No Longer Acceptable Content

[baconsalad]

You don't even need to have controversial lyrics. Annie Lennox was banned on MTV until she produced a birth cert showing she was female. Because.....think of the CHILDREN!!!!!

 

[Graham Greenbag]

Mostly I’m of the view that there’s too much inflicting of some folks views and ideas of what is right or not on others, and too little tolerance towards the ideas of others. Personally I draw the line at things deliberately targeted and intended to hurt and upset others, and I’m also not keen on misinformation too, but otherwise my philosophy is that over sensitivity is a bad thing and that tolerance is a great thing which more people need to exercise.

 

[Charles Guy]

"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.

I used SOS as an example where the owner of a property pulled it due to a change in society certainly not financial reasons as if reissued would sell probably better than the newer releases based on demand expressed on the Internet. As an adult I fully get the reasons it was removed from publication, however as a child I was fascinated by Uncle Remus with his storytelling and singing. Wished he would have been my neighbor no matter ethnicity, gender identification, sexual orientation, religion, or any other of the tags we use today. And pulling zippity do dah is simply pandering to a small group that is too narrow minded to bother listening to the lyrics and the positive message they contain vs. the movie they come from.

Not my intent to travel this path with original musing on music, however it is a very interesting and thoughtful thread and I appreciate everyone's comments.

 

[Charles Guy]

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.

ILL is indeed fantastic, used it extensively in WA, PA, and CA to obtain material that local libraries did not have on their shelves. Great way to read every book in a series in sequence.

 

[Joyful Uke]

"I used SOS as an example where the owner of a property pulled it due to a change in society certainly not financial reasons as if reissued would sell probably better than the newer releases based on demand expressed on the Internet."

Where on the internet is the demand being expressed?
I had never even heard of SOS so wouldn't have been lining up to get a copy or been interested in streaming an old movie I had never heard of.

When Get Back was released, Peter Jackson made people aware that there was a lot more footage ready to be released, but Disney wasn't releasing it. Based on internet demand that I saw, it looked like there was plenty of demand even if Disney charged a very high price. Of course, that demand appearance might have been biased because it was on forums that had an interest in The Beatles or music. Clearly there wasn't enough demand or Disney would have released it. I'm sure they looked at likely $ profit from it and decided it wasn't going to be a money maker for them.

I'm guessing that might be true for SOS as well. To get it in a format that would work in today's world would take some work most likely, and the amount of profit might not offset that cost. And in this case, there is the additional factor of dealing with likely backlash of the content. Not financially worth it for them, most likely.

Disney has a brand name to protect, so I would expect that they consider whether something fits into their brand as well, which this likely does not. Businesses are constantly considering that when making business decisions.

 

[Joyful Uke]

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

We'd never have 100% consensus on what is offensive, so would have to ban everything if we were to censor everything that someone somewhere might find offensive.

Up until recently, I think censorship was based on current laws and what a large enough group of people objected to. (What was "large enough"? I don't know.) Now it seems that a single person can object to a book that they've never read and get it banned from libraries and schools.

But that single person isn't likely to be able to prevent something from being available elsewhere. For example, the New York Public Library was (is?) granting access to banned books to people even without a NY library card. IIRC, you could be in another state and get the books.

Books for All

The New York Public Library stands by the right to read freely. In response to recent efforts to ban certain books in some communities across the United States, the Library made a selection of commonly banned books available to everyone—for free.

www.nypl.org

 

[rainbow21]

Maybe you never heard of SOS because it "no longer exists". But here is "Zippity...".


A sidenote: "Splash Mountain" at Disneyland just closed as it was based on "Song of the South" and is to become "Princess and the Frog".

 

[Canada Jim]

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!

Our library expects patrons to pay for a replacement if a book is lost or irreparably damaged, so checking out a book and not returning is not an effective way of censoring our local libraries. It would be considered theft.
I would think that most libraries require patrons to take responsibility for any books that they checked out. Surely this is not unique to Port Hope.

 

[Joyful Uke]

"Maybe you never heard of SOS because it "no longer exists"."

Possibly. To be fair, I'm not aware of a lot of old movies...or even current movies. LOL.

 

[Joyful Uke]

Our library expects patrons to pay for a replacement if a book is lost or irreparably damaged, so checking out a book and not returning is not an effective way of censoring our local libraries. It would be considered theft.
I would think that most libraries require patrons to take responsibility for any books that they checked out. Surely this is not unique to Port Hope.

Libraries in my area no longer have fines for late books or charge for replacement books. They used to require patrons to take responsibility but no long do so.

 

[Canada Jim]

Maybe you never heard of SOS because it "no longer exists". But here is "Zippity...".


A sidenote: "Splash Mountain" at Disneyland just closed as it was based on "Song of the South" and is to become "Princess and the Frog".

From that clip, I don't see what is offensive. Perhaps the word "Uncle"?

 

[Neil_O]

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.

Unfortunately there is no easy to read text that gives us a useful moral code to refer to.

 

[TimWilson]

Folks, while we're talking about what's acceptable, what's controversial, and the like, my inbox is lighting up like Times Square, Piccadilly Circus, Akihabara, or the brightly lit urban area of your choice. Our rules explicitly bar religious and political conversations, but they also mention "likely to offend"....and it turns out that a thread whose topics include the query of what's offensive can cause offense. Can, and has!

Those of you who've posted on the thread might say, "I don't see anything offensive, or even potentially offensive here", and that's exactly the problem. I deeply, deeply appreciate people who, rather than create more controversy by saying, "I find this or that offensive" are instead writing me and asking me to close the thread. And with that, I am.

There's so much to talk about in this world, and not all of it belongs here. I'm coming to believe that one guiding principle might be, "Does this thing I'm posting about make me happy?" If the answer is yes, it's at least a little likely to be headed in the right direction. If the answer is, "NO! I'm posting about something that upsets me!", well, maybe there's a better place to post it.

Admittedly, this is almost too broad a principle to be useful, but I find that true of most principles. LOL

Less generally and more specifically, it seems to me that most of us are here most of the time to step off the hamster wheel of our own disappointments and outrages. That's certainly a dynamic I've seen many of you express as part of why you play the ukulele -- to unwind, to find a center, to heal, to have fun, and so on. To make a joyful noise, if not necessarily a skilled one. So I follow that principle throughout the community, including actions I take as a moderator. Increase joy, or at least clear the clouds, wherever I can.

As always, I prefer not to discuss particular moderation activities in the threads themselves, but am very open to speaking about it in PM or email (timothywilson @ the one that starts with G).

Many regards and much mahalo,
Tim
Mod