h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

It is a common misconception that the film "Clockwork Orange" is banned in the UK. It isn't - it was withdrawn by the distributor on the instruction of the director.

And now the director is dead, how long before it's back out again...

When (if) it gets released is now a financial matter. If there's sufficient market then it will be.
Which raises an interesting censorship conundrum: How will I know if it's the kind of thing that I don't want to watch without watching it?

And, it is amazing that, when you confront someone who is challenging material they FREQUENTLY have not read or seen the material being challenged in it's entirety.

They have sections, bits, pieces, which they quote vehemently. But when pressed they say, 'well, no...I havent read the 'whole' thing.'

But they they quickly add: 'but I DONT HAVE TO READ THE WHOLE THING to know it should be banned...'!!!

Scary, huh?

And usually those sections which are quoted will be take quite out of the context in which they are written.

As for Clockwork Orange, I'm sure that there would be a financial reason to re-release it. Having not been seen legally in the UK for 20+ years, I'm sure that money is there to be made.

Well I'd watch it. But then, I am becoming a bit of a Kubrick Junky of late.
It has to be easier to follow than the book.

Cencorship (and the reverse concept of "Freedom") is one of the classic tests of liberalism:
It is very easy to take a blunderbuss approach and say that nothing should be banned and that all material should be available but you soon come up against vitriolic racism, pornography, exploitation, revisionist history etc.
Add to that the well understood principle that people are inclined to believe the printed word and you get into a grey area.
Personally I would love to have complete freedom of the press but frequently get offended by things I read (Julie Burchill - you know who you are ) and the argument "well don't read it then" doesn't really work because I have to read something before I decide whether or not it offends me.

..but on a more flippant note, isn't it odd that so many people who want to ban books which contain descriptions of murder and genocide then profess to read the bible 'religiously'. It has the highest body count of any book I've ever read

On rereading the lead article - it turns out that it was THE BOOK that was banned.

Yep, the Bible contains pretty much everything that is commonly complained about/challenged/banned in other books. Odd, isn't it? But on the other hand, IT was banned in Soviet Russia. So I guess that the definition of 'sacred' depends on who owns the cow.

Re: the 'blunderbuss' approach. A concern is the 'climate' created by a societies' attitude towards censorship/control of ideas, as much as what is actually banned. Continuing attempts to repress and control [no matter how noble the motives] result in a police state rather than a free one.

IMHO it is better to let the 'crackpot' theories be circulated, and when one gains momentum, the opposing forces can mount a counterattack. Much more healthy than trying to decide who is a 'crackpot' ahead of time... [and what if 'they' decide that it's ME!!!]

Of course, freedom always contains some risk, but consider the alternative. The right to think also implies a responsibility to DO SO.

If you blindly accept whatever you stumble across because it is presented authoritatively, you are giving up your right to think.

One would think that the variety of sources of material on the internet should force people to be more discriminating in how they evaluate ideas presented as 'fact'. However the number of net legends and folklore that appear in my email, forwarded as 'fact' by well meaning friends, really makes me wonder if people really do have any idea about how to evaluate and validate ideas and information.

But, if I disagree with an opinion, I would still rather hear it argued by it's staunchest proponent than close myself off to any debate.

Just looking at the things that have been challenged/banned in the US is an indication of the danger of saying that censorship is a good idea. The reasons that some completely innocent books have been attacked are so farfetched, narrow and bizarre as to make me wonder if anyone around this planet thinks very much at all...


blu
}:=8

I wouldn't say censorship is a good idea, but I think a couple of minor checks on the total freedom of the press would be an idea:
1) Anti-defamation regulation, maybe a slightly less powerful form than our current libel laws, and
2) Burden of proof. If you publish something as a fact, you must accept the responsibility of proving this fact. If it isn't a fact you must state that it is the opinion (considered or otherwise).

Incidentally, this page had to come through a firewall to get to me - another example of someone else deciding what I can and can't read, and even less accountable than the US local authorities. I imagine the commercial pressure on the people who write this software to "block out" rivals web pages is immense

Ninety per cent of the books on the banned list (including Clockwork
Orange) are on your mother's bookshelf .in England.
This may be whence you derived your anti-censorship beliefs
and may also mean that she should invest in the other ten per cent. It
may further be the only remaining advantage the Uk educational
system has over the US?

It's my firm belief that you can /choose/ to be offended or not. I've read a lot of stuff that I find 'offensive' and used to get very riled up about a lot of it. Then I realised that really this was what the writer wanted, and I decided not to go down that route anymore.
Sure you can disagree with something, but why be offended? It wastes your time and energy and does nothing useful.

The film has now recieved an 18 certificate from the British Board of
Film Classification, to be shown uncut. Guess it'll be out sometime
next year then.

'cause some people think they are 'right' and that they should be able to decide for everyone else what is and isn't 'offensive...

some people get REALLY hot about this; to the point that they want to get books [and sometimes even other people] hot enough to burn

and some others say that the purpose of government is to protect the individual from the group

heeheehee

}:=8

Very good.

However, it's very unlikely to be shown here except on
(perhaps) a UK television station.

I have discovered that the Irish censor is a great deal more ridiculous and sinister than his American or UK counterpart. For example:- the Ali G video is banned here, "Time Out" Dublin was pulped after the censor objected to some of the adverts in the back pages etc. Also, there is no accountability in that the censor is not obliged to tell anyone why a film or book has been banned. Madness.
Still, given the recent changes here, perhaps the censors days are numbered.

So who appoints these irish censors??? The government? the film industry? the church?

Not accountable? Scarey!
how are they appointed/regulated? or are they in office for life like the Supreme Court in the US????

I remember when I was young [quite a few years ago] and the Catholic church had a list of banned books/movies in the US. Naturally those were the ones everyone wanted to see. But the films weren't censored, Catholics just didnt go see them [or they did, and went to confession afterwords]

The 'blue laws' in the us film/tv industry were self-appointed. Of course, the implication was that if they weren't, the government would step in. but in the 'old days' you couldn't even say 'virgin' in a movie, and married people always slept in twin beds on TV.

Makes you wonder how the human race ever propagated...

}:=8

The madness continues - it is illegal to show clips from or advertising for a film in Ireland before that film has been passed by the censor.
Whilst I don't imagine a case happening on this silly rule, it does mean that, legally, McDonalds were breaking the law when they had the Star Wars tie-in as that predated the film being passed by the censor.

Fortunately the law isn't being applied much - the only film banned this year was "The Idiots".

On the subject of the film, wasn't A Clockwork Orange shown in the UK as part of the big Censorship series shown I believe on BBC2 (but may have been C4) a few years ago? I'm fairly sure I have it on video somewhere. Other films shown were The Devils and some very odd film with Mick Jagger in it.

As for the UK, in my experience they can always get away with a lot mor in print than they can in film. I remember the first few books in the Chung Kuo series by David Wingrove had some very graphic scenes in it. I bet there would be a huge fuss if they ever decided to try and make it into a film.

It's odd what is and isn't censored, really. I was quite shocked by the scene in "Last of the Mohicans" where the 'bad indian' rips out and eats the old general's still beating heart. Yet that was a (12), I think?

I quite like Chocolate Orange, but I guess that isn't worth knowing... *big sigh*

WbB