←back to thread

1444 points feross | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.03s | source
Show context
TazeTSchnitzel ◴[] No.32641381[source]
It's really interesting that such a bland, un-subversive show whose only mentions of sensitive topics are in bad throwaway jokes is so heavily censored. I guess a more interesting show would just not get aired at all.
replies(11): >>32641593 #>>32641959 #>>32641967 #>>32642113 #>>32642265 #>>32642275 #>>32642430 #>>32642432 #>>32642533 #>>32642820 #>>32643185 #
sltkr ◴[] No.32641967[source]
Personally I'm mostly offended how stale and unoriginal a lot of these jokes are, but I can definitely see why the censors took offense at some of them.

For example, the joke about the Chinese restaurant ("I'd be more concerned about what they're passing off as chicken") plays off of the stereotype that Chinese people eat dogs and cats, and the “passing off” remark implies that the Chinese restaurant owners are deceptive and would immorally and illegally serve their guests a different kind of meat than advertised. I can definitely see how that joke would be considered offensive.

The author labels that joke as "harmless" but you don't have to be a Chinese censor to interpret it as reinforcing harmful stereotypes. I dare you to show that scene at a liberal college and notice how few laughs you get.

Similarly, the racist remarks about Chinese people made by Sheldon's mom are somewhat offensive if taken at face value. I guess the joke is supposed to be at her expense instead ("old people are racists" is an American comedy cliche, if a somewhat tired one) but it's conceivable that either the censors didn't get that, or they feared that their audience didn't get that, so they decided to cut it out entirely.

"They wouldn't get that" is probably also the right explanation for censoring the joke about Jews eating at Chinese restaurants during Christmas, which is a very American tradition. That doesn't imply the joke needs to go, but I can see how that would, at best, leave Chinese viewers scratching their heads.

replies(14): >>32642023 #>>32642126 #>>32642156 #>>32642213 #>>32642279 #>>32642286 #>>32642594 #>>32642617 #>>32642729 #>>32642795 #>>32642889 #>>32643010 #>>32644101 #>>32644466 #
commandlinefan ◴[] No.32642279[source]
> plays off of the stereotype that Chinese people eat dogs and cats

So... you support government censorship of jokes that somebody, somewhere might be offended by?

replies(2): >>32642442 #>>32642655 #
wizofaus ◴[] No.32642655[source]
Wouldn't that happen even in the US? A movie full of vile racist and sexist jokes bordering on abuse is not going to get a [G] rating, meaning the government is censoring it for some viewers.

Edit: it seems it's actually relatively easy to find jokes that are genuinely offensive and degrading in PG rated films. Why that's considered less potentially harmful to kids than showing sex between consenting adults I honestly don't know.

replies(4): >>32642800 #>>32642879 #>>32642903 #>>32642999 #
dogleash ◴[] No.32642999[source]
MPAA ratings are not government censorship, they're cartel censorship.

The reason corporations follow the cartel's rules are financial agreements and the fear of PR backlash for not letting parents outsource parenting.

replies(1): >>32643068 #
wizofaus ◴[] No.32643068{3}[source]
So there's literally no government involvement in what content can be shown in broadcast material in the US? Even for FTA TV? In Australia the ratings system is administered by the commonwealth government, so I incorrectly assumed the same was true in the US.
replies(2): >>32643205 #>>32644359 #
dogleash ◴[] No.32643205{4}[source]
We have law that restricts indecent/obscene content, and it applies exclusively to FTA TV and radio. But it's completely unrelated to the ratings system for tv and movies.

Most channels not restricted by those rules (subscription cable & satellite) set in-house standards on content for commercial reasons. And of the broadcasters that are covered by the regulation, they are the old stodgy networks and never choose to get near the boundaries.

replies(1): >>32644410 #
wizofaus ◴[] No.32644410{5}[source]
The interesting thing is that end result seems to be a proliferation of extreme views in the US vs other similar countries, which is arguably the opposite of what you might reasonably expect from the opportunity to allow freer discussion of ideas.
replies(2): >>32644480 #>>32655821 #
1. int_19h ◴[] No.32655821{6}[source]
FWIW, neo-Nazi marches in Europe have way more people attending them than anything that American fash have tried to cobble up to date (including the particularly infamous one in Charlottesville). Radical nationalist parties seem rather popular in Europe lately as well, to the point where they already run some countries (Hungary, Poland).
replies(1): >>32667316 #
2. wizofaus ◴[] No.32667316[source]
Interesting, though not necessarily indicative of anything in its own right. I'd always expect a culture of free expression of ideas and a willingness to discuss fringe viewpoints would help reduce the proliferation of violent or socially destabilising behaviour, but I'm less convinced the degree of constitutionality guaranteed free speech matters all that much.