Well, since the readings for this week weren’t the most accessible and ‘readable’ I decided to think back to week one and explore another side of censorship.
Censorship was really what stood out to me when thinking about “New Media Laws”. The above photo “Censorship causes blindness” just felt so poignant. Since I remember being one of the first people at my high school to jump on the Facebook bandwagon I can also remember the people who immediately jumped on the issues of privacy. What I recall being the concern then was the clarity of privacy for Facebook users. Still to this day this is an issue… what is the extent of our privacy? How much do we know about our own privacy rules, and how much of our lives have we sold to Facebook? Are they censoring their own sneaky ways of stealing our lives? I apologize as I don’t know where else to go with that one… I recognize that I haven’t read the pagesonpagesonpages of rules and contracts that we all see weekly… but even at 16 was I educated enough to understand what those contracts would of meant? Hell no. Censorship of what we know certainly causes blindness, as the picture suggests. Before the birth of the “Internet-Age” who was protecting our rights? Did anyone really know how? I suppose that’s what we need to consider now…
While censorship certainly causes blindness by deleting visibility I also wonder what other people think of the freedom of too much expression?
As I sit here at home (totally un-censored and enjoying the freedom of my hobbit rooms privacy) I wonder when “bitch” started being ok on public television? Edward Wyatt helps me a little in his article in the NY Times, More Than Ever, You Can Say That on television : “The use of the word, “bitch,” […] tripled in the last decade alone, growing to 1,277 uses on 685 shows in 2007 from 431 uses on 103 prime-time episodes in 1998.” (New York Times, 2009) As I’m sure you can tell from class… I’m a bit flippant as it is… and I totally appreciate this age of dirty-mouthed media because it allows for my potty mouth to be perfectly plausible. In a popular media class I took last year I was able to write a paper on the hit movie Superbad. My favorite part of the paper was being able to quote lines like:
Seth: You need to stop being a pussy and nail her. You could bang her before you leave. And I’m not gonna dance around it, she looks like a good fucker.
Evan: I’m tired of you talking about her like that, man.
Seth: What, you can talk about her all day and if I say one thing its blasphemy?
Evan: Well I don’t constantly insult her.
Seth: I’m not trying to insult her. I’m just saying she looks like a great fucker, okay? She looks like she can take a dick. Some women pride themselves on their dick-taking abilities.
Evan: Dick-taking abilities? You think that’s good to say about someone?
Seth: The fucked up thing is, I actually do, okay?
(Superbad (2007), dir. Greg Mottola)
Is a film like Superbad so offensive that we can’t teach it in schools today? In our entrance essays we were asked to give examples of ways in which we were asked to comment on how todays film, social media, etc. has effected today’s youth. Personally I feel as though we have to embrace the change that is happening in todays world. We can’t be afraid of words such as ‘fuck’ and the crude humor that todays youth live for. I’m trying to suggest using the new censorship laws and embrace the ‘taboo’ nature of these dark comedies in order to help educate. With a closer analysis of Superbad you may notice that the female characters that on the surface level are being objectified actually hold a lot of personal responsibility and power; Superbad teaches youth that kids who drink, party, and make fools of themselves end up in trouble while characters like Jules (the objectified girl) don’t need to drink and can actually turn down guys that are drunk. I feel as though we need to radically update what it is that we use to teach todays youth. If we live in the age of ‘old law’ our students will never learn to be a part of todays society… instead they may understand a world they’ve never been a part of.
When I started this post I really didn’t know what I was trying to say… and I apologize if this has been a bit of a stream of consciousness… but with Girl Talk and Lupe Fiasco as my background ambiance I have radically re-thought what “New Media and the Law” are to me. I think we need to have serious conversations about how we can use each popular culture medium that kids are going home and watching as a learning tool. Over and over we are being told not to reinvent the wheel… but what do we do when wheels have gone virtual?!
This is a photo that I found on Flickr with the note: “This photo was taken for an editorial in The Pendulum about university censorship. Karrah and Garrett were both actors in Elon University’s production of ‘Hair.’ ” Censorship and arts is another topic I didn’t feel I had time to get into… but Katie said she prefers when posts have some visual stimulation. So here you go folks 😉
– Brendan
Works Cited:
Flickr.com: Censorship Causes Blindness, Antoon Foobar’s Photostream. Web accessed on Nov 19th. <http://www.flickr.com/photos/antoon/540693929/>
Flickr.com: Censorship, Heather Cassano’s Photostream. Web accessed on Nov 19th. <http://www.flickr.com/photos/heathercassano/6397100579/>
Superbad, dir. Greg Mottola. Columbia Pictures. 2007
Wyatt, Edward, Media & Television: More Than Ever, You Can Say That on Television: New York Times. Web accessed Nov 19th. <http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/14/business/media/14vulgar.html?_r=0>
7 responses so far ↓
maya // Nov 19th 2012 at 8:07 pm
Brendan,
Dude, sh#it. As soon as I download Superbad from Netflix and watch if from start to finish I will reply to your post, in earnest.
~Maya
bsangster // Nov 19th 2012 at 8:39 pm
Thanks Maya. And I forgot to add that “Superbad” was written by Seth Rogen about his time at Point Grey Secondary School. Cool eh? So I suppose it’s extra relevant.
maya // Nov 19th 2012 at 8:53 pm
that’s funny. and very point grey. growing up here, p.g. was considered very “preppy” and a “good west-side school”. but i rememember some grade 8/9 parties behind their school (2 litre bottle of peach coolers were involved) that could have provided you with a lot of very similar material for quoatations like the one above…so, ya, not surprised at all.
maya // Nov 19th 2012 at 11:17 pm
Hello Brendan,
Your post made me go off on all kinds of thought tangents; but here are some related and relatable ones to share with the group.
1. Your last paragraph brought up some thoughtful points. Your musings on how we should be using mediums of popular culture that most appeal to youth is as valid as it is critical. I was just thinking about this issue this afternoon when I was reading The Da Vinci Code (which as you know, I am teaching next term). I don’t know if everyone has read it, but in the book, more so than in the film, sex is discussed (not performed, but referred to): ancient sexual acts are described, and “deviant” sexual behavior (in the context of the novel, I ain’t judging;) As I read these chapters I was thinking to myself: Oh great, even though this is all language that is familiar to these students, I’m going to get a parent in my classroom complaining about this if I teach these chapters. So, while it’s somewhat liberating to be able to teach a genre which is really appealing to a mass audience (the grade 12’s are so excited we are doing this novel) there is all kinds of subject matter/language that I’m hesitant to approach in the classroom, but feel constricted by not being able to do so. It feels like I’m censoring by omission. Which to some people, is censorship in its worst form. As you said, Brendan, language that is familiar and used by youth should be able to be taught within the context of today’s classroom. I can think of lots of valuable ways to approach the difficult sexual topics that arise in this novel (the systemic and indoctrinated violence against women and non-heterosexuals within the history of Christianity, religious/ sexual hypocrisy, the use of sexual content in mass market publications, etc.) But basically, I feel like I’m not in a position where I can do that. I feel like if I start talking about what actually happened to women during the witch trials, how they were “interrogated” and about ritualistic, non “normative” sex acts that I will get fired before I even have a job Even though these kids read/view/ similar content/subject matter. (Maybe this is why my sponsor teacher insisted I teach this novel! Maybe he’s been worried about the same thing!) Anyway, this is what I was thinking about when you were talking about being able to teach popular films, with popular topics, still unpopular in the curriculum.
2. Legal stuff:
I’m reading a book right now for work, Cyberlibel: Information Warfare in the 21st Century? (2011, Potts, David A.) There is a very interesting chapter: “User-Generated Content – Web 2.0 and Online Social Networks”. The chapter breaks down into Blogs, Facebook, Twitter and Wikkis and provides details of recent significant libel issues associated with these social networking tools. It’s very interesting and very timely subject for us, professionally. I will share with you one surprising case which should interest us as educators. There was a community wikiki, that existed as a place to offer new/young mothers support. Several mothers participating in the wiki discussion were talking about a parenting book. The author of the book wrote to their site, threatening legal action based on defamation. The site chose to issue a statement saying users could no longer discuss the author. That could totally happen to us! All of the things we have been talking about in this class can be impacted by these legal gray areas. We could have a class website/wikki/blog and have the students discussing favourite authors, or films, and they could (and would) be saying negative things about what they have read/seen and we could get sued by Disney or Harper Collins!
Conclusion: We need to pay close attention to laws and legislation being implemented now and in the near future.
3. Facebook and the Law.
I won’t get into too much here, but your comments about both the privacy issues, and libel issues are of course very timely. The book I just mentioned in the above point (Cyberlibel) discusses a libel lawsuit that was impacted by how many “friends” someone had. The number helped the judge determine how much the character could be slandered, by how many people could have potentially seen what had been written about him (on his “wall”). That’s a new way to look at the trend of amassing random “friends”, right?
In this same chapter, the author highlights questions that are currently arising in the legal/social networking spheres. I wish to share some that are pertinent to our students and class room use of social networking tools. The following sentences are direct quotes from the book. (See! I’ve never added that explanatory sentence prior to a quote I was going to cite! Now I’m afraid of being sued!!!)
1. …will statements that are posted on “walls” be considered under the law of libel or slander?
2. There will be questions about social networking sites’…liability as intermediaries bother before and after receiving notice from the plaintiffs.
3. Questions will b asked to determine whether the statements were published on a privileged occasions for such statements posted on walks…and whether they were posted for public or private viewership.
4. Will the privilege be lost because of an unnecessarily wide publication?
5. Will the general impact of the site on the plaintiff’s life be considered?
6. How will private and public statement be differentiated?
7. To what extent will the accessibility of the statement on the site be weighted?
8. To what extent will the duration the statement has been posted for be considered?
(2011, Potts, David A.)
Potts, David A. ““User-Generated Content – Web 2.0 and Online Social Networks” Cyberlibel: Information Warfare in the 21st Century?. Toronto, Ontario: Irwin Law, Inc., 2011.(357-367). Print.
Concluding thought: I’m so glad I didn’t end up going to Law School.
bsangster // Nov 21st 2012 at 12:01 pm
Maya, thanks for the lengthy reply.
I want to comment on your reply about “Da Vinci Code”. Lately I feel like being a teacher CANDIDATE sucks… with no security of a job in the future rolling the dice and engaging in RELAVENT discussion that youth are clearly being introduced to through various mediums is so risky! Maybe if we had the security of a pay cheque and a job we’d be more comfortable. It’s really making my learning more difficult… What I’m struggling with is that we aren’t university professors but many of these students may be going into university classrooms in a matter of months after we see them. In Ontario the classes are organized with classifications of post-secondary preparation levels: (O – open; basically a bird course to graduate… you can only have so many of these, C – College; the ‘lower’ level or ‘applied’ classes, not qualifying courses for most Universities, M – College/University; it’s been awhile since I was in high school in Ontario but these courses were a mix of applied and theoretical assignments and would be accepted by some universities for certain requirements, and U – University; the highest level courses… self-explanatory).
So what I’m trying to get across is that IN THEORY we are preparing students for post-secondary education. I followed a path which my high school courses prepared me for: a liberal arts college where I was taught to close read, think critically, and research to elaborate on thoughtful topics and theses. I don’t believe that remaining in stuffy old curriculum that is limited by a close-minded fear of the new age benefits students. Should we, as teachers, not be looking at how the post-secondary system works in order to prepare them for higher education. OR if we are teaching courses which don’t necessarily mean that the students will follow the path to higher education (university) that we are teaching our students to be able to read something like The DaVinci Code and discriminate fact and fiction? What I remember about The DaVinci Code’s release was the debate of truth… I think I am thinking myself in circles, thus proof that I learn better through discussions (thank god I went to a school where in first year my philosophy exams were oral…). I hope we can discuss this further in person, haha.
maya // Nov 21st 2012 at 5:56 pm
Hi Brendan,
Don’t worry. I will be mindful of the issue of fact/fiction in novels that incorporate historical “facts”. I’m on it!
You will get a job. You have a lot to offer. I hope you teach my son!
kiranaujlay // Dec 2nd 2012 at 1:19 am
Hey Brendan,
I saw your post and it reminded me of a documentary I saw a number of years ago, entitled “This Film Is Not Yet Rated”. It’s a pretty thought provoking film about the MPAA (Motion Pictures Association of America) rating system of films in America. Oftentimes, the rating that is given by this board will either make or break a film. A filmmaker could put millions of dollars into a film, receive a rating that prevents a large portion of Americans from seeing that film, and be an utter failure in the box office as a result. A documentarian, acknowledging the gravity of this, decides to investigate the process of how the films are rated. He discovers that there is a lot of secrecy involved in who the actual members of the board are, how they are selected, and how they determine which films are deemed appropriate.
The reason I mention this film is that it would be worth screening in your classroom during a discussion of censorship. I believe you teach Theatre, and censorship is an issue that is relevant to anyone who is involved in the arts, because it speaks of how a dominant culture controls content for the masses. Oftentimes, ratings are based on personal moral and religious beliefs, and this opens up a great discussion topic for your students. For English teachers, this may be a good companion piece to Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451. A final essay topic for a unit plan could ask the students to compare the two pieces and discuss the implications of censorship. Engaging the students in both a film and a text allows for a greater opportunity to think critically about the material they are consuming.
It’s been a number of years since I last saw the film, so I can’t remember all of the content, but I believe parts of this film can be screened in a classroom. I have a vague memory of some censored clips of pornography, but aside from that, there’s not a lot of material that some parents may find offensive. I would, of course, screen it just to ensure you’re in the clear. I can’t embed the trailer, but here’s the link for it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTL3XMDwY0c
You must log in to post a comment.