Deep Floyd Mars

The Reid wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > Following up to Deep Floyd Mars
    > >Censorship is essential in a civilised society. Remove that, and you
expose
    > >people to highly inappropriate material (snuff, glorified criminal
    > >activities, racist incitement). Are you sure that is what you meant?
    > Glorified criminal activities are to be found all over cinema/rap
    > music and elsewhere.

This one has a bit of a grey area. They judge it based on whether the
consequences are illustrated, and whether it is excessive in the context.
E.g. the rape scene in Clockwork Orange, heroin use in Pulp Fiction. You
can't show a heroic psycho going postal shooting innocent people all over
the place in a massive bloodbath for no reason, and then raping the maiden
who falls in love with him, and retiring rich in a huge mansion. The killing
cannot be gratuitous, cruel or excessive.

Of course the key is for it to always err on the side of freedom of speech.

    > If you must have censorship, just make illegal what is illegal in
    > "real life".

This sounds like a good basis, but doesn't quite work in practice. How about
adults being made up as children for porn for example? This is ****ed up
because it encourages kiddy fiddlers.

Also, suicide rates and details can't be reported, coz it increases suicide
rates!

    > Consensual sex and nudity in.
    > Murders out.
    > Racial incitement out.

Hell yeah!!!

    > That should put Hollywood, with its constant barrage of desensitising
    > violence, out of business, and a good thing too.
    > More sex, less voilence I say.

Hell yeah!!!

    > Just think, you might get a censor like me!

No problem with that here!
---
DFM

Deep Floyd Mars

Mxsmanic wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > "Deep Floyd Mars" a écrit dans le
    > message de news: [email protected]...
    > > Censorship should be eliminated????
    > Yes.
    > > Censorship is essential in a civilised society.
    > In which cases?
    > > Remove that, and you expose people to highly
    > > inappropriate material (snuff, glorified criminal
    > > activities, racist incitement).
    > There's no such thing as snuff films, glorified criminal activities do not
    > cause criminal behavior, and racist incitement has no effect on anyone who
    > isn't already a racist.
    > > Are you sure that is what you meant?
    > Yes.

You really do have some funny ideas Mixamatic.
---
DFM

Mxsmanic

"Deep Floyd Mars" a écrit dans le
message de news: [email protected]...

    > This sounds like a good basis, but doesn't quite
    > work in practice. How about adults being made up
    > as children for porn for example? This is ****ed up
    > because it encourages kiddy fiddlers.

The U.S. Supreme Court, at least, has decided that it is an expression of
free speech. Since no actual children are harmed in the making of "virtual"
child pornography, restricting it is a violation of First Amendment
guarantees.

    > Also, suicide rates and details can't be reported,
    > coz it increases suicide rates!

I'm not aware of any evidence to support this.

Mxsmanic

"Deep Floyd Mars" a écrit dans le
message de news: [email protected]...

    > You really do have some funny ideas Mixamatic.

Be glad that someone has these "funny ideas"; otherwise you might never have
had the opportunity to make that observation here.

The Reid

Following up to Mxsmanic

    >> Remove that, and you expose people to highly
    >> inappropriate material (snuff, glorified criminal
    >> activities, racist incitement).
    >There's no such thing as snuff films, glorified criminal activities do not
    >cause criminal behavior, and racist incitement has no effect on anyone who
    >isn't already a racist.

more to the point, you dont prosecute someone over a snuff film
because the film breaks some censorship rule, you should be going for
murder and accessory to murder, racist incitement is racist incitement
in a film or not in a film.
Glorifying crims? Well, your going to need my new code of censorship
there to reform Hollywood etc. as they do it all the time.

As for these things having no effect on people, tell that to the
people who spend billions on Film/TV advertising and product
placement, they could save themselves a lot of money if they knew it
didnt work!
--
Mike Reid
"Art is the lie that reveals the truth" P.Picasso
London & the British hills "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk"
Spain, food and walking "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" (see web for email)

The Reid

Following up to Deep Floyd Mars

    >This one has a bit of a grey area. They judge it based on whether the
    >consequences are illustrated, and whether it is excessive in the context.
    >E.g. the rape scene in Clockwork Orange, heroin use in Pulp Fiction. You
    >can't show a heroic psycho going postal shooting innocent people all over
    >the place in a massive bloodbath for no reason, and then raping the maiden
    >who falls in love with him, and retiring rich in a huge mansion. The killing
    >cannot be gratuitous, cruel or excessive.

IMO its such a grey area they have it completely screwed up. At the
moment the main criterion seems to be "how graphic is it?"
Now I would say showing a grisly murder *and its consequences* may be
less harmful than the sort of stuff kids watch every day. Every other
programme showing people being shot, often with no consequences. How
many times have you seen someone hit over the head with a blunt object
and just get up and walk away after a while? They dont show the
permenent brain damage, the man in a wheelchair for life. Grieving
relatives etc etc.
Back on the graphic gratuitous excessive violence, it seems to me it
gets worse year on year, our sensibilities are being conditioned to
it, so we gradually tolerate more and more.

    > Of course the key is for it to always err on the side of freedom of speech.

yes

    >> If you must have censorship, just make illegal what is illegal in
    >> "real life".
    >This sounds like a good basis, but doesn't quite work in practice. How about
    >adults being made up as children for porn for example? This is ****ed up
    >because it encourages kiddy fiddlers.

That would be actors portraying an illegal act so it would not be
allowed. Car chases might be a problem, not too exciting at the speed
limit, but perhaps thats the way it should be? :-)

    >Also, suicide rates and details can't be reported, coz it increases suicide
    >rates!

No, this only applies to fiction, news reporting has to go on, but you
cant dramatise it into entertainment. No doubt lots of nuts would want
to watch the war reports? Film footage of real crime might be a
difficulty, dont know how common they are? But as they dont look
glamourous like the Hollywood version, thats probably OK.

I would predict lots of films about (in addition to sex) exploration,
mountaineering, motor racing and I suppose sadly war, if "legal". A
legal war? Probably not the current one, but lets not go there!
--
Mike Reid
"Art is the lie that reveals the truth" P.Picasso
London & the British hills "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk"
Spain, food and walking "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" (see web for email)

Mxsmanic

"The Reid" a écrit dans le message de
news: [email protected]...

    > more to the point, you dont prosecute someone
    > over a snuff film because the film breaks some
    > censorship rule, you should be going for
    > murder and accessory to murder ...

Exactly.

    > ... racist incitement is racist incitement
    > in a film or not in a film.

Yes.

    > As for these things having no effect on people,
    > tell that to the people who spend billions on Film/TV
    > advertising and product placement, they could save
    > themselves a lot of money if they knew it
    > didnt work!

A lot of advertising doesn't work, but since it is so hard to measure the
effects of advertising, advertisers often stick to certain methods on faith
alone.

Can you remember any of the TV commercials you've seen in the past 48 hours?
Anything at all? A brand name, even? I can't. I don't even remember
commercials five seconds after they've been shown. And I think I'm fairly
typical.

The Reid

Following up to Mxsmanic

    >> This sounds like a good basis, but doesn't quite
    >> work in practice. How about adults being made up
    >> as children for porn for example? This is ****ed up
    >> because it encourages kiddy fiddlers.
    >The U.S. Supreme Court, at least, has decided that it is an expression of
    >free speech. Since no actual children are harmed in the making of "virtual"
    >child pornography, restricting it is a violation of First Amendment
    >guarantees.

right, therebye showing my system to be superior!
--
Mike Reid
"Art is the lie that reveals the truth" P.Picasso
London & the British hills "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk"
Spain, food and walking "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" (see web for email)

Deep Floyd Mars

The Reid wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > Following up to Deep Floyd Mars
    > >This one has a bit of a grey area. They judge it based on whether the
    > >consequences are illustrated, and whether it is excessive in the context.
    > >E.g. the rape scene in Clockwork Orange, heroin use in Pulp Fiction. You
    > >can't show a heroic psycho going postal shooting innocent people all over
    > >the place in a massive bloodbath for no reason, and then raping the
maiden
    > >who falls in love with him, and retiring rich in a huge mansion. The
killing
    > >cannot be gratuitous, cruel or excessive.
    > IMO its such a grey area they have it completely screwed up. At the
    > moment the main criterion seems to be "how graphic is it?"
    > Now I would say showing a grisly murder *and its consequences* may be
    > less harmful than the sort of stuff kids watch every day. Every other
    > programme showing people being shot, often with no consequences. How
    > many times have you seen someone hit over the head with a blunt object
    > and just get up and walk away after a while? They dont show the
    > permenent brain damage, the man in a wheelchair for life. Grieving
    > relatives etc etc.

Some would argue that because the violence is displayed in a way that is
clearly unrealistic, it has much less impact. Personally I find realistic
violence much more impactful that cartoon-style violence.

    > Back on the graphic gratuitous excessive violence, it seems to me it
    > gets worse year on year, our sensibilities are being conditioned to
    > it, so we gradually tolerate more and more.

I had to think about this for a while.

In western society we place enormous gaps between our day to day lives, and
death and violence. When it is portrayed on tv it is dramatised and
sterilised. The reality of violence is horrendous, but personally I love
watching violent movies. To further complicate this view, I have been
unfortunate enough to have seen extreme violence with my own eyes, and never
for a second reconciled that with the fiction I have seen on a screen or
press.

    > > Of course the key is for it to always err on the side of freedom of
speech.
    > yes
    > >> If you must have censorship, just make illegal what is illegal in
    > >> "real life".
    > >
    > >This sounds like a good basis, but doesn't quite work in practice. How
about
    > >adults being made up as children for porn for example? This is ****ed up
    > >because it encourages kiddy fiddlers.
    > That would be actors portraying an illegal act so it would not be
    > allowed.

That could be argued forever in court. The actors dressed up as minors could
just be trying to portray actors dressed up as minors, or they could
actually be minors. Or they could be minors disguised. Like I said, it's a
grey area, and a clear line has to be drawn.

    > >Also, suicide rates and details can't be reported, coz it increases
suicide
    > >rates!
    > No, this only applies to fiction, news reporting has to go on, but you
    > cant dramatise it into entertainment. No doubt lots of nuts would want
    > to watch the war reports? Film footage of real crime might be a
    > difficulty, dont know how common they are? But as they dont look
    > glamourous like the Hollywood version, thats probably OK.
    > I would predict lots of films about (in addition to sex) exploration,
    > mountaineering, motor racing and I suppose sadly war, if "legal". A
    > legal war? Probably not the current one, but lets not go there!

No, not again! We have drifted amazingly thus far!
---
DFM

Deep Floyd Mars

Mxsmanic wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > "Deep Floyd Mars" a écrit dans le
    > message de news: [email protected]...
    > > You really do have some funny ideas Mixamatic.
    > Be glad that someone has these "funny ideas"; otherwise you might never
have
    > had the opportunity to make that observation here.

Re-read my post, your replies, and take note of the enormous leaps you are
taking, especially noting that I never suggested that glorified portrayal of
criminal activities causes criminal behavior or any of the other stuff you
said.

My point was that civilised society exists partly due to censorship (a
necessary evil), and it is our prerogative (duty?) to ensure this is done is
a responsible manner. If you have a suggestion for a workable way to remove
censorship completely, then please feel free to voice it. I am always open
to new ideas!
---
DFM

The Reid

Following up to Mxsmanic

    >Can you remember any of the TV commercials you've seen in the past 48 hours?
    >Anything at all? A brand name, even? I can't. I don't even remember
    >commercials five seconds after they've been shown. And I think I'm fairly
    >typical.

I havnt seen TV in a week. When I do watch its almost always on video
with the commercials fast forwarded. So i cant comment directly.
I suspect the impact is almost subliminal.
How often have you heard someone say when apraising product x "never
heard of them" as a criticism?
--
Mike Reid
"Art is the lie that reveals the truth" P.Picasso
London & the British hills "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk"
Spain, food and walking "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" (see web for email)

The Reid

Following up to Deep Floyd Mars

    > The reality of violence is horrendous, but personally I love
    >watching violent movies.

You are not at all unusual in that but I find it rather worrying. For
instance there is a very violent scene in "Saving Private Ryan" which
I watched in spanish while kiling time (another story). I sometimes
remember that scene in a strange non repulsed way I dont really
understand, and am not happy with. Presumably it goes back to our
violent primitive past.
--
Mike Reid
"Art is the lie that reveals the truth" P.Picasso
London & the British hills "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk"
Spain, food and walking "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" (see web for email)

David Horne

The Reid wrote:

    > You are not at all unusual in that but I find it rather worrying. For
    > instance there is a very violent scene in "Saving Private Ryan" which
    > I watched in spanish while kiling time (another story). I sometimes
    > remember that scene in a strange non repulsed way I dont really
    > understand, and am not happy with. Presumably it goes back to our
    > violent primitive past.

There's a scene I can't get out of my head, but unhappily, I think it's
real. It's from a UK channel 4 programme on about a week ago, about
Algerian terrorists. These particular ones have been ejected from France
after serving time on terrorist convictions and many of them are now
living in the UK, claiming benefits, or seeking asylum here, now they've
been kicked out of France. Lovely stuff. Anyway, this concerns a
propaganda video which has been circulated by some of them in London
mosques which shows an attack on the Algerian army by one of the
Algerian terrorist organisations. One of the dead soldiers (and they're
all young on both sides) is half hanging out of the back of a truck, and
his brain and the rest of the inside of his head is seen clearly hanging
out from a deep wound. There's another body on ground, and the
paramilitaries are dancing around the body, blood on their faces and
upper body, quite jubilant.

This happens all over the world, all the time, no doubt, but I was a bit
unprepared for seeing it on the programme when I did. It's certainly
stuck in my mind, however repulsive.

David

--
David Horne- www.davidhorne.co.uk
davidhorne (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk

Mxsmanic

"Deep Floyd Mars" a écrit dans le
message de news: [email protected]...

    > If you have a suggestion for a workable way to remove
    > censorship completely, then please feel free to voice
    > it.

What prevents it?

Deep Floyd Mars

The Reid wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > Following up to Deep Floyd Mars
    > > The reality of violence is horrendous, but personally I love
    > >watching violent movies.
    > You are not at all unusual in that but I find it rather worrying.

It is definitely a darker side of the human psychic, and that in itself can
be worrying. But I would find MUCH more worrying to think that someone else
was deciding whether or not they felt it was suitable for me to watch it.

It has been suggested that violent media can assists in controlling these
primal urges by giving us a legitimate and controlled way of satisfying our
curiousities, much in the same way that teaching drinking in moderation can
control teenage binge drinking. It's impossible to be definitive about any
of it, so a reasonable path has to be chosen.

The most important freedom of speech is, of course, politcal, because that
has very real, and profound implications, but that's another subject...

*whew* I need a beer...
---
DFM