Excessive Censorship
- Thread starter AnyOldIron
- Start date
IHateGovernment
Is this your homework?
It isn't a monopoly. There are plenty of other movie theater chains. AMC, Loews as well as independent chains.
What do you suggest the government forcing these chains to show the movie? How would you frame such a law?
Censorship requires the force of law behind it. The theaters are failing to do something it is not an infringement upon your rights when someone fails to provide you with something.
Is it censorship if I invite you to my home and do not begin playing porno on the TV?
What do you suggest the government forcing these chains to show the movie? How would you frame such a law?
Censorship requires the force of law behind it. The theaters are failing to do something it is not an infringement upon your rights when someone fails to provide you with something.
Is it censorship if I invite you to my home and do not begin playing porno on the TV?
Immanuel
Junior Member
Anyold,
Can you answer one question for me? Okay make it two or three if you count the first one.
Why does the left believe that they have the right to dictate what products private (non-governmental) corporations and businesses sell? This happens all the time. With you, Care, Desh and others representing the left claiming that theaters must show movies that they want to have shown. It is up to the board of directors of these theaters to decide what product they want to sell, not you.
The same thing goes for representatives of the company. When Whoopie Goldberg made statements that affected "Slim Fast" because she was a corporate representative they let her go. Care, Desh and others had a fit about that as if they had the right to tell the makers of Slim Fast who they had to employ.
Why is it not up to the theater to decide what movies they want to show? I remember when there was an uproar about "Fahrenheith 9/11", no one from the right demanded that the theaters not show the movie. The statements were that we would not go to watch the movie. The left, however, screams censorship. This is not censorship at all. Censorship is when the government prevents an item from being distributed. The government has nothing to do with this.
Immie
Can you answer one question for me? Okay make it two or three if you count the first one.
Why does the left believe that they have the right to dictate what products private (non-governmental) corporations and businesses sell? This happens all the time. With you, Care, Desh and others representing the left claiming that theaters must show movies that they want to have shown. It is up to the board of directors of these theaters to decide what product they want to sell, not you.
The same thing goes for representatives of the company. When Whoopie Goldberg made statements that affected "Slim Fast" because she was a corporate representative they let her go. Care, Desh and others had a fit about that as if they had the right to tell the makers of Slim Fast who they had to employ.
Why is it not up to the theater to decide what movies they want to show? I remember when there was an uproar about "Fahrenheith 9/11", no one from the right demanded that the theaters not show the movie. The statements were that we would not go to watch the movie. The left, however, screams censorship. This is not censorship at all. Censorship is when the government prevents an item from being distributed. The government has nothing to do with this.
Immie
What are you talking about? They should be forced to show what you want them to? Private theaters should be forced to show movies because you want them to?
uscitizen
Villified User
Of course they should, Only show movies I like
I had not even planned to see the Bush movie, now I will probably either do a pay per view on satellite or buy the DVD.
AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
No, it isn't censorship because there are other places to see the flick and it isn't the government working to keep you from the movie.
Oh, so only governments can create censorship? What on Earth makes you think that? That's a dangerous notion to hold. You act as if industry is an innocent lamb that cannot manipulate whilst government is always the wolf....
If many in the US hold this opinion that could explain the unbridled power wealth has in the US.
People will not be stopped from seeing the movie if they wish to and it is therefore not the "same thing" as censorship, it isn't even close.
This is restricting access because of the opinions on political grounds of a few men because of their dominant position of power, created by their wealth.
Simple as that. It isn't restricted on the grounds that it is a small, independent movie but on the grounds of the political opinions of a few men.
Oh, so only governments can create censorship? What on Earth makes you think that? That's a dangerous notion to hold. You act as if industry is an innocent lamb that cannot manipulate whilst government is always the wolf....
If many in the US hold this opinion that could explain the unbridled power wealth has in the US.
People will not be stopped from seeing the movie if they wish to and it is therefore not the "same thing" as censorship, it isn't even close.
This is restricting access because of the opinions on political grounds of a few men because of their dominant position of power, created by their wealth.
Simple as that. It isn't restricted on the grounds that it is a small, independent movie but on the grounds of the political opinions of a few men.
Whatever... It's not like it was Bush passing a law to keep it from the theaters. It's plain silly. Go to AMC and watch it, if it becomes popular enough to get into the larger chains they'll carry it.Of course they should, Only show movies I like
I had not even planned to see the Bush movie, now I will probably either do a pay per view on satellite or buy the DVD.
Calling it censorship everytime somebody decides something like this is plain ridiculous.
Look. Several large chains mentioned before in this thread did not make this same decision, people have access to the flick. It is paranoid delusion to pretend that they will not have access when they will.
That some have decided not to take money to show this one is not the same as censorship as people have access to the movie.
IHateGovernment
Is this your homework?
Oh, so only governments can create censorship? What on Earth makes you think that? That's a dangerous notion to hold. You act as if industry is an innocent lamb that cannot manipulate whilst government is always the wolf....
If many in the US hold this opinion that could explain the unbridled power wealth has in the US.
Here is the difference Any.
If the government acted it would say no theater may show this film. If a theater did show the film they would be fined and if they refused to pay the fine the responsible party would be jailed. This is the coercive nature of government.
Does Regal entertainment have this power. If AMC decides to show the film can Regal fine or jail AMC for doing so. Do they have a police force with guns in order to enforce their will?
Of course not they are exercising there freedom as much as we do when we decide what movies we will show in our own homes.
When business starts using a private police force to enforce its policy I will decry it but as long as they simply exercise there rights I will not call it censorship. Do I disagree with their refusal to show the movie. Yes I do. Would I protest against them. I could. Would I call for the government to force them to do what I want? Never.
This is restricting access because of the opinions on political grounds of a few men because of their dominant position of power, created by their wealth.
Simple as that. It isn't restricted on the grounds that it is a small, independent movie but on the grounds of the political opinions of a few men.
Sound like government.
If many in the US hold this opinion that could explain the unbridled power wealth has in the US.
Here is the difference Any.
If the government acted it would say no theater may show this film. If a theater did show the film they would be fined and if they refused to pay the fine the responsible party would be jailed. This is the coercive nature of government.
Does Regal entertainment have this power. If AMC decides to show the film can Regal fine or jail AMC for doing so. Do they have a police force with guns in order to enforce their will?
Of course not they are exercising there freedom as much as we do when we decide what movies we will show in our own homes.
When business starts using a private police force to enforce its policy I will decry it but as long as they simply exercise there rights I will not call it censorship. Do I disagree with their refusal to show the movie. Yes I do. Would I protest against them. I could. Would I call for the government to force them to do what I want? Never.
This is restricting access because of the opinions on political grounds of a few men because of their dominant position of power, created by their wealth.
Simple as that. It isn't restricted on the grounds that it is a small, independent movie but on the grounds of the political opinions of a few men.
Sound like government.
IHateGovernment
Is this your homework?
I have a netflix subscription. Perhaps I should accuse them of censorship because they do not have available every single movie I may wish to see.
AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
Three of the largest cinema groups in the US, who cover much of the US, have restricted a film because of their political opinions.
That doesn't mean that it isn't available in a few small independent cinemas, but the political opinions of a few men have restricted the access of many people to see this film.
This is them using their power, granted by capitalism because of their wealth, to enforce their will on others.
This is akin to governmental censorship. When government censors something, it can still prolificate, only it is hampered by government action.
In this case, it can still prolificate, but is hampered by the dominant powers in the market.
The difference is that then decision is made in this case by the will of a few powerful men, rather than the decision of the elected government.
That you see democracy as so weak and corrupt, yet capitalism (handing power into the hands of a few) as so pure an uncorruptable is really shocking.
More Brave New World than 1984.....
That doesn't mean that it isn't available in a few small independent cinemas, but the political opinions of a few men have restricted the access of many people to see this film.
This is them using their power, granted by capitalism because of their wealth, to enforce their will on others.
This is akin to governmental censorship. When government censors something, it can still prolificate, only it is hampered by government action.
In this case, it can still prolificate, but is hampered by the dominant powers in the market.
The difference is that then decision is made in this case by the will of a few powerful men, rather than the decision of the elected government.
That you see democracy as so weak and corrupt, yet capitalism (handing power into the hands of a few) as so pure an uncorruptable is really shocking.
More Brave New World than 1984.....
The difference being that the film is available, at major theater chains (like AMC and Loewes) and that nobody will be denied their chance at seeing it if they wish.
I don't see capitalism as "uncorruptible" althought I do point out that capitalism provides more than one way to skin a cat. In this case there are other major chains that will provide and make the money that these chains decided not to make. Calling that "censorship" is simply laughable Chiken little-style "sky is falling" paranoia.
AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
I have a netflix subscription. Perhaps I should accuse them of censorship because they do not have available every single movie I may wish to see.
Stop being obtuse and using strawmen.
It is the decision to censor on political grounds, the political opinions of a few powerful men.
It isn't a decision made because it is a small film, or independent, or art-house...
Stop being obtuse and using strawmen.
It is the decision to censor on political grounds, the political opinions of a few powerful men.
It isn't a decision made because it is a small film, or independent, or art-house...
IHateGovernment
Is this your homework?
This is them using their power, granted by capitalism because of their wealth, to enforce their will on others.
This forces nothing. Movie theaters are not a right. This idea can be taken to rediculous ideas. Perhaps I should rail against capitalism because it no longer puts out to video movies I want to see in beta format so that I may watch them on my player.
Movie theaters are providing us with a service. They don't have to offer it and we have no right to dictate how the provide this service to us. The right exists granting us the ability to go onto another's property and demand we see whatever we wish does not exist.
This forces nothing. Movie theaters are not a right. This idea can be taken to rediculous ideas. Perhaps I should rail against capitalism because it no longer puts out to video movies I want to see in beta format so that I may watch them on my player.
Movie theaters are providing us with a service. They don't have to offer it and we have no right to dictate how the provide this service to us. The right exists granting us the ability to go onto another's property and demand we see whatever we wish does not exist.
You are once again pretending that there is no other source that people may use to see this movie. This is a false paper tiger you are hunting.
Other major chains are showing the movie and will make the money. It is simply disingenuous to pretend that it is otherwise and that it is somehow "censorship".
This would be like saying Blockbuster censors its movies because it won't stock porn for your pleasure. They do it for moral reasons so it must be horrible censorship. Even though the movies are available at many other outlets.
Other major chains are showing the movie and will make the money. It is simply disingenuous to pretend that it is otherwise and that it is somehow "censorship".
This would be like saying Blockbuster censors its movies because it won't stock porn for your pleasure. They do it for moral reasons so it must be horrible censorship. Even though the movies are available at many other outlets.