HST 203 (Escobar META 42298 42299): HTDF Topic #1

The liberal-conservative spectrum explained in class last week is an important tool for analysis of historical topics and current events. Under the Class Handouts link, you will find the HTDF_Materials you need for this assignment. We will start with just two items. First, read the Defining Conservatism article carefully. Consider your own position on the spectrum and discuss the finer points of the article. On which points is it accurate? On which does is it less accurate? Historically, this class starts in 1900, and that is the year depicted in the censorship example. Watch this 3 minute video and consider the state of censorship (and conservatism) prevalent in the United States at that time. Start your discussion with these items. Other items will be added during this two week discussion to shape and/or reshape the discussion.

Edit | Delete | Reply

The video did not surprise me, but I do think that they were a little too ridiculous during that time period. People used to behave like sex did not happen. (Obviously with all of the repopulating, it was happening.) Thinking that Sapho was too risque is one thing, but the fact that the actress was arrested because of her performance was taking it a little too far. It's amazing how different things are now. After watching that clip I feel like nothing is censored anymore.

Show parent | Edit | Split | Delete | Reply

I guess I will first address the video, ya it seems crazy to us now to be arrested for that performance, but it was a different time period where certain ideals and values were put into society through family, government, church and media. I don't think its because, people thought sex wasn't happening, but that it was private and intement. Not to mention that it there was a time and a place for sex to happen, and be talked about. Which I don't think was a bad idea, they must've had something going right because look how fast teen pregnancy has sky rocketed today because, theirs no monitoring or value system anymore, not to mention it has become socially acceptable to be a pregnant teen. I think there should be a restriction on public T. V., Media reports, and Movies I don't think showing young adults what sex is or looks like is the best idea out there.It wouldn't hurt to edit out a few choice words that are now being allowed to be used in regular television programs. If you want to watch stuff like that then order it on satellite or a movie rental store. Going back to some good old ideals and values wouldn't hurt anyone. The bottom line is times have changed, and it is now the tax holders responsibility to take charge and pay, for those pregnant teens who heard/saw, how awesome sex is, but never thought of the consequences. The article even though seemed slightly unbiased gave me the feeling of a underlining sarcastic tone, not all conservatives are afraid of change, but want it in small moderation, look what fast leaps ahead have brought us in the past. Turmoil. We all know that history is doomed to repeat itself, or show patterns of similar behavior, so don't be quick to judge someone, for clinging to some ideals and values because though black and white, they have some meaning, and benefit even if you don't agree.

Show parent | Edit | Split | Delete | Reply

While watching the video, though I found the whole situation ridiculous, I kept thinking... thoughtful our country has how many adult video stores, nude bars and such? And thinking that this is exactly why this situation was taken to such an extreme level at that time—they didn’t want this for us…. While it was ok for men to play, women had the role to keep the men more stabilized. If women became "players" too, who would be there to keep the men balanced. Food for thought. blush

Show parent | Edit | Split | Delete | Reply

Well I don't think women are here to keep men balanced unless your married and your husband is out at the nude bar all the time. But as far as restrictions on women I totaly agree. Women were viewed a certian way by society and still are, but even with all the advances in sexuality and expression women are still called nasty names and thought less of in society, for making drastic sexual choices (like multiple partners). So where does line get drawn and women have the full equality of men?

Show parent | Edit | Split | Delete | Reply

The last statistic I read, teen pregnancy is going down. And yes, it should not be ok for teens to be pregnant and children to see various adult content, but that's not what the film was about. Children weren't involved at all. Times have clearly changed, and it is now our job to be flexible and deal with the changes. Things like sex are never going to be different, we are a sexual society. If you aren't comfortable with that, then stay away from it and keep your kids away from it. There are things you can do to protect your children from sex and "choice words" with your television and the internet. And if anybody is judging, I think it was this statement "pregnant teens who heard/saw, how awesome sex is, but never thought of the consequences" everybody's situation is different and that seems like a general statement toward the entire population of pregnant teens. Cling to the ideals and values you have but try to keep an open mind to the change happening around you.

Show parent | Edit | Split | Delete | Reply

I was comparing 1900 with present day and relating the way we view sex and society with teen pregnancy. I understand that there are ways of keeping "adult content" away from children. I just think its sad we have to worry about it. I was not meaning that statement towards all pregnant teens, but to the ones, who are irresponsable and have the " I just don't care attitude." I don't mean to turn the world to prudes or any such thing, I just think that we should mind more of what are younger generation is doing/watching thats all.

Show parent | Edit | Split | Delete | Reply

I agree with Meg. I don't think the solution is keeping kids away from adult content, I feel that the condition of adult content in this country is so slandered that its hard for children to gain an objective view of healthy sex attitudes since they are developed so early in life from such thoroughly unwholsome sources. If you look at European culture they have less teen pregnancy, less std's and a better stance on programs that offer assistance with contraceptives and just a more open attitude toward sex. I'd like to see a sex education program put in place that doesn't just say look kids, this is how you use a condom, and then THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU DON'T! That sort of method doesn't teach children how to foster a positive attitude toward sex but instead is meant to coercive and attaches a negative stigmata to sexual attitudes that can be carried with a person all throughout life. Then on top of that in our culture the female body has idyllic attachment and 99 percent of our nation's people (over 60 percent of whom are obese) are expected to live up to the 1 percent featured in film and glamour magazines which have articles being read by 14 year olds on how to please your man and our naughtiest sex q and a ever. Many of these models aren't even healthy themselves and are living a double life, beautiful in make up and bright lights and they look just like everyone else the rest of the time. I personally think if 17 and teen pop magazine and all the other publications of the sort where put out of business we'd be doing the teenagers of this nation a favor and saving on hell of a lot of paper to boot!

Show parent | Edit | Split | Delete | Reply

What I'm wondering is what Olga was put on trial for? Wouldn't her Civil Rights have protected her from that..for lack of a better word, persecution? I find it amusing that the censors did exactly the opposite of what they intended to do...the play only ended up being more well known, which brings to mind the "any publicity is good publicity" mindset of many celebreties these days. Another thing I thought of is that even though the U.S. has come a long way when it comes to censorship, we are very conservative compared to many European countries where sex and drugs are not only accepted, but advertised for any gender or age to see. What happened in the video is not surprising considering the timeset, but how far have we really come? We still shelter people that we see as "unable to understand" from any sexual aspects of life, which only makes the number of children/teenagers who are confused about it all even larger...leading them to make uninformed decisions and do things that they might not have if informed about it when they were younger. U.S. society has come a long way, but I think that we are still much to stingey(sp?) with what we allow people to know, see, or experience.

Show parent | Edit | Split | Delete | Reply

I will adress the video , I remeber when they made a big deal about Guns and Roses and how their material was so vulgar, and like the play "Sapho " the more they made a big deal out of it the more people went to see it. I believe that the people that produce the material wether it be play , music or movies, that they know if they get a reaction from the people who don't think it is "proper " for a particular audience they only make more money . The people that try to censor these industries only make them rich.

I feel poeple should stay out of other peoples buisness and allow them to make their own decision and what they feel is appropriate . We spend more time worrying about what is right for everyone else.

Show parent | Edit | Split | Delete | Reply

I thought the video was interesting. I think it does a great job in showing how different it was back then to now. I also think that it does a great job in showing how the nation reacted to the play. If I am not mistaken it seemed like people supporting the play outweighed people who were not. It is only fitting that Olga got released and the play continued with large audiences. What I got most out of the video was not the shock that nudity was censored, but how the public as a whole responded. Going back and having more interest in the play after the scandal, showed how curious us as people can really be.

While reading "Defining Conservatism" I found an article that really stood out to me...

"While most people resist change, Glaser said, liberals appear to have a higher tolerance for change than conservatives do."

I think this really shows how close the mindset is and the ideas that we all share. I think that was also exposed during the first week opinion poll. For the most part students were around the middle, either slightly left of center or slightly right. When Glaser says, "While most people resist change" what comes to mind is the feeling of uncertainty and the feeling of having to step out of our comfort zone and face the unknown. Maybe liberals have a better handle on that...I don't know.

Show parent | Edit | Split | Delete | Reply

I agree with you, we do focus a lot on what we think others should, or shouldn't do, but in the same token parents have a right to know if the content in the alblum/CD is something they want their child listning to. Thats what was accomplished and we still have the parental guidence stickers today. I remember my mom wouldn't let me have certian CD's tell I was older and could fully understand what was being talked about. I personaly feel that it's not such a bad thing.

Show parent | Edit | Split | Delete | Reply

I agree with you. There is a lot of confusion when it comes to the United States overall views on conservatism. Which, could lead to an on going conversation on a lot of the problems that could be associated with our youth of today. What should our children of today be exposed to and what should they not be exposed to? You bring up other country's ways of life, but look at how we are about drugs and sex and then look at our crime rates compared to those of other country's. Why is that different. I wouldn't go as far to say that we generate more criminals?!

Show parent | Edit | Split | Delete | Reply

Well at this point of time people arent to big with Civil Rights, they became bigger and more prominent when the U.S. started adressing discrimination and racism. I totaly agree about the publicity comment. I'm a little confused kathleen, about what your trying to say with this statment: "U.S. society has come a long way, but I think that we are still much to stingey(sp?) with what we allow people to know, see, or experience."

Show parent | Edit | Split | Delete | Reply

I found the video clip to be interesting. Can you imagine any actress today being accused of "violating public decency" for being nude in a movie? No way! Generally, progress is seen as a good thing. This idea of progress should be able to affect all areas of society, including sexual images in the media/entertainment. In America at the beginning of the 20th century, it shocking and scandalous that a woman would willingly want and enjoy being in a premarital sexual relationship. Today, that is a normal part of American entertainment (i.e. romance novels, soap operas, music). To me progress is what is happening in this video clip. The fact that Olga Nethersole is acquitted shows that American ideology is beginning to change.

Censorship is a natural thing. I believe that essentially it is trying to prevent change or progress. Is it right or wrong, I don't know. I think one could argue that the true spectrum here is censorship/consistency versus progress/change. That being said I'd have to say I'm leaning more towards the progress/change side, possibly right between the radical change and the center. I believe that censorship should happen between parents and their children, not a government mandate. From my experience the things that conservative Americans find scandalous are differents ways of life, like homosexuality, premarital sex, transgender, race, etc. The topics that are deemed uncomfortable to talk about at the dinner table, these are topics that "they" want to censor. If something is new and different than a person's "norm," does that mean it is bad and shouldn't be shown? I know that there are people with different lifestyles than mine. I may or may not condone them, but with censored information I can never really understand about that lifestyle.

Show parent | Edit | Split | Delete | Reply

Censorship is very much a spectral discussion topic because both liberal and conservative aspects can be debated (probably) equaly in both directions.

I know that what is socialy aceptible concerning sexual expression has evolved liberaly over the last 100 years because the Sapho case would never be an issue today. I feel that there is a healthy middle ground to be sought concerning censorship, and I think possibly american society has passed that point and continues traveling in the liberal direction. A good example is the girls gone wild commercials that have been on TV for the last couple of years. They start showing these commercials at a time of night when young people generaly might be awake, and the material depicted objectifies women and glorifies eradic ignorant desplays of human sexuality. I feel that Americans should be able to express themselves sexualy or otherwise, but there is a point were shock, discust, and glorification of immoral action will and im sure does negativly impact society and its youth. I think of my two little sisters ages 15 and 16. I do not want them seeing this kind of material in the media and thinking they should act in similar fashion. I also do not want my little brothers to think that the only stimulation to be sought from women is purely sexual.

I think society is currently not imposing restriction on itself well enough to control this misuse of the freedom of expression, because there are enough people in our capital base society that someone will be bold enough to portray rediculesness (probably just to make money). Therefore regulation should and is controled by the Gov. and its laws, laws which seem to change with administration and time. Maybe they should be more case specific.

Again, I reiterate that freedom of expressiom should not be hindered, that is a big part of the U.S. culture. But at the same time freedom of expression should not advocate the polluting of american youth and society because that is immoral and unproductive. I land Right in the middle on this spectrum.

Show parent | Edit | Split | Delete | Reply

I agree with Sean and also disagree. I agree that these commericials are incredibly graphic and sexual in nature! I've noticed that instead of airing at one in the morning I see them at eleven pm, which is very much a time when high school aged boys and girls awake. And, it seems that the commercials have grown from girls flashing the camera to girls engaging in other acts. The smiley faced "cover-ups" are practically a joke. That being said, I do think that America's censorship has drifted to the more liberal side of the spectrum. This is what I do agree on.

But, what I don't agree with is censoring the media. Censorship should come from home. I have yet to see a "Girls Gone Wild" commercial on the Disney Channel, Animal Planet, National Geographic, or Discovery Kids- at any time of day. When my 7-year old nephew comes over, these are the channels that he is allowed to watch. So, my question is: if a parent (or, in my case, aunt) doesn't want something to be seen, should they demand that laws be made that prevents people without children from seeing these things? I think that part of parenting or raising children is watching what they are doing. Does this mean that they will see things that isn't deemed acceptable to that family? No, absolutely not; but, by monitoring behaviors and activities at home, children can learn the things their parents want them to learn- without affecting the learning process of other families.

Show parent | Edit | Split | Delete | Reply

With the whole thing about "polluting America's youth"....as parents, mentors, or whatever, isn't part of the responsibility to teach the youth what is okay to emmulate and what is not? It's not the fact that there's so much crap out there...that will always be there to some extent. It's all about them learning what to pay attention to and what to ignore and that falls into the hands of the adult in their lives, not the media. It is not the media's job to censor everything it puts out into the ether because everything at one time or another will offend someone, somewhere....It is all about teaching the youth to censor themselves and to censor what makes its way into their minds and stays there.

Show parent | Edit | Split | Delete | Reply

I still find myself rather astonished by some time periods in the past. Astonished, not surprised. I realize life was much different in the 1900's then that of today's world. I feel over whelmed with disbelief when the conversation of inequality and peoples independent rights arise. Conservative was the way of life for women, so the 'play' could have been rather disturbing to certain people. Even today individuals don't realize how stuck they get in their way of life. Which I believe was also the case then. People were living and practicing what they knew of life then. The article mentions "most people resist change", change is not always favored, a lot of the time is shunned. People like the way things were, they didn't know anything else. Censorship has not much of a role in this century, maybe we could use a little more of it? I do agree people should be able to express their selves, but we still have children in our world that need not be exposed to so much. It's finding the happy medium between being conservative and still having individual rights.

Show parent | Edit | Split | Delete | Reply

	Re: HTDF Topic #1 by meg Conrad - Thursday, April 17, 2008, 09:14 AM
	I agree, but how do you find the median? I mean some folks are going to want change and more censorship where others don't and will refuse the restrictions. I belive that is why the gov. has stayed out of it for so long and don't care to get involved because, it could cause an unbalance and a popularity drop. Which their not willing to risk. Show parent \| Edit \| Split \| Delete \| Reply

	Re: HTDF Topic #1 by Leu Harden - Thursday, April 17, 2008, 05:20 PM
	Right... and its those people that I usually dont get along with? Maybe I am just to much of an optimist? Show parent \| Edit \| Split \| Delete \| Reply

Kayla brings up a good point, I am changing my opinoin concerning present day censorship and how it has grown too far from it's concervative origins. I still feel that generaly some present day media is too liberal and in some cases immoral, but considering our planets embrace of a capitalism, there probably never will be a way to clean up all media without steping on the ideals our nation was founded on like free speech. I believe that possibly the best way to address censorship is through the way americans raise children. If we all raise our children to be better people and understand what should apeal to them in the media there would be a much less presence of ignorant rhetoric in media. The media part is impacted by supply and demand, so reduce the demand. I am sure suficient educations would help the next generation with this issue. But raising children the way they should be raised is just one aspect of modern life that to often is put on the back burner while we try to deal with all the other dificulties of the present. I find myself thinking I see problems related to capitalism effecting life, creating problems in the way we raise and educate children, wich in turn effects supply and demand for silly media, and then ignorant americans (such as myself) advocate government action in the form of censorship. Censorship cannot really fix the plethora of problems that created a demand for bad media.

I know the answer I almost sugg. here is very radical, Changing our society from a capitalistic society to..... something else? very radical. But if you look at other issues that I am just learning about now in education, you learn that overpopulation, consumption of non-renewable resources, and the fact that we will soon reach our oil extraction cap, all seem to point to the fact that capitalism is a non sustaining practice, It cannot sustain itself. And capitalism may be a driving source behind the need for censorship. It is truly hard to fix a problem rooted in a web system, but how you do it is to atack the problem at the root.

Sorry I wrote so much here, I am being very radical, I imagine one could easily tear apart my arguement apart here, I would encourage that, at the same time I feel I have come closer to addressing the issue of censorship than I may have on my previous entry. clown

Show parent | Edit | Split | Delete | Reply

I found the video to be very interesting as well. It made me realize how much our society has changed over the years. The thing that is most frustrating to me is how in America we are supposed to be allowed to have so much "freedom," yet there are so many restricitons on what we are able to do. Of course now, a woman wouldn't be charged for the same act of indecency today as she would have back then, but these issues definetely still arise today.

I also see where Sean is coming from when saying that it is our children who can start to make a difference in this country. I am learning about different cultures and societies in my Geography class right now and how we raise our children greatly affects the years to come. If children in America are raised and educated properly, our society may see a change in the future

Show parent | Edit | Split | Delete | Reply

After reading the conservative article, the first thing that really stood out to me was how people “fear” change. People in our country don’t like to take risk, even though sometimes it works out for the better. Sure it doesn't all the time, but how will we ever know an outcome if we don't try? How do they think our country has progressed over the years? We had to of started change somewhere. I do realize that sometimes it is too risky to try something new, but being a person that is more on the liberal side, I don’t think our country would have as many advanced technologies and resources as we do today if we would have been completely conservative all along.

Show parent | Edit | Split | Delete | Reply

I completly agree, we need to start with the children. I work in the education field and am probably not the first to tell you that all of what an adult grows into, is based upon how a child is raised and simply the values and moral instilled in each child at the earliest of ages. Lets just hope that the parents of todays world, can see how much of an impact they could have on the world, just by how they raise their chidlren ...

Show parent | Edit | Split | Delete | Reply

Although I agree that you need to filter what your children take in... I don't believe that the parents are the only controlling factor in what makes things right or wrong in the child's mind. I was raised in an extremely violent and had an un-natural exposure to sexually explicit content. I have no violent drive to hurt others, in fact having been on the other side of the street I feel more compassion for others.... I believe that children were born with the "goodness" or "badness" in them, the parents are just biological vessels.

As to censorship, I'm kinda riding the fence. I believe that it works for small children-- because they shouldn't be watching bloody-gut-wrenching movies, they are more prone to have nightmares, and not being able to establish the difference between fact and fiction at their young age.

But then as they said on the rock video, the explicit content stickers just made the cd's, games, and videos more popular items. For teens and young adults it doesn't work because they will get what they want, which are the things they can not have. Alcohol, ciggaretts, movies, music, drugs, they will find a source somewhere, so for this purpose I don't believe sensorship works.

I know some may not agree with this, but that's my personal feeling on the subject.

Becca

Show parent | Edit | Split | Delete | Reply

	Re: HTDF Topic #1 by Leu Harden - Saturday, April 19, 2008, 01:46 PM
	Are we going to have a new discussion on the new rock video... or do we continue to talk about censorship? Or do we, simply start a newer discussion on the new material? Show parent \| Edit \| Split \| Delete \| Reply

	Re: HTDF Topic #1 by meg Conrad - Saturday, April 19, 2008, 05:52 PM
	Well the rock video ties into censorship..... I don't think it's necessarly a bad thing asking, for explicit lyrics to be labled. I do think that the way they went about it was tactles. Show parent \| Edit \| Split \| Delete \| Reply

I agree that it isn't a bad thing for explict lryrics or content to be labeled. The consumer will be able to make a more informed decision if or when they decide to buy the product.

The Mann Act is a very interesting act because to me its intent seemed to be good. The problem is there is too much interpretation that goes along in making the decision on who is breaking the law. Of course people are going to treat Jack Johnson unfairly because of his success in the boxing ring. Could of there possibly been jealousy because he had so many white women around him

Censoring Metal like I said before was a good thing for America. It seemed like both sides were satisfied with the decision. It is interesting though how when you try to put something down (in this case heavy metal) it only gets stronger. There are a lot of cases where that happens (why not learn from your past?). I also agree with you Meg that making this a political issue was the wrong way to go about it. If that couldn't of been achieved then, why publicize it and try to make a sole figure an example?

Show parent | Edit | Split | Delete | Reply

God this country is full of religious fun-haters.Let them put labels on our albums,it only becomes more popular.

A lot has changed as far as censorship since the early 1900's but our country is still under a religious grasp that anything sexual is bad or dirty.Children in this country can watch movies and play video games full of drugs and violence but as soon a person takes of their clothes its "close your eyes." They can buy a fake handgun that looks identical to a real one at Wall-Mart but they cant buy a Pantera or Metallica album because it says the word "Fuck". Give me a break.

Show parent | Edit | Split | Delete | Reply

	Re: HTDF Topic #1 by Elisabeth Williams - Monday, April 21, 2008, 02:32 PM
	The parental advisory stickers don't cause any harm to anyone involved. The most irritating thing for me at least was I'd have to send one of my parents to buy the album. I agree with the comment about video games being ok, but curse words not, however, they do try to label the video games for age groups. Show parent \| Edit \| Split \| Delete \| Reply

I think the labeling was a great idea, whether the labels really make a difference now?.... Not so sure? Its much easier for kids to simply download the music now days, but for that time frame it might have seemed like it was a way to prevent children from buying CD's. But I don't think that it worked out that way, I still bought explicit lyrical music... My friends and I, at age twelve would pay the older siblings to buy us that CD that "we had to have". I am sure, we weren't the only kids doing that! I realize it was in effort to censor the youth of the time. But did it really work?

Show parent | Edit | Split | Delete | Reply

I think that labeling was a good thought, but there is really no reason for it now. It was a good idea to start labeling explicit content but if young people really want something, they will find a way to get it. If you have to be a certain age to buy something and you aren't old enough, you can ALWAYS find at least someone who will buy it for you. I used to do the same thing as Leu, by asking my older brother to buy what I really wanted. Labeling a cd with parental advisory was a good thought but it is the same story as ciggarettes or alcohol when you are under 21, if you want them bad enough, it isn't very hard to obtain them.

Show parent | Edit | Split | Delete | Reply

I think the labeling system is a good way for the parents of children to see what's out there that they may not have any idea about. For example, my father would never know who Master P was and whether or not his lyrics are explicit or not, but on the other hand I know for a fact that children whom view things that they cannot have they want them even more. For me for example my parents would never let me have alcohol when I was 18 but my older brother would always buy it for me, such as Kelsi and Leu are both saying, its not that hard to access the "taboo" or "forbidden." Just look at pornography on the internet for example, all you have to do is click a button "verifying" your eighteen. Another example of the effectiveness of warning labels is the label of beer causing health problems on the bottle, I guarantee that warning has never stopped anyone from drinking when they feel the urge, nor does the cigarette cancer warning seem to stop anyone. I like the usage of warning labels in Canada, where on cigarette containers there's pictures of a black lung on the side of the cartoon. Its interesting because its a kind of scare tactic which I don't think is particularly effective for sex but since I don't smoke, I view it as an effective technique for cigarettes. You can't give a public display of sex but smoke those cigarettes for everyone to see and smell and that's fine in most places still.

Show parent | Edit | Split | Delete | Reply

	Re: HTDF Topic #1 by Dominic Chimienti - Tuesday, April 22, 2008, 03:04 PM
	yes, i agree. explicit lyrics labeling is a very good thing, this way the consumer knows what he/she is getting into before they buy the music. also, like the play "sapho", when they try to censor something it only grows more popular and famous. Show parent \| Edit \| Split \| Delete \| Reply

I think that the labeling system for music is silly- especially in knowing its roots. Why is it that a select group of people choose what is "explicit" or "offensive material?" I don't believe that "We're Not Gonna Take It" is offensive, explicit, or violent. I guess this puts me on the very liberal side of the spectrum. I am a big fan of deciding things for myself.

Also, I believe that this whole debate did nothing but draw publicity to the music. Any publicity is good publicity. When the band KISS first started, they faced a lot of opposition from Christian parents, claiming the band was demonic and had devil-worshipping messages. The band is still huge today, 33 years after the release of their first album. My father listened to them (he owns many of their cds) growing up, and I listened to them growing up. Obviously, their talent and angry parent publicity kept them going strong- 33 years strong!

Show parent | Edit | Split | Delete | Reply

I agree with completely with Steven! The Mann Act, in essence, is a great idea. Obviously, America doesn't want sex slaves trafficked across the States. Also, in the textbook on page 778, Jack Johnson's case is discussed. The book states: "That Johnson's and Cameron's relationship was consensual and would culminate in marriage did not deter the authorities, who wanted to punish Johnson for his dominance of white boxers and his relationship with a white woman." It is fascinating that the law was misused so badly and at the time that was acceptable. But, it does sound like the Mann Act has evolved with the times. The video said that in 1986 it was revised so that it wouldn't rely so heavily on interpretation of the powers that be. I think that is great because it shows that the government is learning from past mistakes, like that of Jack Johnson's conviction.

Show parent | Edit | Split | Delete | Reply

It's funny how much censorship has evolved or changed since the 1900's. Back then it was taboo to talk about acts of intimacy and sex but now magazines, books, radio, movies and TV. shows are littered with these ideas. I wish that I could say that the arrest of the sapho star was surprising but I realize that they were much more morally and religiously entangled than we are today. I think we start to see the shift from this very conservative or traditional standpoint to where we are today around the 1920's when advertising moves from selling war bonds and promoting the war to consumerism and what better way to sell your stuff than to play on peoples emotions and desires to want and be wanted. While I am not arguing that this event is single handedly responsible for the opened flood gates which we experience today, I definitely see a bit of a connection.

I can't help but question the motivations of the people who created the censorship laws back in the day and even today in current times for that matter. Did these people have personal agendas that they were perusing or did they or do they genuinely feel as though they are protecting people from morally wrong or obscene things?

For example the arrest of Jack Johnson, it seems all too clear that he was arrested on false grounds and that they had used the Mann act as more of a tool to discriminate against a famous (and at the time undefeated) African American Boxer. A current example of questionable censorship would be on the current war. During the First WW images and information were all over. I remember a patient of mine recalling that at the beginning of many of the movies that he would watch there were clips about the war and the progress being made there. Today, however it is a different story. When is the last time that you turned on your T.V. and really saw what the war zones are like? To see inside of a hospital of ailing and injured soldiers? For most, what little we do see are 30sec clips of what people have preapproved for us to see.

I’m not saying that all we want to see is dying people with missing limbs on TV but I think that having open media coverage would make U.S. citizens realize that these are actual people dying (on both sides) not just statistics reported on the nightly news. I think that it would bring what an already unpopular war is really like home and make people realize what is really going on over seas. My intention was not to bring the war into the discussion but I just think that the reasons for censorship are a bit skewed when one has an easier time accessing kiddy pornography than what is going on in a war that our country is involved in. The balance in censorship is a bit tipped and I don't feel that they are tipped due to the best interest of the people of the United States.

Show parent | Edit | Split | Delete | Reply

I was wondering the same thing actually. What made these people all of a sudden decide to censor? I also think that censorship is tipped a little against the interest of Americans. I do think that more people would be upset if they saw what is truely happening at war, not to say that would be a bad thing. I think that it is only fair that we see the truth, but it would cause even people to be angry in our country.

Show parent | Edit | Split | Delete | Reply

I agree about the war footage. I feel like they should show Americans more of what is going on over there. These soldiers and their families are affected by the terrible things they see and are around, but those of us with no relation to soldiers have no idea (for the most part). I don't really understand why war is censored...because it's too scary or graphic? = it's real. It's something that tons of people are having to deal with everyday in Iraq. Are the rest of us too proud to deal with the reality of the situation?

Show parent | Edit | Split | Delete | Reply

I am a little mixed about censoring during war situations. Joe showed us propoganda during WWI and I was pretty shocked. What would be the outcome if they did that for the war that is going on right now? Would our morale drop as a nation (it could be argued that it isn't great as it is)? Or would it put more public pressure on our government to bring our troops home? Both situations are very serious consequences and a risk I don't think the government is willing to take.

Show parent | Edit | Split | Delete | Reply

I've seen more advertisments now on TV and Radio for joining the service, or join the guard since I turned 18 (11 years ago). They do have the propaganda on advertisments. Some geared for parents, to let their child make something of themselves. Always pushing the possibility of a higher education, but they don't tell you that you have to give the military their pound of flesh, before they tell you that your not eligable for the education program. Nice huh! evil The deception of this is what gets to me, if your going to tell me something-- make sure it's true... Don't lull my by with a false sense of security, just to rip the rug out from under me later.

Show parent | Edit | Split | Delete | Reply

I think that the point of the WWI style propaganda was to raise the morale of our nation. The difference between WWI and our present military operations in the Middle-east is WWI was a total war so the country had to be behind the war effort for our country to be victorious in the war. Another point is that during WWI there wasn't pressure on our government to bring the troops home and it wasn't socially acceptable to voice descent about your government.

Show parent | Edit | Split | Delete | Reply

	Re: HTDF Topic #1 by Benny America Houston - Wednesday, April 23, 2008, 04:40 PM
	To find out what made the media decide to censor war you need to look at who owns the media outlets. 6 corporations own about 90% of all newspapers, television and radio stations. So in theory these people can influence the entire public on the war so its a very power full tool for wartime propaganda. Show parent \| Edit \| Split \| Delete \| Reply

As far as censorship of the war It would be nice to have more about the war on news and television, but as far as extensive footage and videos I think would be unnecesary. You can see tons of war videos right off U-Tube or from a friend that's over in Iraq. With all of the war video games and videos online I would say that it's not necesary to have footage all over the news for everyone to see. Also, war would be portrayed even more for propaganda so I don't think we would ever get the true story so war videos would be used strictly for the perspective of the news company when maybe what was shown in the footage wasn't what was going on at all. So, I would rather not see anymore war footage than necesary, especially when family members and friends are over there, I know whats going on over concerning deaths and I don't need to be shown anymore footage to believe it.

The video did not surprise me but the question I was wondering was who was the writer of the play? It seems like it was so harsh for an actress because she was just doing her job. This was extreme but at the same time I think today censorship could be a little more extreme. Television is too extreme for just anyone to watch the shows that are played. It would be nice to find a happy medium, but people can never agree.

I felt that the article was bias and generalized too much on what "all" conservatives are like. I felt like the point of the article was to prove that conservative ways are wrong.

Show parent | Edit | Split | Delete | Reply

You are here