Home
Artists
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register
Partychan Telegram ThePornDude
Home Artists Posts Import Register

The Jimquisition 19: Editing Versus Censorship (Patreon)

Published:
2015-03-23 13:04:41
Imported:
2020-05

Content

Sometimes, artists remove things they've created and cut content for a variety of reasons. Most of the times, this is creative expression working as it should. Very rarely is it actually censorship. Of course, everything looks like censorship when you believe creative expression applies ONLY to the production of content, when it can just as easily refer to the altering - and even removal - of it.

Files

Editing Versus Censorship (The Jimquisition)

http://www.patreon.com/jimquisition http://www.thejimquisition.com Sometimes, artists remove things they've created and cut content for a variety of reasons. Most of the times, this is creative expression working as it should. Very rarely is it actually censorship.

Comments

Anonymous

Ah Jim although I don't always agree with you 100% of the time one thing IS certain you always find a way to make me chuckle. Regarding the final bit to this episode - good show sir.

Anonymous

YES! David the Gnome reference! I love people that complain about videos/podcasts being edited before published. It's obvious they've never created such content before never mind editing it. I remember thinking podcasting wouldn't require much editing because the entire recording should be interesting....until you listen to your recording, find out 5-10 minutes of it is shite, realize background music could help and before you know it you've spent several hours putting together a 1 hour or less podcast only to have to do the process again for the next recording.

Anonymous

I dunno. I think you're right to point out some examples of where people are too quick to cry censorship. You're probably also correct when you say it's not censorship when the artist "chooses" to remove/alter content. I think the argument really comes down to whether the artist really chose to alter their work, or whether they were coerced to alter it. You point out a case where the artist claimed they were doing it of the own volition, and it might be the truth, but there's the fear, with the new world of toxic internet mob-justice, that the artist is just trying to avoid being a target. Say a young feminist goes out to make a game to tackle some topic of feminism she finds personally meaningful. 4chan or some other dispenser of mob "justice" decide they don't like the idea and start a campaign against her. She makes the decision to change the theme and content of her game while preserving the core mechanics so as to avoid the vast ocean of negative and toxic comments about her work, and to salvage what she thought could still be an enjoyable and profitable title. Even though she knows it's not true, she decides to say there was no coercion and that the "controversial" content was only detracting from the experience of the game. I don't think anyone would blame her for doing so, but I think we could all agree it'd be a bad thing. Even if I didn't agree with the point of view she I'd still think the world is worse off for it being stifled. I'd call that self-censorship, although I don't think it matters what we call it. Now I'm not saying that the cases your talking about are like that, I'm just saying that's the fear that gets people riled up. I think in general it's easier to get wound up when you perceive it happening to someone who's agreeing with you rather than the other guy, but I'm not sure it's fair to say that the only reason people are upset is because they disagree with the change itself.

Anonymous

Great episode. I'd be confused if it were fans of YOU who has a hard time understanding the difference between editing and censorship.

Benjamin Hester

I find it funny that "SJW's" get the blame for nearly *everything* that happens in geek-powered industries. It could be anything, and somehow it's because of "pressure" from those darn [group you don't like]. I mean, just how powerful are these people that they can control companies in industries that thrive off of controversy and shock value? Also, I kind of laugh whenever people generically accuse "SJW's" of doing whatever it is they do. It's like the news talking about "the person known as 4chan" or something. At this point, it's literally just a phantom scapegoat entity people can blame so they don't have to feel bad about things they should feel bad about. After all, everything was fine until those goddam social justice warriors showed up! I mean, why would anyone voluntarily change his mind about anything after considering input from other viewpoints? It's madness! If you really want a good idea of how powerful "real" (by which I mean "the people who encapsulate the all the negativity and ineffectiveness we've been made to be so familiar with") SJW's are, take a look at the controversy surrounding Sean Penn's green card joke. Lots of reasonable opinions there; it's sure to make a difference.

Anonymous

I'm sorry, but the statement, "Free expression not only applies to the production of content. It can apply to the removal of content, too.", is badly put together, potentially dangerous, and extremely misleading. Of course, in general every person has the right to control their own message. And yes, that includes the right to decide whether something be publicised and how. However, this flows from the content creator's own right of free expression. Saying removal of content is covered by free expression, especially in the context where a company and likely an individual artist was under a lot of public pressure, is ultimately the wrong message to give out. I understand it was probably not the message Jim wanted to transmit, but it can nevertheless be understood in this way. Free expression does not give people the right to call for the removal of a piece of content, in fact it does the opposite. Free expression means that you have a right to transmit (like Jim does) what you have to say, what pictures, videos you want to publish, what ideas you want to express. Other people don't have to listen to you, but they don't get to silence you either. If you're calling for the removal of a piece of content, you're not making use of your freedom of expression, you're calling for the restriction of someone else's. The line between harsh criticism and calls for censorship is a blurry one, but conceptually, they're NOT the same. Further, calling fan feedback censorship, if only for the sake of argument, is simply ridiculous. If you wanted to make a mockery of the whole discussion Jim, well, you've managed it. Censorship is, in the widest sense, the removal of objectionable content. Calling for something to be changed in future, is not only NOT removal but more often than not given without any call for boycott or threat to the creator's business. Again, the audience has the right to focus their attention on something else, which they might do if their point of criticism is particularly grave. But I'm having trouble believing that this was the case with the contentious issue of spoilers in let's play video descriptions. Similarly, I'm having trouble believing that the comic book creator changed his opinion on the suitability of the cover entirely without the pressure of the public getting to him or her. If Ubisoft told us that their development teams integrated tower mechanics into their games on their own accord, without any sort of pressure, I wouldn't come to the conclusion that it was a coincidence either. Taking that statement at face value is, I think, too naive. We might never know what actually happened, whether DC pressured the artist, whether the public pressure got to the artist himself, whether the whole thing was a PR stunt, or whether the artist had severe doubts about the cover even before he or she submitted it to publishing. However, it just doesn't seem likely that public pressure did not play a part in the decision and the situation warrants a critical review of the statements. A shame that the video does not provide it.

Anonymous

That you are not naked is obvious Censorship and needs to stop! Is it Gavin who forces you to wear cloths?

Anonymous

Great episode. It's why I keep supporting...because regardless of my viewpoint, you provoke thought. People tend to label you as against the grain, but I'd say it misses the point and this episode captures that nicely. Just wish more people would actually read your literature before typing responses.

Anonymous
>>407420

"Saying removal of content is covered by free expression, especially in the context where a company and likely an individual artist was under a lot of public pressure, is ultimately the wrong message to give out." Uh, why? It absolutely is a part of freedom of expression. Not being forced to say something is just as important as not being forced to not say something. "Free expression does not give people the right to call for the removal of a piece of content, in fact it does the opposite." Absolute nonsense. Free expression absolutely gives you this right. "Further, calling fan feedback censorship, if only for the sake of argument, is simply ridiculous" But Jim does not do this. "Similarly, I'm having trouble believing that the comic book creator changed his opinion on the suitability of the cover entirely without the pressure of the public getting to him or her" Why isn't public opinion allowed to be a factor in a creator's decision? The artist in question says he made the choice willingly, and that's basically all that matters.

Anonymous

'now, i may be the perfect lifeform' - Oh Jim, you are a treasure,

Anonymous

Lol, the comedy potshots at Gavin had me crying on the floor.