Monday morning musings on MLK Day

[lagilman]

Last night, while introducing M. to Jeff Dunham, we came up with the name for his next special: "Cause it's Wrong, but Funny."

On a less amusing note, apparently there are people out in the blogosphere are screaming censorship because a prayer was cut from the broadcast of the We Are One celebration by HBO.

I have three thoughts on that

1. "censorship" applies ONLY to government actions. A commercial decision to edit a broadcast is not censorship. Please, already, learn your damned vocabulary before you use it.

2. The prayer was given before the celebration officially started, and included in the broadcast was the Gay Men's Choir, with full camera views and all, so it's less discrimination against gays and more discrimination against religion, ne?

3. As a follow-up the #2 thought, those claiming the removal of a gay bishop's prayer being discriminatory etc might want to stop and think about those of us who feel discriminated against every time a priest, a bishop, a minister, etc - no matter what their gender preference -- is invited to give a prayer over something. Yeah, we (non-Christians) are a minority. Does that mean we should be ignored or discounted?

(I was going to ask about the atheists and agnostics, but that would be writing the Other, and that's another blogfest I'm not getting into because I just wrote an entire series about hatred and discrimination and fear, and how we're ALL The Other to someone else. IMO and IMB*, Learning the Other is more productive to literature and society than fetishizing or fearing it. Your mileage possibly varies.)

and now, I have a book to finish revising. Yes.



*in my books

Comments

[wyld-dandelyon.livejournal.com]

Censorship – certainly it is censorship if Government rules that something can’t be published. And certainly it is not censorship if you or I choose not to publish something. And generally, I am with you as to a private entity’s choice to publish or not publish something is not censorship. (After all, you could publish what I choose not to.)

However, when schools and libraries, even private schools and libraries, ban books, that is considered censorship. (Even if that’s not the original definition, it is common usage.)

So I can understand that when people look at huge, publicly-owned corporations, who, like schools and libraries are in the business of disseminating information, and who, furthermore, are doing so over the publicly-owned airwaves, people can think that censorship is a valid word to use.

Also , I do think that it is valid to question why a big corporation, who is supposedly utilizing the public’s airwaves for the benefit of the people, chooses to air one part of an event and not another. I think this kind of dialogue is a sign of people being aware, and thinking, and will lead to more people being aware and thinking about the issues, which, IMHO, is a good thing.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

a big corporation, who is supposedly utilizing the public’s airwaves for the benefit of the people, chooses to air one part of an event and not another.

A pay channel, who usually only unlocks their content for cash down, opened their airwaves for free for the benefit of the people to air a 2-hour event in its entirety. That they did not choose to also give away the pre-event warmup is not "one part and not another." I've read the text of the prayer, and the very first word is "Before..." Even it admits that it is not a part of the concert.

Arguing that HBO was censoring by not doing the prequel to the concert is like saying Peter Jackson censored Lord of the Rings because he didn't include the Silmarillion.

[wyld-dandelyon.livejournal.com]

From your description, I agree that this isn't censorship.

It doesn't even sound like HBO was being political in their choice of what to include and not include. After all, most people tuning in for a concert would rather that pre- and post-concert events (and even the MC's introductions) be cut instead of the music!

[neadods.livejournal.com]

It doesn't even sound like HBO was being political in their choice of what to include and not include

That's my opinion. And I'm pretty sure that was where suricattus was going with the whole "it's not censorship" post.

[wyld-dandelyon.livejournal.com]

I do find myself wishing I'd known it was being offered for free at the time; I'd have been happy to tune in!

[joycemocha.livejournal.com]

Eh, people are going to be annoyed because they expect the Obama Administration to be perfect and it's not. Sheesh, it didn't take long before the screams of outrage started rising from some of the folks at Daily Kos, for example!

Me, my view on the "censorship" subject is much like yours. Plus I've read some accounts which suggest that there were technical difficulties going on with the sound system--not surprising, especially considering the weather.

[marinarusalka.livejournal.com]

1. I disagree with that definition. It has to be (US) government action in order to be a First Amendment violation, but not in order to be censorship. Forms of non-government censorship have been enacted before -- the Hayes Code and the Comics Code Authority, for example -- and the TV networks employ boards of censors to decide what gets aired. That doesn't mean the current example is censorship, but the argument that it isn't needs to be based on something other than "it's not the government doing it."

Also, it doesn't need to be censorship in order to be discrimination.

2. The inclusion of the Gay Men's Choir does nothing to address the issue of discrimination. The world is full of bigots who are happy to let gay people sing and dance for their amusement but aren't actually willing to hear them talk.

3. As an agnostic, I would certainly like to see a stop to all government-approved displays of religion. But it's not going to happen at this inauguration. And I don't think my lot in life is improved by knowing that another minority is being discriminated against too.

[fakefrenchie.livejournal.com]

People will always complain about something. Now that George is gone, the field is wide open.

[smoemeth.livejournal.com]

On an entirely different topic, I had dinner with Jeff Dunham's UK management team last night. Their entire attitude about him is "oh, he's horribly offensive, but he just sold out a $23 million tour in America so he's got to be doing *something* right..." :}

[arouraleona.livejournal.com]

Freud's censorship is just a force that represses ideas. It doesn't have to be a person. According to the OED the Roman's censorship involved an actual government sanctioned censor. So did Iran and several other nations. Still, just because it was not state-sponsored, doesn't mean it's NOT censorship.

What makes it not censorship is what makes editing television and books and things like that not censorship. Lots of stuff is cut in broadcasts and book releases. You have time constraints, and some producer looked at the show and decided, you have to cut short either the beginning or the end in a live broadcast, so they clipped the prayer as the least important/relevant part. It was a speech/concert thing so you can't cut into the speeches or concerts. So they cut the prayer. Simple. It wasn't done with the intention of keeping people from an idea, it was done so they could share the rest of the show.

But what they're not saying is that society is also censoring say, pagan prayer, or buddhist prayer, muslim prayer. We never hear from any other religion at any other event.