The C3G Cave - Hangout

[Yodaking]

Never heard of this Gadd dude before, looks like he's a really terrible person and I'm glad he's in prison right now. Don't feel guilty for seeing the Joker movie at all. How's he suppose to pay restitution to his victims if he's not allowed to earn any coin? Jail wages aren't going to cut it and therapy isn't cheep. He should be paying for his victims councilors, not leaving them on the hook for the bills.

[Lazy Orang]

Originally Posted by IAmBatman

Yep. I think an advanced society can and should be able to separate the art from the artist.

You can't do that; at least, not completely.


1) Art is a form of self-expression, by definition. Part of the person goes into the art, it is an extension of themselves. I won't take it to extremes - I still enjoy watching Lord of the Rings and Gargoyles despite vehemently disagreeing with the political views of the man who plays Gimli and Macbeth, respectively - but it is a factor. At the same time, you're not likely to see landscapes painted by one A. Hitler (who was an artist) on the walls of my home - that feels like a bridge too far, knowing that part of that person's... identity, in a way, is being perpetuated and elevated in such a way (though I could see them as a museum piece with sufficient context around them). Surely I'm not the only person who would consider that more than uncomfortable?
2) When someone puts part of themselves into a work, particularly if you can hear or see them, then yes, that is likely be an uncomfortable or damaging emotional trigger for the people that person has harmed.
3) In this case, yeah, it's highly likely that money is actually going back to that person, and that exposure is being provided to them and their work. Warner Brothers chose to do that - they decided that, yes, we're happy to pay this man. That doesn't seem to be a much of a moral decision.

Originally Posted by Yodaking

Never heard of this Gadd dude before, looks like he's a really terrible person and I'm glad he's in prison right now. Don't feel guilty for seeing the Joker movie at all. How's he suppose to pay restitution to his victims if he's not allowed to earn any coin? Jail wages aren't going to cut it and therapy isn't cheep. He should be paying for his victims councilors, not leaving them on the hook for the bills.

That's almost certainly not going to happen - he's not required to pay restitution to his victims in the U.K. (the only money he's paid has been in Vietnam, once to pay off the family of one of his victims to avoid execution by firing squad, and once as a legal requirement to pay the Vietnamese equivalent of 315 U.S. dollars to his victims' families). British courts do not require any restitution to be paid to his victims or their families.
He's also accrued a vast amount of money over the course of his career - he's thought to be worth between 1 and 6 million pounds, and he also rakes in money from other sources - though blacklisted in the U.K., U.S. radio stations continue to play his songs, resulting in him accruing up to £250,000 a year, and he's believed to own a flat in London that he rents out, aside from other isolated examples of him collecting royalties - though that's honestly beside the point.

[LordVenoc]

Originally Posted by Lazy Orang

I won't take it to extremes - I still enjoy watching Lord of the Rings and Gargoyles despite vehemently disagreeing with the political views of the man who plays Gimli and Macbeth, respectively - but it is a factor. At the same time, you're not likely to see landscapes painted by one A. Hitler (who was an artist) on the walls of my home - that feels like a bridge too far, knowing that part of that person's... identity, in a way, is being perpetuated and elevated in such a way (though I could see them as a museum piece with sufficient context around them).

There's a distinct difference between watching a movie/cartoon and hanging something on your wall. One is a singular act and the other is essentially making something a piece of your day to day. This isn't to mitigate your point, but is important to note that those are different art forms that the partaking of resonates in very different ways with respect to your day to day.

[MrNobody]

Originally Posted by Lazy Orang

1) Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences. It just means that the government isn't going to lock you up or penalise you for doing something - but if you say, or do, or produce something which is inconsiderate, or hate-filled, or damaging, or hurtful, I would consider it the right of anyone who cares about people more vulnerable than themselves to use their freedom of speech to stand up for those people, and against the person using their freedom of speech to, intentionally or otherwise, cause harm. In fact, I'd consider it a moral duty to refuse support such actions; to refuse to do otherwise is simple hypocrisy and callousness. I find it amazing how often you find people defending themselves or others on the basis of free speech, and using that justification to claim that the people expressing criticism shouldn't do so. Protest and criticism is a form of free-speech, whether against governments, companies or individuals - perhaps the most important form.



2) The result of absolute freedom would be absolute anarchy - at least until someone gathers enough support to impose their own will, whatever that may be. Absolute freedom could never actually work, and there is a reason that it isn't in action. There are already limits on free speech - incitement to genocide is illegal under international criminal law, for an extreme example; most developed countries have crimes against slander, libel and defamation; harassment and threats of violence are often (and rightfully) considered illegal. There's no black and white here, and the question is where to draw the line, not whether there is a line.



3) The right to free speech isn't the right to a platform. You may have the right to draw the most racist charicatures possible, but every single publication has the right to refuse to publish it, regardless of whatever claims the artist might make of them 'treading on his artistic vision' - and if they choose to publish it, then, as said before, it is the right of the public to condemn them for doing so if they so desire. To that point, the scene in Toy Story 2 being removed is actually fair enough - I haven't seen it, but if Disney considered it something they felt it best to remove to not give the wrong impression, that is their right. Do I think censorship can sometimes be silly? Yes, I do - just one example, I watch tonnes of Whose Line is It Anyway? on YouTube, including compilations of the outtakes, and sometimes I find the places they drew the line downright weird - but it was their right to do so, if they didn't feel comfortable airing it. Warner Brothers had no obligation to put that song in this film - they chose to do so, they chose that the impact it could have didn't matter to them. (A very cynical part of my brain wonders if it was a calculated move, on the basis that 'any publicity is good publicity' - they must have known of the associations, and LV said it was odd fit anyway.) I don't see how it's wrong, or censorship, to send a message saying that, no, that isn't okay, and imploring people who care about Glitter's victims not to give money to Warner Brothers (and, indeed, Glitter himself) over this as a result.



4) As an extention to that, freedom of speech doesn't equal equality either, sadly. Some people, quite simply, have more access to a platform than others, for reasons beyond the validity of their statements; usually relating to fame, money or position. You might say that protecting the defenceless might be used as an excuse for censorship, and maybe sometimes it is, but you have to remember - they are defenceless. They don't have the same voice. Whether because people won't give them the platform, or because they don't have the money to obtain a platform, or because fear or anxiety keep them quiet, not everyone has the ability to converse on an equal level. So, a 'free marketplace of ideas', without checks and balances, would just result in the popular shouting down the vulnerable. While the system may be 'freedom' on paper, in execution, it's anything but. Absolute freedom and true freedom are not the same, and true freedom can only be achieved if we have protections to keep the most vulnerable from being trodden underfoot. As such, I maintain that the best measure of a society is how it cares for its most vulnerable, rather than the level of freedom it allows - only by protecting the vulnerable can they be truly free.

Like I said, there is a clear delineation between criticism (I find this uncomfortable and therefore choose not to support it.) and control (I find this uncomfortable and therefore it's a moral imperative that you choose not to support it.) The first is something I am in full support of, the second is something I reject.

"Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences" is a very complex topic, IMO. On one hand, I agree with that statement. Like I said, I'm not the kind of absolutist that believes everyone should be allowed to run around yelling slurs and suffer no social consequences from it.

However, saying that freedom of speech is only a governmental issue also seems extremely foolish. At the end of the day, there truly isn't that much of a difference between a governmental suppression of your right to expression and a societal one. What's truly the difference between fear of expressing my views because the government will throw me in jail and fear of expressing my views because a mob of my peers will harm me? Or a religious group harming me? If we truly want free expression, I firmly believe that is something that must be promoted in every situation, not just in ones where the government is involved.

In case I didn't make my point clear the first time around, I'm not at all saying that nobody has the right to hold people responsible for actions. Like I said, if you want to boycott because it makes you uncomfortable, go right ahead. Anybody can do that who wants to and they should have the right to be as loud as they want about it. My problem comes in when the implication becomes that everyone has a moral obligation to boycott the movie. That's where the line is drawn for me between honest criticism and censorship.

My point is also less about specific instances (I believe Disney, as a company, had the right to remove that scene) and more about the culture we create that allows those instances to happen.

Freedom of speech has, and always will be, the tool of the downtrodden. It's a mercurial sort of magic, capable of changing minds and speaking truth to power. That's the reason that the first thing any oppressive regime does is to crack down on freedom of expression, to decide what books people can/can't read, etc. I disagree with your basic concept that not everybody has a voice. Outside of the extremely rare exception, every human being has the ability to express themselves.

Of course, some more powerful voices manage to be louder than others. That's just the unfortunate truth of the world we live in. But everyone has a voice. Everyone has the ability to express themselves. And if we give that up, do you really trust the people with power to take care of the "defenseless" people? I sure don't.

What I want is not a society where the "strong" have to step up to bat for the "defenseless." What I want is a society where the "defenseless" have the ability to step up to bat for themselves. Are we there yet? Hell no. But creating a strict puritanical set of rules for what people can and cannot say, do, or even watch is not the right direction to go to get there.

[Yodaking]

Still not going to boycott a movie just because he's a terrible person and wrote a popular song decades ago that the movie now wants to use. I had to look up that song to see what it was, since I didn't recognize him or the song title. Turns out it's a song I do know, the band played that song at every single Maryland Football and Basketball game I ever attended while living in Maryland and going to school there. It's a fan/student favorite tradition as we all yell, "Hey, you suck!" at the other team's players. I have many fond memories at those games, which makes it a familiar and catchy tune. That fact is exactly why someone in Hollywood wanted to use it as a small part of a much bigger movie. They didn't commission him to create a brand new song specifically for the movie. If that was the case, I could understand the issue better. If he gets out of prison and hosts a concert, I won't go to it. If he releases a new album, I won't buy it. If they made a movie all about him and his life, I wouldn't go see it. What I won't do is scrub from society a song that has been a part of the world for over 40 years. At some point the art gets separated from the artist and becomes something else.

[Hahma]

Well said YK.

This song has been used forever at sporting events at all levels. Nobody even knows who it's by without looking it up, people generally don't care about that stuff.

Boycotting the movie won't affect the guy or erase what he did. As mentioned, the song has been played a ton over the years, probably over 100k times.

I doubt the people behind the Joker movie didn't actively search for songs by pedophiles.

[Lazy Orang]

Originally Posted by Hahma

Well said YK.

This song has been used forever at sporting events at all levels. Nobody even knows who it's by without looking it up, people generally don't care about that stuff.

Boycotting the movie won't affect the guy or erase what he did. As mentioned, the song has been played a ton over the years, probably over 100k times.

As I said before, this isn't about the viewing public, it's about being respectful to the people who this monster did hurt. I bet you, if it's as prolific as you say it is, they'll know.

I doubt the people behind the Joker movie didn't actively search for songs by pedophiles.

I highly doubt they did, too, but it's not as though the high-ups at Warner Bros. lack internet access. If you're including something in a big-budget blockbuster, you should research it first - it's at least worth Googling before you splice it in. If they did and went ahead anyway, that's immensely disrespectful. If they didn't, well, that's a whole other issue - that's just dumb.

Originally Posted by MrNobody

Like I said, there is a clear delineation between criticism (I find this uncomfortable and therefore choose not to support it.) and control (I find this uncomfortable and therefore it's a moral imperative that you choose not to support it.) The first is something I am in full support of, the second is something I reject.

"Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences" is a very complex topic, IMO. On one hand, I agree with that statement. Like I said, I'm not the kind of absolutist that believes everyone should be allowed to run around yelling slurs and suffer no social consequences from it.

However, saying that freedom of speech is only a governmental issue also seems extremely foolish. At the end of the day, there truly isn't that much of a difference between a governmental suppression of your right to expression and a societal one. What's truly the difference between fear of expressing my views because the government will throw me in jail and fear of expressing my views because a mob of my peers will harm me? Or a religious group harming me? If we truly want free expression, I firmly believe that is something that must be promoted in every situation, not just in ones where the government is involved.

If you're afraid a mob will harm you, well, there are, y'know, laws against that. You're extrapolating to a ridiculous degree. Being careful about the sorts of things people can say without consequences isn't likely to bring out raving mobs - indeed, the opposite is more likely.

In case I didn't make my point clear the first time around, I'm not at all saying that nobody has the right to hold people responsible for actions. Like I said, if you want to boycott because it makes you uncomfortable, go right ahead. Anybody can do that who wants to and they should have the right to be as loud as they want about it. My problem comes in when the implication becomes that everyone has a moral obligation to boycott the movie. That's where the line is drawn for me between honest criticism and censorship.

It's not censorship unless it's enforced. I personally believe that, if you care about the lives of his victims and let this slip by without comment, and give money to the people who did this, then that is hypocritical and callous.

My point is also less about specific instances (I believe Disney, as a company, had the right to remove that scene) and more about the culture we create that allows those instances to happen.

Freedom of speech has, and always will be, the tool of the downtrodden. It's a mercurial sort of magic, capable of changing minds and speaking truth to power. That's the reason that the first thing any oppressive regime does is to crack down on freedom of expression, to decide what books people can/can't read, etc.

That's true, but it's only half of the story. It can also speak lies to the angry, and, in such a way, it's also a tool to oppress... at least in the early stages. Hitler didn't start with power - he used his rhetoric to reach the stage where he had popular support to claim power, and then, after using his own 'freedom of speech' to reach that point, clamped down on the rights of others to consolidate his position. Yes, that is the first thing an oppressive regime does, you're quite right... but they have to get there first, and often they don't do so through military power or hereditary succession, but through popular support and political manoeuvering.

Rhetoric is an exceptionally dangerous tool when utilised to deceive, and to frighten, and to keep others in line. It was responsible for the rise of Nazism, it's been responsible for an increasing culture of fear and division in the U.S., U.K, France and Hungary, among others, and much more besides. It's more than capable of endangering the oppressed - those who free speech is meant to protect and elevate. If you don't stand up to those who abuse it, it can so easily be perverted.


Freedom of speech isn't the purview of the oppressed - they actually have very little of it. When you look at the news articles, you'll see statements of celebrities, politicians, royalty, bankers - not the poor sod down the street who's been knocked from pillar to post and abused nigh on all of his or her life. Platforms are the purview of the rich, the powerful and the famous, and they will be abused again and again and again without someone standing up to them.

I disagree with your basic concept that not everybody has a voice. Outside of the extremely rare exception, every human being has the ability to express themselves.

I didn't say they didn't, but it's not to an equal level. The strong and popular will always be able to shout down the weak and unknown. They may have a voice, technically, but it's so weak and muffled most of the time that it may as well not be there. You underestimate how hard it is to get anyone to listen, to get anyone to care - particularly in this case. Most of the time such abuse is perpetuated because the victims aren't empowered to speak, or aren't listened to.

Of course,

some more powerful voices manage to be louder than others. That's just the unfortunate truth of the world we live in. But everyone has a voice. Everyone has the ability to express themselves. And if we give that up, do you really trust the people with power to take care of the "defenseless" people? I sure don't.

(Apologies for that glitch in the quote system there - try as I might, it just keeps reverting to that.)
I wasn't even talking about that - in fact, the fact I don't is the issue. Because the people with power won't protect these people, and these people can't protect themselves, it is the responsibility of anyone who cares to stand up and say, no, this is not okay. A single voice in the darkness will be drowned out. Only with support will they achieve anything.

What I want is not a society where the "strong" have to step up to bat for the "defenseless." What I want is a society where the "defenseless" have the ability to step up to bat for themselves. Are we there yet? Hell no. But creating a strict puritanical set of rules for what people can and cannot say, do, or even watch is not the right direction to go to get there.

Believe me, I want that society too, but a sink or swim approach isn't going to get us there - it's just going to result in a whole lot of people drowning.

I'm not suggesting any puritanical set of rules - again, you're extrapolating far beyond anything I've said. I'm saying that it's a moral duty to stand against injustice, and to stand up for those who can't do it on their own - at least not yet. Otherwise, we're going to end up with the strong people who don't care trampling over the vulnerable, with nothing and no one in place to stop them. That isn't freedom - it's fear.


The last thing I want is strict censorship, or a world where people are told what they can and can't watch - I'm far, far from an authoritarian. All I want is a world where people are free, and cared for, and safe, and not trodden down. This isn't about censorship - it's about using the right we have to free speech responsibly, about adding our voices to those who are isolated and forgotten, about not being tacitly complicit in injustice. It's about freedom - it's about the freedom of the people for whom freedom is in short supply.

[Hahma]

Originally Posted by Lazy Orang

As I said before, this isn't about the viewing public, it's about being respectful to the people who this monster did hurt. I bet you, if it's as prolific as you say it is, they'll know.

I highly doubt they did, too, but it's not as though the high-ups at Warner Bros. lack internet access. If you're including something in a big-budget blockbuster, you should research it first - it's at least worth Googling before you splice it in. If they did and went ahead anyway, that's immensely disrespectful. If they didn't, well, that's a whole other issue - that's just dumb.

Then you should expect everyone else to research every single thing they purchase or enjoy as entertainment, to be sure they are supporting immoral people involved with those things, as well as to be respectful to various types of victims.

[Lazy Orang]

Originally Posted by Hahma

Then you should expect everyone else to research every single thing they purchase or enjoy as entertainment, to be sure they are supporting immoral people involved with those things, as well as to be respectful to various types of victims.

That's a ludicrous extrapolation. It is not the responsibility of the consumer to research such things - they have a responsibility to act ethically in response to what they do know (just as everyone has a responsibility to act ethically in their day-to-day lives), but not to specifically research every little thing. There is an absolute world of difference between consuming media and creating it, especially if you're a massive, multi-billion dollar company. Everything is (or is meant to be) carefully checked, greenlit, and approved. A basic amount of research should be a standard part of that process.

[MrNobody]

In your Hitler example, you essentially described his rise to power in 2 steps;
1. Use his personal freedom of speech to gain power.
2. Use his power to clamp down on freedom of speech for others.
History has proven that we ain’t so good at that 1st step. Humans just currently aren’t that great at picking out the “bad” uses of free speech, mainly because we can’t seem to agree what the “bad” uses actually are. So the best way forward is seemingly to establish strong cultural values to stop that 2nd step from happening.

I don’t know if we can ever stop evil people from gaining power. If we can’t, the only defense we truly have is our individual freedom to rebel against them. If we strip that away, what do we really have to fight against the tyrants in charge? What would’ve happened if Germany had a stronger cultural backlash against that second step? (the removal of free speech from others)

When you say “freedom of speech isn’t freedom from consequences” you’re inherently implying there will be consequences. You’re saying that if somebody does something (or has even done something in the past) that is deemed “hurtful” that they’ll be harmed themselves. Maybe not physically harmed, sure, but their life will be damaged in some way.

And sure, maybe they deserve that. Like I said, it’s absolutely the individual’s right to decide who they want to give money and support. Sometimes something unacceptable happens and we as individuals look up and say “hey, that’s wrong. I’m not supporting that.”

What I still disagree with is this idea of a society that is constantly pressuring and shaming the individual to decide where the money and support goes. That’s what I see going on in the world around me and that’s what I see when you say giving this movie money makes somebody “hypocritical and callous.” Again, I don’t see that as “people standing up against injustice”, I see that as just another form of control. Maybe it’s just a matter of different life experiences.

I honestly find it a bit disturbing that you mentioned this guy’s songs are blacklisted on UK radio. A quick and lazy google search didn’t give me too much, but is it an actual official sanction? Or is it blacklisted in the way something like Song of the South is where they just never play it or talk about it?

[Hahma]

Originally Posted by Lazy Orang

That's a ludicrous extrapolation. It is not the responsibility of the consumer to research such things - they have a responsibility to act ethically in response to what they do know (just as everyone has a responsibility to act ethically in their day-to-day lives), but not to specifically research every little thing. There is an absolute world of difference between consuming media and creating it, especially if you're a massive, multi-billion dollar company. Everything is (or is meant to be) carefully checked, greenlit, and approved. A basic amount of research should be a standard part of that process.

A lot of people research their food. How were rhe chickens or cows treated or fed. Then make decisions about other options.

People research fish they may eat to see if they are known to have mercury in them.

People research dog breeders to be sure they aren't puppy mills.

People research products made with palm oil because what it takes to get the palm oil destroys rainforests and the animal habitats.

Parents research musical artists their kids listen to. Can do likewise with television shows and books.

People research to see if companies are LGBTQ friendly or not. Or if they practice equal opportunity employment, equal pay for equal work, of if they have racist history.

It's common knowledge that the Catholic Church has protected pedophiles and covered it up. So people shouldn't be Catholic any longer? Should television and movie execs not have anything related to the Catholic Church in their shows/movies, out of respect for the victims?

People can research where a product is made. Either to support their own country'seconomy or not support another'seconomy, especiallyif that country is known for human rights violations.

People could research how their trash is being disposed of, and whether it's bad for the environment.

People can research the factories in their area, to make sure they aren't releasing toxic emissions.

There are many movies made by people who do terrible things. Same with music. I'm sure many musical artists had sex with underage groupies, provided drugs and alcohol to them. Anyone can Google these people to find out stuff. Lots of things have been written in books about them too.

The show Mindhunter deals with the American FBI unit, called the Behavioral Science Unit, that started in the 70's. The show replicates the way the people who started the unit go to various prisons to interview serial killers, to find out what made them do the horrible things they did. They use what they learn to create profiles and help figure out who is currently committing horrible crimes. Anyway, the serial killers in the show are portraying the actual ones and the victims and events are based on the real ones. So is that show disrespectful to the families of the victims of those killers?

Sure, my extrapolation was exaggerated, but like you said about the movie execs and using Google, everyone with Internet access can use Google as well to research multitudesof things in their daily lives to make sure they are consuming products, material or otherwise, that fit their moral code.

[IAmBatman]

Here's something none of you are considering!