JasonParis
Moderator
I knew it was only a matter of times before someone suggested our policy was "communist."
|
|
|
No it isn't. That is a highly flawed comparison. The Soviet Union was a society dominated by public funding. Independent artists were censored and often imprisoned. No one is saying that films with explicit content is banned, but that it is not the governments job to fund them. That actually makes complete sense to me. I am sure that, since education is in the public domain in most western nations, some funding in the USA must also go to educational films as opposed to other genres. Where the USA is not funding the production of most other films, no one would call it censorship. I am sure perhaps there can be funding for cultural ventures like a ballet or something like that (even though I would rather not spend my tax dollars on that). But no one would call it censorship if the USA does not fund the making of the movie Jackass. The government is not deciding what is appropriate to view, but what is appropriate to fund. The same way we can determine what is and what isn't appropriate language in a public funded school. Makes a lot of sense to me.
Nice try with the scaremonegering, MTL, but completely unreasonable.
In response to the person who said he would like a Canadian voice out there---What is and is not Canadian culture can easily be determined by a democratic decision by the consumer on the free market? If more Canadians choose to view CSI than Little Mosque, then CSI is more indicative of Canadian cultural tastes.
Tax credits (because that's what we are talking about here) are not to be confused with regular government art fundings. Tax Credits is first and foremost an economic incentive and it does exist also in the USA. Many American states are in direct competition with Canadian provinces to get movie shoots by offering tax credits. And believe me, they won’t mind in Arizona or Florida if the 100$ millions movie production coming to town has explicit violence or sex in it. They look at the numbers, not the script.
it's censorship by proxy.
It's not censorship period. There is nothing being censored.
so i guess there will be no more crime stoppers reenactments on TV because it uses public funds and shows violent situations?
will the CBC still be allowed to report the news?
He is being ridiculous, but it's also being ridiculous to claim that this isn't an attempt at censorship.
Moreover, it's much more insidious than a law banning specific content. It means that pretty much any Canadian filmmaker can be bankrupted on the whim of a handful of Harper appointees.
Moreover, it's much more insidious than a law banning specific content. QUOTE]
This has to be the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Banning something is making it illegal and taking away the fundamental freedom to free speech. Not giving perks to something is not taking away a vital freedom.
Now you are just being ridiculous. And you know it Prometheus. There will be no tax breaks for things like "Young People Fucking". That does not mean its banned or censored. And if you can't tell the difference between something like that and a crime stoppers ad or the news, then you have a problem.