Well, Britain has no formal constitution and therefore has no constitutionally protected right to free speech. Australians have no right to free speech under their constitution. Certain types of speech are illegal in France and Germany...but - at least as far as I am aware - the drive to censor and <Helen Lovejoy>think of the children</Helen Lovejoy> is not as much of an issue in these countries as it appears to be in the US.
(BTW, the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirmed the right to free speech in all signatory countries back in 1948...not sure how this jibes with French and German laws against hate speech)
Here's an interesting and topical article on artistic expression. A student at The 'Acadamy of Art University' in SF was expelled for writing a violent short story. After his parents complained that the story was in keeping with course material, an instructor was dismissed for having assigned reading of a short story by David Foster Wallace (which contained some scenes of violence). When Salman Rushdie wrote to the college in support of the instructor the college administration professed never to have heard of Rushdie. I don't know what is more mind-blowing...that the largest private art college in the country had never heard of David Foster Wallace or Salman Rushdie or that they ended up calling SFPD Homicide to look at the student's paper.
Your post is misleading. There is no Canadian law that bans any news channel based on its right wing vs. left-wing affiliation. Rather, it is fair to say that broadcasting is regulated in Canada primarily from the perspective of Canadian protectionism Â? i.e. to encourage Canadian broadcasting and to Canadians to watch programming produced by Canadians. We can certainly debate the merits of such protectionism - and there are many very good arguments against it, and perhaps some arguments in favour of it Â? but it is a different matter than a Â?banÂ?, especially a political ban. LotÂ?s of other American stations are also not licensed for broadcast on Canadian cable, including MSNBC, HBO, MTV and Comedy Central.
That being said, I would welcome Fox News on Canadian cable. I donÂ?t think that there currently is an adequate domestic Canadian source of right-wing jingoistic blather. Certianly there would be at least some market for this here among conservatives in Canada, so I say that we should let it in. And for the majority of Canadians, it could serve as a comedy network.
You're right of course, after hitting reply I realized my post was a bit abrupt on the reason Fox isn't in Canada, and I knew someone would call me on it.
There was a recent application for Fox that was shot down by the CRTC. While some of the 'ranting' on Fox News would likely turn off many Canadians, I think it would be a valuable contribution to the Canadian spectrum.
A great commentary on the current Canadian news scene can be found on Andrew Coyne's site.
Quote:
The CBC, according to a new report from a Senate committee, despite receiving nearly $10 billion in subsidies over the last 10 years, has seen its average audience share drop steadily. It now stands at less than 6%. Six per cent. Six. Per. Cent.
Overall, Canadian broadcasters spent $654 million on news and information programming in 2002. Yet just 1.1% of viewers tuned into CBC Antiquesroadshowworld, which I'm told occasionally shows the news, and just 0.5 per cent watched CTV Newsnet, which the CRTC won't let show the news. Meanwhile, 2.7 per cent were watching CNN, the only news channel available that is neither subsidized nor regulated. (I have not seen any figures for Fox, which is banned in this country.)
$10-billion for the CBC, a raft of regulators monitoring every broadcast second, ownership limits and content quotas and Telefilm subisidies and God knows what else, and what are we watching? CNN. Yep. What we need are more "safeguards."
Oh just I meant any and all that are under the power of the broadcast censors. Which can be a wide range of artists.
No, I didn't mean the website artists sorry for being vague.
Anyway it's just an observation, not so much a crusade on my part.
People in the creative field do have issues with this.
Any web or graphic artist who uses (to this extent) stock photography is a talentess idiot. And the creative director there can join the other confederates of idiots too.
Yes, I have used stock photos. But not to the extent these nimrods have.
Still, it has gotten so hard to please the higher ups and the PC public in general. When I designed a logo for a grandkid's magazine I put two cartoon heads of "white" children. The creative director asked me to add more ethnic heads "for diversity sake". Well I did. Looked stupid. But I guess it worked because we didn't recieve any "complaints" (but not many subcriptions either).
Now, anytime I want to design something of this nature, I have to put into consideration that showing only whites (or whites and blacks) will upset the asians, latinos, indians or the muslims (oooh, don't want to upset them do we?) out there who may have a beef about it.
Next time this comes along I'll be creative with design and type...that's all I'd have instead of illustration...or crack under the pressure and use stock garbage.
johnq- i dont see any white artists being helf back to support more ethnic groups at all. name the canadian musicians u know then tell me how many are of a different race (other than rap/r&b i dont expect u to get too many). and i dont want people to look at that statement and think its the opposite either, just as johnq said, the % is high for white canadians. so it is maintaining the ratio pretty much.
on another note, CBC's ratings drop because Canadians have been exposed to the much more violent and "exciting" news in the States. many people switch to cnn "the most trusted name in news"\ . nothing that tragic happens on Canadian news and for some reason thats what people want to see.
Frank777, ive seen Fox News on tv, it hasnt been removed as far as i know. and when it comes to those evangelist things, i think CRTC wants to tone down on the amount of craziness that they are spewing.
The problem with banning something like Fox "ranting" (or whatever) is that it insults the people they think they are trying to protect.
It assumes/presumes/implies:
1. People might actually agree with it
2. People have no right to watch it even if they completely disagree with it
3. People won't resent having blinders applied to them by the government
4. People will not be able to make sound, moral, fair decisions or form opinions that are tolerant and just
5. The moral character of the Canadian people is weak and cannot withstand the full spectrum of ideas
6. Canadians are not mature, responsible or morally capable of maintaining their ideals if allowed to see American broadcasts/content
I frequently watch channels and programs that I object to. How else does one know for oneself the extent to which their ideological enemy is wrong, and what lies and tactics they are using?
I can't abide the patriotic blather on Fox News yet I watch it perhaps more than anything precisely because I -want- to be galled or appalled by their slanted coverage. CNN is no less galling or slanted but that's another thread.
People should choose their news/entertainment sources. You make a tolerant society by choice not by force. This is why things like the Iraq war (trying to democratize an inherently Islamic state) is futile. "Change must come from within" holds true to Canada as much as it does Iraq. Of course, Canada doesn't want change. Not now that a few have "perfected" everything for the rest.
Is everyone in Canada taking a handful of government officials' word for it that certain shows (ideas/opinions/viewpoints) are "bad"?
How the heck do people "know thy enemy"? I read "Mein Kampf" but I had to go buy my copy on my own - when I was in highschool. The only reason I could carry it around was that my hair down to my belt. Sure, everyone knows he was evil without reading his book. But how do we know what the danger signs are if those books are all banned? I've read many "banned" books merely on principle. And I'm stronger for it. Same with movies and radio and music and art.
Besides there are entire swaths of humanity that have important stories to tell and those stories might contain offensive elements. But why silence or bind them?
You can learn about an enemy/repulsive idea in depth and not in fact believe in that enemy/repulsive idea yourself.
People in the creative field do have issues with this.
Any web or graphic artist who uses (to this extent) stock photography is a talentess idiot. And the creative director there can join the other confederates of idiots too.
Yes, I have used stock photos. But not to the extent these nimrods have.
Still, it has gotten so hard to please the higher ups and the PC public in general. When I designed a logo for a grandkid's magazine I put two cartoon heads of "white" children. The creative director asked me to add more ethnic heads "for diversity sake". Well I did. Looked stupid. But I guess it worked because we didn't recieve any "complaints" (but not many subcriptions either).
Now, anytime I want to design something of this nature, I have to put into consideration that showing only whites (or whites and blacks) will upset the asians, latinos, indians or the muslims (oooh, don't want to upset them do we?) out there who may have a beef about it.
Next time this comes along I'll be creative with design and type...that's all I'd have instead of illustration...or crack under the pressure and use stock garbage.
Trust me, I know.
I also design websites for a living.
It is such a P.C. minefield. I avoid pictures of people as decoration unless I can use real pictures of actual staff on location.
There are valid arguments for not inflating representation. A nice comment along the lines of "Considering the demographics of your company, do you really want to exaggerate?" goes a long way. Meaning "Why show a black/asian/hispanic/etc. person if you in fact have none working for you". I'm saying to them 1. you might want to hire more minorities and 2. lying to the public by showing minorities when you have none is not honest, right or wise.
Next thing you know we are using architectural photographs sans people.
Better than an insulting make-believe land.
Several companies I've worked for and many clients have been all-white workplaces. That's one thing. Black web programmers, say, were kinda scarce in '95. But having the website then look like the crew of the Starship Enterprise is insult to injury.
Tom Snyder Productions was the whitest company. And they make screamingly-P.C. educational software titles. They were so sensitive it affected their eyesight to the point they couldn't see they were 80 for 80 in hiring whites. (Interns don't count).
The point is, I guarantee and can attest to the fact that in a culture of political correctness, often one can be seduced into a feel-good tranquility by thinking that minorities are everywhere and in powerful positions and have great jobs and can do any job they choose. But that isn't always the case. Often it is smoke and mirrors. So I say for their sake, watch out for exaggerated depictions of reality.
Pretend I'm black when you read this. Often the fact that I'm white makes people automatically assume I'm being racist or white-centric.
By the way, I'm wrong that it is a government issue. It is self-regulated by the industry afaikt.
However that is moot. People need to be able to judge for themselves, not some group with an agenda, no matter how large or good-intentioned. In fact it's worse that it isn't government controlled since you can change the government but can't easily effect changes to the structure of a council of private broadcasters.
Plus, "The CBSC does not have an internal appeals mechanism" instead you need to go to the CRTC and start all over again.
The problem with banning something like Fox "ranting" (or whatever) is that it insults the people they think they are trying to protect.
It assumes/presumes/implies:
1. People might actually agree with it
2. People have no right to watch it even if they completely disagree with it
3. People won't resent having blinders applied to them by the government
4. People will not be able to make sound, moral, fair decisions or form opinions that are tolerant and just
5. The moral character of the Canadian people is weak and cannot withstand the full spectrum of ideas
6. Canadians are not mature, responsible or morally capable of maintaining their ideals if allowed to see American broadcasts/content
I frequently watch channels and programs that I object to. How else does one know for oneself the extent to which their ideological enemy is wrong, and what lies and tactics they are using?
I can't abide the patriotic blather on Fox News yet I watch it perhaps more than anything precisely because I -want- to be galled or appalled by their slanted coverage. CNN is no less galling or slanted but that's another thread.
People should choose their news/entertainment sources. You make a tolerant society by choice not by force. This is why things like the Iraq war (trying to democratize an inherently Islamic state) is futile. "Change must come from within" holds true to Canada as much as it does Iraq. Of course, Canada doesn't want change. Not now that a few have "perfected" everything for the rest.
Is everyone in Canada taking a handful of government officials' word for it that certain shows (ideas/opinions/viewpoints) are "bad"?
[...]
You can learn about an enemy/repulsive idea in depth and not in fact believe in that enemy/repulsive idea yourself.
You did not seem to have read/understood my post above, nor Frank777's acknowledgement of what I had posted. Fox is not "banned" in Canada. As I explained, not being licensed on the basis of protectionism is not the same thing as being "banned" on political grounds or on the grounds that Fox is "bad". Read my post, and Frank's reply, and then reconsider your assessment of the Canadian situation.
That is not to say that I agree that Fox should be denied a license on the ground of Canadian protectionism, but this is really a different issue, and a different debate.
Thanks for the response...I am not alone (just out of work).
We better let this topic stay it's course. Ours is more or less a whole topic all together.
True. But my overall point was that the web design for the council's site could possibly reflect the oversensitivity of its members. So the side topic isn't altogether unwarranted.
You did not seem to have read/understood my post above, nor Frank777's acknowledgement of what I had posted. Fox is not "banned" in Canada. As I explained, not being licensed on the basis of protectionism is not the same thing as being "banned" on political grounds or on the grounds that Fox is "bad". Read my post, and Frank's reply, and then reconsider your assessment of the Canadian situation.
That is not to say that I agree that Fox should be denied a license on the ground of Canadian protectionism, but this is really a different issue, and a different debate.
I had not read it. I'll need to look into the protectionist angle.
Howeever what I said stands, despite the fact that I used a flawed example of Fox News as the centerpiece.
I'll rephrase it, making it generic:
The problem with a government/religion/group banning/censoring/editing something is that it insults the people they think they are trying to protect.
It assumes/presumes/implies:
1. People might actually agree with it
2. People have no right to watch it even if they completely disagree with it
3. People won't resent having blinders applied to them by the government/religion/group
4. People will not be able to make sound, moral, fair decisions or form opinions that are tolerant and just
5. The moral character of the a nation/religion/group's people is weak and cannot withstand the full spectrum of ideas
6. Individuals are not mature, responsible or morally capable of maintaining their ideals if allowed to see the so-called objectionable broadcasts/content.
This isn't a Canadian issue per se, if anyone is feeling defensive.
I was merely initially alarmed at the assertion by Morissette and the subsequent items related to the CBSC.
It is interesting to debate Canadian censorship but we needn't limit our conversation to that.
Again, I'm learning. I'm not saying one is right, the other is wrong.
Yes, I took issue with the original Morissette comment but, hey, she is entitled to mindless Jingoistic blather as much as I'm entitled to call it that.
I'll be in Thailand soon and, well, you won't hear much from me about censorship at that point (meaning that, well, it is not a constitution-based democracy, but a constitutional monarchy and whatever that entails)
Practicing not being insulting to the host nation already
We (Oz) have similar laws to Canada regarding media content. The aim being to reduce (and I hesitate to use the phrase but what the hell) US cultural imperialism. The problem is that the cost of local production means the local product often can't compete with cheap US imports. Another element is to ensure media diversity (so for instance there are restrictions on how many and what media companies you can own - just ask a guy named Kerry Packer, he'll tell you all about it).
And hell, come on the US is the PC capital of the world far as I can tell.
Back on topic. It seems pretty clear to me that the US has some problems regarding sex, nudity and profanity that don't exist in Oz, Canada and, of course, Europe (filthy, filthy Europeans ). But we have had the "oh so you're a Nazi, sorry you can't speak here" thing.
There was also a film (US) can't remember the name that got banned here a while back. A bunch of people got hold of a copy and put on their own public screening (well tried to before the cops arrived).
Which highlights the other problem for censorship. Namely, that it just ends up gleaning much more publicity for the banned material than it would otherwise have attracted.
I imagine Alanis is enjoying a bit of that effect right about now.
Was Morissette (the one who wrote an entire song to prove that she doesn't know what irony is) talking about censoring or censuring?
If this is really about the Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake* Superbowl Half(time) Show, were people more offended by seeing a boob or by the idea that it was designed to be shocking and appalling? The pretense of it is what's offensive about the episode. Like just how I'm offended by the pretense of Morissette.
PS: *Why do people leave Timberlake out of the equation?
The problem with a government/religion/group banning/censoring/editing something is that it insults the people they think they are trying to protect.
It assumes/presumes/implies:
1. People might actually agree with it
2. People have no right to watch it even if they completely disagree with it
3. People won't resent having blinders applied to them by the government/religion/group
4. People will not be able to make sound, moral, fair decisions or form opinions that are tolerant and just
5. The moral character of the a nation/religion/group's people is weak and cannot withstand the full spectrum of ideas
6. Individuals are not mature, responsible or morally capable of maintaining their ideals if allowed to see the so-called objectionable broadcasts/content.
[...]
I certainly agree with this aspect of your arguments. I am all in favour the open expression of ideas.
I think that most of Alanis' comments were intended to criticize the prudishness that seems to have been on the rise in the U.S. under under the reign of the current conservative overlords. Traditionally, the U.S. has not been more prudish that Canada, but over the last few years the two countries seem to be heading in opposite directions on this issue...and a few other issues as well.
Maybe it has more to do with an elite few that feel they need to push their values on everyone one else via the public airwaves rather than the Bush admin?
I think that most of Alanis' comments were intended to criticize the prudishness that seems to have been on the rise in the U.S. under under the reign of the current conservative overlords.
It's not prudishness to expect that a football game broadcast during primetime be nudity-free.
when it comes to those evangelist things, i think CRTC wants to tone down on the amount of craziness that they are spewing.
The sermons in question reference the fact that homosexuality is not compatible with traditional Christian teaching. Whatever your view on that particular issue, there's no way a Pastor, Priest, Rabbi or Imam should be censored by a government body for publicly stating what has been the positions of most major religions for centuries.
The sermons in question reference the fact that homosexuality is not compatible with traditional Christian teaching. Whatever your view on that particular issue, there's no way a Pastor, Priest, Rabbi or Imam should be censored by a government body for publicly stating what has been the positions of most major religions for centuries.
I don't know what - if anything - has actually been censored in this regard, as you suggest. If it gets to the point of actually fomenting hatred against gays, then that could be a problem under Canadian law.
If you are advocating more liberalism with respect to Canada's anti-hatred laws, then you should make your argument explicit in this regard. But sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander and if you want more liberalism in this regard - to allow the argument that it is impossible to be gay and a good Christian and to denounce homosexuality in extreme terms (with sly winks towards advocating violence against homosexuals) - you would also have to allow, for example, for a public broadcasts advancing a constant stream of argument that Christian fundamentalists are not actually Christians and should be denounced, shunned and discriminated against.
Realistically, I think, you would be against both extremes.
Maybe it has more to do with an elite few that feel they need to push their values on everyone one else via the public airwaves rather than the Bush admin?
Edit: I misinterpreted Scott's comment...which I actually agree with in part. The attempts to limit speech in the interests of decency certainly do seem to be an imposition of values. Whether or not the Bush admin is pushing its values is open to discussion...
Comments
Originally posted by shetline
It took Canada until 1982 to get around to this?
Well, Britain has no formal constitution and therefore has no constitutionally protected right to free speech. Australians have no right to free speech under their constitution. Certain types of speech are illegal in France and Germany...but - at least as far as I am aware - the drive to censor and <Helen Lovejoy>think of the children</Helen Lovejoy> is not as much of an issue in these countries as it appears to be in the US.
(BTW, the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirmed the right to free speech in all signatory countries back in 1948...not sure how this jibes with French and German laws against hate speech)
Here's an interesting and topical article on artistic expression. A student at The 'Acadamy of Art University' in SF was expelled for writing a violent short story. After his parents complained that the story was in keeping with course material, an instructor was dismissed for having assigned reading of a short story by David Foster Wallace (which contained some scenes of violence). When Salman Rushdie wrote to the college in support of the instructor the college administration professed never to have heard of Rushdie. I don't know what is more mind-blowing...that the largest private art college in the country had never heard of David Foster Wallace or Salman Rushdie or that they ended up calling SFPD Homicide to look at the student's paper.
Originally posted by Chinney:
Your post is misleading. There is no Canadian law that bans any news channel based on its right wing vs. left-wing affiliation. Rather, it is fair to say that broadcasting is regulated in Canada primarily from the perspective of Canadian protectionism Â? i.e. to encourage Canadian broadcasting and to Canadians to watch programming produced by Canadians. We can certainly debate the merits of such protectionism - and there are many very good arguments against it, and perhaps some arguments in favour of it Â? but it is a different matter than a Â?banÂ?, especially a political ban. LotÂ?s of other American stations are also not licensed for broadcast on Canadian cable, including MSNBC, HBO, MTV and Comedy Central.
That being said, I would welcome Fox News on Canadian cable. I donÂ?t think that there currently is an adequate domestic Canadian source of right-wing jingoistic blather. Certianly there would be at least some market for this here among conservatives in Canada, so I say that we should let it in. And for the majority of Canadians, it could serve as a comedy network.
You're right of course, after hitting reply I realized my post was a bit abrupt on the reason Fox isn't in Canada, and I knew someone would call me on it.
There was a recent application for Fox that was shot down by the CRTC. While some of the 'ranting' on Fox News would likely turn off many Canadians, I think it would be a valuable contribution to the Canadian spectrum.
A great commentary on the current Canadian news scene can be found on Andrew Coyne's site.
The CBC, according to a new report from a Senate committee, despite receiving nearly $10 billion in subsidies over the last 10 years, has seen its average audience share drop steadily. It now stands at less than 6%. Six per cent. Six. Per. Cent.
Overall, Canadian broadcasters spent $654 million on news and information programming in 2002. Yet just 1.1% of viewers tuned into CBC Antiquesroadshowworld, which I'm told occasionally shows the news, and just 0.5 per cent watched CTV Newsnet, which the CRTC won't let show the news. Meanwhile, 2.7 per cent were watching CNN, the only news channel available that is neither subsidized nor regulated. (I have not seen any figures for Fox, which is banned in this country.)
Yet the Star concludes its story thus: "The committee reported that numerous witnesses noted the importance of maintaining a Canadian viewpoint, quoting Professor Gaetan Tremblay of the Université du Québec Ã* Montréal as saying that this is 'critical for national sovereignty and democratic debate within Canada' and warning of the need for safeguards to ensure that Canadians have access to diverse sources of information."
$10-billion for the CBC, a raft of regulators monitoring every broadcast second, ownership limits and content quotas and Telefilm subisidies and God knows what else, and what are we watching? CNN. Yep. What we need are more "safeguards."
Originally posted by johnq
Oh just I meant any and all that are under the power of the broadcast censors. Which can be a wide range of artists.
No, I didn't mean the website artists sorry for being vague.
Anyway it's just an observation, not so much a crusade on my part.
People in the creative field do have issues with this.
Any web or graphic artist who uses (to this extent) stock photography is a talentess idiot. And the creative director there can join the other confederates of idiots too.
Yes, I have used stock photos. But not to the extent these nimrods have.
Still, it has gotten so hard to please the higher ups and the PC public in general. When I designed a logo for a grandkid's magazine I put two cartoon heads of "white" children. The creative director asked me to add more ethnic heads "for diversity sake". Well I did. Looked stupid. But I guess it worked because we didn't recieve any "complaints" (but not many subcriptions either).
Now, anytime I want to design something of this nature, I have to put into consideration that showing only whites (or whites and blacks) will upset the asians, latinos, indians or the muslims (oooh, don't want to upset them do we?) out there who may have a beef about it.
Next time this comes along I'll be creative with design and type...that's all I'd have instead of illustration...or crack under the pressure and use stock garbage.
on another note, CBC's ratings drop because Canadians have been exposed to the much more violent and "exciting" news in the States. many people switch to cnn "the most trusted name in news"
Frank777, ive seen Fox News on tv, it hasnt been removed as far as i know. and when it comes to those evangelist things, i think CRTC wants to tone down on the amount of craziness that they are spewing.
It assumes/presumes/implies:
1. People might actually agree with it
2. People have no right to watch it even if they completely disagree with it
3. People won't resent having blinders applied to them by the government
4. People will not be able to make sound, moral, fair decisions or form opinions that are tolerant and just
5. The moral character of the Canadian people is weak and cannot withstand the full spectrum of ideas
6. Canadians are not mature, responsible or morally capable of maintaining their ideals if allowed to see American broadcasts/content
I frequently watch channels and programs that I object to. How else does one know for oneself the extent to which their ideological enemy is wrong, and what lies and tactics they are using?
I can't abide the patriotic blather on Fox News yet I watch it perhaps more than anything precisely because I -want- to be galled or appalled by their slanted coverage. CNN is no less galling or slanted but that's another thread.
People should choose their news/entertainment sources. You make a tolerant society by choice not by force. This is why things like the Iraq war (trying to democratize an inherently Islamic state) is futile. "Change must come from within" holds true to Canada as much as it does Iraq. Of course, Canada doesn't want change. Not now that a few have "perfected" everything for the rest.
Is everyone in Canada taking a handful of government officials' word for it that certain shows (ideas/opinions/viewpoints) are "bad"?
How the heck do people "know thy enemy"? I read "Mein Kampf" but I had to go buy my copy on my own - when I was in highschool. The only reason I could carry it around was that my hair down to my belt. Sure, everyone knows he was evil without reading his book. But how do we know what the danger signs are if those books are all banned? I've read many "banned" books merely on principle. And I'm stronger for it. Same with movies and radio and music and art.
Besides there are entire swaths of humanity that have important stories to tell and those stories might contain offensive elements. But why silence or bind them?
You can learn about an enemy/repulsive idea in depth and not in fact believe in that enemy/repulsive idea yourself.
Originally posted by Artman @_@
People in the creative field do have issues with this.
Any web or graphic artist who uses (to this extent) stock photography is a talentess idiot. And the creative director there can join the other confederates of idiots too.
Yes, I have used stock photos. But not to the extent these nimrods have.
Still, it has gotten so hard to please the higher ups and the PC public in general. When I designed a logo for a grandkid's magazine I put two cartoon heads of "white" children. The creative director asked me to add more ethnic heads "for diversity sake". Well I did. Looked stupid. But I guess it worked because we didn't recieve any "complaints" (but not many subcriptions either).
Now, anytime I want to design something of this nature, I have to put into consideration that showing only whites (or whites and blacks) will upset the asians, latinos, indians or the muslims (oooh, don't want to upset them do we?) out there who may have a beef about it.
Next time this comes along I'll be creative with design and type...that's all I'd have instead of illustration...or crack under the pressure and use stock garbage.
Trust me, I know.
I also design websites for a living.
It is such a P.C. minefield. I avoid pictures of people as decoration unless I can use real pictures of actual staff on location.
There are valid arguments for not inflating representation. A nice comment along the lines of "Considering the demographics of your company, do you really want to exaggerate?" goes a long way. Meaning "Why show a black/asian/hispanic/etc. person if you in fact have none working for you". I'm saying to them 1. you might want to hire more minorities and 2. lying to the public by showing minorities when you have none is not honest, right or wise.
Next thing you know we are using architectural photographs sans people.
Better than an insulting make-believe land.
Several companies I've worked for and many clients have been all-white workplaces. That's one thing. Black web programmers, say, were kinda scarce in '95. But having the website then look like the crew of the Starship Enterprise is insult to injury.
Tom Snyder Productions was the whitest company. And they make screamingly-P.C. educational software titles. They were so sensitive it affected their eyesight to the point they couldn't see they were 80 for 80 in hiring whites. (Interns don't count).
The point is, I guarantee and can attest to the fact that in a culture of political correctness, often one can be seduced into a feel-good tranquility by thinking that minorities are everywhere and in powerful positions and have great jobs and can do any job they choose. But that isn't always the case. Often it is smoke and mirrors. So I say for their sake, watch out for exaggerated depictions of reality.
Pretend I'm black when you read this. Often the fact that I'm white makes people automatically assume I'm being racist or white-centric.
However that is moot. People need to be able to judge for themselves, not some group with an agenda, no matter how large or good-intentioned. In fact it's worse that it isn't government controlled since you can change the government but can't easily effect changes to the structure of a council of private broadcasters.
Plus, "The CBSC does not have an internal appeals mechanism" instead you need to go to the CRTC and start all over again.
Originally posted by johnq
The problem with banning something like Fox "ranting" (or whatever) is that it insults the people they think they are trying to protect.
It assumes/presumes/implies:
1. People might actually agree with it
2. People have no right to watch it even if they completely disagree with it
3. People won't resent having blinders applied to them by the government
4. People will not be able to make sound, moral, fair decisions or form opinions that are tolerant and just
5. The moral character of the Canadian people is weak and cannot withstand the full spectrum of ideas
6. Canadians are not mature, responsible or morally capable of maintaining their ideals if allowed to see American broadcasts/content
I frequently watch channels and programs that I object to. How else does one know for oneself the extent to which their ideological enemy is wrong, and what lies and tactics they are using?
I can't abide the patriotic blather on Fox News yet I watch it perhaps more than anything precisely because I -want- to be galled or appalled by their slanted coverage. CNN is no less galling or slanted but that's another thread.
People should choose their news/entertainment sources. You make a tolerant society by choice not by force. This is why things like the Iraq war (trying to democratize an inherently Islamic state) is futile. "Change must come from within" holds true to Canada as much as it does Iraq. Of course, Canada doesn't want change. Not now that a few have "perfected" everything for the rest.
Is everyone in Canada taking a handful of government officials' word for it that certain shows (ideas/opinions/viewpoints) are "bad"?
[...]
You can learn about an enemy/repulsive idea in depth and not in fact believe in that enemy/repulsive idea yourself.
You did not seem to have read/understood my post above, nor Frank777's acknowledgement of what I had posted. Fox is not "banned" in Canada. As I explained, not being licensed on the basis of protectionism is not the same thing as being "banned" on political grounds or on the grounds that Fox is "bad". Read my post, and Frank's reply, and then reconsider your assessment of the Canadian situation.
That is not to say that I agree that Fox should be denied a license on the ground of Canadian protectionism, but this is really a different issue, and a different debate.
Originally posted by johnq
Trust me, I know.
I also design websites for a living.
Pretend I'm black when you read this. Often the fact that I'm white makes people automatically assume I'm being racist or white-centric.
Thanks for the response...I am not alone (just out of work).
We better let this topic stay it's course. Ours is more or less a whole topic all together.
Originally posted by Artman @_@
Thanks for the response...I am not alone (just out of work).
We better let this topic stay it's course. Ours is more or less a whole topic all together.
True. But my overall point was that the web design for the council's site could possibly reflect the oversensitivity of its members. So the side topic isn't altogether unwarranted.
Originally posted by Chinney
You did not seem to have read/understood my post above, nor Frank777's acknowledgement of what I had posted. Fox is not "banned" in Canada. As I explained, not being licensed on the basis of protectionism is not the same thing as being "banned" on political grounds or on the grounds that Fox is "bad". Read my post, and Frank's reply, and then reconsider your assessment of the Canadian situation.
That is not to say that I agree that Fox should be denied a license on the ground of Canadian protectionism, but this is really a different issue, and a different debate.
I had not read it. I'll need to look into the protectionist angle.
Howeever what I said stands, despite the fact that I used a flawed example of Fox News as the centerpiece.
I'll rephrase it, making it generic:
The problem with a government/religion/group banning/censoring/editing something is that it insults the people they think they are trying to protect.
It assumes/presumes/implies:
1. People might actually agree with it
2. People have no right to watch it even if they completely disagree with it
3. People won't resent having blinders applied to them by the government/religion/group
4. People will not be able to make sound, moral, fair decisions or form opinions that are tolerant and just
5. The moral character of the a nation/religion/group's people is weak and cannot withstand the full spectrum of ideas
6. Individuals are not mature, responsible or morally capable of maintaining their ideals if allowed to see the so-called objectionable broadcasts/content.
This isn't a Canadian issue per se, if anyone is feeling defensive.
I was merely initially alarmed at the assertion by Morissette and the subsequent items related to the CBSC.
It is interesting to debate Canadian censorship but we needn't limit our conversation to that.
Again, I'm learning. I'm not saying one is right, the other is wrong.
Yes, I took issue with the original Morissette comment but, hey, she is entitled to mindless Jingoistic blather as much as I'm entitled to call it that.
I'll be in Thailand soon and, well, you won't hear much from me about censorship at that point
Practicing not being insulting to the host nation already
And hell, come on the US is the PC capital of the world far as I can tell.
Back on topic. It seems pretty clear to me that the US has some problems regarding sex, nudity and profanity that don't exist in Oz, Canada and, of course, Europe (filthy, filthy Europeans
There was also a film (US) can't remember the name that got banned here a while back. A bunch of people got hold of a copy and put on their own public screening (well tried to before the cops arrived).
Which highlights the other problem for censorship. Namely, that it just ends up gleaning much more publicity for the banned material than it would otherwise have attracted.
I imagine Alanis is enjoying a bit of that effect right about now.
If this is really about the Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake* Superbowl Half(time) Show, were people more offended by seeing a boob or by the idea that it was designed to be shocking and appalling? The pretense of it is what's offensive about the episode. Like just how I'm offended by the pretense of Morissette.
PS: *Why do people leave Timberlake out of the equation?
Originally posted by johnq
[...]
The problem with a government/religion/group banning/censoring/editing something is that it insults the people they think they are trying to protect.
It assumes/presumes/implies:
1. People might actually agree with it
2. People have no right to watch it even if they completely disagree with it
3. People won't resent having blinders applied to them by the government/religion/group
4. People will not be able to make sound, moral, fair decisions or form opinions that are tolerant and just
5. The moral character of the a nation/religion/group's people is weak and cannot withstand the full spectrum of ideas
6. Individuals are not mature, responsible or morally capable of maintaining their ideals if allowed to see the so-called objectionable broadcasts/content.
[...]
I certainly agree with this aspect of your arguments. I am all in favour the open expression of ideas.
I think that most of Alanis' comments were intended to criticize the prudishness that seems to have been on the rise in the U.S. under under the reign of the current conservative overlords. Traditionally, the U.S. has not been more prudish that Canada, but over the last few years the two countries seem to be heading in opposite directions on this issue...and a few other issues as well.
Originally posted by Chinney
I think that most of Alanis' comments were intended to criticize the prudishness that seems to have been on the rise in the U.S. under under the reign of the current conservative overlords.
It's not prudishness to expect that a football game broadcast during primetime be nudity-free.
Originally posted by Cam'ron
when it comes to those evangelist things, i think CRTC wants to tone down on the amount of craziness that they are spewing.
The sermons in question reference the fact that homosexuality is not compatible with traditional Christian teaching. Whatever your view on that particular issue, there's no way a Pastor, Priest, Rabbi or Imam should be censored by a government body for publicly stating what has been the positions of most major religions for centuries.
Originally posted by Frank777
It's not prudishness to expect that a football game broadcast during primetime be nudity-free.
What's wrong with nudity? I guess that all those children who saw the breast will be scarred for life.
Originally posted by Frank777
The sermons in question reference the fact that homosexuality is not compatible with traditional Christian teaching. Whatever your view on that particular issue, there's no way a Pastor, Priest, Rabbi or Imam should be censored by a government body for publicly stating what has been the positions of most major religions for centuries.
I don't know what - if anything - has actually been censored in this regard, as you suggest. If it gets to the point of actually fomenting hatred against gays, then that could be a problem under Canadian law.
If you are advocating more liberalism with respect to Canada's anti-hatred laws, then you should make your argument explicit in this regard. But sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander and if you want more liberalism in this regard - to allow the argument that it is impossible to be gay and a good Christian and to denounce homosexuality in extreme terms (with sly winks towards advocating violence against homosexuals) - you would also have to allow, for example, for a public broadcasts advancing a constant stream of argument that Christian fundamentalists are not actually Christians and should be denounced, shunned and discriminated against.
Realistically, I think, you would be against both extremes.
Originally posted by Scott
Maybe it has more to do with an elite few that feel they need to push their values on everyone one else via the public airwaves rather than the Bush admin?
Edit: I misinterpreted Scott's comment...which I actually agree with in part. The attempts to limit speech in the interests of decency certainly do seem to be an imposition of values. Whether or not the Bush admin is pushing its values is open to discussion...