10 ms·
Right. Censorship is accomplished economically. The government doesn't ban content; it simply is the only legal owner of military hardware in the country, and w
by banannaise 4y ago
Right. Censorship is accomplished economically. The government doesn't ban content; it simply is the only legal owner of military hardware in the country, and will allow near-unlimited use of that hardware for content that promotes the military; that hardware is entirely unavailable for content critical of the military.
Is this better than explicit censorship? That's more of an open question.
- agentdrtran 4y agoI think it's pretty inarguably better? The alternative is never being allowed to be critical of the military at all. You don't need an f-35 or a tank for a documentary on American war crimes.
- cdot2 4y agoYou have to really stretch the meaning of censorship for that to count
- Jtsummers 4y ago> that hardware is entirely unavailable for content critical of the military. It's not directly available. As in, you can't film on a US naval vessel or on a US military base without their support. Stock footage or footage from public spaces are allowed. You may also be able to get the support of another country or make use of mothballed or otherwise decommissioned systems if you have the right connections and money. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimson_Tide_(film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimson_Tide_(film) Used footage of the real USS Alabama, used a decommissioned (and sold-off) submarine, and a French aircraft carrier.
- WillPostForFood 4y agoApocalypse Now, a film intended to be anti-war, used Philippine military equipment to stand in for American hardware. Honestly, with the ubiquity of CGI in film, whether the military choses to participate in a film is hardly a barrier to making a movie.