Film Score Monthly
FSM HOME MESSAGE BOARD FSM CDs FSM ONLINE RESOURCES FUN STUFF ABOUT US  SEARCH FSM   
Search Terms: 
Search Within:   search tips 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
 
 Posted:   Mar 2, 2021 - 12:51 PM   
 By:   chriscoyle   (Member)

Please point to me the act of censorship in the past that has stood the test of time as the correct decision?

We're not talking about censorship. We are talking about how a corporation chooses to do business and what a corporation chooses to sell.


No it’s censorship. We see it differently. The books have been publish for years and all of a sudden it’s a problem?


We absolutely see it differently. All kinds of things go out of print all the time. Are you suggesting that some reasons for deletion are better than others? All the reasons boil down to the same thing: The company sells what is in its best interests, and the company deletes what is in its best interests.

Are you suggesting that the state mandate what publishers must publish?


A publisher has a contract with the estate to publish the books. The publisher decides to not publish some of the author’s books. They are self-censoring the author. Soon all books will be digitalized and there will be few physical books. We will have one “Amazon” and soon one “publisher” controlling all content. When someone wants to publish those books deemed “offensive” that “publisher” will be driven off the internet and out of business.

 
 
 Posted:   Mar 2, 2021 - 12:55 PM   
 By:   Bob DiMucci   (Member)

Companies put out press releases all the time.


Sure they do. And to what end? Because they want to get positive notice for what they are doing. Which was my exact point.

 
 Posted:   Mar 2, 2021 - 12:57 PM   
 By:   Warlok   (Member)

Make that "cat-in-the-hatalogue."

smile

 
 
 Posted:   Mar 2, 2021 - 1:14 PM   
 By:   OnyaBirri   (Member)

A publisher has a contract with the estate to publish the books. The publisher decides to not publish some of the author’s books. They are self-censoring the author. Soon all books will be digitalized and there will be few physical books. We will have one “Amazon” and soon one “publisher” controlling all content. When someone wants to publish those books deemed “offensive” that “publisher” will be driven off the internet and out of business.

Respectfully, you're veering off topic.

 
 
 Posted:   Mar 2, 2021 - 1:15 PM   
 By:   OnyaBirri   (Member)

Companies put out press releases all the time.

Sure they do. And to what end? Because they want to get positive notice for what they are doing. Which was my exact point.


And you are helping them by engaging in the online conversation about their business decisions.

 
 
 Posted:   Mar 2, 2021 - 1:15 PM   
 By:   Hercule Platini   (Member)

.

 
 
 Posted:   Mar 2, 2021 - 1:17 PM   
 By:   Bob DiMucci   (Member)

This is an outrage!

Dr. Seuss Enterprises wants to protect the name and brand of Dr. Seuss.

What is the world coming to?



Given that Seuss Enterprises has decided that it needs to be ashamed of part of its brand, they could have gone one of three ways:

  • They could have put a disclaimer in the front of each book, warning readers of the offensive stereotypes to be found within, similar to what Warners has done with GONE WITH THE WIND, or what Disney recently did with some of the Muppet Shows. Readers/viewers could then make the decision as to whether to read/watch the works.

  • They could have had the offensive illustrations removed or redrawn, similar to Disney censoring and zooming in certain images in FANTASIA, or removing the cigarette from Pecos Bill's hand in MELODY TIME. Readers/viewers could then make the decision as to whether to read/watch the bowdlerized works.

  • They could withdraw the work from the public, like Disney has done with SONG OF THE SOUTH. Readers/viewers have the (correct) decisions made for them.

    They chose the latter.

  •  
     
     Posted:   Mar 2, 2021 - 1:18 PM   
     By:   OnyaBirri   (Member)

    This is an outrage!

    Dr. Seuss Enterprises wants to protect the name and brand of Dr. Seuss.

    What is the world coming to?



    Given that Seuss Enterprises has decided that it needs to be ashamed of part of its brand, they could have gone one of three ways:

  • They could have put a disclaimer in the front of each book, warning readers of the offensive stereotypes to be found within, similar to what Warners has done with GONE WITH THE WIND, or what Disney recently did with some of the Muppet Shows. Readers/viewers could then make the decision as to whether to read/watch the works.

  • They could have had the offensive illustrations removed or redrawn, similar to Disney censoring and zooming in certain images in FANTASIA, or removing the cigarette from Pecos Bill's hand in MELODY TIME. Readers/viewers could then make the decision as to whether to read/watch the bowdlerized works.

  • They could withdraw the work from the public, like Disney has done with SONG OF THE SOUTH. Readers/viewers have the (correct) decisions made for them.

    They chose the latter.


    They chose the latter, and it was their right to do so.

    Readers still have about 30 or 40 other Dr. Seuss books to choose from, to say nothing of all the books that have been written since he was active.

  •  
     
     Posted:   Mar 2, 2021 - 1:18 PM   
     By:   Bob DiMucci   (Member)

    Companies put out press releases all the time.

    Sure they do. And to what end? Because they want to get positive notice for what they are doing. Which was my exact point.


    And you are helping them by engaging in the online conversation about their business decisions.



    But I don't believe I'm giving them the positive notice they seek. Of course, if you believe that any publicity is good publicity...

     
     
     Posted:   Mar 2, 2021 - 1:19 PM   
     By:   OnyaBirri   (Member)

    Companies put out press releases all the time.

    Sure they do. And to what end? Because they want to get positive notice for what they are doing. Which was my exact point.


    And you are helping them by engaging in the online conversation about their business decisions.



    But I don't believe I'm giving them the positive notice they seek. Of course, if you believe that any publicity is good publicity...


    The only bad press is no press. You've never heard that one before? You are helping Dr. Seuss Enterprises whether you want to or not.

     
     
     Posted:   Mar 2, 2021 - 1:21 PM   
     By:   Bob DiMucci   (Member)

    They chose the latter, and it was their right to do so.


    I'm not arguing their right. Or even their motives. I'm decrying their methods.

     
     
     Posted:   Mar 2, 2021 - 1:23 PM   
     By:   Bob DiMucci   (Member)

    The only bad press is no press. You've never heard that one before? You are helping Dr. Seuss Enterprises whether you want to or not.


    Criticism is the sincerest form of flattery.

     
     
     Posted:   Mar 2, 2021 - 1:34 PM   
     By:   John McMasters   (Member)

    Dr. Seuss Went to War:

    https://library.ucsd.edu/speccoll/dswenttowar/#intro

     
     
     Posted:   Mar 2, 2021 - 1:45 PM   
     By:   chriscoyle   (Member)

    A publisher has a contract with the estate to publish the books. The publisher decides to not publish some of the author’s books. They are self-censoring the author. Soon all books will be digitalized and there will be few physical books. We will have one “Amazon” and soon one “publisher” controlling all content. When someone wants to publish those books deemed “offensive” that “publisher” will be driven off the internet and out of business.

    Respectfully, you're veering off topic.


    Thanks

     
     
     Posted:   Mar 2, 2021 - 1:51 PM   
     By:   OnyaBirri   (Member)

    A publisher has a contract with the estate to publish the books. The publisher decides to not publish some of the author’s books. They are self-censoring the author. Soon all books will be digitalized and there will be few physical books. We will have one “Amazon” and soon one “publisher” controlling all content. When someone wants to publish those books deemed “offensive” that “publisher” will be driven off the internet and out of business.

    Respectfully, you're veering off topic.


    Thanks


    Well, we went from a company making a decision to protect its brand, to everything becoming digital, to Amazon's monopoly on everything, in a single paragraph.

     
     
     Posted:   Mar 2, 2021 - 1:52 PM   
     By:   chriscoyle   (Member)

    A publisher has a contract with the estate to publish the books. The publisher decides to not publish some of the author’s books. They are self-censoring the author. Soon all books will be digitalized and there will be few physical books. We will have one “Amazon” and soon one “publisher” controlling all content. When someone wants to publish those books deemed “offensive” that “publisher” will be driven off the internet and out of business.

    Respectfully, you're veering off topic.


    Thanks


    Well, we went from a company making a decision to protect its brand, to everything becoming digital, to Amazon's monopoly on everything, in a single paragraph.


    Yes, I’ll just listen.

     
     
     Posted:   Mar 2, 2021 - 1:53 PM   
     By:   OnyaBirri   (Member)

    Please point to me the act of censorship in the past that has stood the test of time as the correct decision?

    For the win:

    La-La-Land deleting IQ/Seconds.

     
     
     Posted:   Mar 2, 2021 - 2:05 PM   
     By:   OnyaBirri   (Member)

    They chose the latter, and it was their right to do so.


    I not arguing their right. Or even their motives. I'm decrying their methods.


    Which methods? Announcing that they are deleting something and stating their rationale for doing so?

     
     
     Posted:   Mar 2, 2021 - 2:15 PM   
     By:   Bob DiMucci   (Member)

    They chose the latter, and it was their right to do so.


    I not arguing their right. Or even their motives. I'm decrying their methods.


    Which methods? Announcing that they are deleting something and stating their rationale for doing so?



    You got it. If you don't want to sell the books, then just don't sell them. Don't passively-aggressively announce to the world that "they're really bad for you, and that you'd be a racist for reading them, and that we're protecting you from their evil effects, and aren't we just the greatest for doing so. Honestly, you'll thank us in the end when your children don't grow up to be white supremacists."

     
     
     Posted:   Mar 2, 2021 - 2:28 PM   
     By:   OnyaBirri   (Member)

    They chose the latter, and it was their right to do so.


    I not arguing their right. Or even their motives. I'm decrying their methods.


    Which methods? Announcing that they are deleting something and stating their rationale for doing so?



    You got it. If you don't want to sell the books, then just don't sell them. Don't passively-aggressively announce to the world that they're really bad for you, and that you'd be a racist for reading them, and that we're protecting you from their evil effects, and aren't we just the greatest for doing so. Honestly, you'll thank us in the end when your children don't grow up to be white supremacists.


    Well, to each his own. I frankly would rather know why something is deleted, rather than spending years wondering why. Of course, no one forced anyone to read the story or the press release. I wanted to read it, and anyone else could have skipped it.

     
    You must log in or register to post.
      Go to page:    
    © 2021 Film Score Monthly. All Rights Reserved...