[abc]Chow's 'Pirates' Scenes Cut in China

No one is telling anyone what to do. We're just amazed that this would get banned and no one can give a reason or explanation that makes any sense.

And the Chinese gov't can do whatever it wants.

 

I guess the 'How long is a Chinaman' racist joke makes a lot of sense to you, NewYorker? Is it still your favorite joke or you have found other racist jokes which are more funny to you? And you still haven't answer my question: Do you (as a racist) hate yourself (as a minority)?

 

Our government takes a weaker paternal angle when it uses the FCC to fine a broadcaster for dirty words or images. The Chinese government is taking a much stronger but similar approach. They could even justify it by claiming that young children shouldn't be an audience to these bad images just like a curse word or an exposed nipple.

Your reply would make more sense if your past topics about PC weren't so contradictory. I guess you'd expect people in "todays world" to ridicule bigots like as if the bigot would care or not turn violent from the response, but if it turns into an organized protest, that's wrong because any form of censorship is wrong. Or you'd also expect women to accept harassment to toughen themselves up and deal with it and the fresh new ideas they're exposed to daily. Please explain to me why you think all censorship is wrong.

 

http://www.cnbc.com/id/19046512

BTW, for the record the FCC operates under its mandate to protect children on over-the-air broadcasts during prime time, not in theaters. Personally, I find this distinction to be a very concrete differentiation in my comparative reckoning of the two examples. I have no problem with the government treating children like children. Treating adults like children in my estimation seems to be a very different proposition.

And before anybody flips, I just want to be on the record as saying that I appreciate that the censors are most likely operating here with good motives, I just disagree with them in terms of how they apply those motives.

 

I think Borat was banned in China too!

sucks cause it was hilarious

 

My point to NYer is that the Chinese government could justify the same thing and say its for the children. Some theatres used to buy edited movies that were more decent until that was recently made illegal by federal court, and it only became an issue when directors and filmmakers sued. It wasn't the people who sued to remove the censored movies.

I dunno. The grandstanding bugged me this time.

 

The Chinese gov't didn't ban the film because of impact on children, that wasn't the gov't statement.

Why is censorship bad? Because it's open to so much abuse.

I don't have a problem with protesting someone. I have a problem with someone's voice being shut off so no one can hear that voice.

 

Their statement applies to everyone. Even if they expressed it was done only for the children, everyone would be under the ban.

Sure, but can you argue that principle to apply only from within our cultural borders or is it applicable to other areas like the ME?

If the protesters are strong and forceful enough, then couldn't it be that the person's voice is proportionately offensive in that group's opinion?

 

This isn't about material not suitable to children, it was about "vilifying and defacing the Chinese." Now, clearly the producers, director, and the actor who played the part are entirely shocked by that statement. Vilifying the Chinese? Dafacing them? How on earth does one get to that? And how do you think that's about children? Please do tell.

I think censorship is dangerous anywhere. It's not about culture, it's about tyranny and totalitarianism. Look, I can criticize the Chinese gov't for censoring a Chinese pirate, I'm not condemning China, just their gov't for doing something silly that accomplishes nothing but probably creates more demand to see the movie actually. The Chinese gov't has created a controversy out of nothing.

But censoring people isn't about protection, is about control. The notion that controversial ideas are going to contaminate people's minds is really just wacky to me.

If you find something offensive, then protest it. Educate people on why it's offensive. No one here has explained why they found it offensive, no one can figure it out. Instead of jsut sweeping it under the rug - address it out in the open.

Instead of censoring it, the Chinese gov't, if it really felt it was offensive, should just show people why it's offensive, they should show it to their people and let them become outraged at this "slight".

What purpose is served by censorship? Once you begin to censor one thing, anything and everything that someone "might" find objectionable becomes fair game. People are more worried abotu walking on eggshells. No one gets offended, but is that a good thing? Do you want to live somewhere where ntohing controversial gets done? Where even pushing the line becomes potentially objectionable and therefore they person is fired or imprisoned?

I just value a free exchange of ideas. I think in the modern age, people will speak out against those who say things they object to. There's no need for the gag. Just because someone doesn't like what someone has to say, doesn't mean they have the right to prevent others from hearing.

It's like me saying I think what you write is offensive, now I will prevent anyone from reading your posts. Do you see how easily it would be to abuse such power for political control?

 

This site has banned people for what they have said before. This site has kicked people out for what they have said before. This site would replace some of the terms that you type with ******. So are you taking an indirect jab at this this wonderful site, NewYorker? Invisible Fan has given you a very good lecture on why some forms of censorship is necessary under some circumstances. Looks like it couldn't get through your thick skull. How sad.

 

Seems most are just regional. I guess states and cities still hold that right but due to the 1st amendment the fed .gov does not

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banned_movies#United_States

 

China or someone on their censorship board felt that Chow's representation stirred up old stereotypes and caricatures of Chinese pirates. There are people in China who are still sore from that era of colonization. So it can be a cultural issue.

Using your past arguments in previous threads, who are you to judge?

And I don't remember you giving such a proportionate response to censorship when Iran banned the movie 300...

It's about children when you're making blanket statements about all censorship being wrong.

Our Supreme Court allows certain provisions for censorship and if you apply your slippery slope to all governments, then the US can justify broad forms of censorship with children in mind.

Are you addressing Americans or the Chinese? Maybe if the Chinese cared enough, they'd start protesting for freer speech. If you're addressing us, then maybe we should fight the FCC and their arbitrary definitions of decency.

I'm glad you acknowledge the social forms of censorship as well, but can you acknowledge that some words have been used to oppress and it's for that same reason that it is controversial?

Speaking on the social end, a man like Imus gets fired because his employer doesn't want to lose money from the protester's response. It is your proposed situation being played out. Imus wasn't gagged, rather he was removed from his position. It's not like an angry mob ripped his throat out or removed his blog or broadcasting abilities.

Those groups gained political power because Imus's words and reach were proportionately offensive. Some of his apologists justified it by saying that Imus was offensive all the time, but it was his offensiveness that made his multi-million dollar paycheck over the years. He profited in money and stature for his style, and he definitely wasn't a victim.

 

I didn't know that Iran banned the movie....I wasn't posting in D&D for a bit during the spring - but I would have made a similar case.

I'm not judging, I'm just arguing that each individual should be allowed to judge for themselves...and no person should be able to deny another person information just because they think it's not to their liking. That's too much power for a person to have over other people.

What representation of a Chinese pirate would have been acceptable to the Chinese gov't? I'd like to know a way they would have not found it to live up to a stereotype - I didn't even know there was a caricature of chinese pirates!

I think parents should be able to regulate what children get exposed to. In this day and age of the V-chip and other controls, cable shouldn't require censoring. Now it may still be needed on broadcast TV, but that's not censoring since the programers have other channels to distribute the content. Movies can be given an R rating. Material can be labeled pornographic. Books can be kept out of the children's section. There's a system in place to have it both ways.

I'm addressing both. I'm just saying if I was the Chinese gov't, I'd let it be shown. If Chinese people were offended, then they won't watch it anyway.

[/quote]

I have argued that Neo Nazi's not be allowed to march through Black neighborhoods for that very reason. Because it's not about speech, it's about psychological violence in that case. But that's a very clear case. The people in those neighborhoods don't have a choice to avoid seeing that...where as people do have a choice to watch or listen to Imus. If you find him offensive, don't listen to him. Why deny the millions who want to listen from hearing what they want. It makes no sense. If anything, it just makes people think that minorities are oversensitive.

And Imus was gagged. It wasn't his employer, it was people putting pressure on his employer - a lot of pressure. They were allowed to essentially shut down a person's voice. But it's not about Imus's success or whatever.

Now, you may wonder, why do I take this stance. The reason is because of what happened to Bill Mahr. The guy made a great point, but because it was controversial, a few nut cases went after him and got ABC to kick him off the air. This was by the way even though many right-wingers DEFENDED Bill Mahr.

That really saddened me and made me realize how dangerous PC is. It's not about Imus. I could care less for the guy. I don't like him to be honest. But I am bothered that his voice was shut. I'm bothered if anyone's voice is shut. Even Al Sharpton or Dick Cheney or anyone. Whether its David Duke or Louis Farakhan. I can't stand any of them. And their words are really irritating, and in many instances, I'm offended.

But I'd rather hear it an be offended then have all offensive speech eliminated.