Film censorship in the USA
(2 votes, average: 4.50 out of 5)You need to be a registered member to rate this post.
Loading ...
Add to favorites 
Processing your request, Please wait....
Leave a comment ?
(2 votes, average: 4.50 out of 5)You need to be a registered member to rate this post.
Loading ...Add to favorites 
June 6, 2010 at 2:51 am
Somehow ratings always equals de facto censorship.
June 6, 2010 at 6:27 am
They end up having a chilling effect and can limit your access to some theaters and cut the number of screens you can show your film on. One of the local theaters (old as fuck, historical building, even still has a pipe organ in it) used to show some flicks that were rated X back in the day but would now probably get an R or maybe PG13. Some local politician decided to make a career out of being the most moral person in town and since the city had part ownership, got them to stop showing them.
Same guy used to film people going into adult magazine stores to try to embarrass their customers into going elsewhere.
June 6, 2010 at 3:40 am
I am amused that the 1952 entry lists abortion twice.
“You said abortion twice.
I like abortion.”
June 6, 2010 at 3:41 am
1956 rather.
June 6, 2010 at 8:56 am
the truly sad thing is that the MPAA is simply a voluntary union of film studios, it is basically a club that forces its will via peer pressure. Thanks to all the hype they get, lot of people think the MPAA is some kind of government agency with legal enforcement powers.
When I worked at a video store years ago I learned a lot about how little power the MPAA actually had and how many laws they tried hard to overturn and obfuscate so that people would pay more for videos.
June 6, 2010 at 9:28 am
How is the 1989 entry connected to censorship? It’s not censorship if the government doesn’t pay the artist to make art, it’s censorship when the government interfers with the artist making art.
June 6, 2010 at 2:40 pm
Because instead of using the taxpayer’s money for all forms of art, they wanted to give money to only those they approved of. Sort of censoring without censoring, because while they didn’t actively block anything from being made, through their actions they may have kept something they didn’t like from being made. If it were a private fund, that would be fine, but these were taxes and a government decision
June 6, 2010 at 6:19 pm
I don’t think not funding art is censorship, but funding art could be seen as proganda, hence I don’t believe government should have anything to do with art.
June 6, 2010 at 6:21 pm
sorry, proganda = propaganda.
June 6, 2010 at 8:53 pm
It’s some kind of first level censorship. They only fund what they like.
We had same issue here last year in Canada when Harper wanted to basically do the same thing but to every level of art.
Some artist made a video to illustrate it
www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3zBPnIYavI