Censorship?!

Personally I am 110% against censorship. If people don't want to see nudity, hear swearing etc then they should just not attend the shows/watch the tv programs/buy the music that contains the stuff they don't want to see/hear. Classifications are fine but why should we be forced to accept the censorship that is forced into our faces[rhetorical question]? Society should grow up and stop sheltering everybody. any comments?...

PS. Dont' think I'm an arse for saying these things if you are for censorship, just tell me your opinions please.

Jason

Are you okay with videos portraying 10 year-old girls getting gang raped? Because they're out there, but they don't get circulated publicly because of censorship rules.

So, should we remove that censorship?

Um, actually I think those video's don't get circulated because they're illegal, being that they break all kinds of laws. Does that qualify as censorship?

Making something illegal because of it's content is kind of the meaning of censorship.

I'm all for censorship. Sexually explicit content is almost based on a dominance/submissive dichotomy. Guess where women, children and the generally unempowered fit into that one?

Trawl through the net and type words like "Kiddie", "Neo-Nazi" and "Rape" into the search engine and then tell me you are 110% against all forms of censorship. Society need to draw lines in the sand or subversive, overly simplified notions that prey on peoples feeling of helpless and hopelessness and their need to feel strong in any way they can creep in and become acceptable. We already have our sexual behavious dictated to us by media and porn. Men @!#$, women are @!#$.

That having been said. I don't think I've ever seen anything on stage that I objected to. It depends on the portrayal. Personally I think the Eminem song "Stan" is a masterpeice, a cry in the wind against violence and hoplessness. It is supposed to be shocking so that people say "Oh how awful, I'm going to make sure never get to that point in my life, and no-one I love does either."

However, as soon as these things stop being shocking, as soon as we can watch a war on TV without blinking an eye, we've gone too far.

A very good argument Leah, but personally I'm a bit of a Darwinian, if I can't handle something, it's my responsibility to keep away from it. If I can't do that, then tough cookies. I know it may be considered a tough standpoint by some people, but I don't believe that anyone has the "right" to be protected from anything. In my opinion if I can't protect myself, then it's a privilidge extended to me by a third party, and the protection can be removed at any time, without my consent.

Given the choice between a society where even the very worst elements are visible, and one where only what a select group of moral crusaders see as appropriate is available, I'd choose the former. At least the first example is honest. It is too easy for censorship to be used to shape a society's collective conciousness, and it's all but impossible to keep the ranks of regulatory agents clean of people who would use that power for self-interest. I would rather be confronted with terrible thoughts and ideas, surrounded by other people who admit that they exist and can help me form an opinion on them.

I believe that people are not wonderful beings, created in God's image, but gone slightly astray... many of us are terrible creatures, full of self-interest, one step away from sociopathy. These people do not follow rules. Personally I don't like the idea of a video of a 10 year old girl getting gang-raped, but it happens. I believe that a part of the reason it happens is because we close our eyes to the idea that it could, most people spend most of the time pretending that things like this don't happen, that people like that don't exist. They do exist. Let's stop closing our minds to it, and do something about it.

Do we censor information on the Holocaust? It isn't the record of an event that is bad, it is the event itself. A video of a young girl or boy being raped is not a pleasant thing, but as far as I'm concerned it can win an Oscar for all I care if there isn't any more rape. If the film was recorded 10 years ago, but there's been no rape at all for 5 years, then that means we've grown as a society. By censoring that material you allow the "proles" to ignore it's existance, which allows the minority that do these things to grow and continue their actions unhindered. Let's not make these things acceptable, but it's important not to turn a blind eye to their existence. About 3 weeks ago there was an article in the West Australian newspaper about a 64 year old man being jailed for 7 years for the sexual abuse of an 11 year old boy. He made the plea of guilty to two counts of sexually penetrating and six counts of indecently assaulting a boy under 13, as well as one count of possessing child pornography. He will be eligible for parole. Hundreds of people would have read that article, and most of them would have been disgusted, waxing lyrical about the indecency of it all. I would bet my last dollar that 90% of these people don't care any more. They've forgotten about it.

Sorry, I've rambled, I've ranted. I've probably been taken totally out of context. It's a topic that can invoke a lot of emotion, and that tends to make people defensive. I don't pretend to like the things that happen in this world, but I would prefer to have as much information available on the topic as possible, that I may attempt to form an objective opinion. If you are so sure that your idea is right, then let me gather the facts myself, and I'm sure I'll realise this sooner or later.

At the risk of really inflaming this debate Troy, it's very easy to stand in the position of a white, male, able bodied, middle class ( and a little bit cute) human being and say if I can't protect myself, no-one else should in case one day they chose to stop. What do you need to be protected from? I can't walk down a dark street without having real and justifiable fear. Do you think you are in my position? I certainly don't think I can speak for anyone who is poor, Aboridgenal etc, becuase I'm not and I don't live with their disadvantage.

Not everyone is as privillaged as you. For some people that "third party" protection is the only thing standing between them and the mouth of hell.

High ideals of democracy and freedom are very easily defended by priviallaged people in democratic and free socieites. I don't beleive censorship is about ideals and broad strokes, things rarely are. There is no such thing as "the Rule", only "the Exceptions". It's about single instances of harm directly attributable to material which could and should have been made unavailable. Censorship is a human rights issue, not a trendy coffee shop big words and a danish on a clear blue Sunday issue.

Some things hurt people. People who are not in a position to look after themselves. I'm sure it's a utaliarian view but I stick by it. If the strong and high minded have to have their ideologoes offended to protect the weak so be it.

But lets make this about theatre; how far is too far, what should we not able to veiw on stage?

>I'm all for censorship.

Boo. Hiss.

>Sexually explicit content is almost based
>on a dominance/submissive dichotomy.

(I'm guessing you meant to say "almost always".)

If so, try telling that to Annie Sprinkle. Or Lydia Lunch. Or Candida Royalle.

>Guess where women, children and the
>generally unempowered fit into that one?

The aforementioned sex-positive feminist activists/artists are examples of those who made the choice to be empowered. Pain is life. Misery is a choice.

>Trawl through the net and type words like "Kiddie",
>"Neo-Nazi" and "Rape" into the search engine and
>then tell me you are 110% against all forms of censorship.

I've trawled for worse. When I was searching for poster artwork for a Nazi-era play I was directing, I entered "kike", "niggers", and "white-power" into a search engine... and you reeeeaally don't want to know what I saw on the sites listed.

But I found my swastika.

>Society needs to draw lines in the sand or subversive,

(Interesting choice of words, Leah.)

>overly simplified notions that prey on people's feeling
>of helpless and hopelessness and their need to feel
>strong in any way they can creep in and become
>acceptable.

To the weak-willed, maybe. Are you saying we should dumb down social politics in the same way we do with culture... ie: just to appease morons?

>We already have our sexual behaviours dictated to
>us by media and porn. Men @!#$, women are @!#$.

Jesus! Come on down, Andrea Dworkin!

Answer a question for me, Leah. Given the above statement, how on earth do you justify your involvement in "Don's Party"? Being -- in part -- a healthily ribald expression of early seventies sexual positivism, I wouldn't think you'd want anything to do with it, let alone in a capacity that requires Tim Collins to grope your backside on a nightly basis.

Freedom of expression is freedom of expression for everyone, not just the people with whom you agree. If a photograph depicts an illegal act, then the person has committed a crime, and they will be tracked down by the authorities and punished for it. Raping ten-year-olds and publishing the pictures on the net brought a world of trouble for the folks in Club Wonderland, so it's clear that the authorities are operating to protect legitmate victims of violent crimes.

But to say that censorship is a good thing because it protects us from "subversive" social/political ideas is a foul suggestion, and not what I'd expect from a fellow artist.

Your commitmment to freedom of speech can only be measured by your willingness to support speech you detest.


respectfully,
David Meadows.

>I can't walk down a dark street without
>having real and justifiable fear.

You work in theatre, don't you? I can tell. This is a wonderfully dramatic image. But tell me something.... do you _really_ walk down dark streets alone? Tell me that in this day and age, you're that stupid? Go on, tell me.

>It's about single instances of harm directly
>attributable to material which could and
>should have been made unavailable.

Like the pro-Jewish literature that was burnt by the Nazis to protect the unwashed masses from the dangerous idea that Jews were productive and valuable members of German society?

Or the words of the high-profile pariahs of the 1950's, twisted and/or destroyed by Senator Jospeh McCarthy for fear that they would pollute the minds of the young and impressionable?

Do you see what well-intentioned path is being paved here, Leah?

>If the strong and high minded have to have their
>ideologies offended to protect the weak so be it.

What if Grant were to take your views off this board, so as to protect the frail minds of those who might be twisted by your rhetoric?

I'm reminded of the quote attributed to the Rev. Martin NiemÁ¶ller, about his experience during WWII: "In Germany, the Nazis first came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, but I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak for me."

>But lets make this about theatre; how far is too far,
>what should we not able to view on stage?

Is it academic at this point to say "anything and everything"?


respectfully,
David Meadows.

David,

Why not visit www.mrcranky.com/movies/kids.html and read some of the posts there, and then tell me if you think Leah's concerns are not somewhat valid.

(Ignore the review when you get there, and just read what the kids are saying!)

Sol,

Thanks for the link but I can not help but feel that it sabotages your argument a little.

The surprising thing about most of the posts as I see it was that a surprising amount of children actually relate to the film. Now any piece of art which causes responses like "this is the first and only movie that I've see [sic] that showed how @!#$ really is" must be of some importance. To echo what Troy has said in relation to child pornography, by banning these films, we are simply turning our back on the social/political/economic reasons for their existence. Do you think if KIDS was banned, children would stop feeling the way they do? Is that not a case of shooting the messenger and ignoring the message?

When we talk of censorship, the most obvious concerns are in relation to sex and violence. But its effects are far more subtle. In a society in which information itself has become a commodity, filtered and packaged for us by the good people at channels 9, 10 etc., the most far reaching form of censorship concerns the censorship of ideas, in most cases those which undermine the social order.

All plays are driven by ideas, by theories and concepts. From my perspective, this mixture of ideas is what makes them interesting, and as is the case with KIDS raises questions/situations we would sometimes rather ignore or not have access to. At least allow people access to the material so that they can offer their own informed opinion, and if they are incapable of this, then maybe it says more about our education system than anything else.

I'm sorry. I realise I am intellectualising this, but for me the question of censorship in art is governed by a deeper philosophy we hold about censorship in general.

Ben

How did I know that a discussion involving me and censorship with the chance to attempt to show me up as a hypocrtie because of my current show would draw you out of the ideological woodwork David. But it's really great that someone else white, male, middle class, and able bodied is jumping on the free speach bandwagon. Very helpful to the exploited.


David Meadows wrote:
-------------------------------

>If so, try telling that to Annie Sprinkle. Or Lydia Lunch. Or >Candida Royalle.

Oh I see, we're playing the pick the three empowered women (if indeed they are) in/around the porn indusrty and pretend they are representivitve of the whole game are we. And Chris Lewis played football and is on Getaway so all Aboridgenal people are succesful.

>Pain is life. Misery is a choice.

Do you get many dinner invitations David?

>Answer a question for me, Leah. Given the above statement, >how on earth do you justify your involvement in "Don's Party"? >Being -- in part -- a healthily ribald expression of early seventies >sexual positivism, I wouldn't think you'd want anything to do >with it, let alone in a capacity that requires Tim Collins to grope >your backside on a nightly basis.

So I see the "respectfully" you end your posts with doesn't extend to their contents. Thank you for putting me in my place as a woman by making certain parts of my anatomy a matter for public discussion. That particular scene is not my favourite in the play. The reason I agreed to do it was that I knew that almost every member of the audience would react to it with shock and the realisation that we don't treat women that way anymore. I felt proud to be a catalyst for reminding soicety how far we have come and that the rules of male female relations have changed. Don's Party is a period peice. (Would be very interested to hear what you thought about the parts that didn't involve my bottom David).

It's extrodinarily easy to sit in a privillaged position and say "This is the price we pay for freedom" when you are not now, nor ever will pay that price. I don't look at society from the top down with my weighty ideological standards. I look at it from the bottom up, from the position of those in the most need, and those who need to be protected from porn, from racial vilification and hate speach and from people who think, on behalf of these people, that they are being patronised by all this protection and would be much better attempting to stand on their own two feet and that equality means veryone should run the same race, ignoring the fact that some people start three or four laps behind.

I maintin that free speach is a luxury only the privalleged can afford.

I also don't understand David how you can think that producing kiddie porn is illegal and evil and people should be locked up for it, but making it freely available for people to buy is not only not a crime, but in fact an indication of a healthy society?

I'm with Andrea Dworkin. It may be pandering to the weak willed to sensitise what people are abel to see, but David, it's the weak willed who do the damage, who rape, who beat their wives. Maybe their minds ARE the ones we need to take into cnsideration, first and foremost.

>it's really great that someone else white, male,
>middle class, and able-bodied is jumping on the
>free speach bandwagon. Very helpful to the exploited.

The use of language here is very interesting. Excuse me for picking up on semantics, but the use of the phrase "the exploited" is rather patronising, don't you think?

>>If so, try telling that to Annie Sprinkle. Or Lydia Lunch.
>>Or Candida Royalle.

>And Chris Lewis played football and is on
>Getaway so all Aboriginal people are successful.

You really just wilfully stupid, aren't you, Leah? Here, let me explain it for you slowly: HE REPRESENTS A SHIFT IN ATTITUDE THAT IS ALL TOO RARE.

While you crap on endlessly about the exploited (from your _own_ white, anglo, able-bodied, affluent western-society perspective, may I add!), you continue to perpetuate -- rather than help to eradicate -- attitudes that many people in society -- black, white, yellow, green, male, female, gay, hetero, transgender, able-bodied, disabled, (add to the list at your discretion), etc. etc. etc. -- have made active choices AGAINST!

You choose to wallow in your man-hating, sex-negative, self-loathing (anyone who is "with" a rabble-rousing, hate-mongering psychotic like Andrea Dworkin can be nothing less) because you WANT TO!

Chris Lewis is a successful aboriginal person because he chose to ignore the self-serving sh*t about "the weak" and "the unempowered" and the "ones who need protecting". He got out there, changed his mind and his life.

Sprinkle, Lunch, and Royalle are sex-positive because they choose to be. They took something that had previously exploited them and turned it around, making it something that actually empowered them. Just because you and your Dworkin-ite cronies regard sex as repulsive and all men as potential rapists, doesn't make you right. It's just your opinion. You're entitled to it, just as I am entitled to fire back at it.

>Thank you for putting me in my place as a
>woman by making certain parts of my anatomy
>a matter for public discussion.

Do _you_ get many dinner invitations, Leah?

>That particular scene is not my favourite in the play.
>The reason I agreed to do it was that I knew that
>almost every member of the audience would react
>to it with shock and the realisation that we don't
>treat women that way anymore. I felt proud to be
>a catalyst for reminding soicety how far we have
>come and that the rules of male female relations
>have changed. Don's Party is a period peice.

Point taken.

I have to say though, I would rather you had said that you agreed to do it because it was in the script. There is a worrying implication here that you may have agreed to do the play and then insisted on changing this scene to suit your personal politics. Tell me you are not that kind of self-serving actor.

>(Would be very interested to hear what you thought
>about the parts that didn't involve my bottom David).

You may have noticed my absence from the review page. I try not to review performances given by my peers. I consider it the height of presumptuousness.

>It's extrodinarily easy to sit in a privileged position and say
>"This is the price we pay for freedom" when you are not
>now, nor ever will pay that price.

Yes. It is. Isn't it, Leah?

Maybe when I'm lucky enough to reach the lofty heights on which you stand, I'll understand the hypocrisy of decrying the very thing in which you are engaging.

It's very easy to accuse you of hyporicy, Leah, when you can't even see the irony of your own accusations.

>I don't look at society from the top down
>with my weighty ideological standards.

Really?

>I look at it from the bottom up, from the
>position of those in the most need,

Been working with Hindu women in Afghanistan recently, have you?

>and those who need to be protected from porn,
>from racial vilification and hate speach and from
>people who think, on behalf of these people,
>that they are being patronised by all this protection

Bwahahahahahahaha!

ROTFLMAO!!!!!! You are so FULL OF IT! You cannot even BEGIN to appreciate the sheer, unadulterated hypocricy of your statements.

>and would be much better attempting to stand
>on their own two feet

As opposed to yours?

>I maintain that free speach is a luxury only the
>privileged can afford.

And I'll bet your glad to be privileged, Leah.

And for the record, I don't regard the distribution of violent, abusive child pornography as an inherent adjunct to the right of free speech. But I do take into account the words of a police officer interviewed for a Danish documentary on child porn, who said that (and I'm paraphrasing here) "each photograph of a child being forced into a sexual act is merely a document of a criminal act, and as long as we can publish the faces of the child in the mainstream media, and investigate the surroundings in the room in which the picture was taken, we have a better chance of arresting and prosecuting the rapist."

The risk in the material being all-too-readily available to paedophiles must be weighed against the evidentiary value of said material in prosecuting those responsible for producing it.


not-so respectfully anymore,
David Meadows
(possessor of both a penis and a brain)

All this is fascinating.

Salient points, and those less so, being aired and discussed. It's interesting to see a hate-war develop too...

I'm sure I have said this before.... what's this got to do with theatre? Can we have some info on censorship in theatre? I am sure there has been some before. Any instances for anyone to relate?

And can we drop the verbal sparring please, infants? You gotta problem with each other, take it to the stage of the New Fortune. No Holds Barred. My money's on Meddoes- he's bigger.

Eliot

Hey El, the discussion (if that's what it can be called) is over, as far as I'm concerned. Anyone who sides with the psychotic, pathologically dishonest, segregationist feminist Andrea Dworkin has instantly lost any and all credibility to which they may have once laid claim.

Getting back to theatre censorship.... I was told today that I might have trouble finding a printer to do the poster for my production of "Britannicus" (from November 15 @ the Blue Room) because it's... well... it's mental. It's "Ren and Stimpy" as interpreted by H.R. Giger.

Grant won't even let me put it up as one of the rotating pictures on the front page of this website.

So there.


peace,
rabid mellows.

My only problem is Leah's spelling. It undermines her arguments on a fearfully recurrent basis.

Can we get a spellcheck on here, Grant??

:-p

Eliot

Or, in Maher-ese; "Cin wo bee a splee-chunk in her, Grunt??"

Hee hee hee- see you Thursday, Leah!!

Eliot

Leah Maher wrote:
-------------------------------
>I'm all for censorship.
I am too, but I do think censorship based on a partcular set of moralistic, rather than legal, criteria is pointless. I'd like to believe that a civilised society allows adults to make choices for themselves and to be responsible for protecting their own children from the moralistic issues that they deem offensive.
>Sexually explicit content is almost based on a >dominance/submissive dichotomy.
Sexual assault and paedophilia are both a crime. Filming, owning video, pictures etc of them should also be a crime. However, we allow sex between consenting adults in our society. We even allow dominant and submissive sex. So what's wrong with consenting adults filming, owning and watching videos and films that deal with consenting adults having sex?
>Trawl through the net and type words like "Kiddie", >"Neo-Nazi" and "Rape" into the search engine...
Voltaire is attributed to the quote ''I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." We live in a world will 6 billion people, all with different perspectives and insights on the universe. If we choose to censor all that we disagree with all we will hear is ourselves.

Auctor
(who hopes the quotes work. How's that preview function coming along, Grant? =)

Hi Dave

David Meadows wrote:
-------------------------------
> Grant won't even let me put it up as one of the rotating pictures
> on the front page of this website.

:-)

really?

hehehe that vivid imagination running overtime again?

i told you i wont host anything illegal on the site - i make no judgement about your poster. i haven't seen it.

i also told you that as far as i'm concerned you can link to what ever you like... which kinda leaves the door open, doesn't it?

Cheers
Grant

elliott's new fetish - speell shucks.

>David Meadows wrote:
-------------------------------
>Hey El, the discussion (if that's what it can be called) is over, as >far as I'm concerned. Anyone who sides with the psychotic, >pathologically dishonest, segregationist feminist Andrea Dworkin >has instantly lost any and all credibility to which they may have >once laid claim.

Yay for free and frank discussion! For accepting other peoples veiws in a spirit of friendly debate! For improving society by allowing the airing and discussion of opinions which differ from our own!! For the acceptance of fallibility and the respect of our peers!!

Now excuse me, I have to go lay flowers on the grave of Mr Meadows' open mindedness.

Nice almost having an intellegent discussion with you David.



PS I think I got almost every one then, didn't I Elliott (tee hee).

Auctor wrote:

>Sexual assault and paedophilia are both a crime.

Point of semantics, here. Paedophilia -- as a psycho-sexual variation -- is not a crime. It is a sexual inclination. Acting on these inclinations is what's illegal.

It's the difference between wanting to kill someone and actually doing it. Thought is free; action is (and should be) regulated.



peace,
David Meadows.

David, I don't really think it's necessary to get into personal attacks over this. Comments like "ROTFLMAO!!!!!! You are so FULL OF IT!" are rather childish and patronising, and if you are actually at all interested in bringing Leah around to your point of view instead of insulting her, you might want to avoid that sort of behaviour in the future. I admit, I'm on your side as far as the issue goes, but I feel that you've done a lot of damage to your credibility by acting like a pre-pubescent IRC junkie with an inferiority complex. I realise that this isn't what you are like in the real world, and I've read many well-thought out posts of yours. This wasn't one of them.

I must admit that it ruffled MY feathers when Leah decided to saboutage my attempt at an objective arguement by labeling me as a "white" (whereas many people can testify that I'm much better described as "pasty"), "male", "able bodied" (if spectacularly unimpressive), "middle class" "( and a little bit cute)" (in a blatant attempt to flatter me into submission) "human being" (to which the jury is still out on, apparently). The difference being that she made a personal judgement on me, assuming that I was unable to see beyong my circumstances, which may even be the case, but it was all part of her arguement. We all KNOW that you think Leah is being a silly, that's why you're arguing with her. You don't have to stand on the highest hill with hands on hips and bellow "Leah is a big smelly feminist!" to get the point across.

Leah Maher wrote:
-------------------------------
>At the risk of really inflaming this debate Troy, it's very easy to >stand in the position of a white, male, able bodied, middle class >( and a little bit cute) human being and say if I can't protect >myself, no-one else should in case one day they chose to stop.

I wasn't saying that I don't want people to protect me, if someone wants to help me out I won't turn it down, but I don't think it's my god/fate/alienswhomadeusalloutofmonkeys-given right to have them do so. If someone doesn't help me, I might not be impressed, but I don't feel that they're total bastards for allowing me to be victimised. Why should they care? I'm just a smelly little boy with delusions of grandeur, and should sort out my own business.

>What do you need to be protected from?

Axe-murderers, rapists, snigsmen, cut-throats, snafflers, dodgy mobile phone deals, sociopaths, little boys with plastic swords, anyone bigger than me, and most importantly myself.

>I can't walk down a dark street without having real and >justifiable fear.

Agreed.

>Do you think you are in my position?

No way! Exhibit A: (Me) 19 year old, (for a few more days at least) male, scrawny, not quite smart enough to go to University, barely paying his bills by working at supermarkets while desperately trying to make up for not having been involved in theatre since childhood.

Exhibit B: (Leah) 20-something, female, shapely, intelligent, articulate, apparently going along quite well financially after a fair few years working on a law degree, already with quite a good reputation around the WA Independant Theatre Circuit.

I have very little in common with you, although I'm probably not that much more physically imposing than you if I am at all.

>I certainly don't think I can speak for anyone who is poor, >Aboriginal etc, becuase I'm not and I don't live with their >disadvantage.

So you see being you as a disadvantage? That's a rather defeatist attitude to start with. I get the feeling that perhaps you're referring to your gender? I can't understand that, I have never seen women as inferior, if anything I am vaguely in awe of them (which is almost as bad). I don't assume that someone is better than me based on their sex, but based on whatever evidence I can gather on them as a person. I know quite a few men whom I consider to be better writers than myself, and I know a lot of women who I consider to be better writers than myself. To me the common thread seems to be that they are writers.

>Not everyone is as privillaged as you. For some people >that "third party" protection is the only thing standing between >them and the mouth of hell.

Then they are somewhat privilidged. At the risk of making myself look incredibly stupid, I invite you to have a look at an article I wrote quite some time ago on the "rights" topic at:
http://l-space.tripod.com/rotm3.html
which may give you a little more insight into what I mean by "rights" and "privilidges".

I think I just ran out of room...

Troy, Leah is a hypocrite. Full stop. I don't have much time for niceties when it comes to hypocrites.

Besides, whether or not Leah actually is a Dworkin-ite, she still gives the basket-case free press every time she mentions her. And for all the pain Dworkin has given free-thinking, sexually well-adjusted people in supposedly democratic countries like Canada (where anti-pornography laws she co-authored are still ruining lives), I think it only fair to flippantly and short-handedly dismiss anyone and everyone who considers the psycho a legitmate voice in contemporary feminism.

As for bringing Leah around to my POV... well, Grant offered a suggestion the other day......

Didn't you, Grant?

As far as the web-shorthand is concerned... well sh*t, I'm an internet junkie, what can I say?


peace,
D.M.

You are absolutly right Elliot. What has all this got to do with theatre. Actually I think it is a shame that this discussion has gone on longer than most theatre related topics considering that the whole point here is to discuss theatre.

Maybe the censoring of scipts should be brought up. Three years ago KADS put on "Garden Party". I remember that one of the members at KADS made a fuss of a line one of the characters had about a woman being raped and it was censored from the script. Everyone that was in the play had no problem with the line, including the director ( my mother ). So should a script be censored because of one persons personal feelings? Should a script be censored at all considering what you are censoring might be an important plot point or might define the character of one of the parts?

I believe that in the majority of contracts this kind of altering of a script is not only against the playwrights wishes but could also be seen as a breach of contract.

I lean toward no censorship. But I respect that some people will choose not to view/listen to particular material. Potentially sensitive content should be forewarned with a disclaimer. (Funny enough, that will often attract some people to watch, sick & twisted bunch we are).

Cutting lines from scripts is another argument. Yes, there is sometimes a legal issue, and the license to perform the work may be revoked if the writer (copywrite holder) objects to changes. I usually feel that there should be a way to make the line work, rather than cutting it.

But sometimes the old red pen can be a blessing to a script (you should DEFINITELY disregard stage directions!). I doubt there has been a professional production of Shakespeare that hasn't undergone some trimming here or there. (Like the Christopher Sly scenes in Taming the Shrew - Bill, what were you thinking?!)
And there are probably many instances where a script can be improved by cutting, if the integrity can be maintained and perhaps told in other ways.

At BGko I've noticed one of the most valued assets of a scriptwriter is the ability to "let go". Writers like Ingle Knight got a lot of work because he wasn't too precious about his scripts.
Mind you, this was new work, which was then developed with the actors onstage. What about established material? I heard that for a while David Williamson refused to see his own earlier plays, because he felt he would be too critical of the writer! He felt that if he revisited them, he'd probably want to make cuts too. (He was actually able to make some changes later, when he was involved in the film treatments).


<8>-/=========/---------------

But who are the "censors"? The Government? Let's hope not!
Who draws the line in the sand? The Government? Let's hope not!
Why should I give someone else control over what I am allowed to read/see? What right has anyone else got to determine what is best for me?
I believe that morality is a construction and is one that changes constantly throughout our lives - how can we possibly know what we will do in a given situation until we experience it? How will we know what we think about something unless we know about it? We may believe we will act in a certain way based on whatever "morality" we have, but until we actual encounter that situation how can we possibly know. As soon as people start censoring information it impedes our ability to construct a "moral code" - it gives whoever is censoring the information the ability to "construct" our "moral code". If we are unaware of the horror of paedophilia, how can we construct some sort of ethic about it?
Knowledge IS power. We should remain powerful.
Maybe if you saw the play "1984" you would understand... Just a small plug at the end... Or better still read the book too.

I remember MANY years ago at the conclusion of a Barry Humpfries show he came out of character to announce to the audience that he had just received the wonderful news that his latest book,called,I think BIZARRE which included photos of people with somewhat grotesque physical abnormalities,;had been banned.
He obviously anticipated that the "underground" sales of the book would now go through the roof.Forgive the mixed metaphor.
There seems to be nothing like banning or repressing something something to make it so much more desirable.
The converse can also be seen in,for example,the pornographic material which was freely available in Scandiavia long before the rest of Europe.
It was reported at the time(mid 70s)that the Scandinavians had largely lost interest in the stuff,& that it was mostly being sold to tourists,or exported for underground sales in other countries.
So there you go;;but having said the above I'm not entirely against censorship;;I hope,for example that this site is visited by mature audiences only,particularly with some of the material which has surfaced during this debate!!.

"you should DEFINITELY disregard stage directions!"

WHAT?!! I sincerely hope you're saying this in jest. There is no less importance in sticking to stage directions than there is in sticking to dialogue.

While there may be some benefit in altering either stage moves or lines in order to adapt to restrictive space or time periods, it should always be a last resort. It should always be kept in mind that the writer has specific intentions for each element included in the final draft.

If a group has the benefit of a resident writer, then by all means discuss proposed changes, but if the writer is not available for consultation, then for the sake of respect, give the script the benefit of the doubt!

If you don't immediately recognise the intention of the writer, then take the time to TRY to recognise it.

I'd hate to see a group disregard the stage directions of plays such as "Noises Off" without ruining the essence of the work.