Film censorship in the USA

02.jpg (298 KB)


Send to Facebook | Send To Twitter
  • Leave A Comment

    Please Login to comment
    5 Comment threads
    5 Thread replies
    0 Followers
     
    Most reacted comment
    Hottest comment thread
    7 Comment authors
    NotMegorAndrewTheWookieAnimusfracked again Recent comment authors
      Subscribe  
    Notify of
    nyoki
    Member

    Somehow ratings always equals de facto censorship.

    fracked again
    Member

    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… Read more »

    angryviking
    Member

    I am amused that the 1952 entry lists abortion twice.

    “You said abortion twice.
    I like abortion.”

    angryviking
    Member

    1956 rather.

    Animus
    Member

    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.

    gor
    Member
    gor

    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.

    AndrewTheWookie
    Member

    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

    gor
    Member
    gor

    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.

    gor
    Member
    gor

    sorry, proganda = propaganda.

    NotMe
    Member

    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