Reaction: Hatred Pulled from Steam and (how it #39;s not) Censorship
My first video, recorded on impulse, and complete with terrible lighting in my living room. Talking about what #39;s up with Hatred and it being pulled from Steam, and how that #39;s not censorship....
By: TheCommunistGamer
See the original post:
Reaction: Hatred Pulled from Steam and (how it's not) Censorship - Video
Sony Pictures has chosen to pull its planned debut of the movie The Interview in the face of threats of a terrorist attack at theaters showing the movie and after the North Korean regime apparently hacked into Sonys internal computers, unearthing unseemly emails. The movie depicted a plot to assassinate the leader of North Korea.
I do not pretend to know anything about how cyber warfare works, or how it can be prevented. But, the hysteria this episode has unleashed with impassioned cries for artistic freedom and dark fears of moviegoers shot in the dark seems devoid of any serious perspective. I will grant that censorship has rarely been deployed in such an extravagant fashion, but the concern is not new and the stakes are less stark than many imagine.
It takes a lot to offend my sensibilities, so I did not flinch when the ads for The Interview began airing and the key elements of the plot were divulged. I do not fantasize about the assassination of anybody, but fantasies come in many flavors. And, it struck me as refreshing that someone, anyone, recognized that humor had something to tell us about the North Korean regime. No one should be indifferent to the sufferings of the North Korean people, but there is something, well, laughable about talking heads and experts trying to discern what the North Korean regime will do next when there is more than a little craziness at work in Pyongyang, and it is not easy to know what crazy people will do next. Still, you do not need to be a brain surgeon to have anticipated that they would be upset by a movie in which their leader is killed.
Censorship is born of a natural, even humane source, the desire to protect our own from influences that will harm them. This moral concern often, and quickly, becomes quite coarse. And, it always, with equal speed, comes into conflict with another moral concern, the desire of others not to be circumscribed in their freedom of expression. These two moralities collide and the debate over censorship is ignited.
Catholics of a certain generation will be familiar with these issues if they are old enough to remember the Legion of Decency, founded in 1934, to render moral judgment on movies. Catholics across the country were encouraged to sign the Legions pledge not to go to movies the Legion condemned. The pledge was signed in duplicate, with the parishioner keeping one copy and the pastor the other. Hollywood, trying to pushback against government censorship, welcomed the involvement of the Catholic Church. Church leaders testified before Congress in opposition to government proposals for censorship, fearing that Protestant concerns would always trump Catholic ones in any governmental system of review, and the movie producers submitted scripts and final versions to Joseph Breen, a Catholic layman who was chosen to head the Production Code Administration. The rules were simple: bad guys had to lose in the end, no gratuitous sex, and passion could never be used to stimulate the lower and baser elements, as the Code read.
Breen was powerful. The post-coital scene between Rhett and Scarlett in Gone with the Wind was cut if half. The 1937 film You Cant Have Everything starred Gypsy Rose Lee, but concerned that her burlesque reputation would taint the industry, Breen demanded, and Twentieth Century Fox agreed, to advertise the star by her given name, Louise Hovick. Breen rejected Howard Hughes 1943 film The Outlaw, because too much of Jane Russells bosom was displayed. Hughes appealed the decision, and brought a mathematician to the appeals board review to demonstrate that no more of Ms. Russells bosom was shown than had been on view in other, approved films. The review board approved the film, but the Legion condemned it, and Hughes withdrew it. Feeling like he wanted to challenge the Legions prudishness, the film was released three years later with an ad campaign built on the controversy: Not a scene cut! the ads read. What are the TWO reasons for Janes rise to stardom? The movie, a rather mediocre affair, was a hit, but the ad campaign violated the industrys advertising code, and the PCA withdrew it approval. 85 percent of movie theaters declined to show the flick. Hughes, after unsuccessfully trying to bribe a cleric, made further adjustments, and the film was finally approved and re-released in 1949, six years after it was finished.
We look back at the Legion of Decency and Joe Breen and can easily side with their critics: Their desire for an idealized depiction of human reality was not very realistic. But, realism is not the only criterion for cinematic genius. True, few nuns look like Ingrid Bergman. But, Thor and Superman did not return to earth a few years back either. The concerns of the Legion may have been prudish and even silly but they are no more arbitrary to the creation of art than are the on-going financial concerns of a films underwriters. Hollywood is a business, not an art school. There is something a little cloying about the protests about artistic freedom from the Hollywood set. I would note, too, that in this litigious society of ours, there are all sorts of producers who alter their products, who engage in self-censorship, on account of extrinsic concerns.
I am concerned about the apparent ease with which the North Korean regime infiltrated Sonys computer systems. If they could infiltrate, say, the traffic signal systems in New York City, they would cause real harm. The Department of Defenses computers contain the potential for grave harm if the wrong modems get hooked up to them. All sorts of trade secrets in industry and diplomatic secrets in government are best not seen by the public. We pay a large price for our open society: It exposes us to such interventions by malevolent people and regimes. But, it is that same openness that, ultimately, leads me to think The Interview will someday be playing at a theater near you. And, like Jane Russell in The Outlaw, I am sure the advertisers will make as much hay as possible out of this controversy. But, artistic freedom is not jeopardized forever by Sonys decision to pull the film anymore than it is jeopardized everyday by concerns about the bottom line. Relax everyone and hope that our cyber warriors will prove themselves as capable as the North Koreans. There are graver dangers in this episode than not seeing a movie.
Lots of people are outraged that Sony Pictures Entertainment is dropping plans to release The Interview, the Seth Rogen comedy that depicts the assassination of North Korean leader Kim Jong-un. Folks from Hollywood stars to film critics are complaining that pulling the film due to vague threats against theaters scheduled to show it is in essence allowing terrorists to triumph.
For instance, actress Mia Farrow says the bad guys won due to Sonys decision. At Vox, writer Todd VanDerWerff says Sony has committed an act of cowardice.
The move has set a bad precedent thats already affecting future movies, according to Mr. VanDerWerff entertainment company New Regency has now scrapped another North Korea-based film set to star Steve Carroll. Its de facto censorship emanating from Pyongyang, writes Mr. VanDerWerff.
Sony is not an arm of the US government, however. Its a multinational corporation legally accountable to shareholders. Given that context, did it make the correct business decision to cancel the comedy?
The answer to that might be yes.
Most theaters werent going to show the movie to begin with. The big US cinema chains had made it clear that they would not risk any violence in their buildings by screening it, however vague the threats. Going to the movies is supposed to be fun, not an act of personal courage, in their view.
The movie business is already facing stiff competition from the fast rise of streaming services and high-quality television productions. Cinema owners did not want The Interview to give patrons another reason to stay home on the couch. Since most theaters are multiplexes, they feared the controversy could drive down attendance for other movies as well.
Then theres the legal question. The chain which owned the theater in Aurora, Colo., attacked by a gunman in 2012 has defended against lawsuits by saying the incident was not foreseeable. The threats against The Interview might have rendered this defense moot.
Once the hackers threatened physical violence, the films cancellation became almost inevitable, write Brooks Barnes and Michael Cieply in The New York Times.
Plus, the film was not getting great reviews, alleged North Korean threats aside. While that might not bear on the question of censorship, it could play into an executives decision as to whether to absorb the cost of scrapping Sonys investment in the film.
More here:
'The Interview' uproar: Was ditching flick right business call for Sony? (+video)
Loot Crate Is Pro Censorship (ReviewTechUSA)
Why did you remove it rich? Why? https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC__Oy3QdB3d9_FHO_XG1PZg Not my video. Will be removed at the request of the owner.
By: Typical Minecraft Kid
The rest is here:
Loot Crate Is Pro Censorship (ReviewTechUSA) - Video
Nafeez Ahmed On Media Censorship, 9/11, And ISIS
https://twitter.com/blacktowerradio https://www.facebook.com/pages/Black-Tower-Radio/308157709207443 http://wnrt.worldnewsradio.today.
By: BlackTowerRadio
The rest is here:
Nafeez Ahmed On Media Censorship, 9/11, And ISIS - Video