Censorship

[Nosferatu@Cult Labs]

Many of those on the list seemed to me to be in the 'taking offence for the sake of it' or (like the Piers Morgan spats on GMB) 'controversial to gain ratings' categories.

There didn't appear to be any which were going to impact programming decisions by editors or major powers in the future.

[Prince_Vajda]

Most of your original post (which is a quote from the website - I know that) and another member's response clearly show that this is a delicate subject.

It's not possible to discuss most of the cases listed without talking about politics or religion, two topics that are not welcome on this forum for a very good reason. Apart from that, it has almost nothing to do with (cult) films or TV series.

If you want an honest answer - yes, I do think the post should be removed (or at least be edited). It just doesn't fit here, and most points cannot be discussed without at least referring to politics or religion.

Apparently, the moderators share your opinion, Susan. I'd just like to add that this is nothing personal. No offence.

[Boo Radley]

Oooooooo!!!!! Censorship on the censorship discussion thread!

It's a given that on this cult film forum politics and religion are not topics welcome for any sort of debate but if kept to moderation are intrinsically connected to censorship, not just here but world wide.

Many films are cut or banned because of religious beliefs, just look at The Life of Brian, Visions of Ecstasy, The Devils or even the furore caused by The Last Temptation of Christ. Films banned or cut for political reasons are legion around the world depending on the political and religious beliefs of the country involved. It is an impossibility to discuss censorship without these topics. To say we can talk about censorship but not in these contexts is loony far left reasoning.

Nos got it right by saying it is; "People taking offence because they can." (Or words close enough.) This is what happens when we bring up a whole generation with participation trophies who feel they are entitled to whinge, moan and label anyone with a different view than their own before crying that they need a safe space because words hurt them.

If religion or politics are pertinent to the subject discussed then to have a blanket ban on talking about it and debating points of view is an insidious form of censorship, especially on cult films, a subject dear to most of our hearts. Any thoughts???

[Nosferatu@Cult Labs]

Originally Posted by Boo Radley

If religion or politics are pertinent to the subject discussed then to have a blanket ban on talking about it and debating points of view is an insidious form of censorship, especially on cult films, a subject dear to most of our hearts. Any thoughts???

I think you basically covered the scope of the debate in your post. If there is a controversy surrounding a film, whether to do with religion, politics or sport (or anything else), it's fine to discuss the subject and how it is tackled in that film. To use one of your examples, it's impossible to talk about the controversy which has surrounded The Devils since its release without mentioning religion. The same would apply to I, Daniel Blake and the sociopolitical issues it raises.

Starting a debate about something topical which is religious or political in nature and has nothing to do with a film is something we are keen to avoid and is best left to Facebook, Twitter and the like.

[Nosferatu@Cult Labs]

If people have a problem with a post or conduct of another user (or users), could they please use the 'report post' function or contact the moderators privately? This way things can be discussed and dealt with quickly and discreetly rather than risk feelings being hurt.

[Susan Foreman]

I don't know if it'll have any effect on 'us', but The Rt Hon Matt Hancock MP has been appointed Secretary of State for Digital, Censorship, Media and Sport in the government cabinet re-shuffle

Melon Farmers: UK Government Watch: Latest - New State Censor

"Matt Hancock is the MP for West Suffolk, having been elected in the 2010 general election. Since July 2016 he has served at DCMS as Minister of State for Digital and is responsible for broadband, broadcasting, creative industries, cyber and the tech industry.

The Secretary of State has overall responsibility for strategy and policy across the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.

The department's main policy areas are:

• arts and culture
• broadcasting
• creative industries
• cultural property, heritage and the historic environment
• gambling and racing
• libraries
• media ownership and mergers
• museums and galleries
• the National Lottery
• sport
• telecommunications and online
• tourism

Hancock has already been working on the new law to serve up porn viewers on a platter to scammers, fraudsters, blackmailers and identity thieves, so there is unlikely to be a change of direction there."

https://www.gov.uk/government/people/matthew-hancock

[Rik]

As long as he’s not another Graham Bright with his traumatised dogs

[nosferatu42]

There's a weird dog/dogging connection going on at cult labs tonight.
the mind boggles.

[nosferatu42]

Originally Posted by Rik

As long as he’s not another Graham Bright with his traumatised dogs

I wonder if he tried it on cats too.
If so i bet they didn't give a f**k cuz well y'know cats are the epitome of cool nonchalance (....and evil bastards.)

look-at-me-giving-a-****.jpg

tumblr_lk1kw1dniE1qzmopno1_1280.jpg

[Demoncrat]

Continuing the cat theme.
On the way back from my monthly meeting (for the radio) I came across a very friendly ginger/white tom who has taken over the old copshop as territory

Next!!