and it wouldn't even be a news item.

The same FCC that receives more than 99% of all complaints from the Parents Television Council (an activist group).

I'll bite on the red herring. The FCC's an appointed post. They could decide to do nothing about the PTC's complaints (and it looks like they ignore the group more often than not) with impunity, since the PTC doesn't have the same political clout as other organizations.

 

But I'm glad they're around though. That way I can keep my children up until 10pm (or later) on a school night so that they can watch the Emmy's and know that they'll be spared from traumatizing language such as "suck it, jesus". In the old days, I would have simply sent them out of the room to play a violent video game or something.

In the old days, you wouldn't have had to worry about whether you'd be surprised by the content or not--there would be no surprises--no towels dropping, no flashing breasts in the middle of the Superbowl half-time show, etc. At least with movies you know what you're getting into--you can look at the ratings, read reviews, etc to make sure it's appropriate before you go. With new TV episodes, no one's seen them before, and we have no way to know ahead of time if the content is going to be objectionable or not other than the incomplete ratings system. I certainly never expected someone's boob to flash at a half-time show and before anyone has a cow about that, viewing breasts and other body parts is fine if it's in an appropriate context (health class, anatomy class, art class, etc.). My kids have seen pictures of naked bodies in our medical books at home--I'd rather they asked questions of Jimbo and me and get good info than pick up some stupid info from playground friends. In regards to TV, though, the new (relatively) ratings system helps some, at least, but doesn't cover completely the content.

 

 

As for giving it to me from the horse's mouth, what you quoted was an incomplete version of her comments, and I wasn't addressing the Catholic remarks in any case. I'm the one who sent you the links since the language is outside the bounds of LF rules, after all.

[Achilles]

Um, no, no it would apply generally.

So we can all agree that you're generalizing. Good.

 

As opposed to your own oh-so-mature and measured response? Can I smell hypocrisy?

Some of us "yanks" know this more commonly as "I know you are, but what am I?". Well done.

 

I'm getting there, I'm getting there....

Oh. Research. Right.

 

Point on the gov't vs. non-gov't censorship, since you hadn't mentioned gov't specifically. I lumped it in.

So you're admitting that your point did not address mine. Thank you.

 

If 85% of E!'s customers are Christian (or at least a majority), and Griffin's saying something that's likely to offend them, what are you going to do as a business person? Allow her rant on the free speech principle and risk an FCC fine and lose customers, or censor it? I don't think E! wanted to risk losing viewership to make Griffin happy.

E!'s market niche is scandal and debauchery (E! True Hollywood Story, Wild on...!, etc, etc). I don't think the example applies.

 

If we were dealing with a more mainstream entertainment channel, then your point would absolutely be valid, but even that would not magically make this not be religious censorship.

 

Sources on change in language/content on TV? Come on. Watch any show from the 70's and compare with shows from today.

Your specific argument was that the rules and their enforcement have become "far more" lax. Please provide evidence that supports this specific argument.

 

I would like to offer a counter hypothesis that the rules haven't changed one iota, however television producers have become more risque. I'm not very emotionally invested in this hypothesis and I'm not going to put up much of a defense for it. My point is only to show that your "observations" might not be supportive of the conclusion that you've jumped to.

 

Compare the amount of times 'ass', 'hell', and assorted other expletives are used. Compare how often people jump in bed and how much skin is showing--it was huge news when a butt showed on NYPD Blue in the 90's or when the famous towel got dropped for the football player on an ad a couple years ago--that _never_ would have made it past the censors in the 70's.

How often was it tried? You seem to be speaking rather definitively about this, so imagine you have clear examples to support this.

 

Compare how much graphic violence there is. I'm sure you've seen some shows from perhaps the early 80's if not 70's, and you and I both know that the content and language has changed a lot since then. If you really want a source, Nick at Nite is a good start for you to see the difference between then and now.

Oh, but Jae, I'm not arguing that there is a difference between then and now (regarding television). Your argument was that standards are more lax, so please don't try to put the burden of proof for your argument on me.

 

You believe the infamous 'wardrobe' malfunction was an accident? Especially after Timberlake later admitted it was planned? Jackson did it to create controversy to get more media coverage to sell more records.

I don't have much of an opinion on the matter one way or another. I simply asked you to provide support for your argument. If the case is as air tight as you claim, you should have no problem doing so.

 

My understanding is that Timberlake (and Jackson) both admitted that Timberlake was supposed to tear away part of Jackson's bodice as part of the act. However the baring of her breast was not intended (hence the "malfunction" part of "wardrobe malfunction"). So if you have evidence that refutes this, I would very much like to see it so that I can have the facts straight.

 

Yes, I was thinking TV instead of movies, since we were talking about a show that was going to air on TV. I agree movies haven't changed that much in the last 30 years, particularly war movies. Rambo is as violent as ever.

Your statement was "There's far more violence and far more use of foul language than there ever was 30 years ago.". Now that I know that you were referring to television specifically, we can move on.

 

There wouldn't have been a firestorm 30 years ago about whether Griffith's remarks were appropriate or not. They would have been censored, end of story, and it wouldn't even be a news item.

Ah, so the problem is there isn't enough censorship?

 

I'll bite on the red herring.

Red herring? You mentioned gov't. I mentioned gov't. How is that a red herring?

 

The FCC's an appointed post.

And? All cabinet positions are appointed as are most judicial postions. Are they not part of the government?

 

They could decide to do nothing about the PTC's complaints

A government office could ignore complaints lodged by citizens that were submitted to them via their own complaint system? Please explain.

 

(and it looks like they ignore the group more often than not)

Because they only fine the station one time, as opposed to one time for every complaint lodged? Please support your claim with some evidence.

 

since the PTC doesn't have the same political clout as other organizations.

What does that mean? What other organizations? "Clout" in what regard? As in their supreme court favorites aren't appointed?

 

In the old days, you wouldn't have had to worry about whether you'd be surprised by the content or not--there would be no surprises--no towels dropping, no flashing breasts in the middle of the Superbowl half-time show, etc.

Maybe I don't worry as much about it because no one in my household watches television and even if I did allow it, it would probably be off at a reasonable time...oh and I'd probably limit it to family shows. But that's just me. I suppose it's easier to hold someone else accountable for content than to objectively examine one's own decisions/values.

 

At least with movies you know what you're getting into--you can look at the ratings, read reviews, etc to make sure it's appropriate before you go.

Very true.

 

With new TV episodes, no one's seen them before, and we have no way to know ahead of time if the content is going to be objectionable or not other than the incomplete ratings system.

Hmmm...I think I need more convincing. I suspect that if pressed we'd end up on some sort of tangient where you would be arguing that violence is ok but sex isn't (since most of your objections seem to be focused on sexual content, and in some cases, on violent programs).

 

I certainly never expected someone's boob to flash at a half-time show and before anyone has a cow about that, viewing breasts and other body parts is fine if it's in an appropriate context (health class, anatomy class, art class, etc.).

How very North American of us.

 

As for giving it to me from the horse's mouth, what you quoted was an incomplete version of her comments, and I wasn't addressing the Catholic remarks in any case. I'm the one who sent you the links since the language is outside the bounds of LF rules, after all.

No, what I quoted was this:

Responding to complaints from the Catholic League, the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences has decided to censor the vulgar remarks that comedian Kathy Griffin made when receiving her Creative Arts Emmy for her show, “My Life on the D-List.”

which directly addresses this statement made by you:

Some writers intentionally slanted the story to make it sound like she was being censored for religious reasons when in fact she was being censored for the foul language and the 'suck it' reference. That, frankly, is disingenuous and irresponsible journalism.

So, some writers are intentionally slanting the story to sound like she's being censored for religious reasons because that's the reason that appears to have been offered by the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences. If the catholic league's website is posting false information, I think we should bring that to their attention right away.

 

Thanks.

[Jae Onasi]

Oh. Research. Right.

More like "I have a Real Life Outside of Kavar's Corner and want to do fun things on this forum as well as deal with the serious stuff and mod tasks". I spent this week writing a story and directing a play with the youth at church, among other things, if you must know, and that happened to have captured my interest at that time, more than discussing the minutiae of censorship.

 

This is my hobby, Achilles, not my job. I already spend a lot of time on this forum reading every post that everyone here writes. I don't get annoyed at you if you take a long time to reply--I know you have a lot of RL responsibilities and interests that can prevent you from posting for long periods of time, and that's OK.

 

Yes, it is indeed courteous when someone responds to one of our posts in a timely manner. However, that doesn't mean we're entitled to any kind of response from anyone, immediate, delayed or otherwise.

[Achilles]

More like "I have a Real Life Outside of Kavar's Corner and want to do fun things on this forum as well as deal with the serious stuff and mod tasks". I spent this week writing a story and directing a play with the youth at church, among other things, if you must know, and that happened to have captured my interest at that time, more than discussing the minutiae of censorship.

...or not research. That's fine too. I was guessing.

 

This is my hobby, Achilles, not my job. I already spend a lot of time on this forum reading every post that everyone here writes. I don't get annoyed at you if you take a long time to reply--I know you have a lot of RL responsibilities and interests that can prevent you from posting for long periods of time, and that's OK.

I can't recall a single time I haven't shown you the respect of a response, but alas I'm sure it has happened despite my best intentions.

 

Yes, it is indeed courteous when someone responds to one of our posts in a timely manner. However, that doesn't mean we're entitled to any kind of response from anyone, immediate, delayed or otherwise.

Indeed, as you have shown in so many other threads. Point well made and noted.

 

PS: Whenever you're ready to take this to PM, just let me know. Take care.

[Achilles]

@topic:

 

I was trying to find this resource earlier, but I ran out of time before an appointment and I didn't want to let my response sit until I could find a source for my ancillary argument.

 

This is another example of how the government no longer needs to actively interfere in order to propagate an environment of censorship.

 

Mod note: I posted this separately because I imagine that 53 and 54 will be pruned at some point. Feel free to merge if I assumed incorrectly. Thanks in advance.

[Darth InSidious]

So we can all agree that you're generalizing. Good.

 

Some of us "yanks" know this more commonly as "I know you are, but what am I?". Well done.

Sigh.

Just figured that out, did you?

 

[Jae Onasi]

I can't recall a single time I haven't shown you the respect of a response, but alas I'm sure it has happened despite my best intentions.

I hereby give you the freedom to show me the disrespect of not responding.

[SilentScope001]

I didn't know atheists do that? I always thought it to be more like a possible explanation of what's going on, not more, not less ...

 

Even so, we do accept it, and becuase of that, shouldn't we honor it or thank it for making us? Otherwise, by stating, "I don't really care if evolution made me or not"...well, that is a lie, because we do care if evolution made us or not. If it wasn't for natural selection, we wouldn't be alive. It's something to think about. It is this "something" that made us, and I do think people would agree to call it an "Intelligent Designer" and we can all agree to give thanks and praises to it. Even if it can't hear our praises or thanks...

 

Because without the natural processes that made us, we would not be here.

[Totenkopf]

I hereby give you the freedom to show me the disrespect of not responding.

 

 

[Achilles]

I hereby give you the freedom to show me the disrespect of not responding.

Seems you misunderstood. Your permission isn't necessary.

[Jae Onasi]

Seems you misunderstood. Your permission isn't necessary.

 

I didn't want you to feel compelled to hold back on my account.

[Prime]

Back on topic guys. Take you personal conversations to the PMs.

[Achilles]

I guess we'll see how the program censors Griffith's remarks and go from there.

Did anyone catch the show last night? Any updates?

[Rogue Warrior]

That is nothing, it seems you can say ****, ****, ****, ect but you cannot say bloody because it is offensive.

[mimartin]

Did anyone catch the show last night? Any updates?

 

I really think the Emmy’s censored themselves by going up against the NFL with Ryan Seacrest as host. I tried to watch it, but could not get past the fact that football was on.

 

Saw Sally Field’s acceptance speech and I agree with much of her sentiment, but award show really need to start mailing her the award. She is a ramble waiting to happen. She also was censored (for language).

 

Now I wished I had watched more because they had a 30th anniversary tribute to “Roots.”

Associated Press Emmy's Ratings

[Totenkopf]

Well.....at least she didn't end it with a sappy "you love me, you really, really love me line, though she was just about as banal. Yeah, right, mother's would never wage war.....just severe negotiations every 28 days (Robin Williams, I think).