Family Movie Act
I have been putting together a scorecard of congresspeople, comparing their votes with how I would have voted (-1 for voting differently, +1 for the same and 0 for no votes). I haven't inputted very many votes yet but so far there are only a few still in the positive (barely). The last vote I put in was for the Family Movie Act. This act is now law and was based largely upon a single company - ClearPlay. This company produces technology that allows filters to be applied to DVD's by parents in order to skip or mute objectionable material. ClearPlay was sued over this technology by some Hollywood powerplayers, hence the legislation.
I am not entirely against censorship. In fact, I am all for it - but only when it is censorship of a child by a parent. Doesn't this qualify? Afterall, it is the parent choosing to apply the filter. That maybe true, but they aren't specifically determining what the filter catches. For instance, how much violence is too much? Are all sex scenes simply gratuitous flesh fests? I admit todays movies are rarely subtle but some times they are and they used to be better at it I think. The love scene from the Terminator comes to mind. I was pretty young when I saw that but it was alright because it was a good scene (and contributed to the story).
Another example can be seen in the company's list of objectionable language, which according to them includes "Vain Reference to Deity." Will a statement like "God sucks" be edited out but one of "Allah sucks" be left in? Would the scene from Dogma with Alanis Morisette as God be removed becasue it portrays God as a woman? These types of decisions can be important and shouldn't be left up to a group of people I don't know sitting in a room at ClearPlay's office.
In the end i think that a piece of work (movie, book, art, song) that has merit should be left as is and people close to a child should be the ones deciding if they should see it or not. Generally I think that works of merit need to be whole. If they don't have merit than why see them in the first place. As an example, one of the movies I saw on their list that they have filters for is Munich. I haven't seen it but I know what it is about and I would suspect that slashing scenes of violence would neuter the value of the film.
The Family Movie Act is actually only a section of the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act of 2005 (FECA). Buried in the FECA bill is an interesting passage regarding movie theaters and bootleggers. This law grants theaters the right to detain persons suspected of unauthorized recording "in a reasonable manner and for a reasonable time." But the interesting part is actually the next passage which says that the theater "shall not be held liable in any civil or criminal action arising out of a detention." How can a law ever provide immunity to anyone from civil or criminal litigation? That's just wierd.
see ClearPlay at www.clearplay.com
look at the FECA act on Thomas Thomas do a bill search for S.167
I am not entirely against censorship. In fact, I am all for it - but only when it is censorship of a child by a parent. Doesn't this qualify? Afterall, it is the parent choosing to apply the filter. That maybe true, but they aren't specifically determining what the filter catches. For instance, how much violence is too much? Are all sex scenes simply gratuitous flesh fests? I admit todays movies are rarely subtle but some times they are and they used to be better at it I think. The love scene from the Terminator comes to mind. I was pretty young when I saw that but it was alright because it was a good scene (and contributed to the story).
Another example can be seen in the company's list of objectionable language, which according to them includes "Vain Reference to Deity." Will a statement like "God sucks" be edited out but one of "Allah sucks" be left in? Would the scene from Dogma with Alanis Morisette as God be removed becasue it portrays God as a woman? These types of decisions can be important and shouldn't be left up to a group of people I don't know sitting in a room at ClearPlay's office.
In the end i think that a piece of work (movie, book, art, song) that has merit should be left as is and people close to a child should be the ones deciding if they should see it or not. Generally I think that works of merit need to be whole. If they don't have merit than why see them in the first place. As an example, one of the movies I saw on their list that they have filters for is Munich. I haven't seen it but I know what it is about and I would suspect that slashing scenes of violence would neuter the value of the film.
The Family Movie Act is actually only a section of the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act of 2005 (FECA). Buried in the FECA bill is an interesting passage regarding movie theaters and bootleggers. This law grants theaters the right to detain persons suspected of unauthorized recording "in a reasonable manner and for a reasonable time." But the interesting part is actually the next passage which says that the theater "shall not be held liable in any civil or criminal action arising out of a detention." How can a law ever provide immunity to anyone from civil or criminal litigation? That's just wierd.
see ClearPlay at www.clearplay.com
look at the FECA act on Thomas Thomas do a bill search for S.167