|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on May 28, 2017 14:40:21 GMT
I've been watching YouTube videos of Siskel and Ebert, film critics in America (now both deceased) who had a film review show together up until 1999. I saw that one of the videos was entitled "Video Nasties" and thought: "Here we go again, more liberal moaning about "moral panics". (Siskel and Ebert were both very much liberals.) However, I was pleasantly surprised that it was a denunciation of "video nasties" (and some of these movies were really nasty; one film called Faces of Death was literally just a compilation of footage of real deaths.) Ebert and Siskel were not calling for censorship, but denouncing the films themselves and asking parents and video store owners to be more responsible in keeping them out of the hands of children. Here is the segment.Now, don't get me wrong. I'm a fan of horror films. I even like some slasher films, such as Scream and Halloween. But it seems that this kind of moral indignation has now been entirely dismissed as "moral panic". Mary Whitehouse, the "clean up TV" campaigner who was active in Britain in the seventies and eightes (and maybe later) is routinely dismissed as a crackpot. The question of whether entertainment influences how people behave is constantly trotted out, as though that's the crucial question-- when, to me, it's as much a question of the TONE of popular entertainment, as much as any effect it has. "Moral panics" seem perfectly fine to the left when it's a moral panic over the portrayal of minorities (for instance). I'm interested in what people think about this. Conservatives are usually partisans for freedom of expression and speech, as am I. But I think there are limits. |
|
|
|
Post by bryanreynolds on Jun 3, 2017 22:29:32 GMT
On the one hand, I come from a nominal liberal background and have always been told of the evil of censorship in keeping information from people.
On the other hand, from the time I began to become more spiritually conscious, I've become more aware of the effects which images have on us, upon our spirit, our morality, our society. Even from a banal, purely secular point of view it's obvious that advertising really works to turn images, slogans, brands into big money for corporations.
I begin to think that perhaps one step to lift up the culture would be introduce some form of censorship.
Just as a personal anecdote I found a book called "Hexes and Spells," something like that, in the children's section at my local public library. The cover had a cartoon picture of a demon, the sort of goofy monster character you see on children's programs. Inside, though, the author explained that he would be, without judgement, simply recounting superstitions and folklore. His position, he said, was that we can't really know the "the truth," it's all relative! It was far too sophisticated for a child to penetrate. A child would look at this book and just accept that, because of its sophisticated tone, the adult author was meaning its contents for the purpose of instruction. A child would not understand that the adult author was playing an intellectual game with them, such as the author tried to explain. Inside the book I was horrified to find a chapter with a description of how to perform a real black magic ritual, along with a series of photographs showing how to make a magic circle and cast a spell. This is a really egregious example, most books aren't like this, but it proves, at least to me, that there should be some censorship.
|
|
|
|
Post by rogerbuck on Jun 4, 2017 9:53:04 GMT
That is horrible, bryanreynolds.
Want to say more when I can, but very quickly now: censorship until very recently was a natural part of Western society. Lady Chatterley's Lover was banned in Britain till 1959 and that is said to have high literary value. Today, almost anything goes. But that reflects an extremely modern idea. Why are we SO SURE that public opinion in 2017 is automatically superior to public opinion in 1959?
More to say when I can.
|
|
|
|
Post by rogerbuck on Jun 4, 2017 9:57:36 GMT
Quick addition: Conservatives are usually partisans for freedom of expression and speech, as am I. But I think there are limits. Something I am increasingly concerned about: how much Anglo-American conservatism becomes the norm. What you just wrote, Maolsheachlann, definitely seems true of American conservatism, especially. But it's not so true of continental European conservatism! And here is yet another reason I am concerned about the still often unseen effects of my own Anglo-American culture on Ireland. Big topic I hope to expand on ... |
|
|
|
Post by cato on Jun 4, 2017 13:10:51 GMT
We already have censorship albeit in a more subtle way . In our society it is incredibly difficult to hear an alternative to secular, liberal or leftist opinion.
Realistically any practical return to censorship would mean the state restricting the rights of religious believers , pro life advocates , or social conservatives as has happened recently in France with restrictions placed on pro life websites. Leftists are to the fore banning speakers , creating 'safe spaces' and generally screaming emotional abuse at those who dare to differ. During the Gay Marriage referendum debate I recall self censoring my views for a variety of motives something I now recall with shame.
I share the concerns of byranreynolds above. In some bookshops the occult section is as large as the "spirituality" section. The success of Philip Pullman who deliberately writes anti-christian polemic to counter more traditional writers like C S Lewis is dismaying .However I don't think censorship of occult themes can work even if it was on the agenda. With the demise of christendom I can't see how we christians can insist on banning views hostile to christian belief. The media loves a "Harry Potter is Satanic"says Pope story. All that does is make christians look stupid and boost sales for the condemned author.
I think we should have formal censorship in some generally agreed areas. I can't understand why we allow propaganda from Islamic extremism including beheadings to be freely available for example. Similarly restricting social media for children would seem to be of obvious social benefit. Censorship does need to have broad support if it has a chance to work.
|
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Jun 4, 2017 13:15:43 GMT
I agree with every word of that, Cato. Especially the last sentence.
|
|
|
|
Post by bryanreynolds on Jun 4, 2017 14:02:58 GMT
I'm not very sympathetic to cries that Harry Potter is satanic. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis can be called "Occult" if we use broad enough strokes. Such a criticism seems to gloss over the subtle, arguably more impacting, level at which art really works. Actually, from my reading, Harry Potter isn't particularly deep. It certainly isn't morally corrupting the way, for example, some American "tween pop" music stars seem to be. No, "Censor it!" mustn't be a battle cry. Censorship should be wielded carefully, with respect for the intelligence of readers.
I may type up L. Brent Bozell's essay "Freedom or Virtue," I refer to it so much and yet it isn't available online. He makes a convincing case there for censorship, if I recall correctly.
|
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Jun 4, 2017 14:06:46 GMT
Yes, I agree with you about Harry Potter, but I've had surprisingly animated debates about this with other conservative Catholics.
|
|
