Religious communities in the US have tried several times to introduce technology that sanitises movies, skipping over sex, violence or strong language. Such censorship is totally voluntary and is not inflicted on others, so perhaps at first
thought it should not causes any issues. However Hollywood has taken a strong stance against this form of movie vandalism. Presumably Hollywood doesn't appreciate the effects on word of mouth advertising. They wouldn't really appreciate people
bad mouthing films that may have been rendered incomprehensible by the cutting of key scenes.
So now the influential religious community have come up with new law proposal to legalise move sanitisation.
Moralists of the Parents Television Council has provided a statement outlining the thinking behind the Family Movie Act Clarification Act of 2018 (HR 6816), which was introduced by Representative Mia Love, a Utah Republican on September
13th. PTC President Tim Winter said:
It is ironic that legislation first passed in the 21st century needs to be brought into the 21st century, but that is exactly what the Family Movie Act Clarification Act will do. This bill is a long-overdue update to the Family Movie Act of 2005
and would give parents the digital ability to plug their kids' ears and cover their kids' eyes to harmful and explicit streaming content, just as the 2005 Act allows them to do via a DVD. We applaud Congresswoman Mia Love for recognizing the
need for the law to catch up with technology in order to better serve parents.
Based on stories I've heard from inside the beltway, Love and the bill's cosponsors deserve combat valor medals for weathering an intense, scorched-earth effort by Hollywood lobbyists working to prevent even the introduction of this bill, let
alone its consideration.
But why would Hollywood studios object to legislation that would allow their films to make more money? They have claimed that digital filtering is akin to piracy, but there is no piracy taking place. Parents are only skipping past the
objectionable content of movies they've purchased and are watching in the comfort of their own homes. The studios raised the same arguments over a dozen years ago when the Family Movie Act of 2005 was being considered. Those arguments were
hollow then, and they are hollow now. The only plausible reason why anyone in Hollywood would be opposed to this measure is that some sort of agenda would be obviated by the consumer.
Make no mistake: this is a win-win for Hollywood and for parents. Families would be able to protect their children from harmful content in movies they stream; and Hollywood immediately increases its revenue capacity by broadening the marketplace
for its products. Any publicly-traded studio that opposes either the spirit or the letter of this legislation is acting against its own fiduciary interests and, therefore, violating its corporate duty to shareholders.
We call on congressional leadership, both in the House and in the Senate, to deliver a Christmas present to parents and families, and pass H.R. 6816 before the end of this year.
An era of adult television has come to an and, according to a story in the Los Angeles Times , which reported that the Time-Warner owned, pay cable network HBO has spent the summer, quietly and without fanfare, removing its once-prodigious
library of erotic documentaries and entertainment programs from the network and the HBO streaming platforms, HBO Go and HBO Now.
Since the 1990s, HBO has produced and broadcast such series as the influential Real Sex , the Las Vegas brothel reality series Cathouse , and recurring instructional sex specials hosted by adult performer Katie Morgan.
But HBO has not produced new adult late night programs for several years, and now the network will no longer offer repeats or archived shows from its adult category either.
While HBO's new owner, the telecom giant AT&T, informed HBO employees earlier this year that it planned big changes for the network, the elimination of HBO's erotic fare, network execs told the Times , was not mandated by AT&T and in fact
began well before the telecom conglomerate took over. The reason that HBO is ditching their late night lineup, according to what one spokesperson told the Times , is simply that HBO viewers have lost interest, most likely due to the proliferation
of adult content online.
US moralists always want more. The Parents Television Council writes:
The Parents Television Council applauds HBO and its corporate parent, AT&T, for removing the pornographic content from its platform -- but urges AT&T to make the same move by removing X-rated pornographic content from DirecTV. PTC
President Tim Winter whinged:
AT&T's HBO made a wise decision to remove pornographic content, even citing that 'there wasn't strong demand for this kind of adult programming.' While that is a huge positive step forward, the same logic should also extend to AT&T-owned
DirecTV, which still offers hardcore pornographic content to subscribers.
How can a company that says it is built on responsibility continue to deliver and profit from pornography? How much does DirecTV porn really increase the earnings per share? Is this a reasonable tradeoff for a so-called responsible company?
Given that AT&T's CEO Randall Stephenson was the 36th National President of the Boy Scouts, it's hard to reconcile that role with the DirecTV pornographic lineup. Are the explicit pornographic titles on DirecTV about grandmothers, mothers,
or stepsisters what he wants his scouts to be thinking of?
Eighth Grade is a 2018 USA comedy by Bo Burnham.
Starring Elsie Fisher, Josh Hamilton and Emily Robinson.
An introverted teenage girl tries to survive the last week of her disastrous eighth grade year before leaving to start high school.
Eight Grade is a US film aimed at 8th graders but its 8th grade strong language has resulted in it being rated R by the MPAA. The R rating means that with graders cannot see the film at theatres unless accompanied by their parents.
The film makers from A24 Studio are not impressed by their target audience being disallowed so organised nationwide screenings where the R rating was not enforced (age restrictions are legally voluntary n the US). 50 no-rating-enforced screenings
were organised on August 8. The studio partnered with one theater in every state across America for the screenings.
But US moralist campaigners were not happy. The Parents Television Council called on the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) to hold the A24 Studio accountable for those under 17s admitted without a parent. PTC President Tim Winter
Subjective declarations such as the one by A24 -- that some content is 'too important' to be labeled in accordance with the standards set forth by the MPAA and understood, trusted and relied upon by parents -- undermine and negate the entire
purpose of having the content rating system in the first place. In this instance, and based upon empirical data of this film's content, the Hollywood studio at issue here is grotesquely and irresponsibly usurping parental authority. Either the
standard means something or it means nothing. Those who are openly violating both the spirit and the letter of the age-based content ratings system for this publicity stunt should be held to account by the MPAA.
This current Schick Hydro Silk TrimStyle ad is extremely inappropriate and vile, plus it is aired early in the evening when children are likely watching. It is so suggestive it's disgraceful. The commercial shows three women in tiny bikinis
standing behind small bushes strategically placed in front of their crotches. Two women then proceed to delicately trim these bushes with scissors. The third woman uses her new Schick razor on the bush. She trims it into the shape of a heart and
the other two women stand amazed. The advertisement gives the impression they are trimming and shaping their pubic area because of how the trees are placed. You do not have to imagine much to see the implication.
Schick, owned by Edgewell Personal Care Brands, LLC, needs to know it is not alright to air obscene commercials with highly offensive content, especially when children are likely watching. This is unacceptable!
Moralists campaigners of Morality in Media (now calling themselves the National Center on Sexual Exploitation) is well impressed by the US streaming service Roku. The campaigners write:
A popular media streaming company is being called out for helping the public gain secretive access to pornography channels.
Dawn Hawkins of the National Center on Sexual Exploitation says Roku has a backdoor to private, sexually explicit channels while other competitors have stayed away from hardcore pornography.
They are facilitating access to hardcore pornography channels - hundreds of private and hidden channels - and none of the other streaming companies allow this.
Hawkins says the company is not even hiding its affiliation with hardcore porn. In fact, she says, the porn industry advertises the accessibility via Roku.
National Center helps parents protect their children from objectionable content so it has a step-by-step guide to help parents block content. But there is one streaming service without parental controls -- Roku.
Show Dogs is a 2018 USA comedy by Raja Gosnell.
Starring Stanley Tucci, Natasha Lyonne and Will Arnett.
Max, a macho, solitary Rottweiler police dog is ordered to go undercover as a primped show dog in a prestigious Dog Show, along with his human partner, to avert a disaster from happening.
The studio behind new family comedy Show Dogs has agreed to a last-minute edit in response to morality groups and bloggers claiming that the film might suggest to children that sexual molestation is something that should be silently endured.
Global Road Entertainment have now confirmed they would be cutting two scenes that some have deemed not appropriate for children. The scenes in question are thought to involve Max, a police rottweiler who has his genitals groped by cop Will
Arnett as part of his training to go undercover at dog shows. Initially, Max is upset by the intrusion, but is instructed to go to a zen place. Global Road said:
The company takes these matters very seriously and remains committed to providing quality entertainment for the intended audiences based on the film's rating. We apologise to anybody who feels the original version of Show Dogs sent an
inappropriate message. The revised version of the film will be available for viewing nationwide starting this weekend.
In the US, Morality in the Media, now going by the name National Center on Sexual Exploitation, flagged the film for the similarity of tactics used with Max and abusers grooming children, telling them to pretend they are somewhere else and that
they will get a reward for withstanding the discomfort.
In the UK, the film was seen by the BBFC some weeks ago and was passed PG uncut. The UK and Irish distributors intend to stick with the BBFC/IFCO approved uncut version. A spokesman for Entertainment One said:
We are taking the BBFC/IFCO guidance on this matter in the UK and Ireland and will be releasing the original version that has been censored and reviewed.
The BBFC said in a statement that:
The scenes in question are entirely innocent and non-sexual and occur within the clear context of preparation for and judging in a dog show. We regard the comments made about the film as suggesting 'grooming' as a misinterpretation of the scenes
Meanwhile in New Zealand, Chief Censor David Shanks made the unusual decision to call the film in for review following a number of complaints. Normally, films rated G or PG arrive in New Zealand without requiring a localised classification.
Shanks said in a statement:
We understand the film's distributors are currently re-editing this film in response to public concern. We can confirm that the version distributed in New Zealand will be classified, regardless of any edits made prior to release, the office said
in a statement.
Open Letter to Australian Cinemas: Don't screen Show Dogs movie
We are writing to you in regards to the children's film Show Dogs, due for release 5 July. Upon its release in the US, it attracted substantial criticism from parents and child advocates over concerns of grooming children for sexual abuse.
The film tells the story of a police dog going undercover at a dog show. There are reportedly several scenes in which the dog, Max, has to have his genitals inspected. When he is uncomfortable and wants to stop he is told to go to a zen place.
When he submits and allows his genitals to be touched, he is rewarded by advancing to the next level of the show.
In response to the global backlash, the production company withdrew the film, promising to re-cut it to remove the scenes in question. The film has been re-released, however the scenes remain, with only the encouragement to go to a zen place
(essentially, to dissociate) being removed. The meaning remains intact, that unwanted sexual touching is to be endured and may be rewarded.
The film sends a disturbing and dangerous message to children about sexual touching. In Australia, one in five children are thought to be victims of sexual abuse. This film undermines efforts in prevention and education to address the scourge of
child sexual abuse.
Collective Shout: for a world free from sexploitation is calling on Australian cinemas to take a stand against child sexual abuse and refuse to screen the film. We hope that cinemas will be prepared to take a role of leadership in the community,
to stand up for the rights of children and refuse to profit from this film.
Anti-sex work campaigners in Nye County in Nevada are attempting to get legal brothels banned. The campaigners have joined with the the moralist campaign group, No Little Girl, and have announced that they have filed for a local referendum about
brothels being banned in the county:
On 17th April 2018, a referendum was filed with the Nye County Clerk by citizens wishing to repeal the county ordinance which allows for legal brothels to operate within the county borders. Nye County, Nevada is home to five legal brothels,
including three owned by self-described pimp and Republican State Assembly candidate, Dennis Hof.
Citizens of Lyon County, Nevada filed an identical referendum earlier this month with the help of No Little Girl, a campaign funded and administered by End Trafficking and Prostitution Political Action Committee (ETAP, PAC).
Comment: Proposed brothel ban unjust, won't end exploitation'
18th May 2018. Russell Greer a proud disable brothel customer comments:
With a delirious, misplaced drive that rivals the Nazi Blitzkrieg of World War II, a frivolous group known as No Little Girl (NLG) seeks to abolish the Nevada brothels once and for all. And in doing so, everything will be all heavenly, and these
oppressed women will finally be freed from the shackles that hold them back in society and they will be placed into more dignified jobs -- like working at McDonald's.
Ironically, not only does this group lack any sort of standing to bring this bizarre petition, they harm innocent people with their quest for moral cleansing. Specifically, their petition harms me.
According to the moralist campaigners of Morality in Meda, Walmart has removed copies of Cosmopolitan magazine from check out aisles. Morality in Media crows:
That's are over 6,000 stores where families and individuals will no longer be automatically exposed to Cosmo's hypersexualized and degrading article titles that regularly promote pornography, sexting, BDSM, group sex, anal sex, and more, all
while marketing toward young teens with Disney star cover models.
We at the National Center on Sexual Exploitation have been working behind the scenes with Walmart for months regarding this policy improvement, and applaud Walmart for making their checkout aisles family-friendly and sexploitation-free.
The US moralist campaign Morality in Media, which now likes to call itself The National Center on Sexual Exploitation, is recommending the Steam games distribution website for its selection of sexy games. The group spouts:
Steam is a popular distribution platform, owned by Valve Corporation, which sells thousands of video games for PC, Mac, Linux box, mobile device, or even televisions, in addition to connecting gamers with community forums
on its website.
Despite hosting approximately 35 million users who are minors, Steam also facilitates video games that promote themes of sexual violence, exhibitionism, and rape.
When videogames include sexually graphic and degrading themes the user is not only a voyeur but an active participant in staging the scene. As our society suffers from the consequences of campus sexual assault, military
sexual assault, and rising child-on-child sexual abuse, we see that normalizing the sexual use (and often abuse) of others in videogames is irresponsible on the corporate and social level.
The National Center on Sexual Exploitation urges SteamŽ and its parent company ValveŽ to do the following:
Remove the game House Party due to its singularly degrading and exploitive themes.
Create an 18+ category on its website where all games with any amount of nudity or sexual content are stored. All accounts should have this 18+ category disabled by default, and require an extensive opt-in to view it so
that children are no longer automatically exposed to this content.
Institute a more robust policy enforcement against selling games that normalize or glamorize sexual exploitation in the future, no matter the age of the user.
Religious moralist campaigners at One Million Moms are whingeing about a book publisher that supports gay parenting. They write:
Everyone is familiar with Scholastic Inc. Their book fairs are popular fundraisers at your child's school. However, Scholastic is not safe for your child and parents should be warned.
Scholastic Inc., the world's largest publisher and distributor of children's books, is using its platform to promote pro-homosexual and pro-transgender books for children.
The corporation, for example, published a pro-transgender book called George for 3rd graders. When people look at George, they think they see a boy, the book reads. But she [George] knows she's not a boy. She knows she's a
According to its website, Scholastic Inc. reaches 6 million children per week with its publications. It features morally toxic reading lists for children, such as:
Books for Two-Mommy Families
Great books for Two-Dad Families
Picture Books About Transgender Children
The American College of Pediatricians warns: Conditioning children into believing that a lifetime of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex is normal and healthful is child abuse.
Scholastic does not have our children's best interests at heart. Tell Scholastic to stop harming children.
Darwin Day is on February 12. It's the great man's birthday, celebrated by Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture as Academic Freedom Day.
It's time to solicit your nominations for the 2018 Censor of the Year. This award recognizes particularly egregious Darwinist efforts to block discussion, research, and reporting about weaknesses in evolutionary theory and about evidence for
intelligent design. Past winners include biologist Jerry Coyne (2014) and astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson (2015).
Darwinists do not go so far as to burn books by proponents of intelligent design. However, their actual tactics in suppressing open debate are far more effective because, for the most part, they are practiced behind a veil of secrecy.
Most Darwinist censorship works via self-censorship. In academic and other contexts, the intimidation need not be explicit. It is practiced quietly, without drawing attention to itself. The victims, the censored, understandably don't want to
imperil their work, their income, or their reputation. So they keep quiet both about their doubts on Darwinian evolution and about the power structure in their institutions that maintains the informal speech code.
Last August, the American Heart Association and 16 other health and medical groups bought trade ads and sent a letter to the six major movie studios represented by the Motion Picture Association of America, urging them to apply an R rating to any
motion picture with tobacco imagery submitted for classification after Friday. The only exceptions would be biographical films about people who smoked or when the film depicted the dangers of smoking.
But with the June deadline here, Chris Ortman, vice president of corporate communications for the MPAA, declined to comment.
Health campaigners always seem to think that their pet issue is the most important thing in the world and to hell with any other opinion. If R ratings are doled out indiscriminately, parents will simply lose faith with the ratings and ignore
them. Film ratings need credibility so if parents see examples like 101 Dalmatians being R rated, they will soon concur that R ratings can safely be ignored.
Seven U.S. senators sent a letter on Monday to the MPAA to take action to restrict depictions of smoking, including e-cigarette use, in youth-rated movies.
The letter, citing a University of California, San Francisco study claiming that nearly six in 10 PG-13 movies depict tobacco use. The senators wrote:
Although the evidence connecting smoking imagery to youth smoking initiation is strong, MPAA has yet to take meaningful action to discourage tobacco imagery in films or effectively warn viewers and parents of tobacco's presence in a movie. Our
nation's dramatic decline in youth tobacco use is a tremendous achievement, but on-screen depictions remain a threat to this progress and threaten to re-normalize tobacco use in our society. We cannot afford to lose any ground in this area.