Censoring/Suppressing films

Harvey Weinstein

I see a Pro Choice group in Galway are trying to get cinemas to drop a Pro Life film called 'Unplanned' from their schedules. They held a protest outside a cinema in order to shame the business into not showing the film.
Are we back to this now? Is was not so long ago that Catholic groups in Ireland attempted to ban or suppress films, The Life of Brian being one example.
It seems we've come full circle in this regard.

https://twitter.com/GalwayProChoice/status/1180085908822999041?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1180085908822999041&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fs9e.github.io%2Fiframe%2F2%2Ftwitter.min.html%231180085908822999041

https://twitter.com/galwayprochoice/status/1180170635156316160?s=21

is the criticism/concern over the film valid, do you know?

shadily funded propaganda is not something to get all "art for art's sake" about in these times.

Harvey Weinstein

Deleted User wrote: »

is the criticism/concern over the film valid, do you know?

shadily funded propaganda is not something to get all "art for art's sake" about in these times.

Honestly don't know much about the film at all. I only heard of it yesterday due to this protest. But trying to have films banned is a very dangerous step for society in general.

facehugger99

Today's arch-liberals are yesterdays arch-conservatives under a different guise.

They will need to be faced down by all right-thinking democrats who value our hard-won freedoms.

NewbridgeIR

It's not just Catholic groups.

I've seen plenty so-called liberals voice strong opposition to a number of films (going so far as to suggest that banning / censorship was appropriate)
e.g. Rape scenes in Last House On The Left (1972), I Spit On Your Grave (1978)
Animal cruelty in Cannibal Holocaust (1980) and Cannibal Ferox (1981)
Violence in New York Ripper (1982)

Same people have no issue with cuts to archive television programmes - saying it's a good thing e.g.
"N*ggers and wogs" excerpt from Fawlty Towers episode The Germans
Tar scene from Some Mothers Do 'Ave 'Em.
Blacking-up during Are You Being Served's 1981 Christmas special Roots.

And refuse to let their children read Enid Blyton or will only allow them access to the re-written versions (basically every edition published since 1986).
Who gives a toss if she's classist, racist, snobbish etc - her books reflect the attitudes of the day.

The same gobsh*tes are complaining about Morrissey now and getting rid of his albums.

Snow Garden

Careful now, down with this sort of thing

Harvey Weinstein

facehugger99 wrote: »

Today's arch-liberals are yesterdays arch-conservatives under a different guise.

They will need to be faced down by all right-thinking democrats who value our hard-won freedoms.

100% this

The parallels are striking.

BDI

It’s like a parody.

Even the picture of the protest with the hairy chinned feminist men hoping to get the feel off the least likely women to have sex for enjoyment in the country.

The so called liberals banning things and acting like the gestapo and of course to top it all off accusing Trump and Mike Pence of endorsing it.

Before the internet this would have been local college thing that nobody would have heard about but now because of internet none of these people will ever work in a proper career type job once college is over.

Who’d hire them.
Troublemakers they’d be labeled. Wouldn’t even get an interview.

A ban and a protest is always a nice bit of publicity for the film maker.

I hadn't heard of it before this.

Veritas Libertas

Harvey Weinstein wrote: »

Honestly don't know much about the film at all. I only heard of it yesterday due to this protest. But trying to have films banned is a very dangerous step for society in general.

It seems this is the pathway to get things banned these days.

Since the laws were changed in regards to offence, anything that can be argued to cause mass offence(and no public good) is liable to be banned and the person who created the content punished. (Going clear Scientology documentary faced serious challenges)
The problem is, people who disagree with a position usually don't see any public good in the discourse, which is a pity.

Deleted User wrote: »

is the criticism/concern over the film valid, do you know?

Isn't it strange we even have to ask this? I mean there was a time when we knew if protests were happening; something was awry. Now we need to regularly fact check for ourselves usually discovering said protests were just misplaced outrage.

splinter65

Joe Loughnane who expected to be elected to the Council in the recent local elections but to his astonishment only got about 300 votes was declaring yesterday that he would prevent the showing from going ahead.
His Walter Mittyitis is getting worse as time goes by.
The stupidity and hypocrisy with him and his very small group of adoring acolytes is breathtaking.

suicide_circus

facehugger99 wrote: »

Today's arch-liberals are yesterdays arch-conservatives under a different guise.

They will need to be faced down by all right-thinking democrats who value our hard-won freedoms.

Its the new Puritanism.

statesaver

I thought we were passed this kind of thing as a country, sadly i'm wrong.
Probably none of the people protesting will view what they are doing as censorship.

Believe themselves guardians of what is right and correct thinking.

Did the movie go ahead ?

Moghead

Watched the trailer there, seems like a bad Hallmark channel made for TV movie.

As an aside, why are conservative/religious types so bad at creating movies and music that reflect their views or try to convey their message?

Seems to be a lot of Jesus freaks in Galway too, maybe there is a market for this stuff there?

Veritas Libertas

Moghead wrote: »

As an aside, why are conservative/religious types so bad at creating movies and music that reflect their views or try to convey their message?

The scoundrels are getting better.

AndrewJRenko

Harvey Weinstein wrote: »

Honestly don't know much about the film at all. I only heard of it yesterday due to this protest. But trying to have films banned is a very dangerous step for society in general.

Are the Galway group calling for the film to be banned? Or are they calling on the Galway cinema not to show it? Because they are two fairly different outcomes.


And btw, Life of Brian was banned by the film censor, not by any Catholic groups.

Atlantic Dawn

If I was down in Galway I'd go see it just to annoy them

BDI

What are their views on a cinema showing a big dirty porno film, with bum stuff and all?

vriesmays

splinter65 wrote: »

Joe Loughnane who expected to be elected to the Council in the recent local elections but to his astonishment only got about 300 votes was declaring yesterday that he would prevent the showing from going ahead.
His Walter Mittyitis is getting worse as time goes by.
The stupidity and hypocrisy with him and his very small group of adoring acolytes is breathtaking.

The same dope who branded the Oughterard protesters racist because they didn't want over a hundred 3rd world chancers destroying their small town.

alchemist33

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Are the Galway group calling for the film to be banned? Or are they calling on the Galway cinema not to show it? Because they are two fairly different outcomes.


And btw, Life of Brian was banned by the film censor, not by any Catholic groups.

It really amounts to the same thing. They don't want anyone to see the film because they don't agree with the message. You'd think that after Fr Ted, anyone with an ounce of insight would realiae how silly they lok, but no.

Will I Am Not

Galway Pro choice... just for pregnant women though, not movies, we say what you can watch.

One eyed Jack

Harvey Weinstein wrote: »

Are we back to this now?

Back to it? We never got away from people trying to ban/suppress things they didn’t like in the first place, and we never got away from what became later known as the Streisand effect

There was a time too in history when the Bible was banned, and look how that turned out :pac:

statesaver

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

If I was down in Galway I'd go see it just to annoy them

Careful now, you might get mikeshaked :P

splinter65

statesaver wrote: »

I thought we were passed this kind of thing as a country, sadly i'm wrong.
Probably none of the people protesting will view what they are doing as censorship.

Believe themselves as guardians of what is right and correct thinking.

Did the movie go ahead ?

Of course it did. Despite the dozen or so Marxist zombies best efforts.

splinter65

vriesmays wrote: »

The same dope who branded the Oughterard protesters racist because they didn't want over a hundred 3rd world chancers destroying their small town.

....but he very badly wants you to know that he opposes DP.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Do we really have to go through the difference between the government making it a criminal offence to screen or sell a copy of a film, and protestors protesting and letting a private business make a choice? Like ye're not actually with a straight face and functional brain, saying those things are meaningfully comparable?

If any of ye have bothered Googling the film that's given ye this weekend's secondhand outrage high, we might want to talk about the difference between satirical films which are clearly and explicitly fictional, and films which are clearly intended as ideological propaganda and which take a deeply contested account of actual events and present it as straight forward true story.

suicide_circus

Brussels Sprout

I'm no fan of the pro-life brigade but I think picketing a film is idiotic and only likely to give it publicity that it otherwise would not have gotten.

AndrewJRenko

alchemist33 wrote: »

It really amounts to the same thing..

Not really. If the movie was banned, no other cinema would be able to show it and no shop would be able to sell it.



If they protest outside the movie to indicate their view to the cinema operators and to people who may be thinking about going to the movie, some people might change their mind.


They're a long way off 'the same thing'.

eviltwin

I'd be very much pro choice and I think that the film should be allowed to run if people want to see it.

Arghus

They're entitled to protest, as the pro-lifers would be too if it was a different film that had offended them.

Arghus

eviltwin wrote: »

I'd be very much pro choice and I think that the film should be allowed to run if people want to see it.

It is being allowed to run, just some people are protesting about it. People are conflating the idea of a film showing being banned and people protesting about it, but that's the kind of sloppy reasoning that's par for the course around here.

Enough is Enough!

Some protesters alright, two soiboys and bunch of blue haired lesbians.

Sad thing is the cinema will cave and pull the film.

Enough is Enough!

splinter65 wrote: »

Joe Loughnane who expected to be elected to the Council in the recent local elections but to his astonishment only got about 300 votes was declaring yesterday that he would prevent the showing from going ahead.
His Walter Mittyitis is getting worse as time goes by.
The stupidity and hypocrisy with him and his very small group of adoring acolytes is breathtaking.

A real little Hitler.

What gives him the right to decide what can and can't be shown?

Harvey Weinstein

The protesters were attempting to have the film suppressed.
Slogans on several placards included the phrase "Stop the screening"

Joe Loughnane explicitly stated that the screening would be stopped saying "Its as simple as this, this film won't be shown in that cinema tonight"

Others stated that they wanted the screening stopped because it was factually inaccurate
Others then called for the tearing down of promotional posters.

spurious

Enough is Enough! wrote: »

Some protesters alright, two soiboys and bunch of blue haired lesbians.

Sad thing is the cinema will cave and pull the film.

Not to worry, the intended audience can always get their kicks harassing pregnant women at Holles Street.

Enough is Enough!

spurious wrote: »

Not to worry, the intended audience can always get their kicks harassing pregnant women at Holles Street.

Except the Guards confirmed there has been no harassment.

splinter65

Saylor Mammoth Washtub wrote: »

Do we really have to go through the difference between the government making it a criminal offence to screen or sell a copy of a film, and protestors protesting and letting a private business make a choice? Like ye're not actually with a straight face and functional brain, saying those things are meaningfully comparable?

If any of ye have bothered Googling the film that's given ye this weekend's secondhand outrage high, we might want to talk about the difference between satirical films which are clearly and explicitly fictional, and films which are clearly intended as ideological propaganda and which take a deeply contested account of actual events and present it as straight forward true story.

Why can’t you just let people go and see whatever film they want?

splinter65

eviltwin wrote: »

I'd be very much pro choice and I think that the film should be allowed to run if people want to see it.

Of course you do. Because your a normal human being.

AndrewJRenko

Enough is Enough! wrote: »

Some protesters alright, two soiboys and bunch of blue haired lesbians.

What are 'soiboys'? I'm presuming it is some kind of derogatory term, but I can't find any definition for it.

Harvey Weinstein wrote: »

The protesters were attempting to have the film suppressed.
Slogans on several placards included the phrase "Stop the screening"

Though just to be clear, that's a bit different from having the film banned.

splinter65

Arghus wrote: »

They're entitled to protest, as the pro-lifers would be too if it was a different film that had offended them.

They’re absolutely allowed to protest.
The problem is, they think that only they are allowed to protest, because people who disagree with them are clearly wrong.
For example, the people in oughterard were NOT allowed to protest the DP centre.
But Joe Loughnane CAN protest people going to the cinema.

suicide_circus

ok so are they just protesting or actively trying to stop the film being shown?

One eyed Jack

Arghus wrote: »

It is being allowed to run, just some people are protesting about it. People are conflating the idea of a film showing being banned and people protesting about it, but that's the kind of sloppy reasoning that's par for the course around here.

That’s not the way I read it. The OP is making a point about the futility of attempted censorship and how it tends to have the opposite of it’s intended effect.

The people protesting against the showing of the film are doing so because they don’t want the film to be shown. Because of their efforts, the film has gained plenty of publicity and free advertising, and the protesters are seen as the modern day pearl clutchers.

It’s amusing, because it’s ironic. I don’t think anyone here is actually outraged or incapable of reason.

splinter65

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

What are 'soiboys'? I'm presuming it is some kind of derogatory term, but I can't find any definition for it.



Though just to be clear, that's a bit different from having the film banned.

I’ll fight to death for your right to protest. Protest away. But you have to let me protest things I don’t approve of too.
That’s the problem.

Boggles

How does a movie like that get into the cinema, it looks like a straight to DVD or streaming offering?

splinter65

suicide_circus wrote: »

ok so are they just protesting or actively trying to stop the film being shown?

Joe loughnane announced on twitter yesterday that he would see to it that the film would not be shown.

splinter65

Boggles wrote: »

How does a movie like that get into the cinema, it looks like a straight to DVD or streaming offering?

There’s demand to see it, otherwise it wouldn’t be economically viable for the cinema to show it.
Just because it’s something you’re not interested in doesn’t mean other people feel the same.
This would be clear to me, I’ve no idea why it’s not clear to you.

Mickeroo

It's got a better rotten tomatoes rating than the new rambo at least.

AndrewJRenko

splinter65 wrote: »

I’ll fight to death for your right to protest. Protest away. But you have to let me protest things I don’t approve of too.
That’s the problem.

Thanks for your support, but just to be clear, I'm not protesting anything, or calling for protests or encouraging protests on this occasion. Nor have I made any comment about what you should or shouldn't be protesting about.

Boggles wrote: »

How does a movie like that get into the cinema, it looks like a straight to DVD or streaming offering?

Follow the money.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

splinter65 wrote: »

Why can’t you just let people go and see whatever film they want?

Is that a rhetorical question? Nobody is being stopped from seeing any film, because the sector of society who are the exact opposite of the makers and audience of this film campaigned and protested and agitated and won that right. So now, instead of the government and other massively powerful establishments ACTUALLY preventing people seeing a film, here we have protestors objecting to a screening of a film. Objecting, not fining, or prosecuting, or imprisoning anyone for doing so.

And here we have people so desperate to feel oppressed and censored rather than just left behind by the society they're in, they have to pretend "see look it's the same, who's the real liberals HUH???"

While, and this really is great, having not seen or heard anything about the background and content of the film. Nope just straight to "help, they're standing outside the cinema, that's censorship!" While unironically accusing the protesters of knee jerk outraged reactions.

It's comical.

suicide_circus

what specifically is wrong with the film?