No Longer Acceptable Content

[Charles Guy]

Comment in another thread started me thinking why do we not treat songs as we do books, movies, cartoons, advertising, and so forth of other eras which are banned due to what is not acceptable content today.

Its not right that we are subjected to hearing profane, inflammatory or offensive lyrics in public places such as streets or parks yet we cannot purchase many of the above items to watch or read in our own homes where no one else will see or hear them.

You can bet that if I played David Alan Coes X-Rated album in a park or in the car/ on the motorcycle sound system that I would be curated, assaulted, or shot.

Anyone have a thought regarding why censorship is deemed justified for some yet not all that is offensive to others?

 

[JEngle1122]

Because it is subjective. When Western society took cues primarily from Judeo/Christian faith it was more objective, (although subject to abuse and misinterpretation). Now it's based primarily on cultural climate, which is subjective and always changing.

But, I hear you. I was wrongly terminated from a restaurant kitchen job because I objected to a co-worker's rap music (a white person's) that was being played loudly in the workspace that was full of the word that begins with "n". I now work in a public library, where what is considered "workplace appropriate" music is a little more conventional, and I'm so glad.

But still subjective. Its a problem inherent to the modern philosophy of no objective truth. If truth is subjective (i.e. "you do you" or you make your own truth) then morality must be subjective too. Some people think that's a good thing, I personally do not.

So yeah. I hear you.

 

[Oldscruggsfan]

Great point CG! An infuriating local example is coprorate country radio’s long- standing sanitizing of the reference to Satan in the Charlie Daniels classic “The Devil Went Down to Georgia” while graphic, racist and misogynist lyrics are simultaneously deemed acceptable and even mainstream when mouthed by so-called rap/ hip hop ‘artists’.

As far back as 2008, I was shocked and disgusted by rap lyrics blasted over the taxpayer- funded gym sound system at public high school basketball games but far be it for old Charlie to cuss the devil.

 

[Charles Guy]

1978 or so Blondie couldn't sing it was a pain in the a$$ yet now the B word is ok on network tv and radio. Figure that out.

 

[Charles Guy]

Because it is subjective. When Western society took cues primarily from Judeo/Christian faith it was more objective, (although subject to abuse and misinterpretation). Now it's based primarily on cultural climate, which is subjective and always changing.

But, I hear you. I was wrongly terminated from a restaurant kitchen job because I objected to a co-worker's rap music (a white person's) that was being played loudly in the workspace that was full of the word that begins with "n". I now work in a public library, where what is considered "workplace appropriate" music is a little more conventional, and I'm so glad.

But still subjective. Its a problem inherent to the modern philosophy of no objective truth. If truth is subjective (i.e. "you do you" or you make your own truth) then morality must be subjective too. Some people think that's a good thing, I personally do not.

So yeah. I hear you.

This is a thought provoking response, going to chew on this concept a while.

 

[Eggs_n_Ham]

Comment in another thread started me thinking why do we not treat songs as we do books, movies, cartoons, advertising, and so forth of other eras which are banned due to what is not acceptable content today.

Its not right that we are subjected to hearing profane, inflammatory or offensive lyrics in public places such as streets or parks yet we cannot purchase many of the above items to watch or read in our own homes where no one else will see or hear them.

You can bet that if I played David Alan Coes X-Rated album in a park or in the car/ on the motorcycle sound system that I would be curated, assaulted, or shot.

Anyone have a thought regarding why censorship is deemed justified for some yet not all that is offensive to others?

Follow the money.

 

[man0a]

There is a big difference between banning a book and choosing to no longer play or publish it. Most of the material you are talking about is not really banned (except in Florida).

 

[Joyful Uke]

There is a big difference between banning a book and choosing to no longer play or publish it. Most of the material you are talking about is not really banned (except in Florida).

Libraries have been forced to remove a number of books in most states, I think. I've been told that if a library doesn't remove a book, what often happens is that someone will check it out and never return it, to force it's removal. Of course, they can't do that with ebooks, at least.

 

[Charles Guy]

There is a big difference between banning a book and choosing to no longer play or publish it. Most of the material you are talking about is not really banned (except in Florida).

Basically if someone doesn't approve of something but does not want to have it banned then we can just let it f f f f fade away to achieve the same result without the same fanfare.

My real question is regarding music and why its ok to force others to listen to what they deem offensive in public places. I hear stuff driving down the road that puts the Twisty Gerber Experience to shame. Seems to be a case of not having respect for others while demanding it for yourself and music seems a special case vs. other formats.

 

[JEngle1122]

Basically if someone doesn't approve of something but does not want to have it banned then we can just let it f f f f fade away to achieve the same result without the same fanfare.

My real question is regarding music and why its ok to force others to listen to what they deem offensive in public places. I hear stuff driving down the road that puts the Twisty Gerber Experience to shame. Seems to be a case of not having respect for others while demanding it for yourself and music seems a special case vs. other formats.

From a psychological perspective, some people seem to get their jollies from invading or violating other people. I suppose maybe it gives you a feeling of power or control when you feel powerless or out of control. Invading someone via their ears is much less socially frowned upon than invading them in other areas of their body or soul (public nudity, violence towards another person, rape, are all crimes. A rich neighborhood might enforce a "noise ordinance" but that would be different from the censorship question at hand.)

A wise friend of mine once said that everyone is always more insecure than they seem. I think that's probably true. Some people have healthier ways of addressing their feelings of insecurity than others. It should be a caution to us all to be as self aware as we have the capacity to be. Where (or from whom) does the sense of security come from in my life?

I whole-heartedly commend Jesus as a sufficient answer to anyone who is interested. He really does answer the dillema of why does my life matter? Most people, whether they know it or not, agree with or at least suspect that Sarte was right, that life in fact does not matter, God is dead and the only real answer is suicide. The lyrics of many commercially successful songs affirm this belief is commonplace. Its not surprising, although it is sad, that insecurity would proliferate when that becomes a prevailing worldview. It's pretty heartbreaking, actually. It helps me have more sympathy to try and remember these things when I feel violated by other people's behavior. Even being honked at on the freeway really hurts my feelings. But we're all just trying to perpetually quiet our fear that we don't matter and maybe we'll disappear if we don't honk our horn and make our existence heard. My two cents.

 

[Nickie]

Libraries have been forced to remove a number of books in most states, I think. I've been told that if a library doesn't remove a book, what often happens is that someone will check it out and never return it, to force it's removal. Of course, they can't do that with ebooks, at least.

When I find that, I go buy the book, and donate it to the library.

 

[Oldscruggsfan]

Continuing In the book banning vein, when my kids were still in school, local “fundamentalists” succeeded in getting a certain Civil War novel banned due to so-called profane content. The book’s title was “Charley Skedaddle”, which I personally read and enjoyed. I found its content exceedingly tame, a more kid-oriented version of The Red Badge of Courage.

The writer’s use of profanity solely consists of the words “damn” and “hell”, each of which ironically appear very often in a book revered by the same well meaning but ultimately ignorant and unreasonably intolerant covey of censors, namely every printed version of The Holy Bible, both Old and New Testaments.

EDIT: In the category of “be careful what we wish for”, if graphic accounts of raw violence are to become a rallying cry, the future is quite precarious for Leviticus, Deuteronomy and practically all other books of the Bible other than Psalms and Proverbs. Lots of flaying, beheading, burning (including the ever- redundant ‘with fire’) and killing with swords there, all long before Christ’s exceedingly cruel crucifixion. Sexual content? Song Of Solomon. Sodom and Gomorrah. I could go on but you get the picture.

 

[BigJackBrass]

1978 or so Blondie couldn't sing it was a pain in the a$$ yet now the B word is ok on network tv and radio. Figure that out.

On the other hand, in 1978 The Black and White Minstrel Show was still on the telly, a prime-time BBC variety show featuring singers in blackface.

Times change.

 

[bbkobabe]

There were lots of song lyrics and titles that didn't make it through... The Rolling Stones Star Star, about a successful groupie proclaiming her success is an obvious choice. I heard once that the working title of Norwegian Wood was Knowing She Would. And then there was the whole Beatles Butcher Cover deal on Yesterday and Today. My original release copies of Jerry Garcia's album Garcia (1972) and Blind Faith's notorious album cover (1969) both were issued with adhesive stickers that needed to be laboriously scraped off to reveal the naughty bits (bits, but with T)... when sold here in California at least.

This whole issue is on my mind since my kid's first book, Gender Queer, became the #1 most banned book in America. It looks likely the book will continue to hold the title again this year as well. There is something about this book that makes some people burn with rage. They then go out and ban the book... usually without even reading it... sad!

Libraries have been forced to remove a number of books in most states, I think. I've been told that if a library doesn't remove a book, what often happens is that someone will check it out and never return it, to force it's removal. Of course, they can't do that with ebooks, at least.

Good point... The author doesn't get a lot of payment for selling an e-book, but at least it can't be checked out and never returned. That happened at one of our local libraries here in Sonoma County/NorCal: As soon as the librarians had set up the Pride Month display, a small group of people showed up and checked out every book in the display! There is no penalty for non-returned books here, so I doubt they will ever be seen again. Probably got the 451 farhenheit treatment already...

When I find that, I go buy the book, and donate it to the library.

Thanks, Nickie! You are from Florida, too, as I recall. Thanks for that!

 

[Charles Guy]

There were lots of song lyrics and titles that didn't make it through... The Rolling Stones Star Star, about a successful groupie proclaiming her success is an obvious choice. I heard once that the working title of Norwegian Wood was Knowing She Would. And then there was the whole Beatles Butcher Cover deal on Yesterday and Today. My original release copies of Jerry Garcia's album Garcia (1972) and Blind Faith's notorious album cover (1969) both were issued with adhesive stickers that needed to be laboriously scraped off to reveal the naughty bits (bits, but with T)... when sold here in California at least.

This whole issue is on my mind since my kid's first book, Gender Queer, became the #1 most banned book in America. It looks likely the book will continue to hold the title again this year as well. There is something about this book that makes some people burn with rage. They then go out and ban the book... usually without even reading it... sad!



Good point... The author doesn't get a lot of payment for selling an e-book, but at least it can't be checked out and never returned. That happened at one of our local libraries here in Sonoma County/NorCal: As soon as the librarians had set up the Pride Month display, a small group of people showed up and checked out every book in the display! There is no penalty for non-returned books here, so I doubt they will ever be seen again. Probably got the 451 farhenheit treatment already...



Thanks, Nickie! You are from Florida, too, as I recall. Thanks for that!

We lived in Vancouver WA in the early 90's and people were freaked about a book titled Daddies Roomate which was mild and very simple about the subject of gay parent. Talk about hipocrisy in the land of the way whacked liberals who didnt mind their kids hogging the library computers watching p***, skipping school, sheltering runaways, etc. but totally blew a fuse over this book. I just dont understand why people cant simply choose not to read it and allow others the choice to do so if they wish.

Same as my comments earlier about people or companies basically censoring what I can watch or listen to in my own home (Try to get a legal copy of Song of the South) while allowing music in public places that is filled with hate, profanity, and otherwise objectionable lyrics.

 

[JEngle1122]

(Try to get a legal copy of Song of the South)

Is this not obtainable legally because it is banned from publication or because of the current social climate it would hurt profits if Disney still published it? I only ask because the original question was about censorship not publication. Just because something is not available at a local library doesn't mean it's not available at all, or (necessarily) that it's not available because of censorship. It may simply be unpopular or out of demand. Disney also no longer publishes their WWII era animated shorts, but I don't think it's because they are banned. It's because no one is clamoring for that product, and Disney has a brand and profit expectations to maintain now that is different from what it was in the 1940s.

There are different philosophies of library collection development and not all of them include preserving things for historic record keeping purposes (regardless of current public sentiment about the history). I work for one of the largest library systems in the US and as far as I know we don't ban anything. But if something doesn't circulate for a year, we often weed it out to make space for what people are interested in at the moment. Keeping what's new and popular in stock so that as many people can access it as quickly as possible is one philosophy of catalog development. I'm not saying it's my preferred philosophy, but that's the one to which our system subscribes. I'm not a development specialist either... I'm sure there's a lot more nuance to why we buy what we buy.

Also, if materials are lost or stolen by patrons, and it's deemed there is still a public need for them, the library repurchases those items. If you want to donate a book to your local library, you should ask first. If you donate an edition of the book that isn't what they currently have a bibliographic record for, the catalogers may not be interested in adding a new bib record. They'll simply repurchase the edition they have cataloged for circulation, and send your donation to charity. Smaller libraries may not function the same way we do, but just FYI. You can always suggest the library purchase something.

 

[JEngle1122]

Also, Interlibrary Loan is a good source for old or out of print material that your library may not be able to source for purchase (such as the example given of Song of the South). ILL a great resource and you can basically check things out from any library all over the world, as long as they are not too physically fragile or valuable to ship through the mail.

 

[ploverwing]

Also, Interlibrary Loan is a good source for old or out of print material that your library may not be able to source for purchase (such as the example given of Song of the South). ILL a great resource and you can basically check things out from any library all over the world, as long as they are not too physically fragile or valuable to ship through the mail.

I LOVE ILL!!!! We use it a lot in our library system. We have a great system as it is: multiple branches throughout Vancouver Island, and you can order whatever they've got, and it'll come to your local branch for pick up. But it's not a huge system, so we use the ILL for stuff that our system doesn't own. Thankfully, our librarian in charge of the ILL ordering for our local branch is also quick to jump on the "ooooh, maybe we want this in our system, I'll look into ordering it" train of thought, which I always appreciate. Actually, I just love libraries, and all the wonderful things they offer.

Sorry to the OP for the diversion of topic. I totally agree with your frustration. And I agree with others' frustration about censorship in general.

 

[Eggs_n_Ham]

Is this not obtainable legally because it is banned from publication or because of the current social climate it would hurt profits if Disney still published it? I only ask because the original question was about censorship not publication. Just because something is not available at a local library doesn't mean it's not available at all, or (necessarily) that it's not available because of censorship. It may simply be unpopular or out of demand. Disney also no longer publishes their WWII era animated shorts, but I don't think it's because they are banned. It's because no one is clamoring for that product, and Disney has a brand and profit expectations to maintain now that is different from what it was in the 1940s.

There are different philosophies of library collection development and not all of them include preserving things for historic record keeping purposes (regardless of current public sentiment about the history). I work for one of the largest library systems in the US and as far as I know we don't ban anything. But if something doesn't circulate for a year, we often weed it out to make space for what people are interested in at the moment. Keeping what's new and popular in stock so that as many people can access it as quickly as possible is one philosophy of catalog development. I'm not saying it's my preferred philosophy, but that's the one to which our system subscribes. I'm not a development specialist either... I'm sure there's a lot more nuance to why we buy what we buy.

Also, if materials are lost or stolen by patrons, and it's deemed there is still a public need for them, the library repurchases those items. If you want to donate a book to your local library, you should ask first. If you donate an edition of the book that isn't what they currently have a bibliographic record for, the catalogers may not be interested in adding a new bib record. They'll simply repurchase the edition they have cataloged for circulation, and send your donation to charity. Smaller libraries may not function the same way we do, but just FYI. You can always suggest the library purchase something.

"song of the south" was censored and pulled by disney over a decade ago because of the uncle remus characters. disney removed the classic song "zippity do dah"...albeit James Baskett singer/actor won an oscar.

 

[JEngle1122]

"song of the south" was censored and pulled by disney over a decade ago because of the uncle remus characters. disney removed the classic song "zippity do dah"...albeit James Baskett singer/actor won an oscar.

Point well taken. But, the owner of a product wishes to no longer sell that product. It is their property and can be managed as they deem best serves the interest of the company. They are under no obligation to make that product publically available. So then, is that really censorship?

At any rate, the original question at hand is "why is censorship subjective". This example still illustrates pretty well that morality (in this case, objectionable media content) determined by culture is inherently subjective and changes over time. In this example the subjectivity comes from business interests.

Trying to find logical consistency in human beings is a losing proposition. It isn't limited to censorship. That fact may be disappointing, frustrating at times, or even injurious, but it shouldn't surprise us. The issue then becomes, well how do I as a human being cope with my feelings about that? It's a valid question to ask onesself.