Gone with the Wind Cancelled

2u2me wrote: »

Basically anyone that was arguing against the lockdown restrictions.

and all the 5G stuff that was censored as well.... :rolleyes:

Michael Jackson has been spotted wearing blackface in his childhood.No one is safe.

na1 wrote: »

Skin whitening is A RACISM!

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/19/business/johnson-and-johnson-skin-whitening-cream.html

img

L'oreal must have transition year students in the charge of their PR relations too.

Munroe Bergdorf made history in 2017 when she was hired as the face of a L'Oréal U.K. campaign, making her the brand's first transgender model. Bergdorf rehired at L'Oréal, 3 years after being fired over white supremacy comments.

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/munroe-bergdorf-rehired-l-or-al-3-years-after-being-n1228376

The Titan Who Founded L’Oréal, Eugène Schueller, Prospered Under the Nazis, fell in with the Nazi-sympathizers of German-occupied France and emerged from the war as successful as ever.

Schueller was also connected with notorious German official Helmut Knochen, the commander of police and security for the SS intelligence service. Actively involved in the deportation of French Jews to the Nazi death camps, Knochen was also responsible for the execution of several thousand French Resistance members and civilian hostages. Interrogated by French intelligence services after the war, he listed Schueller among his “voluntary collaborators.” In 1947, French investigators discovered a list of 45 “agents of Knochen.” Among them: “E. Schueller. Businessman.”

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/titan-who-founded-loreal-built-his-brand-shoulders-nazis-180964805/

Own goal from L'Oreal

1800_Ladladlad wrote: »

L'oreal must have transition year students in the charge of their PR relations too.

Munroe Bergdorf made history in 2017 when she was hired as the face of a L'Oréal U.K. campaign, making her the brand's first transgender model. Bergdorf rehired at L'Oréal, 3 years after being fired over white supremacy comments.

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/munroe-bergdorf-rehired-l-or-al-3-years-after-being-n1228376

The Titan Who Founded L’Oréal, Eugène Schueller, Prospered Under the Nazis, fell in with the Nazi-sympathizers of German-occupied France and emerged from the war as successful as ever.




https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/titan-who-founded-loreal-built-his-brand-shoulders-nazis-180964805/

Own goal from L'Oreal

They still have Amber Heard on their books...you know, the one who has allegedly s##t on her husbands bed, chopped off the top of his finger, physically abused him on multiple occasions....then painted bruises on her face and got a court to grant her a restraining order...which would go on to cost her husband $millions in lost revenue.

A right bunch of charmers working in that company alright!!!

Silentcorner wrote: »

They still have Amber Heard on their books...you know, the one who has allegedly s##t on her husbands bed, chopped off the top of his finger, physically abused him on multiple occasions....then painted bruises on her face and got a court to grant her a restraining order...which would go on to cost her husband $millions in lost revenue.

A right bunch of charmers working in that company alright!!!

#BelieveHer

Tony EH wrote: »

Free speech is free speech, end of. I wholeheartedly subscribe to the Noam Chomsky view on that. You are either for it or against it.

Into the bargain, you don't combat "lies, bollox, conspiracies, and pseudoscience" by banning or censoring it. You combat it by better speech. Besides, in order to determine what the above is, there would need to be a body that stands in determination of such things and that can be manipulated and distorted.

Remember, just a few short decades ago, people were called "pseudoscientists" for discussing Darwin's evolutionary principles.

Being against free speech in its purist form means that you set up a trap whereby the speech you agree with may one day be considered worthy of censorship by other parties interested in pushing the opposite view.

I 99% agree, the one objection would be hate speech promoting terrorism. I know that is hard to define but I don't think the right to free speech should be absolutely unlimited.

Otherwise I agree, the best way to counter opinions you disagree with is better arguments.

Tony EH wrote: »

That's breaking the law, however, because it's promoting violence. This has nothing to do with free speech and the exchange of ideas.

Anyone saying that people should be killed because of a set of beliefs they have is running afoul of the law, not the concept of free speech.

The problem is defining exactly what constitutes hate speech.

fly_agaric wrote: »

I think there are objective facts/truth and lies although it seems to me sometimes that people are less and less willing to believe that any more. You cannot beat back such lies with just "better (?) speech" if the liars are permitted the biggest megaphones and platforms available, have lots of money and buy experts in human psychology to help them craft their messages.

You don't beat anything with censorship. That will just drive things underground, regardless of the content. Into the bargain, it makes it desirable to seek out as well.

fly_agaric wrote: »

You take a very idealistic viewpoint that no country implements in full, not even the freedom loving USA afaik where spreading lies about people or organisations can still sometimes get you your soapbox taken away + you sued occassionally if the subject has the money/resources/will.

It's pragmatic. It has to be absolute. Because you free speech you like today may be the target of someone else in the future and you'll find that the ideas you agree with under attack. In fact, look to the past and there's a good chance that you see theories and ideas that you support the target of those they disagreed with.

What you are talking about with "spreading lies about people or organisations" is law breaking. Defamation and slander are not free speech and are subject to prosecution.

fly_agaric wrote: »

In all countries, even our democracies with alot of freedom of speech there are various bodies effectively making that sort of determination (re facts/truth and lies) each day or trying to in general good faith to the best of current available knowledge, the state, profesional organisations, various experts, the legal system etc.

They are. But doesn't necessarily make them correct or even desirable. Such bodies will have to be taken on a case by case basis.

It still doesn't change the fact that free speech has to be applied evenly, for the reasons I've already said.

fly_agaric wrote: »

This is all perhaps tangential to the subject of corporate censorship/restrictions on art and entertainment which is more the subject of the thread I think...so probably should have kept my "speech" to myself in this case!

It probably is and in any case, corporate entities are free to impose whatever censorship they please regarding the product they have in their bag of wears. A business, any business, is free to decide what they want to allow and what to restrict and as a private enterprise, nobody has a leg to stand on in opposition to that in any real terms.

Free speech doesn't exist in the private, corporate, world. It never has.

fly_agaric wrote: »

I'm undecided. Think many democracies are getting a live demonstration over last few years of the huge damage very well funded and crafted lies spread about under rubrik of absolute "free speech" can do.

It would be remiss of me to suggest that there a no problems with free speech. But they are less problematic than the issues that arise with censorship, because I'll repeat, one day the censor will be silencing things you believe and hold dear.

Tony EH wrote: »

It's pragmatic. It has to be absolute. Because you free speech you like today may be the target of someone else in the future and you'll find that the ideas you agree with under attack. In fact, look to the past and there's a good chance that you see theories and ideas that you support the target of those they disagreed with.

....

What you are talking about with "spreading lies about people or organisations" is law breaking. Defamation and slander are not free speech and are subject to prosecution.

I agree with most of what you are saying, but there seems to be an implicit contradiction there. Laws are just a codified/agreed morality and there are laws against defamation because of the harm it can do.
Such laws mean in practice that freedom of speech is not "absolute" and you may be punished pretty harshly for publishing something defamatory which is of course a restriction on speech. The case is I think similar to "hate speech" mentioned above.
I'd be of the opinion that certain other speech should be illegal also. I probably draw the line in a different place to you.

Tony EH wrote: »

They are. But doesn't necessarily make them correct or even desirable. Such bodies will have to be taken on a case by case basis.

It is better than a free for all world without them IMO where equal weight is given to coronavirus conspiracy theorist with the bully pulpit of social media & alot of followers to disseminate his "free speech", and a government health agency.

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

Lol, Things are going peak sensitive, what a crap time to live in.
ALIENS this film has outdated attitudes, language, and cultural depictions which may cause offence today...

it caused offence at the time, i know Bill Paxton was a good actor, but he could be pure cringe sometimes...

da_miser wrote: »

Silence of the lambs, apparently its Transphobic , buffalo bill is problematic in todays SJW world.

Why because buffalo bill portrays mentally ill murdering psychopath?

All in favour of skipping the foreword...?

...and that has made all the difference.

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

What this will actually lead to is a rise in piracy as people go looking for the original uncensored versions (where things have been cut or edited) or simply because the platforms have decided that we need to be protected from these things now :rolleyes:

Remember when the Maud Flanders character was mocked in the Simpsons? Now she'd be running the town

Welcome aboard. I haven't bought anything since 2013.

^
That's kinda scary.

:pac:

The 1953 animated movie Peter Pan also carries a disclaimer on the Disney+ streaming service, warning the film “may contain outdated cultural depictions”.

according to buzz.ie, it "has often been criticised for a scene in which Peter and Wendy come across a group of tribesmen who call themselves Indians. And the characters then talk in broken English before The Lost Boys ask them, "What makes the red man red?” and, “Why does he ask you, How?’ "

Overheal wrote: »

Can’t get away with that shyte anymore now that I’m back in the states. Even local ISPs hound you. Fiancé torrented Adams family values through VPN and the next day my Internet was off, when I called to complain they knew what the file was from where and when, and unlike an overseas ISP they are at gunpoint here from the DMCA. So, that was the end of my piracy days, to think it was Adams family that did it. That still tickles us.

Seems odd with a VPN.

TheValeyard wrote: »

Seems odd with a VPN.

Today they call everything VPN. Could be say an Android app that uses some kind of tunneling.

Was a VPN though, I’m not retarded.