fans of the White House
Just fans of the White House? I loathe everything that the occupants of this Whitehouse stands for, but this production is idiotic.
And the censorship and double standard on behalf of the caudillo continues.
And is the Government banning the production? No? Not censorship then.
We sure were happy when sponsors left Bill O’Reilly, Glen Beck, and others, and nobody here called it censorship.
Or am I completely misreading your comment?
oh Jack
That’s one hell of a statement. It’s hysterically funny and stunningly terrifying at the same time.
Doesn’t have to be government. The Catholic and Mormon churches censor stuff all the time. Not first Amendment related. In the 40’s the US film industry had a board of decency that censored stuff. See Motion Picture Association of America…
I’ve a question for you. When EBay refused to sell Nazi material, is that censorship? When a fiction website refuses to accept a piece of fiction, is that censorship? When TPM bans trolls, is that censorship? When a newspaper refuses to run an editorial is that censorship?
And just what are the Catholic and Mormon churches censoring from the public? If a Catholic or a Mormon decides to follow the edicts banning the viewing of something, that’s their choice. It’s not censorship though–it’s religion…which is actually a lot worse, but that’s a topic for another time.
I agree that at one time the motion picture industry bowed to outside pressure and self censored themselves. We might want to limit this discussion to modern times though.
Ralph is right that private entities can censor content. Probably network censors are the most-commonly encountered, with all their <bleep>-ing of bad words.
But dropping sponsors isn’t the same as censorship. Nobody is preventing this director from putting on the play, they’re just deciding that it’s too “edgy” for them to handle. I can’t stand BofA for various reasons, so just add this to the pile I guess.
Look. Not to extend an argument, I’m not talking about Nazi daggers and Luger pistols or ceremonial swords on ebay. That’s something you brought up. And yes, TPM banning trolls is a form of censorship. But the trolls are hardly purveyors of significant works of art. I don’t like censorship of art, science and literature. Whether it’s Mein Kampf, Mapplethorpe photographs, The Origin of Species, GLOBAL CLMATE CHANGE DATA, Lolita, etc. In the case of the Julius Caesar production, it’s quite the double standard that nobody seems to have raised much of a fuss when other Presidents were inserted into the Julius Caesar role. Why now? And church censorship often finds it’s way into the public sphere viz. Texas schoolbook board.
The American Library Association, specifically the Office of Intellectual Freedom, has maintained a list of books, since 1990, that have been banned or censored in the United States. This is an incomplete list of books, both fiction and non-fiction, that have been challenged or censored in the United States.
Candide[51]
The Canterbury Tales[51]
Catch-22[52]
The Decameron[51]
Fanny Hill[53]
The Federal Mafia[54]
The Grapes of Wrath[55]
Homo Sapiens, withdrawn from sale by the publisher after being labeled obscene.[56]
Lady Chatterley's Lover[57]
The Meritorious Price of Our Redemption[58]
Moll Flanders[59]
My Life and Loves[60]
Naked Lunch[61]
Operation Dark Heart[62]
Tropic of Cancer[63]
Ulysses[64]
Uncle Tom's Cabin[65]
United States – Vietnam Relations: 1945–1967[66]
Women in Love[67]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_censorship_in_the_United_StatesHeh. I certainly can agree to that.
I agree with you–censoring art from the public domain is wrong. Freedom of speech does not give one the right to demand that someone publish or support their work though. That’s what I was trying to get at–perhaps somewhat clumsily though.
…and if we were arguing, we really have to work on our argument skills.