4 ms·

It doesn't seem obvious to me that we should happily censor a film because the subjects of the film don't like it. Suppose we did a film about the Sackler fami

It doesn't seem obvious to me that we should happily censor a film because the subjects of the film don't like it. Suppose we did a film about the Sackler family https://www.hulu.com/series/the-crime-of-the-century-63a06efb-ecef-46c2-8331-bfe377db7fa7 https://www.hulu.com/series/the-crime-of-the-century-63a06ef... and the Sackler family says they don't like it -- they feel they were misrepresented, and claim they didn't consent to participation, despite having signed consent documents. Is that legitimate grounds to censor the film? Some may feel that the Sackler situation is different. You might see the Sackler family as known "oppressors" and "bad guys". And you might see Guantánamo detainees as "victims of oppression" -- perhaps you even think they're "good guys". I don't think this argument works -- it is exactly through documentaries such as this that we can form accurate opinions about who is a "good guy" or "bad guy"; who is the "oppressor" vs "victim of oppression". If we allow anyone claiming to be a "victim of oppression" to censor stuff that makes them look bad, that just serves to lock in our current views regarding who is a "victim of oppression" -- which means we won't be able to update those views as more evidence comes in, or as circumstances on the ground change. If someone doesn't like a documentary that was made about them, they can do a point-by-point refutation. Censorship doesn't seem like a good solution.

kevingadd 4y ago
The facts of the Sackler family's behavior are well known and do not need a documentary to reveal them, a documentary merely provides more depth and context so you can form your own picture of the complete person or the nuances of their behavior. It is pretty reasonable to decide that they are "bad guys" without ever watching a documentary about them. The flipside is also quite reasonable here. I don't need to watch a documentary in order to decide that people horribly abused in American prisons are victims, the facts are pretty clear on that. (A bad person can, also, for reference, be a victim simultaneously.) As for whether a point-by-point refutation is the best and only remedy, that seems to require that the victim automatically have access to the resources necessary to air their refutation where viewers of the documentary will see it. Will the National Review bump an opinion column by a Republican senator in order to publish an opinion column by a Muslim detainee instead? "The remedy for speech is more speech" style defenses assume that everyone has equal access to speech and everyone's speech will be heard equally. Neither of those are true when we're talking about released films. The world is in fact full of examples where victims are defamed in public and are not offered a real opportunity to refute it, in some cases in fact in the National Review, which published this piece. I think it's generally fine that things work that way, but you need to keep it in mind when making arguments of the sort.
- ShredKazoo 4y ago
  I think it is worth distinguishing "conventional wisdom says X" and "the facts are clear that X". Bloodletting was standard medical practice for 100s of years. If you asked a doctor from 500 years ago whether bloodletting helped patients, they would probably say: "the facts are clear that bloodletting helps". Just in the past few years we've seen some major examples of conventional wisdom being overturned. For example, very early in the COVID-19 pandemic, conventional wisdom was that wearing a mask wasn't helpful. Then the conventional wisdom was that wearing a mask should be obligatory. In 2016, the conventional wisdom was that Donald Trump couldn't win, and that didn't work out so well either. The real world is often complicated enough that careful analysis is required to get to the bottom of an issue. If conventional wisdom doesn't derive from someone somewhere doing a careful analysis in some way shape or form, I consider it suspect -- akin to an uninvestigated urban legend. To do a careful analysis you'll want to look at all the important facts, including new facts, and facts that are problematic for your current point of view. If people are suppressing the circulation of important facts by saying "we know these facts are harmful due to [conventional wisdom]", they're interfering with the very process by which conventional wisdom can be made accurate. It's like climbing to the top of a tree and chopping at the trunk below you. The global war on terror is actually a great case study here. Right after the Sept 11 attacks, it was conventional wisdom that terrorism was a Big Deal, Something Had To Be Done, and people who asked inconvenient questions were Helping The Terrorists. If those inconvenient questions had seen the light of day instead of being suppressed, maybe conventional wisdom would've come more in line with a careful analysis which accounted for all the important considerations, and we could've conducted the "war on terror" in a more intelligent and humane way. >As for whether a point-by-point refutation is the best and only remedy, that seems to require that the victim automatically have access to the resources necessary to air their refutation where viewers of the documentary will see it. Will the National Review bump an opinion column by a Republican senator in order to publish an opinion column by a Muslim detainee instead? "The remedy for speech is more speech" style defenses assume that everyone has equal access to speech and everyone's speech will be heard equally. Neither of those are true when we're talking about released films. When it comes to speech suppression I think this is almost always an orthogonal issue. It seems clear in this case that the subjects of the documentary have a big platform -- big enough that they were able to get the film pulled from Sundance. If the film is a misrepresentation, they can use their platform to explain why, rather than using their platform to get it pulled. If Sundance is worried that festivalgoers won't hear their side of the story, they could let the subjects of the documentary send a video of themselves doing a rebuttal, and play that video as an addendum to the main film.
lamontcg 4y ago
It isn't being censored. Private institutions like film festivals shouldn't be compelled to show it if they find that they agree more with the petition by the subjects of the film. Other institutions can show it if they like. That is just freedom of association.
- meany 4y ago
  Do you feel the same way when conservatives protest to remove childrens books on LGBTQ+ stories from childrens school reading lists? Essentially, the book is still available in other channels.
- ShredKazoo 4y ago
  The way I'm using the word "censorship", it applies even if done by a private entity. For example, if B&N removed a top selling book from their shelves due to a pressure campaign from people who disliked the book, I'd say B&N was censoring the book. I don't advocate using government force to compel film festivals to show particular films.
bambax 4y ago
I think you're missing the point. The point is not about who's a good guy and who's a bad guy, who's a victim or an oppressor; it's about honesty. If you do an adversary investigation about the Sacklers, using public footage or even private conversations that you obtained without them participating in any way, then sure you don't have to care about what they think. But if you do a documentary where you ask for your subjects' help, then you owe them something, and the least you can do is not exploit or spin their testimony to fit a specific point of view -- esp. a point of view they would discover after the fact. That's a betrayal. (I don't know if that applies to the film in question, which I haven't seen.)
- ShredKazoo 4y ago
  >But if you do a documentary where you ask for your subjects' help, then you owe them something, and the least you can do is not exploit or spin their testimony to fit a specific point of view -- esp. a point of view they would discover after the fact. That's a betrayal. It sounds like you are saying that it's unethical to include interviews in a documentary unless the interviewee is on board with the message of the documentary? I don't agree with this claim either. Suppose I'm a documentary filmmaker approaching the Sackler story with an open mind. I call up the Sacklers and say: "Would you like to tell your side of the story on camera?" They say yes. I interview them. As I continue investigating, I discover lots of evidence that the Sacklers are villains, and their villainy ends up being the message of my documentary. The Sacklers watch my film and discover it has a point of view they dislike. They feel that they've been exploited, that their testimony was spun, and that I owed it to them to not betray them this way, since they helped me with the documentary. Do you agree with the Sacklers in this hypothetical? Personally, I don't find the argument as stated particularly persuasive. If the Sacklers could demonstrate that their interview footage was cut in a way that misrepresented what they said, then I'd find fault with the documentarian on the grounds of making a misleading documentary. But I don't believe in a reciprocity obligation of the kind you describe. It seems to me that such an obligation is incompatible with the idea of investigative journalism. Side note: In practice, it is already in the self-interest of journalists to play this kind of "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine" game, in order to gain continued access to their subjects. I don't think it is a good idea to pile additional enforcement on top of the incentives that already exist.
polotics 4y ago
Well obviously if you're not an opioids peddler yourself how could you legitimately create a documentary about the Sackler family?
- tomrod 4y ago
  Meh. Watch Breaking Bad. Fiction has a great magic to transport you into the shoes of another.

kevingadd 4y ago

The facts of the Sackler family's behavior are well known and do not need a documentary to reveal them, a documentary merely provides more depth and context so you can form your own picture of the complete person or the nuances of their behavior. It is pretty reasonable to decide that they are "bad guys" without ever watching a documentary about them. The flipside is also quite reasonable here. I don't need to watch a documentary in order to decide that people horribly abused in American prisons are victims, the facts are pretty clear on that. (A bad person can, also, for reference, be a victim simultaneously.) As for whether a point-by-point refutation is the best and only remedy, that seems to require that the victim automatically have access to the resources necessary to air their refutation where viewers of the documentary will see it. Will the National Review bump an opinion column by a Republican senator in order to publish an opinion column by a Muslim detainee instead? "The remedy for speech is more speech" style defenses assume that everyone has equal access to speech and everyone's speech will be heard equally. Neither of those are true when we're talking about released films. The world is in fact full of examples where victims are defamed in public and are not offered a real opportunity to refute it, in some cases in fact in the National Review, which published this piece. I think it's generally fine that things work that way, but you need to keep it in mind when making arguments of the sort.

ShredKazoo 4y ago
I think it is worth distinguishing "conventional wisdom says X" and "the facts are clear that X". Bloodletting was standard medical practice for 100s of years. If you asked a doctor from 500 years ago whether bloodletting helped patients, they would probably say: "the facts are clear that bloodletting helps". Just in the past few years we've seen some major examples of conventional wisdom being overturned. For example, very early in the COVID-19 pandemic, conventional wisdom was that wearing a mask wasn't helpful. Then the conventional wisdom was that wearing a mask should be obligatory. In 2016, the conventional wisdom was that Donald Trump couldn't win, and that didn't work out so well either. The real world is often complicated enough that careful analysis is required to get to the bottom of an issue. If conventional wisdom doesn't derive from someone somewhere doing a careful analysis in some way shape or form, I consider it suspect -- akin to an uninvestigated urban legend. To do a careful analysis you'll want to look at all the important facts, including new facts, and facts that are problematic for your current point of view. If people are suppressing the circulation of important facts by saying "we know these facts are harmful due to [conventional wisdom]", they're interfering with the very process by which conventional wisdom can be made accurate. It's like climbing to the top of a tree and chopping at the trunk below you. The global war on terror is actually a great case study here. Right after the Sept 11 attacks, it was conventional wisdom that terrorism was a Big Deal, Something Had To Be Done, and people who asked inconvenient questions were Helping The Terrorists. If those inconvenient questions had seen the light of day instead of being suppressed, maybe conventional wisdom would've come more in line with a careful analysis which accounted for all the important considerations, and we could've conducted the "war on terror" in a more intelligent and humane way. >As for whether a point-by-point refutation is the best and only remedy, that seems to require that the victim automatically have access to the resources necessary to air their refutation where viewers of the documentary will see it. Will the National Review bump an opinion column by a Republican senator in order to publish an opinion column by a Muslim detainee instead? "The remedy for speech is more speech" style defenses assume that everyone has equal access to speech and everyone's speech will be heard equally. Neither of those are true when we're talking about released films. When it comes to speech suppression I think this is almost always an orthogonal issue. It seems clear in this case that the subjects of the documentary have a big platform -- big enough that they were able to get the film pulled from Sundance. If the film is a misrepresentation, they can use their platform to explain why, rather than using their platform to get it pulled. If Sundance is worried that festivalgoers won't hear their side of the story, they could let the subjects of the documentary send a video of themselves doing a rebuttal, and play that video as an addendum to the main film.

lamontcg 4y ago

It isn't being censored. Private institutions like film festivals shouldn't be compelled to show it if they find that they agree more with the petition by the subjects of the film. Other institutions can show it if they like. That is just freedom of association.

meany 4y ago
Do you feel the same way when conservatives protest to remove childrens books on LGBTQ+ stories from childrens school reading lists? Essentially, the book is still available in other channels.
ShredKazoo 4y ago
The way I'm using the word "censorship", it applies even if done by a private entity. For example, if B&N removed a top selling book from their shelves due to a pressure campaign from people who disliked the book, I'd say B&N was censoring the book. I don't advocate using government force to compel film festivals to show particular films.

bambax 4y ago

I think you're missing the point. The point is not about who's a good guy and who's a bad guy, who's a victim or an oppressor; it's about honesty. If you do an adversary investigation about the Sacklers, using public footage or even private conversations that you obtained without them participating in any way, then sure you don't have to care about what they think. But if you do a documentary where you ask for your subjects' help, then you owe them something, and the least you can do is not exploit or spin their testimony to fit a specific point of view -- esp. a point of view they would discover after the fact. That's a betrayal. (I don't know if that applies to the film in question, which I haven't seen.)

ShredKazoo 4y ago
>But if you do a documentary where you ask for your subjects' help, then you owe them something, and the least you can do is not exploit or spin their testimony to fit a specific point of view -- esp. a point of view they would discover after the fact. That's a betrayal. It sounds like you are saying that it's unethical to include interviews in a documentary unless the interviewee is on board with the message of the documentary? I don't agree with this claim either. Suppose I'm a documentary filmmaker approaching the Sackler story with an open mind. I call up the Sacklers and say: "Would you like to tell your side of the story on camera?" They say yes. I interview them. As I continue investigating, I discover lots of evidence that the Sacklers are villains, and their villainy ends up being the message of my documentary. The Sacklers watch my film and discover it has a point of view they dislike. They feel that they've been exploited, that their testimony was spun, and that I owed it to them to not betray them this way, since they helped me with the documentary. Do you agree with the Sacklers in this hypothetical? Personally, I don't find the argument as stated particularly persuasive. If the Sacklers could demonstrate that their interview footage was cut in a way that misrepresented what they said, then I'd find fault with the documentarian on the grounds of making a misleading documentary. But I don't believe in a reciprocity obligation of the kind you describe. It seems to me that such an obligation is incompatible with the idea of investigative journalism. Side note: In practice, it is already in the self-interest of journalists to play this kind of "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine" game, in order to gain continued access to their subjects. I don't think it is a good idea to pile additional enforcement on top of the incentives that already exist.

polotics 4y ago

Well obviously if you're not an opioids peddler yourself how could you legitimately create a documentary about the Sackler family?

tomrod 4y ago
Meh. Watch Breaking Bad. Fiction has a great magic to transport you into the shoes of another.