5 ms·
> plays off of the stereotype that Chinese people eat dogs and cats So... you support government censorship of jokes that somebody, somewhere might be offended
by commandlinefan 4y ago
> plays off of the stereotype that Chinese people eat dogs and cats
So... you support government censorship of jokes that somebody, somewhere might be offended by?
- joshuahedlund 4y agoThe original poster only said they could "see why" the censors took offense, not that they supported it.
- wizofaus 4y agoWouldn't that happen even in the US? A movie full of vile racist and sexist jokes bordering on abuse is not going to get a [G] rating, meaning the government is censoring it for some viewers. Edit: it seems it's actually relatively easy to find jokes that are genuinely offensive and degrading in PG rated films. Why that's considered less potentially harmful to kids than showing sex between consenting adults I honestly don't know.
- Beltalowda 4y agoAge ratings are quite a different thing than making it unavailable to the entire public. I don't think you can just lob all censorship in the same basket like that: there's quite a bit of nuance here that makes all the difference.
- wizofaus 4y agoI don't see any point trying to justify or argue for extreme Chinese-style censorship. But there are still useful debates to be had about censorship in Western liberal societies.
- Beltalowda 4y agoBut they're not the same things at all; I don't think age-ratings are "censorship".
- wizofaus 4y agoIn Australia they are: https://www.classification.gov.au/classification-ratings/what-do-ratings-mean https://www.classification.gov.au/classification-ratings/wha...
- tacon 4y agoYou are confusing movie ratings, by the movie industry, with government censorship. Movie ratings are just labels anyway, and not censorship.
- bobsmooth 4y agoMPAA ratings are decidedly not government censorship.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- dogleash 4y agoMPAA ratings are not government censorship, they're cartel censorship. The reason corporations follow the cartel's rules are financial agreements and the fear of PR backlash for not letting parents outsource parenting.
- wizofaus 4y agoSo there's literally no government involvement in what content can be shown in broadcast material in the US? Even for FTA TV? In Australia the ratings system is administered by the commonwealth government, so I incorrectly assumed the same was true in the US.
- dogleash 4y agoWe have law that restricts indecent/obscene content, and it applies exclusively to FTA TV and radio. But it's completely unrelated to the ratings system for tv and movies. Most channels not restricted by those rules (subscription cable & satellite) set in-house standards on content for commercial reasons. And of the broadcasters that are covered by the regulation, they are the old stodgy networks and never choose to get near the boundaries.
- wizofaus 4y agoThe interesting thing is that end result seems to be a proliferation of extreme views in the US vs other similar countries, which is arguably the opposite of what you might reasonably expect from the opportunity to allow freer discussion of ideas.
- bentley 4y agoIs that the case, though? The US has problems of religious and political extremism, but is Muslim violence worse in magnitude than in France with its restrictions on religious expression, or anti‐semitism than in the European countries that ban Holocaust denial?