Sad. Very sad. As a moderator on a message board (not this one), I was asked to rewrite the rules regarding so-called free speech. There is no such thing as free speech that encourages the sick, depraved, ultraviolent, demented, dirty, filthy, profanity-filled and immoral and amoral things coming out of Hollywood. And NO, it’s not just about money.
Everything has limits - everything. Hollywood has a moral and civic duty as people to not degrade the moral and intellectual sensibilities of the people.
Go to any large internet forum. Read the rules. Guess what? You are not allowed to say or show or link to anything you want. On our board, you get a few warnings, with explanations, then you’re temporarily banned. Try it a few more times and you’re banned for life.
Ed
You have demonstrated a poor knowledge of how the film industry works, and how things like the Hays code effect things in a greater context. There are some valid points you make, but overall I have to respectfully disagree.
Do a little research on the MPAA. Note their favoritism for movies with corporate backing. Note how ratings affect how many people ultimately see a film. Note the lack of consistency or basis.
Censorship, or otherwise not allowing certain things to be in
works of art (sorry, movies are more than just ‘entertainment’ to some people) is deplorable and doesn’t belong in a civilized society. I’d encourage a system that warns the viewer what sort of depictions they’ll be seeing if they choose to see something, but I vehemently disagree with any sort of ratings system (i.e. PG and R). The reality is that we already have a certain degree of “censorship” in Hollywood and it is more in tuned with the things you and Charlemange have been suggesting, and it doesn’t work.
It’s all “us vs them” with this kind of thinking. The left blames the right, the right blames the left, and in the end nothing gets solved. It’s all conjecture devoid of any real meaning besides further dividing and subjugating people. In other words, it’s part of the problem, not the solution.
Censorship is wrong. The idea that nudity, violence, or “foul language” (a laughable, archaic notion) can never ever be used artistically (with merit) is a fallacy. The idea that gratuitous depictions of these things (i.e. without merit) poses a threat is also a fallacy that I contend implies a weakness in the Church’s teachings. If people are educated on an issue, and they allow themselves to subscribe to something one way or the other, that is their prerogative. You can argue that we need more education, you cannot argue for the validity of censorship. It is wrong on all counts, always. Society shouldn’t cater itself to the feeble minded. I don’t need a censor to tell me what is valuable and what isn’t. If I’m watching something that offends my sensibilities, I stop watching. This rarely happens though as I usually try to give the benefit of the doubt and wait for any redeeming qualities. I don’t have a child, but if I did I wouldn’t not let them watch things that were age appropriate simply because they had a curse word or depicted sex, because I would trust that my child would be able to discern for himself.
Personally, I’d have a much easier time trusting myself and my children than some censor I had never met. The Church has those newsletters and websites where they deem what is and isn’t inappropriate viewing/reading/etc, why doesn’t that suffice? Censorship is for communists and dictators, not democracies.
