Film Score Monthly
FSM HOME MESSAGE BOARD FSM CDs FSM ONLINE RESOURCES FUN STUFF ABOUT US  SEARCH FSM   
Search Terms: 
Search Within:   search tips 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
 
 Posted:   Sep 29, 2023 - 7:48 AM   
 By:   Howard L   (Member)

The other day I caught a snippet of Blackboard Jungle on a cable channel. It was the scene when the Puerto Rican kid talked into the tape recorder. The bully calls him a spic, he calls the bully a mick, and then the teacher uses the moment to segue into a wonderful classroom discussion on dangerous insults. When he introduces the N word it was blipped out, as if he uttered an obscenity. It threw me having seen this movie numerous times since I was a kid. That was the lingo back in the day and while I have no problem with the word treated as an obscenity today I hate blanket censorship devoid of context. Glad that TCM and others treat older films as the instructive museum pieces they are.

 
 Posted:   Sep 29, 2023 - 8:11 AM   
 By:   Solium   (Member)

The freedom to think and speak as you like is a given. But I don't understand why the concept of "truth" isn't protected. Knowingly lying for profit, exploitation or to cause harm to others should be a chargeable crime.

And it is. There are many instances where lying (regardless whether for profit or other reasons) is prohibited by law.


Any public statement should have to be verifiable by law for the protection of the public. It shouldn't require lawsuits, it should be necessary up front. Of course, that would devastate the advertising industry and politics.


The difficulty with that is that there are many statements you cannot "verify". Many statements are a mixture of opinion, facts, perceived facts, and conclusions. The only "verifiable" statements would be fact statements (and even there you will encounter lots of tricky ground), any form of conclusion is already open to debate. But the key issue is, you would need an ultimate arbiter of who decides what "truth" is, and laws to protect freedom of speech and freedom of religion have been implemented precisely to prevent the Installation of such an ultimate arbiter.


People make mistakes but it’s often apparent when someone is making a false statement on purpose or by omission. I do think advertisers and politicians should be held to account.

It’s funny because it’s against the law for a citizen to knowingly lie to the state but the state can lie to the people.

 
 
 Posted:   Sep 29, 2023 - 8:18 AM   
 By:   Hurdy Gurdy   (Member)

With the internet and social media, your right to Free Speech and Self Expression has never been so prevalent.

But, with GREAT POWER, comes GREAT RESPONSIBILITY wink

The possibility of you being taken apart or cancelled, based on your rhetoric, is just as powerful, as Mr Fox has learned, at his cost.

 
 Posted:   Sep 29, 2023 - 8:40 AM   
 By:   Solium   (Member)

I just want freedom from cats like the Mousekewitz‘s.

 
 Posted:   Sep 29, 2023 - 9:12 AM   
 By:   nuts_score   (Member)

The other day I caught a snippet of Blackboard Jungle on a cable channel. It was the scene when the Puerto Rican kid talked into the tape recorder. The bully calls him a spic, he calls the bully a mick, and then the teacher uses the moment to segue into a wonderful classroom discussion on dangerous insults. When he introduces the N word it was blipped out, as if he uttered an obscenity. It threw me having seen this movie numerous times since I was a kid. That was the lingo back in the day and while I have no problem with the word treated as an obscenity today I hate blanket censorship devoid of context. Glad that TCM and others treat older films as the instructive museum pieces they are.

It's interesting that the "N word" was censored here. It is a word the FCC does not require being censored on cable airwaves, hence why the comedian Dave Chappelle brought such relevant attention to it on his Comedy Central series Chappelle's Show. TV series on channels like ABC, NBC, and FX have also used the word, uncensored, in various contexts in recent memory as well.

 
 Posted:   Sep 29, 2023 - 9:18 AM   
 By:   Nicolai P. Zwar   (Member)


I do think advertisers and politicians should be held to account.


Sure, they should be. And they are. (Of course, not always everybody is held to account the way we want, that's clear, the system sure ain't perfect.)

It's just, if in doubt (and there is often doubt), it's better to err in favor of free speech than it is to err in favor of censorship.

 
 Posted:   Sep 29, 2023 - 9:43 AM   
 By:   Solium   (Member)

The other day I caught a snippet of Blackboard Jungle on a cable channel. It was the scene when the Puerto Rican kid talked into the tape recorder. The bully calls him a spic, he calls the bully a mick, and then the teacher uses the moment to segue into a wonderful classroom discussion on dangerous insults. When he introduces the N word it was blipped out, as if he uttered an obscenity. It threw me having seen this movie numerous times since I was a kid. That was the lingo back in the day and while I have no problem with the word treated as an obscenity today I hate blanket censorship devoid of context. Glad that TCM and others treat older films as the instructive museum pieces they are.

It's interesting that the "N word" was censored here. It is a word the FCC does not require being censored on cable airwaves, hence why the comedian Dave Chappelle brought such relevant attention to it on his Comedy Central series Chappelle's Show. TV series on channels like ABC, NBC, and FX have also used the word, uncensored, in various contexts in recent memory as well.


Its just the company afraid of backlash either from some disgruntled viewer or advertisers. I hope for the day they understand you can't please everyone and the more you cave the more they're not satisfied.

 
 Posted:   Sep 29, 2023 - 10:14 AM   
 By:   Octoberman   (Member)

Just to be clear (because I don't want my previous comment to be misunderstood), I do not believe freedom of speech is a God-given right*.
I said it because that is something one hears a lot of so-called religious people say.
And I disagree with that idea strongly.
They, of course, can freely say it all they want--it makes no difference to me.

(* There probably is no such thing as a God-given right, for that matter. But that's a whole different discussion.)

 
 Posted:   Sep 29, 2023 - 10:28 AM   
 By:   Solium   (Member)

Just to be clear (because I don't want my previous comment to be misunderstood), I do not believe freedom of speech is a God-given right*.
I said it because that is something one hears a lot of so-called religious people say.
And I disagree with that idea strongly.
They, of course, can freely say it all they want--it makes no difference to me.

(* There probably is no such thing as a God-given right, for that matter. But that's a whole different discussion.)


I consider it a Solium's given right. I don't need anyone else's permission.

 
 Posted:   Sep 29, 2023 - 10:45 AM   
 By:   Bill Carson, Earl of Poncey   (Member)

"The more you cave, the more they're not satisfied."

Solium's best line ever

 
 Posted:   Sep 29, 2023 - 12:15 PM   
 By:   ibelin   (Member)

In the modern world there's nothing inherently authoritarian about religion. Most religions leave open the option for one to do whatever one wants, while reminding one of the repercussions that follow disobedience. The severity of the repercussions really depends on the religion. If a Christian rejects Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior, then he'll supposedly go to Hell. If a Jew doesn't keep kosher, then... nothing happens to him. The Talmud states that a Jew who doesn't keep kosher shall be subjected to thirty-nine lashes, but I highly doubt that rule is being kept anywhere in the world. Apostasy in Islam is punishable by death in some Middle Eastern countries, but that has more to do with structure of government than it does with Islam itself (though I do think that Islam is the most flawed of the Abrahamic religions).

In the modern world, where it's becoming increasingly difficult to believe in anything supernatural, most of these repercussions ring hollow. Religions have had to make many concessions over the years to society, which is shaped primarily by technological development. Religion (with the exception of Islam) is now mostly harmless.

 
 
 Posted:   Sep 29, 2023 - 12:29 PM   
 By:   Bob DiMucci   (Member)

Just to be clear (because I don't want my previous comment to be misunderstood), I do not believe freedom of speech is a God-given right*.
I said it because that is something one hears a lot of so-called religious people say.
And I disagree with that idea strongly.



I'll bite. Do you believe that freedom of speech IS a right? If, so, from where does such a right originate?

 
 
 Posted:   Sep 29, 2023 - 12:29 PM   
 By:   Ado   (Member)

In the modern world there's nothing inherently authoritarian about religion. Most religions leave open the option for one to do whatever one wants, while reminding one of the repercussions that follow disobedience. The severity of the repercussions really depends on the religion. If a Christian rejects Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior, then he'll supposedly go to Hell. If a Jew doesn't keep kosher, then... nothing happens to him. The Talmud states that a Jew who doesn't keep kosher shall be subjected to thirty-nine lashes, but I highly doubt that rule is being kept anywhere in the world. Apostasy in Islam is punishable by death in some Middle Eastern countries, but that has more to do with structure of government than it does with Islam itself (though I do think that Islam is the most flawed of the Abrahamic religions).

In the modern world, where it's becoming increasingly difficult to believe in anything supernatural, most of these repercussions ring hollow. Religions have had to make many concessions over the years to society, which is shaped primarily by technological development. Religion (with the exception of Islam) is now mostly harmless.


The rise of Christian Nationalism is not harmless. The close association between white nationalism and christian nationalism is well established at this point. A lot of the rioters prosecuted for January 6 wore Christian iconography, and embellish their favorite political icon with religious symbology, which makes it more of a cult than a religion. Either way, it is certainly not harmless. Even after being prosecuted for crimes a lot of these people stick with the same ideology, that violence and the overthrow of democracy is perfectly valid.

I wish this was not the reality in the US, but.. it is

 
 Posted:   Sep 29, 2023 - 1:18 PM   
 By:   Col. Flagg   (Member)

Religion (with the exception of Islam) is now mostly harmless.

Ha! The moment religion is used to galvanize a group into war, it's no longer harmless. Wars – mechanized, cultural or both – are currently ongoing in every single country, county, state, province, territory on the planet.

 
 Posted:   Sep 29, 2023 - 1:40 PM   
 By:   Solium   (Member)

"The more you cave, the more they're not satisfied."

Solium's best line ever


Well hell, I’ll never be able to top that! Guess I should just retire from commenting ever again.

 
 Posted:   Sep 29, 2023 - 2:09 PM   
 By:   ibelin   (Member)

Ha! The moment religion is used to galvanize a group into war, it's no longer harmless. Wars – mechanized, cultural or both – are currently ongoing in every single country, county, state, province, territory on the planet.

How many of those wars were caused by religion? From Wikipedia: 'According to the Encyclopedia of Wars, out of all 1,763 known/recorded historical conflicts, 121, or 6.87%, had religion as their primary cause.' 6.87% is not nothing, but there are more important factors that lead to conflict or war. There have been terrible tragedies caused by religion, such as the attacks of 11 September 2001, but the existential problems facing us today—climate change, the prospect of nuclear war, nanotechnology, artificial intelligence, etc.—have very little to do with religion. In the modern era, religion is mostly harmless in the grand scheme of things.

Besides, the only contemporary religious conflicts I can think of are the situations in Kashmir, in Northern Ireland, and in Israel and Palestine. There are certainly others, but, owing to my ignorance of international relations, I can't name them. But I bet most of them involve Islam in some way. wink The Sunni and the Shia don't seem to be too fond of each other these days.

 
 Posted:   Sep 29, 2023 - 2:46 PM   
 By:   Nicolai P. Zwar   (Member)

Religion (with the exception of Islam) is now mostly harmless.

Ha! The moment religion is used to galvanize a group into war, it's no longer harmless. Wars – mechanized, cultural or both – are currently ongoing in every single country, county, state, province, territory on the planet.


If there is one state of being that seems most natural, it's war.




I don't mind.

 
 Posted:   Sep 29, 2023 - 3:26 PM   
 By:   Col. Flagg   (Member)

How many of those wars were caused by religion? From Wikipedia: 'According to the Encyclopedia of Wars, out of all 1,763 known/recorded historical conflicts, 121, or 6.87%, had religion as their primary cause.' 6.87% is not nothing, but there are more important factors that lead to conflict or war. There have been terrible tragedies caused by religion, such as the attacks of 11 September 2001, but the existential problems facing us today—climate change, the prospect of nuclear war, nanotechnology, artificial intelligence, etc.—have very little to do with religion. In the modern era, religion is mostly harmless in the grand scheme of things.

Besides, the only contemporary religious conflicts I can think of are the situations in Kashmir, in Northern Ireland, and in Israel and Palestine. There are certainly others, but, owing to my ignorance of international relations, I can't name them. But I bet most of them involve Islam in some way. wink The Sunni and the Shia don't seem to be too fond of each other these days.


I think you have too narrow a view of "religion."

 
 
 Posted:   Sep 29, 2023 - 4:20 PM   
 By:   Last Child   (Member)

Should Freedom Of Speech Be Unlimited?


 
 Posted:   Sep 29, 2023 - 4:33 PM   
 By:   ibelin   (Member)

I think you have too narrow a view of "religion."

Christianity has circa 2.4 billion followers and Islam has circa 1.9 billion followers, so it only makes sense to focus on those two. Hinduism and Buddhism also have tons of followers, but those religions are way more harmless when compared to Islam or even Christianity. What harm is there in believing in an elephant god? And what harm is there in seeking nirvana? A Buddhist monk wouldn't hurt a fly. So numbers are important. But I will say that the number of followers a religion has isn't the sole determiner of how much influence it has. Judaism is a fairly small religion with only circa 14.7 million followers, yet it has had a big impact on world affairs.

Have you been including secular 'religions', such as scientism and communism, in your definition of the word 'religion'? If so, then you should've mentioned that in your previous post. Secular 'religions' are a whole other ball game. I was restricting my definition to include only religions whose followers believe in the supernatural.

I'd personally prefer to live in a world where people believe in the supernatural rather than the material, but that's just me.

 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
© 2024 Film Score Monthly. All Rights Reserved.
Website maintained and powered by Veraprise and Matrimont.