PDA

View Full Version : Religious censorship?


Achilles
09-12-2007, 02:06 PM
Griffin Attacked for Award Show Remarks

Comedienne Kathy Griffin has come under fire from a former TV costar for joking about Jesus at the Creative Emmy Awards on Saturday night. The funnywoman, who claimed the Outstanding Reality Programm prize for her show Kathy Griffin: My Life On The D-List, upset Christians by poking fun at her peers who thanked Christ for their good fortune. In her acceptance speech, Griffin quipped, "A lot of people come up here and thank Jesus for this award. I want you to know that no one had less to do with this award than Jesus... This award is my God now."

Griffin's comments have upset her former Suddenly Susan co-star Sherri Shepherd, who is also a stand-up comic. On TV show The View on Tuesday morning, Shepherd raged, "I love Kathy but I was trying to text her, 'Girl, you know you ain't supposed to be saying no mess like that.' There's just a line that you shouldn't cross, there's a reverence for God that we should have." Griffin's taped acceptance speech will be heavily censored when it airs at the official Emmy Awards on Sunday. Officials at the Catholic League, a U.S. anti-defamation group, called on Emmy bosses to "denounce Griffin's obscene and blasphemous comment" at Sunday's ceremony. Here's (http://www.imdb.com/news/wenn/2007-09-12/#2) the link, however I'm not sure how long it will be available.

So here's my question: It's okay to reference jesus in award acceptance speeches and any effort to repress such speech would correctly be labeled as religious censorship, however if someone opts to point out that his or her award has nothing to do with jesus, then the catholic league springs into action and the speech itself will be censored by broadcasters. How is this not a double-standard?

ET Warrior
09-12-2007, 02:53 PM
I think this is obscene. If they are censoring Griffin's "Jesus didn't win me this award" then they damn well ought to be censoring everyones "Thanks Jesus!" as well.

mimartin
09-12-2007, 02:57 PM
I have no problem with people thanking Jesus, God, their parents, or anyone else that they believe helped them attain some type of achievement. At the same time I have no problem with what Kathy Griffin said. I don’t like the idea that someone would make fun of another person’s belief system, but she is a comedian and I’m sure it was all done in fun.

The fact that network has decided to “heavily censor” Kathy Griffin’s acceptance speech isn’t a problem to me either. If a government agency was telling them to do it, then I would have a serious problem with it. If the network is doing it on their own because they do not want to be associated with such remarks or because they just don’t want to deal with the unjustified outrage of some of their viewer this self censorship is not a problem to me. It is their network and their responsibility is to their stockholders and not the viewers.

Even so I believe the Catholic League call for Emmy bosses to “denounce Griffin’s obscene and blasphemous comment” during the ceremony, after they already said they would “heavily censor” her speech to be outrageous and even counterproductive to their cause. Just proves the old adage “give them an inch and they’ll take a mile.”

How is this not a double-standard?
I don’t believe there is any way around it; it is a double-standard. It isn’t right, but it is rightly the networks decision.

Jae Onasi
09-12-2007, 03:38 PM
This article makes it sound like it was censored because of references to God. However, if you look at the text of the speech, the censorship is for using a couple expletives (including the s-word, which you can't use on TV) and for saying Jesus should commit a certain sexual act, said act also not allowed on TV. Those comments would have been censored whether she applied them to Jesus, Satan, her pet dog, or her next-door neighbor.

Achilles
09-12-2007, 03:44 PM
Good info to have, Jae. Do you have a link to a transcript or a clip? Also, any source that shows specifically what they intend to censor?

If what you say is true, the part of the mystery is solved, however if her religious speech is censored, then that's another matter.

Jae Onasi
09-12-2007, 05:10 PM
Good info to have, Jae. Do you have a link to a transcript or a clip? Also, any source that shows specifically what they intend to censor?

If what you say is true, the part of the mystery is solved, however if her religious speech is censored, then that's another matter.

I'll PM you the link/content I found, since I can't post it here. :)

I don't know what they're going to censor, but I can give an educated guess on the content. I don't think religious speech should be censored, either, unless it's obscene/vulgar.

Darth InSidious
09-12-2007, 05:28 PM
Well, it's good to know that TV comedians/comediennes are still as awful as always. If she thinks that kind of thing is funny she needs to stop picking her scripts from what the cool kids at the créche are saying.

As for the censorship, if Jae is correct, it's for breaking the Rules of TV, which are written on stone tablets 30 feet high and were brought down from Borough Hill by the Prophet John Reith...but I digress.

As for acceptance speeches, whether they thank God or not, they're self-congratulatory twaddle to a weeping Z-list actress. The whole TV Awards thing is a sham.

Achilles
09-12-2007, 05:48 PM
More info from the catholic league site:

On September 8, at the 59th Annual Creative Arts Emmy Awards, comedian Kathy Griffin won Outstanding Reality Program for her Bravo show, “My Life on the D-List.” In her acceptance speech, Griffin said, “Suck it, Jesus, this award is my God now.” Fox will televise the Primetime Emmy Awards on Sunday, September 16 from the Shrine Auditorium in Los Angeles.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue responded as follows:

“Mel Gibson. Michael Richards. Isaiah Washington. Imus. Jerry Lewis. Every time a celebrity offends a segment of the population, he pays a price, in one way or another. The question now is whether Kathy Griffin will pay a similar price for her outburst. And as we have learned, her verbal assault was calculated.

“In an interview with Houston’s gay magazine, OutSmart, Griffin described herself as a ‘complete militant atheist.’ Unfortunately, her kind of vulgar in-your-face brand of hate speech found a receptive audience on Saturday: The Hollywood Reporter says her foul remark ‘drew laughs.’

“It is incumbent upon Dick Askin, chairman and chief executive officer of the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences, to denounce Griffin’s obscene and blasphemous comment; a statement should also be read on Sunday. After all, it is his organization that is responsible for the Creative Arts Emmy event. Moreover, given the way the Hollywood crowd received Griffin’s remark, it falls to Askin to distance the Academy from this outrageous incident. We are contacting Griffin’s agent as well.

“It is sure bet that if Griffin had said, ‘Suck it, Muhammad,’ there would have been a very different reaction from the crowd and from the media who covered this event. To say nothing of the Muslim reaction.”
link (http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1326) So Mel Gibson, Michael Richards, Isaiah Washington, Imus, and Jerry Lewis making inflammatory comments about a specific demographic of actual people is comparable to making a joke about a mythological figure? Hmmmm...

Her "verbal assualt" was not leveled at any individual or protected class. She made a controversial joke about judeo-christian religious icons. What Donohue does get precisely right is the comparision of his behavior to those of muslims, although I doubt he realizes that he was making the comparison.

Here's more:
Responding to complaints from the Catholic League, the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences has decided to censor the vulgar remarks that comedian Kathy Griffin made when receiving her Creative Arts Emmy for her show, “My Life on the D-List.” Last Saturday, Griffin, upon winning the award for Outstanding Reality Program, blurted out a scripted remark, “Suck it, Jesus, this award is my God now.”

The Associated Press reports today that Griffin’s comment will be censored from the taped airing of the awards ceremony this Saturday on E! On Sunday, Fox will carry the live Primetime Emmy Awards show.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue had this to say about the news:

“The Academy of Television Arts & Sciences reacted responsibly to our criticism of Kathy Griffin’s verbal assault on 85 percent of the U.S. population. The ball is now in Griffin’s court. The self-described ‘complete militant atheist’ needs to make a swift and unequivocal apology to Christians. If she does, she will get this issue behind her. If she does not, she will be remembered as a foul-mouthed bigot for the rest of her life.”
Link (http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1327) Jae, according to this resource, it would appear that the network is going to voluntarily censor her religious speech. I'll start the ACLU countdown :D

Funny that Donohue once again completely mischaracterizes her comments as verbal assault leveled at christians :rolleyes:

Jae Onasi
09-12-2007, 05:52 PM
Well, I don't think saying 'suck it, X' is appropriate for prime-time TV, nor are the expletives. Doesn't matter whether Jesus is involved or not.

It's a crude remark, period, whether it's about an historical/religious figure or a contemporary.

Achilles
09-12-2007, 05:56 PM
That sounds like a great topic for another thread.

Totenkopf
09-12-2007, 06:20 PM
There's no mystery here. She was crude, but the government ain't forcing the network (based on anything posted here, at least) to "censor" her. Don't see any reason for the ACLU to get involved, surely they've better things to do :rolleyes: . However, if they think it's truly an issue......maybe I should contact them about the profanity/obscenity rules on this forum. It's about as important, and as trivial. Frankly, George Carlin did a pretty funny bit on the thanking of Jesus whenever something positive happens (a touchdown), but never giving Him any blame (Jesus tripped me on the 40 yd line) schtick. At least he was funny.

Darth InSidious
09-12-2007, 06:54 PM
The Catholic League are frequently somewhat...over-protective and reactionary. While it wasn't an insult towards Christians, many may have found it insulting. I think that was what Donohue was getting at, if not putting it very clearly.

Achilles
09-12-2007, 07:08 PM
I think that was what Donohue was getting at, if not putting it very clearly. Bummer they couldn't find someone more articulate. It is unfortunate for catholics that his statements appear to be representing that demographic at this time. I imagine it would probably be in the church's best interest to find another voice with a more well-reasoned message.

Darth InSidious
09-12-2007, 07:45 PM
Frankly, right now, Donohue's inarticulate and constant criticism - reasonable or otherwise - is pretty low on the priorities list.

Corinthian
09-12-2007, 07:52 PM
I'd say it was an insult to Christians. She should get in trouble, what she did was just as bad as insulting any other religion. If she had said "Screw you, Allah", I have a feeling there'd be a lot more indignation here and a lot less rationalizing. But I might just be paranoid.

Web Rider
09-12-2007, 07:56 PM
'Girl, you know you ain't supposed to be saying no mess like that.'
lolwut? I mean, seriously, people who talk like this sound like idiots.

Anyway, this reminds me of the anti-islimization protest in, uh, norway? I think, sorry article not in hand, short story: it was all legit with cops, government, ect, till the mayor stepped up and said no because Muslims might get offended.

uh...wasn't that the point?

Achilles
09-12-2007, 08:02 PM
I'd say it was an insult to Christians. How? Her comments were not directed at christians. She did not say anything duragatory about christians.

She should get in trouble, what she did was just as bad as insulting any other religion. If she had said "Screw you, Allah", I have a feeling there'd be a lot more indignation here and a lot less rationalizing. But I might just be paranoid. Here, you might have an argument. Unfortunately, one would have to accept that christians are just as hypersensitive and reactionary toward criticism of their religion as muslims though. Can't have it both ways.

Darth InSidious
09-12-2007, 08:30 PM
No, she didn't. But I think its quite clear that the comment was intended to insult.

mimartin
09-12-2007, 08:56 PM
I'd say it was an insult to Christians.
I’m a Christian and I don’t feel insulted by her comments. All she was trying to do is make a joke at the expense of people that thank God and Jesus for their achievements. Unfortunately for her career she just isn’t that funny.

She should get in trouble, what she did was just as bad as insulting any other religion. With whom should she get in trouble with? We have a thing called freedom of speech and freedom of religion in this country, so it isn’t really any of the governments (federal, state or local) business what she said.

I’m not going to judge her as it isn’t my place. Even if I didn’t believe in God I’d still believe in “judge not lest ye be judged. I have no way of knowing if she had malice in her heart when she said this, so I have no way of judging her. I would hope if I said or did something monumentally stupid people would give me the benefit of the doubt, so I must do the same for others including Kathy Griffin.

Totenkopf
09-12-2007, 09:30 PM
Censorship is a curious thing. Some prefer to attempt it through economic pressure (boycotting sponsors), some through political activism (demonstrations vs Savage in SF), other's through violence (Theo van Gough) and of cource through government fiat as well. This case doesn't fall into the last two, only the last of which would be arguably unconstitutional, the former "merely" illegal. That said, I think mimartin is correct and that it fails to rise to an issue worthy of any legal maneuvering.

Btw, what "religious persecution" is going on here, as the term is commonly used w/regard to the status of the alleged victim? Or have you finally copped to atheism being a "religion"? ;) muhahahahah :D

Achilles
09-12-2007, 09:50 PM
No, she didn't. But I think its quite clear that the comment was intended to insult.If by "insult" you mean "mock" then I'll concede. But mocking an irrational belief system with no supporting evidence is a far cry from practicing bigotry against a specific person or group of people.

If this is to be the new standard for censorship, then I think we're at the edge of a very slippery-slope that may affect more people than the current "victims" may realize.

John Galt
09-12-2007, 11:54 PM
Given that this is an action taken by a private corporation, I have no problem with them covering their own bases, protecting their profits. Had it been a government action, however, I'd be rather angry. It doesn't sound like what she said was "hate speech," which I don't think should be illegal in the first place, just a bit of poorly-executed mockery.

And since when are we guaranteed the right not to be offended in the first place? So much for objective rules...

Ray Jones
09-13-2007, 04:02 AM
I think this is obscene. If they are censoring Griffin's "Jesus didn't win me this award" then they damn well ought to be censoring everyones "Thanks Jesus!" as well.Seconded.

Totenkopf
09-13-2007, 04:48 AM
I think this is obscene. If they are censoring Griffin's "Jesus didn't win me this award" then they damn well ought to be censoring everyones "Thanks Jesus!" as well.

Seconded.

Only if they curse someone else in the process. Get a grip, guys. If they thanked Zeus or Odin (Buddha?), would you get equally bent out of shape? However, I'm pretty sure that if militant atheists made up most of the population, they'd probably blurt out any thanks to "mythological" figures w/o batting an eyelash. :rolleyes:

Darth InSidious
09-13-2007, 06:58 AM
If by "insult" you mean "mock" then I'll concede. But mocking an irrational belief system with no supporting evidence is a far cry from practicing bigotry against a specific person or group of people.

If this is to be the new standard for censorship, then I think we're at the edge of a very slippery-slope that may affect more people than the current "victims" may realize.
It was a comment calculated to cause offence, hence designed to insult. And mocking a belief system because you think it's irrational is no different from mocking a type of human because you believe them to be genetically inferior, or mocking people with a certain melanine-level in their skin because their culture is different to your own and you perceive it as less worthy.

No, perhaps she shouldn't be censored, but nevertheless, there are unwritten rules which those of us who know of them like to call 'tact'.

Ray Jones
09-13-2007, 07:03 AM
Get a grip, guys. If they thanked Zeus or Odin (Buddha?), would you get equally bent out of shape?If these persons would get bent out of shape because I'd mention not Zeus, nor Odin, neither Buddha did get me my stuff, yes. If these people openly blame their success on god or whoever, and I have to take it, why can't they take it that I don't and express that opinion?

Darth InSidious
09-13-2007, 07:32 AM
I don't know much about this, but I think if you put that sentiment in the form of "Suck it [insert religious icon of choice here]", then I'd imagine the midden would hit the wind farm. I would rather think tha it is this that caused the offence, not saying that it had nothing to do with a religious icon you don't believe in.

Jae Onasi
09-13-2007, 09:32 AM
If these persons would get bent out of shape because I'd mention not Zeus, nor Odin, neither Buddha did get me my stuff, yes. If these people openly blame their success on god or whoever, and I have to take it, why can't they take it that I don't and express that opinion?

Because when you acknowledge someone with thanks, you're not being offensive, you're just being thankful. You're not making a value judgment about those who don't happen to believe in whatever or whomever you're giving thanks to.

When you're saying "Suck it, [insert deity of choice or person]", you're intentionally getting in someone else's face and making a value judgment about their belief. If she'd just said "Jesus/God didn't get this for me, my hard work got this for me," it wouldn't have been offensive. She could have handled this tactfully, but she didn't--she chose a cheap shot.

Achilles
09-13-2007, 09:48 AM
Given that this is an action taken by a private corporation, I have no problem with them covering their own bases, protecting their profits. *shrugs* To ET Warrior's earlier point, then perhaps it's time that secular political forces created an environment in which private companies felt similarly compelled to protect their profits by voluntarily censoring other forms of religious speech. Perhaps they can start by bleeping out the word "god" whenever uttered. If it's good for the goose...

Had it been a government action, however, I'd be rather angry. It doesn't sound like what she said was "hate speech," which I don't think should be illegal in the first place, just a bit of poorly-executed mockery. I guess I find it disappointing that the fundie agenda has been so successfully implemented. Government doesn't have to get involved because E! already knows that Focus on the Family is sitting around the corner with a shiv.

And since when are we guaranteed the right not to be offended in the first place? So much for objective rules...QFT

It was a comment calculated to cause offence, hence designed to insult. And mocking a belief system because you think it's irrational is no different from mocking a type of human because you believe them to be genetically inferior, or mocking people with a certain melanine-level in their skin because their culture is different to your own and you perceive it as less worthy. First, irrationality can be objectively measured and applied, therefore equating to a personal prejudice isn't exactly an accurate comparison. Second, there is a huge difference between mocking an adopted belief and any other non-controlable circumstance of birth you'd care to think of. Surely you can see this huge difference, correct?

No, perhaps she shouldn't be censored, but nevertheless, there are unwritten rules which those of us who know of them like to call 'tact'.:lol:

Thanks for your post.

Jae Onasi
09-13-2007, 10:06 AM
I guess I find it disappointing that the fundie agenda has been so successfully implemented. Government doesn't have to get involved because E! already knows that Focus on the Family is sitting around the corner with a shiv.

Since when? The Moral Majority et al were not active in the 70's, and the gov't censorship rules were much more strict. The rules (and their enforcement) for what's appropriate to say on TV have become far more lax in the last 10-15 years--so much so that Janet felt safe risking a 'wardrobe malfunction' on live TV--she knew she was unlikely to get anything more than a slap on the wrist at most. There's far more violence and far more use of foul language than there ever was 30 years ago. There's open discussion and depiction of all sorts of unsavory behavior that would have never made the airwaves a couple decades ago. If E! didn't self-censor, they'd pay a huge fine from the gov't--s**t is still a prohibited word on prime-time, and I doubt 'suck it, x' is appropriate for young children to hear, either.

I'd like to point out that a bunch of the websites that I visited looking for the exact text of her speech yesterday had heavily censored what she said prior to posting it on their sites, too. I had a difficult time finding a complete transcript and ended up having to piece it together from several sites. E! wasn't the only one assessing the wisdom of posting her offensive comments. Some writers intentionally slanted the story to make it sound like she was being censored for religious reasons when in fact she was being censored for the foul language and the 'suck it' reference. That, frankly, is disingenuous and irresponsible journalism.

Ray Jones
09-13-2007, 10:28 AM
When you're saying "Suck it, [insert deity of choice or person]", you're intentionally getting in someone else's face and making a value judgment about their belief.That reminds me of those folks in school or where ever, who get utterly upset and incite a fist fight just because someone says "hey your mum s**** d****". It also reminds me of those who try to upset others by saying such stuff. And last but not least, it reminds me of those who start giggling when someone says "penis". :dozey:


I think what she meant was more like "see Jesus, I did it without believing in you", which contradicts itself but gee, it can't be worse than "you are gay and'll burn in hell". It's language, Jae, not Nazi symbols spray painted to a Jewish church.

Achilles
09-13-2007, 10:37 AM
Since when? The Moral Majority et al were not active in the 70's, and the gov't censorship rules were much more strict. So the moral majority is the only possible movement that could have been at work?

Was the moral majority active when the Hays code was rolled out? How about when the Hays code transitioned to the MPAA? And the fundamentalist movement started when? I'm sure this is all coincidence though.

I realize that I'm not exactly addressing your argument though, because you specified "gov't censorship", however since I did not reference gov't censorship in my post, I think it's okay to reinforce my point rather than argue your unrelated point.

The rules (and their enforcement) for what's appropriate to say on TV have become far more lax in the last 10-15 years Source please?

--so much so that Janet felt safe risking a 'wardrobe malfunction' on live TV Wait, wouldn't the wardrobe malfunction had to have been intentional in order for it to be considered a risk? I'm not sure I follow your reasoning.

--she knew she was unlikely to get anything more than a slap on the wrist at most. Which interview did she state this in? And doesn't this also speak to intent?

There's far more violence and far more use of foul language than there ever was 30 years ago. In which medium? Television? Music? Yeah, you're probably right. Movies? I beg to differ.

There's open discussion and depiction of all sorts of unsavory behavior that would have never made the airwaves a couple decades ago. Yes, with regards to music and television, you're probably correct. Not sure what causal relationship you're trying to establish though.

If E! didn't self-censor, they'd pay a huge fine from the gov't--s**t is still a prohibited word on prime-time, and I doubt 'suck it, x' is appropriate for young children to hear, either. Yes, a huge fine imposed by the FCC. The same FCC that receives more than 99% of all complaints from the Parents Television Council (an activist group). But that's not fundamentalism influencing the government or censorship or anything.

But I'm glad they're around though. That way I can keep my children up until 10pm (or later) on a school night so that they can watch the Emmy's and know that they'll be spared from traumatizing language such as "suck it, jesus". In the old days, I would have simply sent them out of the room to play a violent video game or something.

I'd like to point out that a bunch of the websites that I visited looking for the exact text of her speech yesterday had heavily censored what she said prior to posting it on their sites, too. I had a difficult time finding a complete transcript and ended up having to piece it together from several sites. E! wasn't the only one assessing the wisdom of posting her offensive comments. Some writers intentionally slanted the story to make it sound like she was being censored for religious reasons when in fact she was being censored for the foul language and the 'suck it' reference. That, frankly, is disingenuous and irresponsible journalism. But Jae, I already pointed you to the horses mouth back in post 8 *confused*

Darth InSidious
09-13-2007, 01:41 PM
First, irrationality can be objectively measured and applied, therefore equating to a personal prejudice isn't exactly an accurate comparison. Second, there is a huge difference between mocking an adopted belief and any other non-controlable circumstance of birth you'd care to think of. Surely you can see this huge difference, correct?
To my mind it is far worse to insult something at the centre of someone's life like their religious belief than to insult them over something as irrelevant as the level of melanin in the skin.

:lol:

Thanks for your post.
Given that your government still believes in Gunboat Diplomacy, this comment seems to highlight that yes, George W. Bush really is indicative of the disposition of the average Yank.

Totenkopf
09-13-2007, 01:57 PM
What's still obvious from several posts is the misunderstanding of why the "egregious" censorship by the network took place. If she'd said something like "suck on this..." to one of her colleagues, that'd be grounds for redacting her comments too. Freedom of speech does NOT equal the freedom to force others to hear what you have to say in any/all venues. If you can get the networks to respond to such a petition, Achilles, by all means..give it a try. You'll probably need a lot more numbers to make any headway, though.

Achilles
09-13-2007, 05:10 PM
To my mind it is far worse to insult something at the centre of someone's life like their religious belief than to insult them over something as irrelevant as the level of melanin in the skin. I'm glad you qualified your argument by specifying that this is your subjective opinion.

Given that your government still believes in Gunboat Diplomacy, this comment seems to highlight that yes, George W. Bush really is indicative of the disposition of the average Yank. Was that a barb? I suppose it would only count though if I voted for Bush or was a Bush supporter. Since neither of these qualifiers is true, I guess I can just sit back, bemused by your school-yard taunt.

Jae Onasi
09-13-2007, 05:40 PM
Given that your government still believes in Gunboat Diplomacy, this comment seems to highlight that yes, George W. Bush really is indicative of the disposition of the average Yank. Was that a barb? I suppose it would only count though if I voted for Bush or was a Bush supporter. Since neither of these qualifiers is true, I guess I can just sit back, bemused by your school-yard taunt.

*Jae pops some popcorn and sits back on the couch to watch the fireworks*

Should be as entertaining as when Achilles and I go at it. Just make sure to stay within the MPAA guidelines, guys (not that you haven't been already). :D

Ray Jones
09-13-2007, 06:00 PM
Thanks to Thrik, and my wise sense for the future, I may as well offer this one:

:drama:


XDDD

SilentScope001
09-13-2007, 06:09 PM
http://64.20.36.214/lucasforums.com/images/smilies/popcorn.gif

The trailers are the best part.

"THE GREATEST DISASTER TO HIT THE WORLD'S COLLECTION OF VALUABLE KNOWLEDGE LOOMS. PRECIOUS DATA THAT MAY TAKE SECONDS TO REVERT MAY BE DELETED! CAN PEOPLE SURIVIE THE 'VANDAL ATTACK'? ONLY IN THEATERS!'

Totenkopf
09-13-2007, 06:39 PM
1. thrik
A slang term used in various regions of Britain to describe a deity or entity of high religious value. Most commonly, this term is coined to the concept of "God", although it has also been used to describe key historical religious figures such as Jesus Christ and the Virgin Mary.The word was extremely commonplace up to the late 1800s, at which point it began to gradually fade out of use. Whilst certain areas of the country are still known to use it, specifically the Nottinghamshire county, the general consensus is that it is a dead word.


Interesting.....a "dead word" for what you believe to be a "dead"/nonexistent entity. Wothy of a chuckle or two. ;)

Btw, Achilles, your reasoning is entirely fallacious. You can share traits w/someone that you're diametrically opposed to philosophically. :xp: :D

Ray Jones
09-13-2007, 06:51 PM
2. Thrik (http://lucasforums.com/member.php?u=9360), the internet entity that may unleash very existent pain upon you, but only if you call him nonexistent. X)

Jae Onasi
09-13-2007, 10:01 PM
Thanks to Thrik, and my wise sense for the future, I may as well offer this one:

:drama:


Oh, don't forgot the beer. I'm sure Thrik would approve, no?

I guess we'll see how the program censors Griffith's remarks and go from there.

Prime
09-13-2007, 10:34 PM
I have no problem with people thanking Jesus, God, their parents, or anyone else that they believe helped them attain some type of achievement. My favorite is when gangster rappers do it.


Because when you acknowledge someone with thanks, you're not being offensive, you're just being thankful.I always figured Christians would/should get offended when a rapper or other singer thanks God for giving them the skills and opportunity to sing about pimping their bitches and make raunchy videos. :)

mimartin
09-13-2007, 10:53 PM
My favorite is when gangster rappers do it.
LOL

I always figured Christians would/should get offended when a rapper or other singer thanks God for giving them the skills and opportunity to sing about pimping their bitches and make raunchy videos. :)I have no problem with them thanking God for it and even if I did, I know I'm far from perfect. I sin, so I would have to be just as offended at myself for thanking god for anything.

I have more of a problem with gangster rappers talking about strong women in their life and then getting on stage or in the recording studio and spouting their poison about women.

SilentScope001
09-13-2007, 11:43 PM
Why can't we all agree to thank the Intelligent Designer?

Theists can think they are thanking God, and atheists can think they are thanking the Big Bang, Mother Nature, and Evolution, but in the end, something (as in, someTHING, not someone like God) made us, and without that something, we wouldn't exist. All hail the Intelligent Designer!

Totenkopf
09-13-2007, 11:46 PM
2. Thrik (http://lucasforums.com/member.php?u=9360), the internet entity that may unleash very existent pain upon you, but only if you call him nonexistent. X)


Ok, guess that works too. ;)

@Prime--yeah, it is ironic that Jesus gets the credit for mysogynistic/violent rap music. :D

John Galt
09-14-2007, 01:28 AM
Why can't we all agree to thank the Intelligent Designer?

Theists can think they are thanking God, and atheists can think they are thanking the Big Bang, Mother Nature, and Evolution, but in the end, something (as in, someTHING, not someone like God) made us, and without that something, we wouldn't exist. All hail the Intelligent Designer!

Because there is absolutely no evidense to suggest that there is a designer to begin with, or even a design.

Jae Onasi
09-14-2007, 01:49 AM
This reminds me of a rant a friend of mine had one time. She was complaining about Bette Midler using "God" in the song "From a Distance" to a bunch of us in our circle of friends. "Why does she have to use God? That's offensive. Why can't she use "A Higher Power" or something?"

The rest of us broke into song in unison:
"A Higher Power is watching us!
A Higher Power is watching us!
A Higher Power is watching us, from a distance!"

Ray Jones
09-14-2007, 09:28 AM
Jae, it's popcorn and cola, and nachos and beer.


atheists can think they are thanking the Big Bang, Mother Nature, and EvolutionI didn't know atheists do that? I always thought it to be more like a possible explanation of what's going on, not more, not less ...

but in the end, something (as in, someTHING, not someone like God) made us, and without that something, we wouldn't existDoes it say where?

Achilles
09-14-2007, 10:08 AM
*Jae pops some popcorn and sits back on the couch to watch the fireworks* Does this mean I shouldn't expect a response to post #32?

Darth InSidious
09-14-2007, 11:40 AM
Was that a barb? I suppose it would only count though if I voted for Bush or was a Bush supporter.
Um, no, no it would apply generally.

Since neither of these qualifiers is true, I guess I can just sit back, bemused by your school-yard taunt.
As opposed to your own oh-so-mature and measured response? Can I smell hypocrisy?

Jae Onasi
09-14-2007, 11:57 AM
Does this mean I shouldn't expect a response to post #32?
I'm getting there, I'm getting there.... :)
Addressing various points below....
I realize that I'm not exactly addressing your argument though, because you specified "gov't censorship", however since I did not reference gov't censorship in my post, I think it's okay to reinforce my point rather than argue your unrelated point.
Point on the gov't vs. non-gov't censorship, since you hadn't mentioned gov't specifically. I lumped it in.

If 85% of E!'s customers are Christian (or at least a majority), and Griffin's saying something that's likely to offend them, what are you going to do as a business person? Allow her rant on the free speech principle and risk an FCC fine and lose customers, or censor it? I don't think E! wanted to risk losing viewership to make Griffin happy.
Source please?
Sources on change in language/content on TV? Come on. Watch any show from the 70's and compare with shows from today. Compare the amount of times 'ass', 'hell', and assorted other expletives are used. Compare how often people jump in bed and how much skin is showing--it was huge news when a butt showed on NYPD Blue in the 90's or when the famous towel got dropped for the football player on an ad a couple years ago--that _never_ would have made it past the censors in the 70's. Compare how much graphic violence there is. I'm sure you've seen some shows from perhaps the early 80's if not 70's, and you and I both know that the content and language has changed a lot since then. If you really want a source, Nick at Nite is a good start for you to see the difference between then and now.
Wait, wouldn't the wardrobe malfunction had to have been intentional in order for it to be considered a risk?
You believe the infamous 'wardrobe' malfunction was an accident? Especially after Timberlake later admitted it was planned? Jackson did it to create controversy to get more media coverage to sell more records.
In which medium? Television?
Yes, I was thinking TV instead of movies, since we were talking about a show that was going to air on TV. I agree movies haven't changed that much in the last 30 years, particularly war movies. Rambo is as violent as ever.
Yes, with regards to music and television, you're probably correct. Not sure what causal relationship you're trying to establish though.
There wouldn't have been a firestorm 30 years ago about whether Griffith's remarks were appropriate or not. They would have been censored, end of story, and it wouldn't even be a news item.
The same FCC that receives more than 99% of all complaints from the Parents Television Council (an activist group).
I'll bite on the red herring. The FCC's an appointed post. They could decide to do nothing about the PTC's complaints (and it looks like they ignore the group more often than not) with impunity, since the PTC doesn't have the same political clout as other organizations.

But I'm glad they're around though. That way I can keep my children up until 10pm (or later) on a school night so that they can watch the Emmy's and know that they'll be spared from traumatizing language such as "suck it, jesus". In the old days, I would have simply sent them out of the room to play a violent video game or something.In the old days, you wouldn't have had to worry about whether you'd be surprised by the content or not--there would be no surprises--no towels dropping, no flashing breasts in the middle of the Superbowl half-time show, etc. At least with movies you know what you're getting into--you can look at the ratings, read reviews, etc to make sure it's appropriate before you go. With new TV episodes, no one's seen them before, and we have no way to know ahead of time if the content is going to be objectionable or not other than the incomplete ratings system. I certainly never expected someone's boob to flash at a half-time show and before anyone has a cow about that, viewing breasts and other body parts is fine if it's in an appropriate context (health class, anatomy class, art class, etc.). My kids have seen pictures of naked bodies in our medical books at home--I'd rather they asked questions of Jimbo and me and get good info than pick up some stupid info from playground friends. In regards to TV, though, the new (relatively) ratings system helps some, at least, but doesn't cover completely the content.


As for giving it to me from the horse's mouth, what you quoted was an incomplete version of her comments, and I wasn't addressing the Catholic remarks in any case. I'm the one who sent you the links since the language is outside the bounds of LF rules, after all.

Achilles
09-14-2007, 11:18 PM
Um, no, no it would apply generally. So we can all agree that you're generalizing. Good.

As opposed to your own oh-so-mature and measured response? Can I smell hypocrisy?Some of us "yanks" know this more commonly as "I know you are, but what am I?". Well done.

I'm getting there, I'm getting there.... :) Oh. Research. Right.

Point on the gov't vs. non-gov't censorship, since you hadn't mentioned gov't specifically. I lumped it in. So you're admitting that your point did not address mine. Thank you.

If 85% of E!'s customers are Christian (or at least a majority), and Griffin's saying something that's likely to offend them, what are you going to do as a business person? Allow her rant on the free speech principle and risk an FCC fine and lose customers, or censor it? I don't think E! wanted to risk losing viewership to make Griffin happy. E!'s market niche is scandal and debauchery (E! True Hollywood Story, Wild on...!, etc, etc). I don't think the example applies.

If we were dealing with a more mainstream entertainment channel, then your point would absolutely be valid, but even that would not magically make this not be religious censorship.

Sources on change in language/content on TV? Come on. Watch any show from the 70's and compare with shows from today. Your specific argument was that the rules and their enforcement have become "far more" lax. Please provide evidence that supports this specific argument.

I would like to offer a counter hypothesis that the rules haven't changed one iota, however television producers have become more risque. I'm not very emotionally invested in this hypothesis and I'm not going to put up much of a defense for it. My point is only to show that your "observations" might not be supportive of the conclusion that you've jumped to.

Compare the amount of times 'ass', 'hell', and assorted other expletives are used. Compare how often people jump in bed and how much skin is showing--it was huge news when a butt showed on NYPD Blue in the 90's or when the famous towel got dropped for the football player on an ad a couple years ago--that _never_ would have made it past the censors in the 70's. How often was it tried? You seem to be speaking rather definitively about this, so imagine you have clear examples to support this.

Compare how much graphic violence there is. I'm sure you've seen some shows from perhaps the early 80's if not 70's, and you and I both know that the content and language has changed a lot since then. If you really want a source, Nick at Nite is a good start for you to see the difference between then and now. Oh, but Jae, I'm not arguing that there is a difference between then and now (regarding television). Your argument was that standards are more lax, so please don't try to put the burden of proof for your argument on me.

You believe the infamous 'wardrobe' malfunction was an accident? Especially after Timberlake later admitted it was planned? Jackson did it to create controversy to get more media coverage to sell more records. I don't have much of an opinion on the matter one way or another. I simply asked you to provide support for your argument. If the case is as air tight as you claim, you should have no problem doing so.

My understanding is that Timberlake (and Jackson) both admitted that Timberlake was supposed to tear away part of Jackson's bodice as part of the act. However the baring of her breast was not intended (hence the "malfunction" part of "wardrobe malfunction"). So if you have evidence that refutes this, I would very much like to see it so that I can have the facts straight.

Yes, I was thinking TV instead of movies, since we were talking about a show that was going to air on TV. I agree movies haven't changed that much in the last 30 years, particularly war movies. Rambo is as violent as ever. Your statement was "There's far more violence and far more use of foul language than there ever was 30 years ago.". Now that I know that you were referring to television specifically, we can move on.

There wouldn't have been a firestorm 30 years ago about whether Griffith's remarks were appropriate or not. They would have been censored, end of story, and it wouldn't even be a news item. Ah, so the problem is there isn't enough censorship?

I'll bite on the red herring. Red herring? You mentioned gov't. I mentioned gov't. How is that a red herring?

The FCC's an appointed post. And? All cabinet positions are appointed as are most judicial postions. Are they not part of the government?

They could decide to do nothing about the PTC's complaints A government office could ignore complaints lodged by citizens that were submitted to them via their own complaint system? Please explain.

(and it looks like they ignore the group more often than not) Because they only fine the station one time, as opposed to one time for every complaint lodged? Please support your claim with some evidence.

since the PTC doesn't have the same political clout as other organizations. What does that mean? What other organizations? "Clout" in what regard? As in their supreme court favorites aren't appointed?

In the old days, you wouldn't have had to worry about whether you'd be surprised by the content or not--there would be no surprises--no towels dropping, no flashing breasts in the middle of the Superbowl half-time show, etc. Maybe I don't worry as much about it because no one in my household watches television and even if I did allow it, it would probably be off at a reasonable time...oh and I'd probably limit it to family shows. But that's just me. I suppose it's easier to hold someone else accountable for content than to objectively examine one's own decisions/values.

At least with movies you know what you're getting into--you can look at the ratings, read reviews, etc to make sure it's appropriate before you go. Very true.

With new TV episodes, no one's seen them before, and we have no way to know ahead of time if the content is going to be objectionable or not other than the incomplete ratings system. Hmmm...I think I need more convincing. I suspect that if pressed we'd end up on some sort of tangient where you would be arguing that violence is ok but sex isn't (since most of your objections seem to be focused on sexual content, and in some cases, on violent programs).

I certainly never expected someone's boob to flash at a half-time show and before anyone has a cow about that, viewing breasts and other body parts is fine if it's in an appropriate context (health class, anatomy class, art class, etc.). How very North American of us.

As for giving it to me from the horse's mouth, what you quoted was an incomplete version of her comments, and I wasn't addressing the Catholic remarks in any case. I'm the one who sent you the links since the language is outside the bounds of LF rules, after all.No, what I quoted was this:
Responding to complaints from the Catholic League, the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences has decided to censor the vulgar remarks that comedian Kathy Griffin made when receiving her Creative Arts Emmy for her show, “My Life on the D-List.” which directly addresses this statement made by you:
Some writers intentionally slanted the story to make it sound like she was being censored for religious reasons when in fact she was being censored for the foul language and the 'suck it' reference. That, frankly, is disingenuous and irresponsible journalism. So, some writers are intentionally slanting the story to sound like she's being censored for religious reasons because that's the reason that appears to have been offered by the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences. If the catholic league's website is posting false information, I think we should bring that to their attention right away.

Thanks.

Jae Onasi
09-15-2007, 01:20 AM
Oh. Research. Right.
More like "I have a Real Life Outside of Kavar's Corner and want to do fun things on this forum as well as deal with the serious stuff and mod tasks". I spent this week writing a story and directing a play with the youth at church, among other things, if you must know, and that happened to have captured my interest at that time, more than discussing the minutiae of censorship.

This is my hobby, Achilles, not my job. :) I already spend a lot of time on this forum reading every post that everyone here writes. I don't get annoyed at you if you take a long time to reply--I know you have a lot of RL responsibilities and interests that can prevent you from posting for long periods of time, and that's OK.

Yes, it is indeed courteous when someone responds to one of our posts in a timely manner. However, that doesn't mean we're entitled to any kind of response from anyone, immediate, delayed or otherwise.

Achilles
09-15-2007, 03:45 AM
More like "I have a Real Life Outside of Kavar's Corner and want to do fun things on this forum as well as deal with the serious stuff and mod tasks". I spent this week writing a story and directing a play with the youth at church, among other things, if you must know, and that happened to have captured my interest at that time, more than discussing the minutiae of censorship....or not research. That's fine too. I was guessing.

This is my hobby, Achilles, not my job. :) I already spend a lot of time on this forum reading every post that everyone here writes. I don't get annoyed at you if you take a long time to reply--I know you have a lot of RL responsibilities and interests that can prevent you from posting for long periods of time, and that's OK. I can't recall a single time I haven't shown you the respect of a response, but alas I'm sure it has happened despite my best intentions.

Yes, it is indeed courteous when someone responds to one of our posts in a timely manner. However, that doesn't mean we're entitled to any kind of response from anyone, immediate, delayed or otherwise.Indeed, as you have shown in so many other threads. Point well made and noted.

PS: Whenever you're ready to take this to PM, just let me know. Take care.

Achilles
09-15-2007, 04:39 AM
@topic:

I was trying to find this resource earlier, but I ran out of time before an appointment and I didn't want to let my response sit until I could find a source for my ancillary argument.

This (http://www.current.org/fcc/fcc0613indecency.shtml) is another example of how the government no longer needs to actively interfere in order to propagate an environment of censorship.

Mod note: I posted this separately because I imagine that 53 and 54 will be pruned at some point. Feel free to merge if I assumed incorrectly. Thanks in advance.

Darth InSidious
09-15-2007, 09:15 AM
So we can all agree that you're generalizing. Good.

Some of us "yanks" know this more commonly as "I know you are, but what am I?". Well done.

Sigh.

Just figured that out, did you?


:roleyess:

Jae Onasi
09-15-2007, 10:18 PM
I can't recall a single time I haven't shown you the respect of a response, but alas I'm sure it has happened despite my best intentions.
I hereby give you the freedom to show me the disrespect of not responding. ;)

SilentScope001
09-15-2007, 11:46 PM
I didn't know atheists do that? I always thought it to be more like a possible explanation of what's going on, not more, not less ...

Even so, we do accept it, and becuase of that, shouldn't we honor it or thank it for making us? Otherwise, by stating, "I don't really care if evolution made me or not"...well, that is a lie, because we do care if evolution made us or not. If it wasn't for natural selection, we wouldn't be alive. It's something to think about. It is this "something" that made us, and I do think people would agree to call it an "Intelligent Designer" and we can all agree to give thanks and praises to it. Even if it can't hear our praises or thanks...

Because without the natural processes that made us, we would not be here.

Totenkopf
09-16-2007, 01:22 AM
I hereby give you the freedom to show me the disrespect of not responding. ;)


:rofl:

Achilles
09-16-2007, 03:58 AM
I hereby give you the freedom to show me the disrespect of not responding. ;)Seems you misunderstood. Your permission isn't necessary.

Jae Onasi
09-16-2007, 09:32 AM
Seems you misunderstood. Your permission isn't necessary.

I didn't want you to feel compelled to hold back on my account.

Prime
09-16-2007, 01:10 PM
Back on topic guys. Take you personal conversations to the PMs. ;)

Achilles
09-18-2007, 01:17 AM
I guess we'll see how the program censors Griffith's remarks and go from there. Did anyone catch the show last night? Any updates?

Rogue Warrior
09-18-2007, 06:40 AM
That is nothing, it seems you can say ****, ****, ****, ect but you cannot say bloody because it is offensive.

mimartin
09-18-2007, 09:14 AM
Did anyone catch the show last night? Any updates?

I really think the Emmy’s censored themselves by going up against the NFL with Ryan Seacrest as host. I tried to watch it, but could not get past the fact that football was on.

Saw Sally Field’s acceptance speech and I agree with much of her sentiment, but award show really need to start mailing her the award. She is a ramble waiting to happen. She also was censored (for language).

Now I wished I had watched more because they had a 30th anniversary tribute to “Roots.”
Associated Press Emmy's Ratings (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jdEwq_9IoiD8MuVyo-K2QX1Hz48Q)

Totenkopf
09-18-2007, 10:43 PM
Well.....at least she didn't end it with a sappy "you love me, you really, really love me line, though she was just about as banal. Yeah, right, mother's would never wage war.....just severe negotiations every 28 days (Robin Williams, I think). :D