Post Reply
Page 2 of 2  •  Prev 1 2
Switch to Forum Live View Censoring John Lennon
3 years ago  ::  Jan 06, 2012 - 11:20PM #11
mountain_man
Posts: 38,769

Jan 6, 2012 -- 10:17PM, Bunsinspace wrote:

...So changing something by adding something which changes the fundamental meaning may not technically be considered censorship,...


That's my whole argument. To call what this guy did censorship is absurd. Telling him that he cannot do so IS censorship.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jan 07, 2012 - 2:25PM #12
Bunsinspace
Posts: 5,900

Jan 6, 2012 -- 11:20PM, mountain_man wrote:


That's my whole argument. To call what this guy did censorship is absurd. Telling him that he cannot do so IS censorship.





BS"D


That's not what he did.  He deleted John Lennon's words and replaced them with something exactly opposite.  That IS censorship.  He DELETED the message.  He CENSORED John Lennon's message in the song in a most insideous manner. 


The pigs did the same thing in Animal Farm.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jan 07, 2012 - 2:39PM #13
Bunsinspace
Posts: 5,900

BS"D


If I added another word to George Carlin's monologue "The Seven Words You Can Never Say On TV" that would NOT constitute censorship.  If, OTOH, I REPLACED all seven words with words such as peace, love, decency, integrity, wellbeing, health and purpose that WOULD constitute censorship.  It is not simply a case of changing the meaning of the monologue, it is the intentional deletion of the original words that is the censorship.  In the exact same way Lennon's words were censored by intentional deletion in the format of substitution.  A case might be made IMHO for substitution were it not for the annoying fact that the words being substituted are the polar opposite in meaning to the ones deleted.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jan 07, 2012 - 3:52PM #14
BillThinks4Himself
Posts: 3,205

Jan 6, 2012 -- 11:20PM, mountain_man wrote:

Jan 6, 2012 -- 10:17PM, Bunsinspace wrote:

...So changing something by adding something which changes the fundamental meaning may not technically be considered censorship,...


That's my whole argument. To call what this guy did censorship is absurd. Telling him that he cannot do so IS censorship.




Who's telling him he can't do it?  He has already done it.  We're simply commenting on what he did - which was to take out John Lennon's "no religion too" and replace it with "all religion's true."

If the Coen Brothers have a movie - such as Fargo - and it's playing on network TV - and the network takes out the F word and replaces it with "heck," are you really going to tell me that it's not censorship?

Read a dictionary, MountainMan.  Censorship is not confined to telling somebody he can't say something.  It includes a wider variety of behavior, including the Bush Administration's attempt to fine Janet Jackson and CBS for a wardrobe malfunction that had already happened.

What the FCC did was censorship.
What this rapper did was censorship.

Commenting on what happened, after the fact, is not censorship.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jan 07, 2012 - 6:58PM #15
mountain_man
Posts: 38,769

Jan 7, 2012 -- 3:52PM, BillThinks4Himself wrote:

Who's telling him he can't do it? He has already done it.


Just like John Lennon cannot be censored since he as already said it. Since there is no concerted effort to erase what Lennon wrote, calling the changing of a few words 'censorship' is absurd.


We're simply commenting on what he did....


No, you're whining about it since you did not like the changing of a few words. It's such whining, and bogus arguments that go along with it, that make all Humanists look bad. I do not like the word choice but the guy had every right to do so and I sincerely defend that right.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jan 08, 2012 - 12:37AM #16
BillThinks4Himself
Posts: 3,205

Jan 7, 2012 -- 6:58PM, mountain_man wrote:

Jan 7, 2012 -- 3:52PM, BillThinks4Himself wrote:

Who's telling him he can't do it? He has already done it.


Just like John Lennon cannot be censored since he as already said it. Since there is no concerted effort to erase what Lennon wrote, calling the changing of a few words 'censorship' is absurd.


We're simply commenting on what he did....


No, you're whining about it since you did not like the changing of a few words. It's such whining, and bogus arguments that go along with it, that make all Humanists look bad. I do not like the word choice but the guy had every right to do so and I sincerely defend that right.




Mountain Man, I don't know what has gotten you so worked up.  While I feel you're in no position to accuse anybody of whining, I'm frankly grateful that you have the passion to keep the board lit up with fresh postings, even if that makes me the target of your anger.

If it's any consolation to the Humanists, they can excommunicate me from the group, or at least cut off my subscription as I don't consider myself a "Humanist" with a capital "H."  Having attempted to parse the committee-style language of the manifestos, I'd just as soon remain unaffiliated for the unforeseeable future.  If I'm going to give any group a bad name, I'd just as soon it be people with my last name.

As for whether Lennon is being censored, so much of the question depends on how you define censorship and whether you think changing song lyrics, to avoid offending people, is a form of censorship.  I don't think all censorship is necessarily bad.  People inhibit themselves all the time, often out of a sense of self-preservation.  I, myself, don't talk politics with a boss whose views are different from my own.  If I think my religious beliefs - or a lack of them - are going to offend somebody, I don't force a conflict - though I'll be happy to share if someone crosses that Rubicon first. 

If you're Robin Williams and you're on HBO, you say things you may not find yourself saying on broadcast TV or in a Disney movie.  That's restraint.

The changing of John Lennon's lyrics - to go from "no religion, too" to "all religion's true," is a pretty dramatic switch.  One has to wonder why anyone would sing that song and then change its lyrics?  The assumption is that the lyrics were changed to avoid offense.  As doing so flipped an openly atheistic message to turn it into an ecumenical message problem all religion as "true," those who caught the change had every right to ask, "What gives?"

Nobody has called for this man's head on a platter.  He has since issued a statement claiming he changed the words - that the decision was not thrust upon him - but people are free to use their own common sense in deciding whether those words were accidentally flipped.  No one has accused the network of censorship.  So far, the questions have rested on why this particular artist would take one of Lennon's most memorable songs - a song known primarily for its lyrics and message - and then change the meaning of that message, and change it in one specific area, to reverse one particular line.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jan 08, 2012 - 9:39AM #17
BillThinks4Himself
Posts: 3,205

Even without the most obvious - and apparently "offensive" - line intact, Imagine makes a case for atheism.  People who sing the song, thinking they've given it a "PG-13" rating by cutting out "no religion, too" are just deceiving themselves.  You can redline the offending passage, even replace it with an actual endorsement of religion.  You still end up with a song that gently advocates atheism as one of several shifts in thinking that would make the world a better place.


Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people living for today

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people living life in peace

You, you may say 
I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
I hope some day you'll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people sharing all the world

You, you may say 
I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
I hope some day you'll join us
And the world will live as one

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jan 08, 2012 - 11:54AM #18
mountain_man
Posts: 38,769

Jan 8, 2012 -- 12:37AM, BillThinks4Himself wrote:

Mountain Man, I don't know what has gotten you so worked up.


I find it very revealing that you assume that I am "so worked up" just because I have the temerity to disagree with you.


While I feel you're in no position to accuse anybody of whining,.....


And you have no position to whine about censorship.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jan 08, 2012 - 3:58PM #19
BillThinks4Himself
Posts: 3,205

Jan 8, 2012 -- 11:54AM, mountain_man wrote:

Jan 8, 2012 -- 12:37AM, BillThinks4Himself wrote:

Mountain Man, I don't know what has gotten you so worked up.


I find it very revealing that you assume that I am "so worked up" just because I have the temerity to disagree with you.


While I feel you're in no position to accuse anybody of whining,.....


And you have no position to whine about censorship.




I have no reason to call it censorship except that the singer replaced the original words "no religion too" with "all religion's true."  The new lyrics aren't part of the original song.  They don't go with the original song.  The only artistic reason i can see for inserting them is to exclude the original lyrics, which some considered offensive.  Removing offensive lyrics from a song is obviously censorship.

Pointing it out isn't whining.

As for your "temerity" in disagreeing with me, the mere fact that you have gotten so worked up about it that you're accusing the rest of us of "whining" pretty much speaks for itself.

Be well.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 2 of 2  •  Prev 1 2
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook