Subject:
|
Re: Clearly those Canadians are concerned about censorship...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 8 Apr 2004 18:11:47 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
244 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
| |
As far as censorship goes--to that old arguement ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theatre
is wrong (unless there really is a fire ;) ) but curtailing the yelling of
‘fire!’ isn’t censorship, it’s a safety issue and falls out of the domain of
censorship and into the domain of personal fredom and responsibility--like
the right to swing my arm until it contacts your nose. Janet didn’t harm
anyone with her covered nipple, nor does Stern harm anyone with his daily
antics.
|
Where this falls down is in the area of expectations. We can use turning Stern
off in advance of his broadcast as an effective way of not listening to what we
don’t want to listen to, precisely because we have an expectation already set
about the content.
Janet’s stunt, at least in a minor way, violated the expectations of the
viewers. There was no way to apriori know that it was coming and turn the
channel in advance, as no advance warning was available
I say “in a minor way” because the viewership already should be expecting
scantily clad young males and females in the commercials, raunchy behaviour,
sexist portrayals of women and crudity in all sorts of forms. (cf. combustible
horse gases) But there was no specific expectation of partial nudity.
CBS, the NFL, and MTV should be sued by those who took offense for false
advertising, and that’s about it. The rest of the hullabaloo is ridiculous.
(personally I found Janet’s breast offensive but for rather different reasons,
which we won’t go into here... except to say that it’s a quality issue)
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
22 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
