Censorship exists everywhere..even on BTS

reply to post by KyoZero


Well censorship is alive and well on BTS.
They pick and choose who and what gets posted.
Is that not censorship? What makes society's censorship decisions any less pertinent? Maybe he should have tried trial by a jury of his peers...he.he. he

reply to post by onetofollow


Forgive me if I'm picking this up wrong.

But you seemed to have registered simply to complain about 'the other thread'...in which it happens that "your sister" was taking part... albeit on the 'losing team' in that debate?

'That thread's ' fault being that it linked to another link with a 'less than suitable' topic.

If that's the case then I'd say your job was done here,as you can see by the mods taking part in an official capacity in this thread now,their attention has been attracted.

BTW..

The mods are not 'censoring' your posts. but instead 'moderating' them.
It is not their fault that you are unable to put your point across without personal attacks or site T&C violations.

That in itself seems a little hypocritical when you are requesting that someone else's work be removed/edited for what appears to others to be a lesser 'crime'.

reply to post by John Matrix

Hello.... I read BTS Terms & Conditions...it's not a secret.

reply to post by onetofollow


Censorship currently takes place in our society in many ways.
TV is censored, workplaces have censorship rules in place, censorship seems to be more places than it is not in our society.

Online forums censor, yet oddly, their members are not up in arms by this censorship. In fact, the odds are that they are willing participants, helping set up the acceptable censorship levels to which their online societies will adhere.

True, the line moves back and forth on where the censorship lines will be drawn, and most communities must adapt their censorship to the current standards set by the community members.

This is a simplistic, yet similar way to how our actual society works.
The boundries for our society are set by the members of the community.

In the Canadian film censorship case, society spoke. The work was deemed to be obscene in the CONTEXT that it was marketed.

Some may feel that it was the wrong decision and that is their right in our free society. Others feel that this was the line, that we as a society were not ready to cross. The idea of accepting a film with no plot, no concept, just gratuitous violence against women is not acceptable in Canada. At least not when packaged as snuff or necro. Not all Canadians feel like the decision was a wrong one. The films and metatags fit the Canadian definition of obscene in our current society. It's about context, as well as content. That is what caused the censorship.

The case had a fair shot with more than one judge more than one location, more than one court and more than one brilliant legal mind defending the plaintiff against the charges and they could not make their case. The case was well and prominently documented in the Canadian press for all to follow.

There was no public outcry as there has been in other censorship cases in Canada for this case to be dismissed. Perhaps it is all in the timing. Society will accept or reject different moral lines as the mood of society itself swings left and right. In order to change the censorship of this particular product the members of the community must first accept the ideas they are trying to sell. Until then, guilty as charged.

To the Moderator that warned me:

All I am doing is answering this OP's posts here. I hope that is ok. I assume it is since you left his comments here. So now I will give a rebuttal if you don't mind.

Originally posted by onetofollow
True, the line moves back and forth on where the censorship lines will be drawn, and most communities must adapt their censorship to the current standards set by the community members.
This is a simplistic, yet similar way to how our actual society works.
The boundries for our society are set by the members of the community.

The lines don't move back and forth. The line was drawn in 1992. Laws are usually changed by an act of parliament. The Crown in this case is using the courts to redefine the law, not simply refine or have it clarified, and that is improper. Also, It's the standard of the Canadian community as a whole, not one isolated communities standard. That's the law. The problem all started with a conflict of interest between the cops moral law from his church and the moral law of Canada. The cop testified that the exposure of a female breast was in his mind sex. Sound like a fair assessment to you? Sound like grounds to file obscenity charges?

In the Canadian film censorship case, society spoke. The work was deemed to be obscene in the CONTEXT that it was marketed.

In the first trial the judge deliberately misled the jury. If you would read the report regarding the second trial you would see that the jury was misled again, and in a more blatantly obvious manner. You would also see that the judge railroaded the whole case, because the Criminal Code deemed the case dismissed as of May 25, 2006, and there should not have been a second trial. You would also know the judge over-ruled the Charter, rules of evidence established hundreds of years ago, as well as rules of the court. The notice of appeal and grounds for appeal will be filed and reported on soon. The number of grounds could well be a record in Canada. You were not at either trial, so you should be more objective and study the case materials before saying all these things. An opinion not based on facts is based on conjecture and extreme bias.

Some may feel that it was the wrong decision and that is their right in our free society. Others feel that this was the line, that we as a society were not ready to cross.

No, a misdirected jury convicted. When you say "we as a society were not ready to cross" you are including a lot of people that do not agree.
The lines were drawn in the 1970's and again in 1992, and Smith did not cross the line. In the Crown's closing argument the jury was told "this is your opportunity to draw a new line for the rest of Canada." This was an improper suggestion to the jury. The judge was asked to address the jury and intsruct them that drawing a new line is not their job and they are not to see their roles as one of censorship, but the judge refused to do it. This is another ground for appeal. That a jury in a small community was duped the first time should be of more concern to you. That it was done for a second time, and more openly, should tell you something.

The idea of accepting a film with no plot, no concept, just gratuitous violence against women is not acceptable in Canada. At least not when packaged as snuff or necro. Not all Canadians feel like the decision was a wrong one. The films and meta tags fit the Canadian definition of obscene in our current society. It's about context, as well as content. That is what caused the censorship.

Many films have very weak plots. Many story lines are so over done that it's not even worthy of consideration. Story lines are often used as a set up for the money shots. In Smith's case the money shots are the special effects. He did effects like you see in the Matrix movies, but he did them before they did, and he did them very well, and on a very low budget. This is exaclty what Dr.Barry Grant said in his testimony at Smith's first trial. The short scenes were setups to show case his special effects to other movie producers in the B Movie Internet community. They were also auditions in which the actors(women) had some input as to what the short skit would involve, and they were paid for their auditions. So what if he tried to make some money from these audition scenes? The women signed model releases and were paid.

Oh, They were not packaged as necro. I believe the words fantasy snuff were used in hidden Meta Tags, however that was to sensationalize and it wasn't actually snuff.

The movie 8mm cashed in on the whole snuff theme in a more disturbing way. Many of Quentin Tarantino's movies contain more extreme elements. Same with Andy Warhol's Flesh for Frankenstein which was made in 1973 and available in Canada(with necro sex contained in it). David Cronenberg eroticized hardcore sex and violence in the 1996 movie Crash(see the R rated version). Tool Box Murders, New York Ripper, Bais moi, and I can name a hundred more that are more graphic, sexual, violent and disturbing than Smith's.

Met Tags cannot be obscene in Canada unless they "advocate and counsel" child pornography. The sex has to be in the materials, not merely in the mind of the viewer.

The case had a fair shot with more than one judge more than one location, more than one court and more than one brilliant legal mind defending the plaintiff against the charges and they could not make their case. The case was well and prominently documented in the Canadian press for all to follow.

You are assuming an awful lot here. It was not fair the first time around, not fair the second time around, not tried in two different locations, was not well documented in the Canadian press, and it's being appealed again.
You were not there. There was never a fair shot. These brilliant lawyers you refer to agree that there was no fair shot. Smith's present lawyer has two law degrees, a masters degree in criminology, a psychology degree, and an English degree(5 degrees). Does a jury know and understand the law better than they do? As a friend of Smith and macjafa, I have studied and researched this case for 8 years and I can tell you without hesitation that I know more about the obscenity law than 90 pecent of the lawyers in Canada. The jury never read one line of an obscenity case....not one. Neither did the judge by the sounds of it. I sincerely doubt you have spent more than 30 minutes researching the obscenity law, and no time researching the court documents posted on macjafa's site regarding the Smith case.

There was no public outcry as there has been in other censorship cases in Canada for this case to be dismissed.

Public outcry is not how cases get dismissed.

Perhaps it is all in the timing. Society will accept or reject different moral lines as the mood of society itself swings left and right. In order to change the censorship of this particular product the members of the community must first accept the ideas they are trying to sell. Until then, guilty as charged.

Your not alone in your opinion, I'll give you that. But the law cannot be as capricious as what you just stated. There is an objective standard to the law. An objective standard is exactly what the Supreme Court said was needed and it is what they gave society and law enforcement in the Butler decision in 1992. Explicit sex must be in the materials, that's the standard. The materials in Smith's case are films and photographs, that is what the charges are based on, not meta tags.

The Court of Appeal stated that nudity, graphic nudity, and sexualized nudity was not enough. But the second trial judge didn't tell the jury that in his instructions. So it was a railroad job.

To advocate convicting someone just because you don't like what they created is not right.

[edit on 23/2/09 by John Matrix]

Originally posted by onetofollow
reply to post by AGENT_T

 

Do you even have kids Agent T?
Teens don't have self-censorship built in.
The content is not acceptable for ANY mainstream forum.

The linkage provided is not obscure. It leads directly to the convicted persons own works and websites, so it is not some random link. You could just check it out for yourself. A little sleuthing can be a good thing.

Excuse me. Smith hasn't owned a website for several years.
The ATS member "macjafa" owns the websites. I just want to clear up that bit of misinformation.

Originally posted by onetofollow
reply to post by John Matrix

 

I've been a lurker for many years. Never felt the urge before to post.

I am pleased to have inspired you to finally become a member. I wonder if I get points for that?

Anyway, nothing personal. I don't know you and you don't know me. I'm not going to get into name calling or attacking other members. I will simply try to correct any statements you make that I believe are ill informed, or misleading. If you are correct, I will also tell you.

I make it a point to study the other sides arguments just as much as the side which I am taking. I would suggest you try this approach, and really try to walk a mile in the other guys shoes.

Take it to the other thread

Closed.