See no evil
May 3, 2005 3:46 PM Subscribe
"Censorship does not keep us from doing evil—it just blocks us from seeing it." A (to many, probably surprising) Christian perspective on smut-removing DVD players and other forms of censorship.
As a Christian who's often at odds with "Christian Culture" it's been encouraging to see Christianity Today articulate a number of relatively thoughtful perspectives over the past few years. While they're certainly not killing any sacred cows, their writers have been addressing subjects from chastity to "offensive films" to the cultural divide between rich and poor with a level of sophistication and intellectual honesty I'm not used to seeing in the Church.
posted by verb at 3:58 PM on May 3, 2005
posted by verb at 3:58 PM on May 3, 2005
I found this ad (to the right of the article) to be funny: "A bible based discussion guide on the deeper themes of: Napoleon Dynamite". ND has deeper themes?
Thanks for posting this article BTW... it's nice to see a more moderate Christian view.
posted by shoppingforsanity at 4:18 PM on May 3, 2005
Thanks for posting this article BTW... it's nice to see a more moderate Christian view.
posted by shoppingforsanity at 4:18 PM on May 3, 2005
I also recall reading, that despite what fundie culture warriors would have you think, The Simpsons is supposedly quite popular among self-described Christians, since it's one of very few programs that discuss it with anything approaching intelligence.. Apparently there's a group of people who have Ned Flanders parties or something similar.
posted by jonmc at 4:25 PM on May 3, 2005
posted by jonmc at 4:25 PM on May 3, 2005
"Specifically, it signifies a preoccupation with eliminating sex, violence, and bad language, as if those were somehow "special" offenses......Censorship does not keep us from doing evil—it just blocks us from seeing it."
Ok we are not dealing with children at all here or even Christian children. Once again, Christians people are beginning to come to terms with the never-ending material demons that their religion wants to censor each day. gratuitous violence and sex can be avoided. similarly, choosing the right time to introduce the heathen world is another straight forward task. However, it sounds like parents need just as much encouraging and patient explanation as the innocents. This attitude may allow for a strong sense of individuality among Christian families.
I think it's great that they all want to branch out. If some violence is able to turn your stomach then one cannot squirm as a Christian but as a human.
posted by Viomeda at 4:27 PM on May 3, 2005
Ok we are not dealing with children at all here or even Christian children. Once again, Christians people are beginning to come to terms with the never-ending material demons that their religion wants to censor each day. gratuitous violence and sex can be avoided. similarly, choosing the right time to introduce the heathen world is another straight forward task. However, it sounds like parents need just as much encouraging and patient explanation as the innocents. This attitude may allow for a strong sense of individuality among Christian families.
I think it's great that they all want to branch out. If some violence is able to turn your stomach then one cannot squirm as a Christian but as a human.
posted by Viomeda at 4:27 PM on May 3, 2005
2. It suggests that a work of art is open for customization by the individual viewer.
I have the right to customize anything I own in any way I see fit, including a work of art. Maybe I shouldn't customize it, but I should always have that right. I may not like ClearPlay, but I'd argue for its right to exist.
posted by Bort at 4:46 PM on May 3, 2005
I have the right to customize anything I own in any way I see fit, including a work of art. Maybe I shouldn't customize it, but I should always have that right. I may not like ClearPlay, but I'd argue for its right to exist.
posted by Bort at 4:46 PM on May 3, 2005
jonmc: my 13yo's church youth group just finished a study of The Simpsons. I only skimmed the book (I don't watch enough Simpsons to catch most of the references), but Mr R read it, and thought it was an interesting book. If nothing else, it taught her some (very basic) ways to interpret/deconstruct a TV show.
Bort: customizing it for *yourself* is one thing, but imposing your choices on someone else is different. That imposition of your choice is what censorship is all about.
An anti-censorship bumpersticker that I still have on my sax case says "don't let others choose what you can read". That's the point. The point isn't whether you should choose what you (or your minor children) see, but whether you have the right to impose those choices on other adults.
posted by jlkr at 4:51 PM on May 3, 2005
Bort: customizing it for *yourself* is one thing, but imposing your choices on someone else is different. That imposition of your choice is what censorship is all about.
An anti-censorship bumpersticker that I still have on my sax case says "don't let others choose what you can read". That's the point. The point isn't whether you should choose what you (or your minor children) see, but whether you have the right to impose those choices on other adults.
posted by jlkr at 4:51 PM on May 3, 2005
I have to agree with Bort here..
I don't like that people are self-filtering movies they watch and filtering them for their children.
But, I would defend their rights to do so. These are the types of cases that expose hypocrisy. Like the ACLU defense of Klan.
posted by PissOnYourParade at 5:05 PM on May 3, 2005
I don't like that people are self-filtering movies they watch and filtering them for their children.
But, I would defend their rights to do so. These are the types of cases that expose hypocrisy. Like the ACLU defense of Klan.
posted by PissOnYourParade at 5:05 PM on May 3, 2005
It is also the responsibility of mature adults to protect young, vulnerable, untrained minds from encountering things they are not yet prepared to process, consider, interpret and respond to. To buy technology that claims to do it for us is irresponsible, naïve, and ultimately … a cop-out.
Almost perfect.
posted by elpapacito at 5:08 PM on May 3, 2005
Almost perfect.
posted by elpapacito at 5:08 PM on May 3, 2005
It's is all a giant web of hypocrisy. The Evangelicals love to attribute the Bible for the right to spank, spank, spank (with no anger of course).
.....love it.
posted by Viomeda at 5:10 PM on May 3, 2005
.....love it.
posted by Viomeda at 5:10 PM on May 3, 2005
Uh yeah whole lotta confusion about who's christian who's not..guess that some is selectively christian according to convenience or whatnot.
Anyway I think spanking is useless , it may be the way to teach unruly animals to behave (but I guess reward method works better) but humans can use reason, talking, rationalization..and in the very worst cases grounding.
posted by elpapacito at 5:22 PM on May 3, 2005
Anyway I think spanking is useless , it may be the way to teach unruly animals to behave (but I guess reward method works better) but humans can use reason, talking, rationalization..and in the very worst cases grounding.
posted by elpapacito at 5:22 PM on May 3, 2005
"I have the right to customize anything I own in any way I see fit, including a work of art."
I'd almost agree Bort with the caviat that works of art cannot be owned and you purchase only the right to be the custodian of them.
Of course, purchase a replica of the art in question and you can scrawl on it as you will (which is what I assume you meant).
I can only argue against ClearPlay on aesthetic grounds and agree with Overstreet that it is hypocritical to try to sanitize something just to partake in it.
posted by Smedleyman at 5:28 PM on May 3, 2005
I'd almost agree Bort with the caviat that works of art cannot be owned and you purchase only the right to be the custodian of them.
Of course, purchase a replica of the art in question and you can scrawl on it as you will (which is what I assume you meant).
I can only argue against ClearPlay on aesthetic grounds and agree with Overstreet that it is hypocritical to try to sanitize something just to partake in it.
posted by Smedleyman at 5:28 PM on May 3, 2005
We might end up seeing the TV miniseries Jesus of Nazareth available in different formats—for those who want the whole story, for those who want just the miracles but not Jesus' claims of divinity, for those who don't want to bother with that discomforting crucifixion scene. If customization develops a heavy demand, we might even see software that will embellish the violence and the sex, increasing them to more explicit levels.
And Mel Gibson's reading this, thinking "There's software to do that. Aw, dammit!"
posted by eustacescrubb at 6:26 PM on May 3, 2005
And Mel Gibson's reading this, thinking "There's software to do that. Aw, dammit!"
posted by eustacescrubb at 6:26 PM on May 3, 2005
Viomeda: It's is all a giant web of hypocrisy.
*puts on tinfoil hat*
I am CERTAIN that the well-meaning CHRISTIAN who wrote that article had some sort of evil, gay-hating agenda behind protecting the first amendment. I mean, seriously, why would a CHRISTIAN defend freedom of expression unless it somehow supported their repressive, fascist and totalitarian plot to destroy our culture and convert our children? All of it. Hypocrisy. In fact: We should shut them down!
That's the ticket.
vitriol.
elpapacito: I agree with you. Spanking is useless and mean. But,
it may be the way to teach unruly animals to behave
belies the fact that you view humans as something other than. When in fact, we are, I'm afraid to say, unruly animals. SO SPANK ME NOW. heh.
On preview-
eustacescrubb: Brilliance.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 6:28 PM on May 3, 2005
*puts on tinfoil hat*
I am CERTAIN that the well-meaning CHRISTIAN who wrote that article had some sort of evil, gay-hating agenda behind protecting the first amendment. I mean, seriously, why would a CHRISTIAN defend freedom of expression unless it somehow supported their repressive, fascist and totalitarian plot to destroy our culture and convert our children? All of it. Hypocrisy. In fact: We should shut them down!
That's the ticket.
vitriol.
elpapacito: I agree with you. Spanking is useless and mean. But,
it may be the way to teach unruly animals to behave
belies the fact that you view humans as something other than. When in fact, we are, I'm afraid to say, unruly animals. SO SPANK ME NOW. heh.
On preview-
eustacescrubb: Brilliance.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 6:28 PM on May 3, 2005
It suggests that a work of art is open for customization by the individual viewer.
Artists have reasons for making their work a certain way. To have someone else snip up the work disrespects their efforts. Such censorship interrupts the intended "flow" of the film. It eliminates vital details.
I happen to agree with the writer's perspective, but I find this particlular line of argument silly. 95% of movies today have very little to do with art, and very much to do with show BUSINESS. One of the best ways to sell more tickets is to pander to the lower instincts with purely gratuitious sex/violence/language.
If parents (or even non parents) want to buy movies without the naughty bits, the producers (and even the directors) should be beside themselves with gratitude for a chance to make even more money. But there is something even more important than the mighty dollar at stake -- a chance to stick it to the fundies.
Suppose you went to a restaurant and requested something 'on the side/removed/extra', and the waiter informed you that the chef is an artiste: You will have your dinner as he intends (including salt and pepper) or NOT AT ALL!!! Would you be impressed?
posted by bevets at 6:31 PM on May 3, 2005
Artists have reasons for making their work a certain way. To have someone else snip up the work disrespects their efforts. Such censorship interrupts the intended "flow" of the film. It eliminates vital details.
I happen to agree with the writer's perspective, but I find this particlular line of argument silly. 95% of movies today have very little to do with art, and very much to do with show BUSINESS. One of the best ways to sell more tickets is to pander to the lower instincts with purely gratuitious sex/violence/language.
If parents (or even non parents) want to buy movies without the naughty bits, the producers (and even the directors) should be beside themselves with gratitude for a chance to make even more money. But there is something even more important than the mighty dollar at stake -- a chance to stick it to the fundies.
Suppose you went to a restaurant and requested something 'on the side/removed/extra', and the waiter informed you that the chef is an artiste: You will have your dinner as he intends (including salt and pepper) or NOT AT ALL!!! Would you be impressed?
posted by bevets at 6:31 PM on May 3, 2005
I have the right to customize anything I own in any way I see fit, including a work of art. Maybe I shouldn't customize it, but I should always have that right. I may not like ClearPlay, but I'd argue for its right to exist.
posted by Bort at 4:46 PM PST on May 3 [!]
you have the right to do that to your own property, but not to sell it to others. especially seeing as how the original creators of the film don't get any say in the matter.
i MIGHT be for this type of thing if they eased up on "piracy" but the government keeps proving that what they mean when they say "intellectual property" is all about money and nothing about art...
posted by es_de_bah at 6:35 PM on May 3, 2005
posted by Bort at 4:46 PM PST on May 3 [!]
you have the right to do that to your own property, but not to sell it to others. especially seeing as how the original creators of the film don't get any say in the matter.
i MIGHT be for this type of thing if they eased up on "piracy" but the government keeps proving that what they mean when they say "intellectual property" is all about money and nothing about art...
posted by es_de_bah at 6:35 PM on May 3, 2005
Christian writer argues for the consideration of art in spite of and including its baser content. Mefi users argue that movies cater to the baser instincts and can be chopped and 'sanitized' without affecting the end product.
I mean, I know that's a cheap shot -- the people defending ClearPlay here might not be the same ones who heckled when the Justice Department's statures had their naughty bits covered up -- but it's hard not to boggle.
I don't think the author is suggesting that the artistry and splendor of the next Jean Claude Van Damme movie will be marred if we skip over some foul language. But if you can't watch, say, Twin Peaks without being offended by its content, howsabout you just don't watch it? In the context of the entire article, it's clear that he's talking about artistic elements woven throughout an entire film.
He's not attacking ClearPlay per se, rather he's saying that the reasons many people have for using it are wrong-headed and self-defeating.
posted by verb at 6:51 PM on May 3, 2005
I mean, I know that's a cheap shot -- the people defending ClearPlay here might not be the same ones who heckled when the Justice Department's statures had their naughty bits covered up -- but it's hard not to boggle.
I don't think the author is suggesting that the artistry and splendor of the next Jean Claude Van Damme movie will be marred if we skip over some foul language. But if you can't watch, say, Twin Peaks without being offended by its content, howsabout you just don't watch it? In the context of the entire article, it's clear that he's talking about artistic elements woven throughout an entire film.
He's not attacking ClearPlay per se, rather he's saying that the reasons many people have for using it are wrong-headed and self-defeating.
posted by verb at 6:51 PM on May 3, 2005
and bevets, there are chefs like that...the point is they get to choose what they do...
i'm sure the chef would take exception if you took their food outside the restaurant, altered it, and resold it.
posted by es_de_bah at 6:51 PM on May 3, 2005
i'm sure the chef would take exception if you took their food outside the restaurant, altered it, and resold it.
posted by es_de_bah at 6:51 PM on May 3, 2005
es_de_bah
you have the right to do that to your own property, but not to sell it to others. especially seeing as how the original creators of the film don't get any say in the matter.
Suppose Bob buys 'Chicago' at the store and then he pays Sally $5 to edit his dvd so that he doesnt have to hear anyone singing (he hates singing). You may think he has peculiar taste. You may think it odd that he is buying a musical if he doesnt like singing, but why should you care what he does with his own dvd? He PAID for it, let him watch whatever he wants in the privacy of his living room.
This is essentially how ClearPlay works.
posted by bevets at 6:54 PM on May 3, 2005
you have the right to do that to your own property, but not to sell it to others. especially seeing as how the original creators of the film don't get any say in the matter.
Suppose Bob buys 'Chicago' at the store and then he pays Sally $5 to edit his dvd so that he doesnt have to hear anyone singing (he hates singing). You may think he has peculiar taste. You may think it odd that he is buying a musical if he doesnt like singing, but why should you care what he does with his own dvd? He PAID for it, let him watch whatever he wants in the privacy of his living room.
This is essentially how ClearPlay works.
posted by bevets at 6:54 PM on May 3, 2005
I don't like that people are self-filtering movies they watch and filtering them for their children.
so, everyone should be forced to watch everything?
posted by quonsar at 7:06 PM on May 3, 2005
so, everyone should be forced to watch everything?
posted by quonsar at 7:06 PM on May 3, 2005
As far as the right to modify the copyrighted works of others is concerned, this issue was firmly dealt with by the courts in the case of Nintendo vs. Galoob.
a) Yes, you DEFINITELY have the right to modify copyrighted work on the fly, and further, have the right to sell such modification equipment pre-loaded with the necessary software to automatically modify copyrighted work for the buyer.
b) If you check that case, the entire idea of being able to modify someone else's work to suit you may go from "an infringement of the moral rights of the author" to "it's wrong to stop someone who wants to mod the characters in DOOM III to wear frilly miniskirts". Okay, so the game genie was more about infinite lives in Mario Brothers, but let's pretend it was made today.
There's plenty of reasons to want to modify the work of others and I think that case should make it pretty clear how important it is for us to uphold that right. Right now the DMCA is destroying that right for the USA. Lucky me I don't live there. Also, because of that, I got the game genie a year before any of you did (neener neener neener).
To put it simply, an intelligent judge sayeth this:
"[E]ven if the Game Genie did create a derivative product, the doctrine of `fair use' enables consumers to use the Game Genie for their personal enjoyment, 17 U.S.C. § 107, and therefore allows Galoob to sell it."
posted by shepd at 7:08 PM on May 3, 2005
a) Yes, you DEFINITELY have the right to modify copyrighted work on the fly, and further, have the right to sell such modification equipment pre-loaded with the necessary software to automatically modify copyrighted work for the buyer.
b) If you check that case, the entire idea of being able to modify someone else's work to suit you may go from "an infringement of the moral rights of the author" to "it's wrong to stop someone who wants to mod the characters in DOOM III to wear frilly miniskirts". Okay, so the game genie was more about infinite lives in Mario Brothers, but let's pretend it was made today.
There's plenty of reasons to want to modify the work of others and I think that case should make it pretty clear how important it is for us to uphold that right. Right now the DMCA is destroying that right for the USA. Lucky me I don't live there. Also, because of that, I got the game genie a year before any of you did (neener neener neener).
To put it simply, an intelligent judge sayeth this:
"[E]ven if the Game Genie did create a derivative product, the doctrine of `fair use' enables consumers to use the Game Genie for their personal enjoyment, 17 U.S.C. § 107, and therefore allows Galoob to sell it."
posted by shepd at 7:08 PM on May 3, 2005
no, sally should not be allowed to do that for money without the original creator's permission. i'm not allowed to sell a remix of a bruce springstein song without mr. springstein's consent. you should not be allowed to sell a service in which you put your editing on someone else's movie without their consent.
posted by es_de_bah at 7:08 PM on May 3, 2005
posted by es_de_bah at 7:08 PM on May 3, 2005
now, if i was allowed to sell a remix of springstein's song, that would leave the whole music piracy bit rather open too, I'd think, because any content i can alter and sell, I can alter and give away for free...
give me that and i'll be happy with whatever you want to do to someone's work...
posted by es_de_bah at 7:12 PM on May 3, 2005
give me that and i'll be happy with whatever you want to do to someone's work...
posted by es_de_bah at 7:12 PM on May 3, 2005
he pays Sally $5 to edit his dvd so that he doesnt have to hear anyone singing (he hates singing). You may think he has peculiar taste. You may think it odd that he is buying a musical if he doesnt like singing,
Is Bob that spooky kid from that Twilight Zone episode?
posted by jonmc at 7:22 PM on May 3, 2005
Is Bob that spooky kid from that Twilight Zone episode?
posted by jonmc at 7:22 PM on May 3, 2005
Suppose Bob buys 'Chicago' at the store and then he pays Sally $5 to edit his dvd so that he doesnt have to hear anyone singing (he hates singing). You may think he has peculiar taste. You may think it odd that he is buying a musical if he doesnt like singing, but why should you care what he does with his own dvd? He PAID for it, let him watch whatever he wants in the privacy of his living room.
This is essentially how ClearPlay works.
es_de_bah
now, if i was allowed to sell a remix of springstein's song, that would leave the whole music piracy bit rather open too, I'd think, because any content i can alter and sell, I can alter and give away for free...
ClearPlay does not buy one dvd and sell 500 copies. It buys 500 dvds, destroys the originals, and sells 500 copies. This results in MORE money (not less) for the movie producers.
posted by bevets at 7:30 PM on May 3, 2005
This is essentially how ClearPlay works.
es_de_bah
now, if i was allowed to sell a remix of springstein's song, that would leave the whole music piracy bit rather open too, I'd think, because any content i can alter and sell, I can alter and give away for free...
ClearPlay does not buy one dvd and sell 500 copies. It buys 500 dvds, destroys the originals, and sells 500 copies. This results in MORE money (not less) for the movie producers.
posted by bevets at 7:30 PM on May 3, 2005
you know what, I painted myself into a corner. Put me on the side of those in favor of the basic idea behind ClearPlay and the means by which they alter content.
And the side of the guy who wrote this article, for pointing out why what they're actually doing with their right is probably a bad thing.
*puts on "i lost to bevets" t-shirt andsits in the corner*
posted by es_de_bah at 8:36 PM on May 3, 2005
And the side of the guy who wrote this article, for pointing out why what they're actually doing with their right is probably a bad thing.
*puts on "i lost to bevets" t-shirt andsits in the corner*
posted by es_de_bah at 8:36 PM on May 3, 2005
Let people do whatever they want to in the privacy of their own entertainment room.
.....but, taking self righteousness out of the picture is a good thing.
posted by Viomeda at 10:18 PM on May 3, 2005
.....but, taking self righteousness out of the picture is a good thing.
posted by Viomeda at 10:18 PM on May 3, 2005
Even I'm with Bevets on this, (much to my dismay) If they want to sell editing on the fly to "Safe up a film" and edit out all the parts to disturbing to witness or too difficult their minds to fathom, all power too them, Savers them having the Courts or Congress do it for them, As for me I can see using this tech to edit out freaking commercilals and product placements in the movies i watch now.
A win-win situation. and as enforcable as the V-chip at the worst...
posted by Elim at 11:43 PM on May 3, 2005
A win-win situation. and as enforcable as the V-chip at the worst...
posted by Elim at 11:43 PM on May 3, 2005
Somehow, I don't think that you will have the option of editing out commercials much longer..
It's getting Tivo in trouble..
You'll be able to edit out all the titties and bad words, but the commercials will be off limits.
That's GaulDurn Una'Merican! What is ya, a COMMIE?
posted by Balisong at 12:16 AM on May 4, 2005
It's getting Tivo in trouble..
You'll be able to edit out all the titties and bad words, but the commercials will be off limits.
That's GaulDurn Una'Merican! What is ya, a COMMIE?
posted by Balisong at 12:16 AM on May 4, 2005
Bort, you have the right to customize anything you own sure but you don't have the right to purchase works of art, customize them, and then resell them for profit all without permission of the original owner. That's copyright infrigement. The law is very, very clear about this, see Section 17 U.S.C. § 106. ClearPlay is an end run around copyright that got through because it's for the children Christians. It's a terrible thing for artists, potentially much worse than internet piracy. Still anything that weakens copyright at this point is probably a good thing for everybody.
posted by nixerman at 1:01 AM on May 4, 2005
posted by nixerman at 1:01 AM on May 4, 2005
There is a subtle but, IMO, important difference between what ClearPlay is doing and what, for instance, some of the other sanitizers are doing. Some are doing like Bevet's said, buying a movie, destroying it, and selling a customized version of it. I agree that that is not legal. However, ClearPlay does not edit or sell the movie directly. They create a device with a program that will take your movie and play it with pieces removed. Very small difference, but a very important one.
BTW, Bevets: please contribute more opinion posts like you have in this thread, as opposed to your usual quote fests. :)
posted by Bort at 6:26 PM on May 4, 2005
BTW, Bevets: please contribute more opinion posts like you have in this thread, as opposed to your usual quote fests. :)
posted by Bort at 6:26 PM on May 4, 2005
What's the Mark Twain story about at town that changes its motto to "lead us into temptation"? elpapacito's comment reminded me of it.
posted by kenko at 8:12 AM on May 5, 2005
posted by kenko at 8:12 AM on May 5, 2005
/slightly off topic
"very little to do with art, and very much to do with show BUSINESS."
Art has always had to contend with business and the market overshadowing it and more or less crushing most of the talent. Van Gogh died in the gutter. Even Mozart needed sponsors (patrons).
posted by Smedleyman at 11:10 AM on May 5, 2005
"very little to do with art, and very much to do with show BUSINESS."
Art has always had to contend with business and the market overshadowing it and more or less crushing most of the talent. Van Gogh died in the gutter. Even Mozart needed sponsors (patrons).
posted by Smedleyman at 11:10 AM on May 5, 2005
« Older webby | The Vepsa Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by jonmc at 3:54 PM on May 3, 2005