Tag: censorship

What’s all the fuss about “Skins” on MTV?

The Hollywood Reporter’s Live Feed blog recently reported on the Parents Television Council’s vicious condemnation of the MTV series “Skins” and followed it up with a report that the PTC called for a Federal investigation into the show. The show is about high-school-age characters, and features casual sex and drug use. The PTC has made their condemnation of the series as “the most dangerous show for teens” in spite of a TV-MA rating.

I really don’t see what all the fuss is about. Teenagers have used drugs and partaken of casual sex before “Skins” and will continue to do so afterwards. Seriously, folks, don’t blame the show for the actions of the kids, even if they are your kids. I would like to think by the age of 13 or 14 that most young adults have learned the difference between fantasy and reality. And again, just because the PTC doesn’t like a show, doesn’t mean MTV should bow down and kiss their feet and pull the show.

The latter report also states the PTC is calling for a boycott of Taco Bell, who sponsors the program. This smacks of censorship, which as any regular reader of this blog knows, is one of my biggest pet peeves. So I’m calling on my readers out there, sometime within the next couple of weeks, to eat out at Taco Bell at least once. In fact, let the staff know you’re doing it because Taco Bell sponsors “Skins” and in spite of the PTC.

As I have learned from my time at the poker table, the best way to respond to a bluff is to call it. Maybe once word gets out this has actually been a PR boost for Taco Bell and MTV, the PTC will back down. But I’m not holding my breath.

Maybe the PTC should spend more time explaining to parents how to use the parental control features on TV sets and cable boxes. Or better yet, how to explain the dangers of drug use and casual sex to their sons and daughters.

To be fair, I honestly think MTV can do a better job. Did it ever occur to the PTC that maybe that’s what “Skins” is about?

Controversy, art, and “Fire in My Belly”

Over the two years this blog has been in existence, I’ve called out quite a fair number of people and organizations that have attempted censorship of the expressions of others. I believe very strongly in freedom of speech and freedom of the press as guaranteed by the First Amendment of the US Constitution (and as acknowledged in, for example, Article 19 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights). I also agree in principle with the stated mission and objectives of the Smithsonian Institution. I recognize the Smithsonian’s prestige, but I am not in the least intimidated by it.

Especially when the people in charge of the Smithsonian today do things like censoring the work of artist David Wojnarowicz, who has been deceased since 1992. More horrifying than the censorship was its motivation. Two Republican Congressmen (Eric Cantor and John Boehner) threatened to yank funding for the Smithsonian if the video “Fire in My Belly” was not censored. In the words of Rep. Cantor, the exhibit is an “outrageous use of taxpayer money and an obvious attempt to offend Christians during the Christmas season.”

I find this assertion abominable and a slap in the face at the intent of the First Amendment. Yes, some art is controversial, and there are pieces of art that may be offensive to certain groups or individuals. That’s hardly a reason to threaten to slash the budget of the Smithsonian like a ten-foot-tall growth of weeds, and Reps. Cantor and Boehner should be ashamed of themselves for such a heavy-handed action.

The good news is that the art community has stood up for the First Amendment. In particular, the Warhol Foundation has demanded the restoration of the exhibit under threat of a cessation of funding. Also of note, Jon O’Brien of Catholics for Choice published an open letter to Smithsonian Secretary G. Wayne Clough which states in part:

…your decision to censor David Wojnarowicz’s art has sullied the reputation of the National Portrait Gallery and does a disservice both to the arts community and the public. For artists, it suggests that in order to be considered by your gallery, their art may have to be uncontroversial. For the public, it suggests that what they see at the gallery may not be the full story, that exhibitions may be tailored so that they do not offend anybody. Neither scenario is positive.

…

Censorship of the arts is the last thing that an art institution should be doing. You have set a low standard for yourselves, and for your public. The National Portrait Gallery plays an important role in the cultural life of the city and the nation. Your decision sends the worst possible message to artists, to other cultural institutions and to the American people.

As commendable as both of these moves are, the management of the Smithsonian has yet to flinch. This censorship is every bit as bad as the grants Andres Serrano lost in the wake of Piss Christ, which some of my readers might even be too young to really remember. I just happened to be reading Time that month, or I would not have known about it either. Yes, I will admit there was a time I did not follow the art scene that closely. Apparently, the entire Piss Christ controversy has been long forgotten because it’s being repeated. As said by George Santayana, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” Or, if you prefer a more contemporary quote, there’s Yogi Berra’s “It’s deja vu all over again.”

Art made to be non-controversial to avoid censorship is much more likely to wind up boring. A nation with boring art is doomed to become a nation of boring people. My own life is boring enough some days; it’s nice to be able to go to an art gallery and see something interesting.

I want to see America stay interesting. I can’t be the only one.

Thoughts on Wikileaks, diplomatic cables, and the future of journalism

Unless you’ve been living under a rock or otherwise intentionally avoiding news reports for whatever reason, you have probably heard something about Wikileaks (if down, try this IP address-based link) and its release of cablegrams between embassies which has sparked a huge controversy. In case you haven’t, or you need to be brought up to speed quickly (all from CBS News):

And this is of course just the tip of the iceberg. I could link you to all the press coverage, but I’d be here all night doing that alone before offering up my viewpoint on some of the things that have happened.

The publication of documents intended to be kept secret is a balancing act that at times makes a circus tightrope walker’s routine seem easy by comparison. I was somewhat familiar with Julian Assange and the Wikileaks site prior to the cablegram releases. However, I had not spent a great deal of time visiting the site on a daily basis. That’s about to change; suffice it to say that I will probably be writing about the material on Wikileaks on a semi-regular basis, especially since the latest release has threatened the site’s continued existence.

And I feel that is a shame. I trust Julian’s judgment, and I do not believe he or the others responsible for maintaining Wikileaks would release the 652 cablegrams marked “Secret” without good reason. From the FAQ:

US authorities have said the release may put people at risk. Is this true?

Wikileaks has a four-year publishing history. During that time we have released documents pertaining to over 100 countries. There is no report, including from the US Government, of any of our releases ever having caused harm to any individual. For this release we are releasing the documents in a gradual manner, reviewing them with the assistance of our media partners.

And later on:

What will the effect be on the Middle East?

One newspaper has alleged the cables might destabalize the Middle East. These cables, by giving the players an unvarnished description of how they are seen, there will be a common ground on which to effectively negotiate peace and stability. We do not see this as a risk of destabilisation, but an opportunity for stabilisation and reform in the Middle East.

While it may be embarrassing to certain individuals for some of the contents of the cablegrams to be made public, this is not the same as being “put… at risk.” Sometimes, journalism requires embarrassing a few people for the greater good.

Until and unless there is hard evidence that someone has been injured or killed as the result of a release of information in the style of Wikileaks (not just from Wikileaks itself, but from any other organization which releases information in the same style), I personally regard Julian Assange as more of a modern-day hero, unlike some who appear to call him a modern-day zero (or other choice words, including “terrorist” and a few things I prefer not to put here).

I believe Wikileaks and websites like it are the future of journalism. Granted, most websites placed online will not have content quite as controversial as the leaked cablegrams currently at the center of attention. However, there is no shortage of information which large corporations, governments, or wealthy and influential individuals want to keep secret, which should be made public. As said by Thomas Jefferson, “An informed citizenry is the only true repository of the public will.”

I believe the latest release from Wikileaks has demonstrated the saying “information wants to be free” has never been more true, and has shattered any remaining doubts that the Internet is just a passing fad. It matters little what Amazon, Paypal, the US government, and others that wish to try to censor Wikileaks do. In the long term, they are all fighting a losing battle.

I wish Julian and his partners the best of luck in continuing the success of Wikileaks. May freedom of the press win and censorship lose.

Why burn the Quran?

As reported by the Houston Chronicle, among others, a minister in Florida is only a couple of days away from burning copies of the Quran, the holy book of Islam, on the ninth anniversary of the 2001 September 11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. This plan by the pastor of the Dove World Outreach Center (DWOC) in Gainesville, Florida, has drawn outrage and criticism from many people, including President Obama and those in charge of our military. Indeed, the US government is considering contacting the pastor to attempt to change his mind (VOA).

It is understandable that many are outraged, some going as far as to say it would endanger our troops overseas in countries such as Afghanistan. I’m not a fan of the Quran burning or the viewpoint behind it either. I’m not sure what exactly it will accomplish besides further anger an already irritated Muslim population, both inside the US borders and outside. But neither am I a fan of censorship, which is what would effectively be happening were the pastor of DWOC prohibited or threatened with arrest for his expression. According to the second story linked above, Rackspace has already taken the DWOC website offline. I’m not really a fan of this either, but it’s certainly understandable that they chose to call the site “hate speech” given the circumstances.

The DWOC’s pastor has the right to his point of view. It is equally our right, however, to express ourselves and put distance between ourselves and those with such radical views. Burning the US flag is protected free speech; as objectionable and politically dangerous as it may be, I see no reason the Quran should be treated differently. However, I believe the DWOC pastor’s pyrophilic protest it is patently devoid of any sense of good taste and it is our duty as Americans–actually, as human beings, whether in the US and abroad–to let our opposing view be known, to condemn this act and others like it, as tasteless, senseless, vile, and putrid. The majority expressing their tolerance and respect for each other will easily drown out a minority expressing hate and disgust, especially in such an ill-advised fashion.

I believe the majority of Muslims are peace-loving people, as I am. It is just as wrong to judge all Muslims based on the actions of the September 11 terrorists as it is to judge all Christians based on the actions of David Koresh and the Branch Davidian cult. And nobody sane would dare try that one.