Assignment 17-Isaac

Everyone in this room is a creator. Whether you draw, write, make music, build things, or whatever else, you have produced some work, some piece, that is yours and yours only. The choice to share your work- your idea- is, of course, your prerogative as the artist. But when you make the decision to share your creation, someone else, be it a company or a government, forcing you to censor your work is both an attack on both the creativity and basic rights of the you, the artist.

Companies meddling in the affairs of creative persons is hardly a new development. However, old and irrelevant are two different things, and the corporate intervention in media that artists suffer continues to be an issue. One of the most relevant and significant examples of corporate censorship is that of the MPAA’s (Motion Picture Association of America) rating system. While they claim to be unaffiliated with film studios, Dick Kirby’s documentary “This Film Is Not Yet Rated” shows that they are- in a multitude of ways. In an interview with Matt Stone (of South Park and Book of Mormon fame), he divulges that when he was an independent filmmaker and submitted a film to the MPAA for a rating, they would not tell him what to cut in order to give the film a less harsh rating: “‘We don’t give notes,’ they said. ‘That would be censorship (Kirby).’” Yet when he made the South Park movie, which was backed by Paramount Studios, he was given specific notes about what to cut, and the MPAA in one fell swoop revealed to Stone that not only did they practice censorship, but also that they most certainly favored studios over independent filmmakers. In Stone’s own words, “[The MPAA] has been very good publicly about ‘we serve the public, we serve the parents’. . . That’s crap. They serve the studios (Kirby).” So why is serving the studios bad? The studios pander to the lowest common denominator of viewership- in other words, getting the most amount of people to see the product, regardless of what is or is not cut from it, because that’s what fits the studio’s bottom-line. This hurts the artist who generates the content because their vision or message is often irreparably altered so the studio makes more cash. In short, censorship in a corporate setting causes creativity to get slashed in exchange for profit.

Unfortunately, there is a form of censorship even more reprehensible than an exchange of creativity for coin: unnecessary governmental interference. Censorship on this level doesn’t just infringe on the artist’s creativity, but on their basic rights as well. Harry Lewis of The Boston Globe had this to say on internet censorship specifically: “There is no legal justification for Internet censorship beyond the obscenity and libel prohibitions that apply to print media.” Yet there is- just last year, the SOPA and PIPA bills were being seriously considered by Congress. At this point in time, SOPA and PIPA have been the two most dangerous bills in terms of internet censorship. In his Ted Talk, “Why SOPA is a Bad Idea,” Clay Shirky said “What PIPA and SOPA risk doing is taking a centuries-old legal concept, innocent until proven guilty, and reversing it . . . ‘You can’t share until you show us you’re not sharing something we don’t like.’” Effectively, this meant that anyone who made a living off of producing content online would have been out of a job, because the government would not have allowed them to share their content until it had been thoroughly checked. The two bills would have hurt people’s freedom of speech and right of “innocent until proven guilty.” And, as Shirky says, “Get ready, because more is coming . . . [SOPA and PIPA] are the next turn of this particular screw.”

There are people who argue for the virtues of censorship, however. “It’s for the children,” they say. However, it is the parent’s job to ensure that their child consumes appropriate content- just because inappropriate content exists doesn’t mean children will consume it. Then there are the people who say that a lack of censorship will lead to a deterioration of society, when in fact just the opposite is true. Because of its uncanny ability to stifle creativity, censorship actually inhibits the growth of culture by allowing old ideas to stagnate and stereotypes to be unwittingly propagated. Finally there are those who claim that censorship is used to prevent hate speech. While this may be true, it can also help to continue to purvey close-mindedness and therefore reinforce hatred- one anonymous voice in Kirby’s documentary claims that she “felt discriminated against for making a gay film.” Furthermore, hate speech is wrong, but in real life is legal- in 1977, it was ruled unconstitutional to not allow a Neonazi march in Skokie, Illinois due to the provisions of the First Amendment. It therefore follows that censoring out hate speech in a movie, television show, or other form of media would be just as unconstitutional.

So what is the takeaway here? The takeaway is this: censorship from a corporate standpoint hurts creativity. Censorship from a governmental standpoint hurts people’s basic rights. And as much as some people may honestly think censorship is good for you, for them, and for humanity in general, they are misguided. But corporations won’t stop trying to make money and government will continue to try and retain more control than they should, so I implore you, the creator, to forever be on the lookout, and continue fighting for what is yours.

Bibliography

Dick, Kirby, dir, This Film Is Not Yet Rated. Writ. Kirby Dick, Eddie

       Schmidt, and Matt Patterson. ICA Films, 2006. Film. 15 May

2013.            

Shirky, Clay. “Why SOPA is a Bad Idea.” TedSalon. Ted Talks. New York,

New York. 18 Jan 2012. Speech.

Lewis, Harry. “The Dangers of Internet Censorship.” The Boston Globe

05/11/2008, n. pag. Web. 16 May 2013.

<http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/11/05/the_dangers_of_internet_censorship/>