Walmart to sell smut-free DVD player

[painkiller]

(Man, a lotta clowns here. Luvinn' it. Haven't chortled this hard since my boss told me I got a raise when I was hired. That's what he said this morn.)

So.

I guess this DVD player only plays Looney Tunes from beginning to end without pause or hiccup.


(Hey, Corporate Media! I found the WMD - - RIGHT HERE!

Only it's the Weiners of Mass Distraction!)

:P :P

[BJ_M]

BJ_M,
I think you make my point. You make decisions about what speach is reasonable and what isn't, about when it is appropriate, about what is polite and what is just disruptive. This is exactly what anyone is doing when they are accused of censorship. It's where you draw the line not wether or not there IS a line.

I'm very suprised by your statement that porn is on TV in the afternoon where you live. That is surely child abuse in any society. Are you saying hard-core sex is shown on regular TV with no mechanism to prevent children from watching it, or are you saying some people subscribe to adult channels and then don't use whatever system is in place to protect childeren?

(I do think this discussion is right in line with the original post but I don't plan to go on and on with it any more than you do.)

this is a private web site and the owner has asked that certain discussions not take place .... its like asking someone not to bring a dog into your house ... its not my arbritary random thing ... i did not delete any of your post - only changed some letters .... most resonable people can understand the difference .. we should abide by the owners wishs whether its bringing that dog into a house or his personal property web site ...

yes -- by usa broadcast standards there is porn on canada (and many other countries) tv sometimes during the day/evening on many stations (cable and non cable)... no one here seems to complain about it and since both crime is substancialy lower and by many reports standard of living is higher here (among other things) --it hasn't seemed to grossly affected a whole lot.

[presto]

I PM'd BJ_M to let him know that he had misunderstood my previous post. I did not comment in any way on his having changed a few letters in my post. My comments were regarding the body of his post. I did not accuse him of censoring me.

[Fluffbutt]

Ya, I know. My point (that I didn't really make) is that the ONLY censorship that is ethical is censorship of oneself (or by oneself). Censorship from another person or group or body (as in body of law, or body of govt) is wrong, and should be resisted at all costs.

People who claim they are against censorship are taking the easy way out. Are you really saying that porn could be shown on TV all day long and it would be ok with you? N*** can give anti j** speaches at the next school assembly, no problem? If some guy wants to stand up at your wedding and yell "F**k Y**. the whole time and gosh that's his right? People can go on TV and plan to assasinate the president?

Of course not. The argument is about where to draw the line. It is a legitimate discussion. Standing back and saying "I don't believe in censorship is intellectually dishonest.

(Oops.I somehow seem to have replied to a post that was made two pages ago. This has been a busy thread)



note - i edited your text slightly to avoid issues with the rules of this forum (not censorship) -- bjm

Oh I'm not against censorship - I'm against someone ELSE deciding for ME what is censored, what I can see or hear. I censor myself, what I say or see, etc. I don't agree with any laws that take the responsibility away from me.

It is MY responsibility to decide that for me and my children, not some Govt body or religious arse group.

Movies are rated, based on their content. That should be enough for adults to decide if they want to watch it, or want the kids to watch it. There shiould be no extra censorship imposed. If you don't want to see it, don't watch it.

There are other laws covering the intent to assasinate/murder someone, it shouldn't come under censorship.

TV channels show what they think people want to see, (or in some cases what the Govt decides is ok for them to see, like often in Australia (LOL - you aussies know what I mean). mainstream TV has to cater for many different types of folk, so porn won't be shown all day. But yes, if it was what people wanted - after all if you don't want to see it, change the channel or turn it off. Just have in place the ratings so people get to make their OWN decisions. Actually an all porn channel would be good, it's no different to an all sport channel (I dislike footy/cricket type sports), and there's plenty of those. There are even all religious channels in some places (and lets face it, religion really is the opiate of the masses!).

As for children - they should be taught sex ed at high school, they should be shown how to roll a condom on a dildo, use anti-sperm gel, etc.
The wowsers will say that that would lead to more under age sex - I say it's giving teens the power to make a mature choice. If they want to, they're going to have sex anyway, at least this way they can prevent pregnancies. (In Australia they've just had a big hooha about 14yr olds using 'morning-after' pills. They want them banned, or big fines for selling to under 16's. Think about it - they've ALREADY had the sex, banning the pills won't stop that, it just takes away the mature choice of not wanting the baby!).

Basically I'm for censorship - but it comes from the individual adult, or from the parent, not from wowser groups and etc.

(( Oh, and about that book I mentioned earlier. It was over 8 months ago I read it (so I forget its name), it was written by 2 Uni Professors (in usa), and detailed over 150 schools (with another 400 odd mentioned). Over 90% of the censorship boards recommendations were acted on (including my example of the covered wagon women). There are also in place guidelines for publishers over which themes and scenes are allowed or not (eg: men are not allowed to be portrayed as sitting reading the paper whilst the women is making tea or washing the dishes), and books with those themes are not added to the library. The censorship applies to books in school libraries and those used in the school class rooms for study. Parents would not even know this edited rubbish was/is being taught to their children. ))

[chaseru]

Oh I'm not against censorship - I'm against someone ELSE deciding for ME what is censored, what I can see or hear. I censor myself, what I say or see, etc. I don't agree with any laws that take the responsibility away from me.

It is MY responsibility to decide that for me and my children, not some Govt body or religious arse group.

I agree, It is up to me to decide what is appropriate for my family.

Movies are rated, based on their content. That should be enough for adults to decide if they want to watch it, or want the kids to watch it. There shiould be no extra censorship imposed. If you don't want to see it, don't watch it.

Are you saying I can't further edit a movie if I want to? Press the mute button? Fastforward? Close my eyes in a scary scene? Why should I let some old farts on a ratings board determine what movies I see? Why can't I simply tell my DVD player to skip material I deem inappropriate? Must I simply bend over and take whatever a director gives me? Directors aren't gods; if I don't like a couple of scenes in a movie why can't I remove them and watch the rest of it. Why is it all or nothing?

As for children - they should be taught sex ed at high school, they should be shown how to roll a condom on a dildo, use anti-sperm gel, etc.

Maybe for your kids, but what if I don't want a "Govt body" to teach my kids to "roll a condom on a dildo"? What makes a "Govt body" better at teaching sex than a parent or some "wowser groups". I thought you said a "Govt body" shouldn't stipulate what is appropriate?

[Fluffbutt]

Oh I'm not against censorship - I'm against someone ELSE deciding for ME what is censored, what I can see or hear. I censor myself, what I say or see, etc. I don't agree with any laws that take the responsibility away from me.

It is MY responsibility to decide that for me and my children, not some Govt body or religious arse group.

I agree, It is up to me to decide what is appropriate for my family.

Movies are rated, based on their content. That should be enough for adults to decide if they want to watch it, or want the kids to watch it. There shiould be no extra censorship imposed. If you don't want to see it, don't watch it.

Are you saying I can't further edit a movie if I want to? Press the mute button? Fastforward? Close my eyes in a scary scene? Why should I let some old farts on a ratings board determine what movies I see? Why can't I simply tell my DVD player to skip material I deem inappropriate? Must I simply bend over and take whatever a director gives me? Directors aren't gods; if I don't like a couple of scenes in a movie why can't I remove them and watch the rest of it. Why is it all or nothing?

You've missed the point entirely - you pressing the mute button or closing your eyes IS you making the choice to censor it yourself. Mute or fast forward by all means - it's YOU making the censorship moves, not someone in a court room or whatever. (I didn't necessarily mean don't watch the whole movie - but that does apply to porno (don't like it? don't watch it, but also don't ban it for those that do like it).

The ratings board doesn't (well it might, but shouldn't) decide for you what you can see, it just rates the movie so you can decide to see it or not. Also - what if (later in newer dvd players) it skips the inappropriate bits automatically and can't be turned off? - How would you even know those bits were being skipped (as opposed to not being there in the first place)?

As for children - they should be taught sex ed at high school, they should be shown how to roll a condom on a dildo, use anti-sperm gel, etc.

Maybe for your kids, but what if I don't want a "Govt body" to teach my kids to "roll a condom on a dildo"? What makes a "Govt body" better at teaching sex than a parent or some "wowser groups". I thought you said a "Govt body" shouldn't stipulate what is appropriate?

Well, yes, sorry, I wasn't seeing schools as Govt bodies (and they shouldn't be - Govt and school should be seperate). And if you choose to do it yourself, then good on you - but so damn many parents actively (as in going out of their way to) shy away from teaching their kids the important things in life.

My point here was not so much the actual teaching of things, but trying to get the notion that sex happens, it happens between consenting children (as well as non consenting)(I also don't mean 8 yrs olds consenting, but 14-16's) - isn't it better to educate about how to choose if to do it or not, and the consequences of it, and how to prevent infections/pregnancy, rather then run away from the subject and ban everything associated with it (such as the mentioned morning after pill)?

[Rookie64]

Some of you guys are taking this all a little too seriously


Being that I'm a writer/filmmaker/film scholar myself, I can tell you that censorship starts long before anyone sees the finished product.

The screenplay that gets produced gets changed by the director, sometimes the actors and/or the studio or producers during the film making process...sometimes it changed around so much that the writer questions if this was even his/her screenplay.

The same goes with adaptations of previous published stories or books.

The studio and/or director will edit the film several times before it goes anywhere - sometimes due to length, sometimes due to content, sometimes due to legal issues.

Then the film goes through more cuts/edits if the MPAA stamps a rating on it that the studio/distributor doesn't want - this happens a lot btw.

Some movies are released in different versions to different markets - what version you see isn't always the director's intended version.


In the '70s, films were spliced by whoever handled the film before it got to your area - and the director nor studio had any say about it (probably didn't even know their film was being cut)...someone somewhere just took the liberty upon themselves to cut out what "they" didn't want you to see.
Usually it was Drive-Ins that got the choppy versions since a lot of films got second runs in those days (either as a second or third feature).


Network TV has been editing movies to fit their standards as far back as I can remember.


HBO and Showtime have aired movies that they censored for graphic content...some examples,
The Last Picture Show, In Praise Of Older Women, Last Tango In Paris, Breezy, Last Summer.

Movies such as Straw Dogs, Mandingo, A Clockwork Orange, Dont' Look Now, Soldier Blue among several others
were cut for some offensive content during their original release.

Many movies were banned altogether - some countries or areas refused to have anything to do with 'em.

We're talking commercial features here - not some monumental treasure

These movies listed on the link provided were made solely for entertainment and to profit from.
I think some of you care about their preservation a lot more than the people who created them do

Parents do have rights to the content of things presented in their own homes.
Home environment is not the same as a theater or public showing and personal use of a movie can be subject to almost anything.
The viewer has the say how the movie will be presented in their own home.


I personally would not edit movies, but then again, I don't have any kids of my own.
I see nothing wrong with parents using their own discretion for what their kids view in their own homes.


Though, I know at a very young age I was able to handle adult material...and was even exposed to quite a bit.
My parents weren't strict about such things, and I think I turned out ok :P
I saw The Exorcist before I turned 10 - I saw even more than that before that age, but times were different then.
We live in a different world today, and some movies are a bit extreme in content, and I fully understand why so many people are concerned about what their kids see or hear.

The movies will still be there when these kids reach adulthood, and if they want to see what they missed out on, they'll have that choice then.
'til then, it's their parents say.

None of this affects anyone else's choice...so I don't quite see why this is even being debated.

[Thorn]

I refuse to buy this, unless they make a version that skips all the boring stuff and just shows the cussing, violence, and nudity.

Seriously, I've been v-chipped in a hotel room before. Next time that happens, I'm calling the front desk just on the principle of it. I shouldn't have to suffer censorship because of someone else's personal choices.

This kind of tool is annoying, but it's no worse than having it legal for parents to take their kids into a smoky bar and grill or bowling alley. Parents do dumb stuff.

The previous method was for to rent or sell the altered versions, which *IS* bad, because the original can't be restored and you're passing along censored media.

[indolikaa]

I refuse to buy this, unless they make a version that skips all the boring stuff and just shows the cussing, violence, and nudity.

YEAH!!!

[BobK]

Fluffbutt wrote:

> I'm against someone ELSE deciding for ME what is censored

> Movies are rated, based on their content... There shiould be no extra censorship imposed. If you don't want to see it, don't watch it

So Fluffbutt's against some ELSE deciding for HIM what is censored- but he has no problem deciding for someone ELSE.

[branch]

bokkasrealm,

Why is this offensive to you? Is it not a parents responsibility to try to keep smut out of their kids TV? I find nothing offensive about it. Will it work? Probably not for the reasons mentioned (too limited w/ only 500 movies recognized). It's all about choice.

No, its all about being neurotic. They should see a shrink instead.

[Fluffbutt]

Fluffbutt wrote:

> I'm against someone ELSE deciding for ME what is censored

> Movies are rated, based on their content... There shiould be no extra censorship imposed. If you don't want to see it, don't watch it

So Fluffbutt's against some ELSE deciding for HIM what is censored- but he has no problem deciding for someone ELSE.

Umm, so how is me saying someone shouldn't have the right to dictate for others me deciding for them? Unless you mean the "if you don't want to see it, don't watch it" - that's not me deciding for you, that's just basic common sense. If you don't like something, walk away from it (take youself away from whatever offends you) - it applies to everything, from wife beating to watching porn.

I would never tell anyone what they can watch or do (unless it affects me or my family, so don't come and piss in my front pool!). My parents brought me up with one basic rule - do what you will, but respect yourself and respect others, and respect their same rights you wish to have.

[BobK]

> Umm, so how is me saying someone shouldn't have the right to dictate for others me deciding for them? Unless you mean the "if you don't want to see it, don't watch it"

That's it- you don't like anyone buying WalMarts smut-remover- you want them to either watch the whole thing or not watch at all. That's a desire to dictate what they watch.

[bobinga]

I'm just glad that my parents brought me up with the tools to understand the difference between fantasy & reality, good & bad, and appropriate & inappropriate behavior, instead of blanket censoring what I could watch, read or listen to, or relying on a machine to do it for them.

Hmmm!!! Curious as to how old you are housepig?

If you grew up in the 50's 60's or even 70's and some of 80's
there was no profanity on TV, less then in movies than now, sex on TV was largely a non-issue for viewers. There are many movies I enjoy, that I would enjoy more if it weren't for the profanity, gratuitious sex and violence.

I talk to my children during movies and TV and point out inappropriateness to them when I can. We do not use profanity in our home. I do realize they will hear it where-ever they go, but we as a family have been known to leave or avoid public places when I feel that there is inapproprite talk or actions.

As far as a device for censoring inappropriate words, I am for it if it can be done well without destroying the meaning or context of the movie ( to my eyes and ears ) I would not be for you purchasing such a device unless you chose to.

Maybe IMO a good example of not being able to do censorship of the "f" word was in a movie I saw yesterday, I believe it was called "My First Mister". At first I thought it was inaapropriate to use it especially so frequently and this was pointed out by a lead character, but I changed my mind in the closing of the movie. They gave the "f" word new meaning ( friendship, forgiveness, forever, ETC ) But, it is not a movie I will allow my 8-9 y/o daughter watch. Just as I will not allow her to see "The Passion of the Christ", because of the graphic violence.

[Fluffbutt]

> Umm, so how is me saying someone shouldn't have the right to dictate for others me deciding for them? Unless you mean the "if you don't want to see it, don't watch it"

That's it- you don't like anyone buying WalMarts smut-remover- you want them to either watch the whole thing or not watch at all. That's a desire to dictate what they watch.

Actually it's not - the ability to remove the sounds, or look away or whatever exists without some tool that does it for you automagically. I've just seen/heard of too many cases where some teeny tiny law/ruling (or even a utility like this dvd player) is blown out into a restrictive monstrosity.

Also because the acceptance of tools like that often leads to enforced usage ("the thin end of the wedge" type of deal) sometime in the future (maybe there will come dvd players where this smut-killer is permanently on). Like when they say "your picture on your drivers lic. will not be used as a ID card", which after about 3 years becomes an ID card.

There's always a 'good' reason for the institution of rules/restrictions, but in nearly all cases the restrictions are made wider and go way beyond what they were designed for. Totalitarian states start from good intentions...