Posted on 09/23/2002 2:34:25 PM PDT by mikeb704
That ol’ Leftist double standard is still fully operational. Last week the Most Reverend Jesse Jackson demanded that "insensitive and inappropriate" remarks about Martin Luther King and civil rights heroine Rosa Parks be removed from the movie "Barbershop."
Little media attention has been given this latest cause of the ubiquitous Mr. Jackson, who habitually is granted slavishly extended and respectful coverage by the deep thinkers who filter our news. I’ve seen no criticism of the reverend’s desire to censor a film. This stands in stark contrast to what generally happens when conservative criticisms are made.
You’ll recall a late 80s movie titled The Last Temptation of Christ. Many Christians reasonably considered the picture blasphemous. Yet when people like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell expressed disapproval, you’d have thought that Heinrich Himmler were back on the scene. The movie’s critics were widely condemned as censors, cultural heathens, and prospective destroyers of the Bill of Rights.
Censorship is a Leftist fixation. Naturally, there do have to be some limits, like squelching the free speech of pro-life activists or folks who would notify workers that they don’t have to support their unions’ political activities with their dues. By and large, though, unfettered speech is an article of faith.
September 21 through 28 is Banned Books Week. Sponsored by the American Library Association (ALA) and a handful of bookseller, writer and journalist associations, the event is intended to raise public awareness of the evils of censorship. This year’s theme is "Let Freedom Read: Read a Banned Book."
They have Banned Books Week resource books you can buy. They have Banned Books Week posters you can buy. They have Banned Books Week bookmarks you can buy. They have Banned Books Week t-shirts and pins you can buy.
The only things they don’t have are banned books. None of the books cited by the ALA in its web site section on banned books are impossible or difficult to obtain. Some, such as Harry Potter books, number one on "the most frequently challenged books of 2001" list, you can trip over in many bookstores.
No, the best Banned Books Week promoters can come up with is a record of books that have been "challenged," which is defined by the ALA as "an attempt to remove or restrict materials, based upon the objections of a person or group." For the entire year of 2001, the ALA reports a whopping total of 448 recorded challenges. In a country with more than 120,000 libraries, that figure doesn’t imply a calamitous threat to our civil liberties.
Seven of the top ten most challenged books were questioned, at least in part, because of concerns they aren’t suitable for a particular age group. Many of the challenges are from parents questioning the age-appropriateness of what their children are mandated to read in school.
I think citizens should have the right to express their opinions about books without being ridiculed as censors and book burners. Our right to free speech is every bit as dear as our right to read what we wish.
No library can include every book ever published. Each day, librarians determine what books will be added to their library’s collection. No one attacks them for restricting liberty. Yet when a parent or taxpayer questions whether a book should be included, it’s all too frequently labeled a threat to the Republic.
For an organization that at least in theory is dedicated to literacy, you’d think the American Library Association would be more careful about tossing words like "banned" around when it clearly doesn’t apply. Then again, calling Banned Books Week something more accurate such as Books That Have Been Challenged By Parents for Age-Appropriateness, Sexual Explicitness, Drug Use, Offensive Language, Violence, Racism, and/or Wizardry Week wouldn’t have the same appeal. And imagine how hard it would be to get that on a pin, bookmark or t-shirt.
I asked on some other threads why there isn't a banned movies list. The Barbershop could be there along with Disney's Song Of The South.
They can hold that on the Internet so it can be viewed on those unfiltered library computers that so appeal to pre-teens.
The ALA does not believe in the concept of Age Appropriate material. If a junior high student wants to check out the X-rated Last Tango In Paris (or even the R-rated Reservior Dogs), go ahead. Madonna's Sex or explicit Mapplethorpe photos? No problem.
Newstands are not permitted to sell Playboy to minors but if a library has a subscription (for the articles, naturally) then the ALA sees no reason to deny access to anyone regardless of age.
I've asked for SOTS at both Disneyland and Disney World. The official party line - and this was years ago -appears to be that it'll be released "soon."
SOTS was released to video in Hong Kong, Japan, Ireland, and England. If they release it again, in any country, I could play it on my DVD player (region free/PAL compatible).
Disney has also taken to digitaly airbrushing out tobacco in their cartoons and exercising other cuts. The strangest thing is that they reportedly left in footage of Pecos Bill rolling a cigarette but they edited out the actual cigarette. I can't figure out what he's supposed to be doing!
"Soon" meaning approximately the 4'th of Never, anyway... ;)
I'd bet you'll never, ever see it on video again. If you hunt around, though, you can still find PAL versions circulating that were released on video in the UK and Europe...
(N.C)Libertarian Party's Women Release Lingerie Calendar
Someone joked "Why would anyone want to look at pictures of librarians?" and the thread kind of rans it's course after that...
I last saw it theatrically in 1983. This site indicates that it remained in circulation until 1986.
They suggest adding to the national registry of films. Fantasia was added to this list but it was still butchered from it's original release (there was a sterotyped portrait of a small black centuarette, she was eliminated by zooming the frame in on other details and a few small cuts). The footage in Fantasia was far worse than anything portrayed in SOTS. My understanding is that the beef is about "happy slaves singing".
I've only seen a single advertisement for 'Barbershop', but the impression it conveyed to me was very clearly one of a movie that centered on a group of older Negro men gathered in a barbershop as much to shoot the breeze and BS as to get haircuts.
Whatever they might have to say about King or Parks would seem to be 'covered' for this reason.
What in Hell is that bulldog-faced-village-idiot-yabba-dabba-do Jackson talking about?
Sounds logical to me.
The Most Reverend is never, absolutely never, required to know what he's talking about. It would take away his mystique.
The "librarians" who wrote the position piece bring up the statistics of sites that elluded detection but they don't do as much to make a case for sites that are wrongly excluded. A few pieces of annecdotal evidence.
Certainly at the public library, there are a number of people who use the free web servers as a way to surf for porn. The solution was to add a polarizing filter over the monitor screen to reduce the walkby viewers from having to be confronted with the images.
Nearly everyone remembers the United Negro College Fund slogan.
But few remember the United Negro Unskilled Labor Agency slogan.
But -everytime I see Jesse Jackson- those words run through my mind...
"A strong back is a terrible thing to waste."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.