←back to thread

The Big [Censored] Theory

(pudding.cool)
1444 points feross | 5 comments | 29 Aug 22 17:34 UTC | HN request time: 1.028s | source
Show context
jrm4 ◴[29 Aug 22 18:16 UTC] No.32641533[source]▶
I find that it's always interesting to THEN consider, okay -- while there's no centralized board or anything -- what does e.g. American censorship go after?
replies(13): >>32641558 #>>32641741 #>>32641840 #>>32642051 #>>32642100 #>>32642172 #>>32642292 #>>32642369 #>>32642503 #>>32642581 #>>32642807 #>>32646186 #>>32656381 #
cdot2 ◴[29 Aug 22 18:18 UTC] No.32641558[source]▶
Anything you can think of you will be able to find that content. We simply don't have the kind of censorship that China has. Comparing the two is ridiculous.
replies(5): >>32641585 #>>32641625 #>>32641629 #>>32641994 #>>32643413 #
jrm4 ◴[29 Aug 22 18:23 UTC] No.32641625[source]▶
Your second sentence is absolutely correct, the others are not.

Easy example: compare the Marvel "Civil War" comics to the movies. The former was critical of the military in a way that could not happen in any big blockbuster movie.

replies(6): >>32641695 #>>32641813 #>>32641845 #>>32641892 #>>32641933 #>>32642305 #
1. banannaise ◴[29 Aug 22 18:40 UTC] No.32641845[source]▶
Right. Censorship is accomplished economically. The government doesn't ban content; it simply is the only legal owner of military hardware in the country, and will allow near-unlimited use of that hardware for content that promotes the military; that hardware is entirely unavailable for content critical of the military.

Is this better than explicit censorship? That's more of an open question.

replies(4): >>32641946 #>>32641961 #>>32642020 #>>32646722 #
2. agentdrtran ◴[29 Aug 22 18:48 UTC] No.32641946[source]▶
I think it's pretty inarguably better? The alternative is never being allowed to be critical of the military at all. You don't need an f-35 or a tank for a documentary on American war crimes.
3. cdot2 ◴[29 Aug 22 18:49 UTC] No.32641961[source]▶
You have to really stretch the meaning of censorship for that to count
4. Jtsummers ◴[29 Aug 22 18:54 UTC] No.32642020[source]▶
> that hardware is entirely unavailable for content critical of the military.

It's not directly available. As in, you can't film on a US naval vessel or on a US military base without their support. Stock footage or footage from public spaces are allowed. You may also be able to get the support of another country or make use of mothballed or otherwise decommissioned systems if you have the right connections and money.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimson_Tide_(film)

Used footage of the real USS Alabama, used a decommissioned (and sold-off) submarine, and a French aircraft carrier.

5. WillPostForFood ◴[30 Aug 22 04:45 UTC] No.32646722[source]▶
Apocalypse Now, a film intended to be anti-war, used Philippine military equipment to stand in for American hardware.

Honestly, with the ubiquity of CGI in film, whether the military choses to participate in a film is hardly a barrier to making a movie.