Smut campaigners stay up late to get offended
Or maybe they set their videos and watched Lars von Trier’s The Idiots the next day. The Danish Dogme classic was broadcast at midnight on Monday as part of Channel 4’s X-Rated season. It contained a brief, unpixelated sex scene, which prompted “several” compaints to Ofcom.
“Massah” John Beyer, the Black and White Minstrels fan who likens himself to St Paul, told The Independent on Sunday,
Channel 4 is unquestionably pushing the boundaries and they are doing it quite deliberately. I guess that Channel 4 will be up there bidding for the television rights to 9 Songs along with all the other pornography channels. I just feel that Channel 4 is now beyond control, yet the regulator seems unable and unwilling to have anything to say about what Channel 4 is doing. I just don’t know what can be done to stop this collapse of standards.
Maybe he should join Christian Voice?
Not such a bad idea. He won’t of course, as he has his own organisation.
But it is a perfectly possible scenario that Channel 4 will be deaf to listeners and (in practice) simply do whatever they want. In this particular scenario, the radical approach is the natural and logical one.
[…] What is this thing you Earthmen call the off button? Media Watch Watch reports that once again the self appointed guardians of Britain’s morality are preparing to march u […]
Great!” Let’s put a diet of snuff movies & footage from Neverland on the TV schedules. Objection is futile when all you need to do is press the off-switch.
???
What? Are you insane? Seriously, what colour is the sky in your world? Who mentioned content that is either illegal or amoral. Apart from you? The last time I checked, consenting sex between adults in neither of these things. Nor is watching, or for that matter broadcasting, late night programming that contains consenting sex between adults. I fear your choice of
says far more about your own obsessions than those of the program controllers. Your response shows a level of fundamental bigotry and stupidity that simply cannot be combated by normal argument. All I can do is pity you.
I was merely demonstrating that the ‘off-button’ argument doesnt work as a principle.
AMORAL: Your definition of what is amoral is different from that of many other people. I would be surprised if you had not noticed amoral things already being shown on tv.
ILLEGAL: This is just the question: different things are illegal in different ages and different countries. It’s not enough to say that something is currently illegal in one’s own country, since that is both time-specific and location-specific. We need to have the imagination to think beyond our own time and culture. Why have such things been illegal in other countries, and in our own country at other times? How sure are we that our own wisdom is superior to that of other ages and nations?
The definition of amoral seems fairly clear:
Admittedly, immoral would have been a btter choice. My aim wasn’t to argue symantics though.
Oh, and I think you’ll find that murder, which you refer to in snuff movies, has been illegal for quite some time, and in the majority of locations. I think it is likely to stay that was for the foreseeble future.
You seem quite convinced of the superiority of your own wisdom.
Richard, that’s because he imagines his wisdom comes from The Creator of the Universe, with whom he imagines he has a “personal relationship”.
Snuff films ? They are as rare as the tooth fairy and the Easter Bunny. No one’s ever proved that a single one exists. Not that this prevents the desire to censor of course. Channel 4 should be free to show BBFC “18” classified explicit material late at night provided that the audience is warned. Even “9 Songs” when it is available on video.
Unfair and unjust restriction is also immoral. History has shown that time, and time again. If people think censorship is so necessary, they’ll have no trouble citing the REAL and manifest SECULAR harm that WILL occur without it, won’t they ? One thing I will not accept and that is censorship just to prevent some overtly religious person from being able to feign offense.
Channel 4 belongs to ALL of us. I believe that they should be able to show 18 rated films to suit ALL tastes therefore, not just those of repressive Christians.
I can only assume from this comment that Dr Shell is suggesting the trial of Michael Jackson is complete; the allegations of child abuse have been proved and Mr Jackson has been charged. Clearly his faith gives him access to information that the rest of us are not privy to. Perhaps “innocent until proven guilty” is not a Christian concept.
When people are arguing a point they use examples. The more extreme the examples, the more they prove the point.
But examples are chosen more or less at random from a vast pool of other examples. Instead of my chosen 2 examples, substitute if you like ‘gruesome close-ups of murder and rape that savour the detail’ (as in e.g. ‘A Clockwork Orange’) and ‘footage of Michael Jackson reading his magazines’ (and this at least he must have done, though as you rightly say none of us knows the truth of the case).
It doesn’t matter which particular examples one chooses, since the examples are distinct from the central point being made.
Shaun-
You don’t define what you mean by ‘taste’. After a few beers with the guys, no doubt ppl’s ‘taste’ may become more gory than usual. But this is not a matter of ‘choice’ or reason. It’s a matter of their animal instincts getting the better of their more rational nature. Should anyone encourage or cater for that?
aaah hahahaha. An attempted lesson in logic and reason from a Christian. You couldn’t make it up!
Usually, the more extreme the examples used, the weaker the argument, because people can point out the gaping flaws in the analogy. For example, if I were to say that, in your desire to suppress images and words in the media that you find offensive, you were just like Hitler, then I’d simply make myself look ridiculous and lose any argument as you pointed out how wrong I was (well, always assuming that you haven’t attempted genocide).
I’m always amused by the mention of a persons “animal instincts”, since animals don’t have any of the traits ascribed to humans by this label. The instincts inferred by Dr Shell are entirely human in origin and execution.
Dr Shell,
Your kind don’t say what they mean by “taste and decency” either. Even though they keep complaining and whinging that it has been offended. By ALL tastes, I mean material which may offend some people. Offense alone is no reason for censorship. Certainly material classified 18, whatever is in it, should be allowed.
The onus should be (and according to interpretations of the Human Rights Act is) on the authority doing the censorship to show that it is necessary, and justified. Free people should not have to justify why they should be free. Those who wish to take it away must justify why that is necessary.
I’d also point out that “A Clockwork Orange” doesn’t feature “gruesome close-ups of murder and rape”. It features depictions of fictional re-enactments of murder and rape – just like many of the paintings in the National Gallery.
None of these replies so far have engaged with the fact that there are at least two forces competing within a given human being: their physical lusts and their rational ‘better nature’.
The former is shared by animals, whereas the latter is not. That is why people speak of ‘animal instinct’, since it is shared by all animals, including the human mammal.
Any person can experience these two warring against each other. Hence the well-known cartoons with the little angel and the little devil over the protagonist’s head.
Re offence: Offence is not always the point. Offence is a merely emotional reaction. Forget emotions. There’s also the purely logical point that no-one can give a coherent reason for how they are benefitted by some material. One can be completely unoffended, and still believe that there’s no good reason for showing some things.
Re: examples: Very mild examples would serve the purpose just as well. Because the argument works just as well whichever examples one chooses. The examples are not of the essence of the argument.
Re: A Clockwork Orange – the point is only that a director can film even pretended action in an amoral way.
Shaun: I don’t know what you mean by ‘my kind’ since if nothing else Im an independent thinker :o) However, ‘taste’ is a word I never use in moral contexts, since I cant see why anyone would think important moral issues could be reduced to a matter of mere ‘taste’. They are far more important than that. ‘Taste’ is concerned with which composer, poet or band one prefers – these are not moral issues.
As for ‘decency’ it’s whatever you’d happily see your daughter doing (unless you are even more of a rogue than I take you for).
Best wishes
My daughter will, in a free country, do whatever she wishes to to do, regardless if what I might wish to see. Why not ask if I’d like to see her scrub floors for a living, or act as a servant to pompous people ? It is folk like you who villify girls who appear in adult films. If it wasn’t for “your sort” (yes I will use the term again) such girls wouldn’t face round condemnation and disgrace. Not of from me I might add.
I can think of lots of thing “immoral” that religious people have done. Condemnation of people like my daughter, for appearing in porn films is one of them. I can tell you “Dr” Shell, exactly where you can put your brand of morality, if you ever care to contact me privately…
Just to add, my daughter being eleven, has never appeared in a porn film as she is much too young. However what she does as an adult, when she has grown up, is up to her in a free country.
Oh and er, why don’t you ask me what I would like to see my son do ? Or are you sexist, like most of “your kind” ?
Independent thinker be blowed…
Christopher – I’m intrigued by your assertion, having implied an equivalence to so-called “snuff movies”, that “A Clockwork Orange” is amoral. I’d have said that there are strong arguments that it exhibits a morality utterly in line with Christian principles. Are you familiar with the film and its source novel, or are you basing your opinion on hearsay?
Joe – you are right that I am not too familiar with ‘A Clockwork O.’ – in fact, I have watched less than an hour of it (and what makes you think I would consider it equivalent to a snuff film? In any list of examples there are more and less extreme cases.).
But do take to heart the point I made about examples! Neither snuff movies, nor Neverland, nor ‘A Clockwork Orange’ has anything to do with the point I am making. They are merely the first examples that sprang to mind, out of thousands of examples any of which I could equally have chosen. It is not them that I am speaking about, but the underlying principle.
Shaun – what sort of parent are you if you couldnt care less what your daughter does when she grows up? You know and I know that good parents care about their children and want the best for them. Aren’t you able to think beyond your own country in your own period of history, or do you consider that the UK law in 2005 AD is right in every respect?
Being in ‘a free country’ has an up side and a down side. Proof of this is that America (which idolises freedom) is the best country for many things and also among the worst for many others (divorce rate, gun crime rate…).
Son, daughter – it makes no difference. As a man Im more accustomed to feeling protective towards women than towards men – but that’s only because Im married and so far childless.
I think the category ‘religious’ is meaningless – the Encyclopedia of Philosophy 1967 cites it as a classic example of a vague word. Christ is nothing to do with religion and everything to do with reality.
Best wishes
Dr Shell,
What sort of parent are you if you want your children to lead a repressed life full of guilt about sexual matters ?
I am just as worried about my daughter becoming a scrubber in the literal sense of the word,that I am about her becoming a porn star. But I’ll tell you this: The most important thing for me, is that they are free to decide what they want to do with their lives, not to have choices forced on them by the activities of the likes of you. You don’t have any children ?
Good. Because when you do, I will feel very sorry for them Dr. Shell.
It’s not so much “A Clockwork Orange” (for example) itself that’s the problem, it’s that you were willing to condemn it outright, several times, before I was able to tease it out of you that despite the glee with which you held it up as an example of depravity and slammed it as “amoral” and full of “gruesome close-ups of murder and rape”, you are *utterly ignorant of its actual content*. Which kind-of undermines a lot of your argument, no?
No, animals do not share “physical lusts”. Animals are driven by a necessary biological urge to procreate. Very few animals, with the exception I think of some of apes, copulate purely for pleasure; which is why (again with the exception of some apes and monkeys) animals do not masturbate.
Human “lust”, or the desire for sexual pleasure, cannot be reasonably equated with the urge to reproduce, despite the latter originating from the former. To assert that they are the same “instinct” is fatuous in the extreme.
Oops, got that the wrong way round, didn’t I?
Joe-
You are still missing the point about examples and the function of examples as secondary to hte main point. The main point being: the ‘off-button- argument doesnt work. If ‘A Clockwork O’ is inapposite, substitute something else that is apposite. It’s all the same to me, & all the same as far as the argument is concerned.
Shaun-
You astonish me! (Surprise, surprise). Everyone not involved in making pornographic movies is full of repressed guilt about sexual matters??
Richard-
In denying that humans have instincts, don’t you think you are very much in a minority? Insofar as we have an animal origin, we have instincts (sexual, survival etc). They rank as instincts because they are physical drives rather than being the result of a mental decision.
What? When did I suggest the humans don’t have instincts? I just suggested that “lust” isn’t one of them.
…and you’re still missing the point that you’ve been caught out condemning material, quite erroneously, from a position of absolute ignorance. This is pretty much the dictionary definition of ‘prejudice’, isn’t it?
Richard-
Humans undoubtedly have sexual instincts whether or not one uses the word ‘lust’. If you go off & bring up some boys and girls in the jungle, away from civilisation and speech, and after 12 years you’ll see what I mean.
Richard – come back! I didnt mean it literally.
Joe-
I am simply citing a newspaper critic who said he was uncomfortable with the way Kubrick’s eye lingered over certain scenes. I imagine he had a point, & as a TV critic had decent reasons behind his point.
But this isnt a competition about who missed the most points. Just by saying I have also missed a point (and Im sure I miss thousands, as we all do) isnt an answer. Becasue the game we are playing is not called tit-for-tat, it is called the quest for truth.
Shell, you twist words around.
When did I say or imply people not involved in making porn are sexually repressed ? It seems that most people who are into religion are… That’s my point. As for my children, no I don’t suppose I’d be 100% happy if they went into making porn films, but I could certainly think of much worse things they could do. Such as become drug addicts, thieves, that sort of thing.
I would stand by them too.
One of the most shameful things I heard regarding religion, was my friend’s mother, (a strict and committed Christian churchgoer) about her son. “Oh Shaun our XXXXX has been a real dissapointment to us you know…”
Do you know what he did ?
Not murder. Not rape. Not theft.
He got divorced.
Nuff said.
Stuff religion. I know what it does to people. It’s WORSE than any drug, or any porn.
‘Religion’ is a vague term that means nothing to me (& as far as I can make out, it made nothing to Jesus. Arguably, his opponents were the ‘religious’ people).
In the Dictionary of Philosophy ed. Paul Edwards (1967), article on ‘Vagueness’, ‘reliion’ is chosen as a classic example of a vague word. I agree. It’s almost impossible to define.
Christ has nothing to do with religion. He has everything to do with reality.
Im sorry about your friend’s mum. Im glad that she did not minimise what a bad thing divorce is (it causes more stress than anything apart from bereavement). But why didnt she have a more positive outlook and focus on the future?
I dont know whether involvement in such films is better or worse than murder / rape / theft – it’s surely less bad than murder or rape. But that’s not relevant, since they are all bad. 3% is not as bad a mark in an exam as 1%, but that’s irrelevant, since they are both bad marks.
It’s symptomatic of how far you have bought into modern western standards as some kind of universal norm that you can just shrug off things like divorce. Divorce is not just an everyday thing that one can shrug off – not in every society it isnt. There are some societies where it is, but that is an indication of some sickness in the society.
[…]
Magnificent.
Not if the pass mark is 2%. And here, I think we come to one of the many problems with the assertions which you appear to feel constitute arguments – definition. You bandy about terms like “family morals” and “natural” as if they had some at least agreed-upon, if not intrinsic, definition. They don’t.
“Divorce is not just an everyday thing that one can shrug off – not in every society it isnt.”
No it isn’t something to be shrugged off. But neither is it a reason to roundly condemn your son to one of his best friends, as if he is some kind of criminal or something. They got divorced by mutual agreement by the way. He didn’t go off with anyone else or anything.
Sheesh, these church people… They should get real…
‘Get real? This is just the point. In some societies divorce is so much more ‘real’ and ‘normal’ than in others. How did the ones with better stats get the better stats, and is it impossible that we might have something to learn from them?
The UK in AD 2005 is no more or less ‘real’ than any other society at any other date.
my main point however is this: you (Shaun) still seem to be taking UK law AD 2005 as some universal norm (‘as if he is some kind of criminal or something’).
What makes you think that the worst acts are the criminal ones? For example, it is criminal to steal a car (or even a watch) but not to steal a husband. But which is actually worse?
Joe-
‘Family morals’ is a neutral term, referring to what is best / beneficial practice in family and marital matters. It doesn’t presuppose any conclusion: for conclusions, we must look to any relevant statistics.
I agree that ‘natural’ is a weasel word. But the fact that people use it at all, and understand one another when they are using it, proves that it can’t be made to mean whatever one wants it to mean.
Not only are some divorces (Im not at present talking about your friend’s) therefore a lot worse than criminal acts; they are also the number two stress-causer behind bereavement.
Of all the things to go out of one’s way to defend, this is a strange one.
What I suspect is there is some correlation between the things you defend and the things that just so happen to be fashionable in AD 2005 Britain. But I may be wrong.
But “family morals” is anything but a neutral term; it seems to exist chiefly as a shibboleth used by the religious right to attack just about anything of which they disapprove. You’re absolutely correct that it doesn’t presuppose any conclusion; in fact, it’s a textbook example of a Humpty Dumpty phrase, up there with “un-American activities” or “Aryan”.
Secondly, I have absolutely no idea why you’re so keen to take me to task on my views on divorce in the second portion of your reply to me because at no point have I mentioned divorce, its effect on those involved, or indeed any of my friends (not least since, to the best of my knowledge, none of them has been divorced); nor have I attempted to defend it, let alone gone out of my way to do so.
Sorry Joe, the divorce comments were ‘pasted’ wrongly, & intended for Shaun.
I guess if you dont like the term ‘family morals’, use another term. Whichever term we use, there are still statistics to be faced up to.
[…] d Channel 4 “not in breach” for showing Lars Von Trier’s The Idiots (see 13 March article). The report, available as a .pdf download on Ofcom’s website, must come as a mass […]