Huh?
I watched a documentary last night that did my blood pressure no good at all. The doc was This Film is Not Yet Rated, and it dealt with the we-know-what's-best-for-you quasi-censorship, semi-fascist, entirely retarded group known as the MPAA. These numbskulls operate under tighter security and secrecy than certain federal agencies and slap arbitrary ratings on movies based on their tiny little minds' long list of offenses. There are no set guidelines for how they do what they do, yet they hold incredible power over filmmakers. Mario Bello made a powerful point during the documentary when she talked about going to see an R-rated "funny" horror film---one of the Scary Movie parodies---during which an actress gets stabbed in the chest. Fake blood gushes, and the killer holds aloft a gore-streaked knife on which is impaled a breast implant. Hoo hoo, ha, ha, oh so funny, right? Uh. That flick gets an "R" rating, but a 2.2 second glimpse of Maria's pubic hair during a sex scene in The Cooler gets the film an initial NC-17 rating.
Huh?
The doc went on to talk about how the MPAA has absolutely no problem with giving movies containing hyper-grapic violent depictions of rape an R. Remember The Accused? I nearly threw up during the rape scene, but hey, showing Jodie Foster being gang-banged is good for an R. Wanna show a sadistic nutcase carving up a woman with a chainsaw? No problem. You get an R so the 14 year old boys in the neighborhood can hoot and holler during the evisceration. But show a actress pretending to have a long orgasm during simulated sex, and the NC-17 is whipped out, as it was when Boys Don't Cry made its debut before the MPAA knuckleheads. Yes, you read that right. That movie---which won Hillary Swank an Oscar---was slapped with the NC-17 kiss o' death for showing an orgasm that lasted too long.
I have this mental image of the MPAA dumb-asses timing Chloe Sevigny's orgasm with a stopwatch and shaking their heads in mute disapproval. But rape and dismemberment is A-okay, people! No worries!
Now I read that LJ has implemented a flagging policy to make sure underage readers don't stumble into posts with adult material/concepts. That's not such a bad idea at first blush, but then I read that people can flag someone else's posts as having adult content, offensive material, hate speech, etc. And I thought about some of these anti-gay, anti-liberal, anti-everything groups who troll around looking for people and groups they can target and harass and now, thanks to LJ, tag and flag at will. I get this queasy feeling when I think about someone arbitrarily tagging and flagging content as offensive to them because they have a grudge against someone else who doesn't share their views on politics or fandom or whatever.
Ugh.
I know LJ-the-business is trying to protect itself. I get that. I just wonder what in the hell is going on in this country when something as innocuous as an online diary has to be policed. As Bridget Jones said, "everyone knows diaries are full of shit."
Oops. I said 'shit.' Is that offensive?
How about if I post an entry about an advent service I'll attend tonight? I know there are plenty of folks who are dead-set against organized religion. Will my post be flagged for offensive content so no one is exposed to the natterings of an amateur Lutheran?
You know, my collection of blank books and journals is looking better by the minute. I can write anything I want on those pages, and no one can bitch at me for offending them.
Sweeeet.
Huh?
The doc went on to talk about how the MPAA has absolutely no problem with giving movies containing hyper-grapic violent depictions of rape an R. Remember The Accused? I nearly threw up during the rape scene, but hey, showing Jodie Foster being gang-banged is good for an R. Wanna show a sadistic nutcase carving up a woman with a chainsaw? No problem. You get an R so the 14 year old boys in the neighborhood can hoot and holler during the evisceration. But show a actress pretending to have a long orgasm during simulated sex, and the NC-17 is whipped out, as it was when Boys Don't Cry made its debut before the MPAA knuckleheads. Yes, you read that right. That movie---which won Hillary Swank an Oscar---was slapped with the NC-17 kiss o' death for showing an orgasm that lasted too long.
I have this mental image of the MPAA dumb-asses timing Chloe Sevigny's orgasm with a stopwatch and shaking their heads in mute disapproval. But rape and dismemberment is A-okay, people! No worries!
Now I read that LJ has implemented a flagging policy to make sure underage readers don't stumble into posts with adult material/concepts. That's not such a bad idea at first blush, but then I read that people can flag someone else's posts as having adult content, offensive material, hate speech, etc. And I thought about some of these anti-gay, anti-liberal, anti-everything groups who troll around looking for people and groups they can target and harass and now, thanks to LJ, tag and flag at will. I get this queasy feeling when I think about someone arbitrarily tagging and flagging content as offensive to them because they have a grudge against someone else who doesn't share their views on politics or fandom or whatever.
Ugh.
I know LJ-the-business is trying to protect itself. I get that. I just wonder what in the hell is going on in this country when something as innocuous as an online diary has to be policed. As Bridget Jones said, "everyone knows diaries are full of shit."
Oops. I said 'shit.' Is that offensive?
How about if I post an entry about an advent service I'll attend tonight? I know there are plenty of folks who are dead-set against organized religion. Will my post be flagged for offensive content so no one is exposed to the natterings of an amateur Lutheran?
You know, my collection of blank books and journals is looking better by the minute. I can write anything I want on those pages, and no one can bitch at me for offending them.
Sweeeet.