The Death of Free Speech: Uber PC'ism-A further look

[michigancat]

Radio edits are government censorship for sure, but nothing like making a new version of Willy Wonka or the Bible

[catastrophe]

This is in no way censorship.

I feel like i'm in a twilight zone episode where everyone knows what the word "censorship" means except for me.

How is editing another person's work to remove language deemed offensive not censorship?

It’s not another person’s work.

It' not their work.  Does holding a copyright make you the author?

No but it sure as hell gives you the right to be the editor.

[Spracne]

This is in no way censorship.

I feel like i'm in a twilight zone episode where everyone knows what the word "censorship" means except for me.

How is editing another person's work to remove language deemed offensive not censorship?

It’s not another person’s work.

It' not their work.  Does holding a copyright make you the author?

No but it sure as hell gives you the right to be the editor.

Right. The key is you're not being coerced by an outside force, be it the government or a private pressure group. This post is directed at Dlewser.

[catastrophe]

This is in no way censorship.

I feel like i'm in a twilight zone episode where everyone knows what the word "censorship" means except for me.

How is editing another person's work to remove language deemed offensive not censorship?

It’s not another person’s work.

This conversation is bananas.

I think you’re just having an issue seeing this for what it is. What’s bananas is claiming that you’re being censored BY THE PERSON YOU SAID COULD DO WHAT THEY WANT WITH THE MATERIAL.

[DQ12]

This is in no way censorship.

I feel like i'm in a twilight zone episode where everyone knows what the word "censorship" means except for me.

How is editing another person's work to remove language deemed offensive not censorship?

It’s not another person’s work.

It' not their work.  Does holding a copyright make you the author?

No but it sure as hell gives you the right to be the editor.

Right. The key is you're not being coerced by an outside force, be it the government or a private pressure group. This post is directed at Dlewser.

I guess that would be a key point if these edits were made at the whim (divorced from any outside force) of Roald Dahl.  But they're not.  They're edits made by third parties (albeit the ones with uncontested rights to do so) to a dead guy's art so that the art is less offensive.  If you don't want to call that censorship we don't have to.

I don't know who holds the rights to The David, but I'd still think it was censorship if they decided to put a marble fig leaf over his nuts and dick and bush.

[DQ12]

This is in no way censorship.

I feel like i'm in a twilight zone episode where everyone knows what the word "censorship" means except for me.

How is editing another person's work to remove language deemed offensive not censorship?

It’s not another person’s work.

This conversation is bananas.

I think you’re just having an issue seeing this for what it is. What’s bananas is claiming that you’re being censored BY THE PERSON YOU SAID COULD DO WHAT THEY WANT WITH THE MATERIAL.

I never said I was being censored.  I said the original work is being censored...Dahl's work is being censored posthumously.  Is that where the confusion is?

[catastrophe]

I’ll try it simpler: at the point you give up the right to make changes to your work, you cannot be censored. It’s nonsensical.

[Rage Against the McKee]

dlew i think that how little you care about the original use of the word fat is equal to how little i care that they changed it to enormous.

We've all established that nobody thinks that the modifications in and of themselves are that big of a deal.  It's more the concept of modifying dead authors' works to make them less offensive/irreverent that I think is a little hairy.

I mean look at the Bible. Yikes

Translations are different. Tolstoy's books have some differences in translation. To me, the difference is that the translators are clearly identified on the book and it is made clear that you are reading a translation of Tolstoy's original work. If these books are being marketed as abridged versions of the original, then I don't really have a problem with them.

[DQ12]

I’ll try it simpler: at the point you give up the right to make changes to your work, you cannot be censored. It’s nonsensical.

So, as soon as the author of a work (music, painting, movie, literature, whatever) dies (or otherwise releases the rights), the work is immune from censorship?  Any modifications to it are just "edits" as distinct from "censorship"?  At least when the modifications are done by the rightsholder?

I really wasn't expecting this conversation to dovetail this way, but I gotta say I find it fascinating.

On the topic of censorship, if whoever owns the rights to Orwell's 1984 goes in and replaces every utterance of the word "eff" with "fudge" for future prints, you would view that as something other than "censorship"?

[michigancat]

dlew i think that how little you care about the original use of the word fat is equal to how little i care that they changed it to enormous.

We've all established that nobody thinks that the modifications in and of themselves are that big of a deal.  It's more the concept of modifying dead authors' works to make them less offensive/irreverent that I think is a little hairy.

I mean look at the Bible. Yikes

Translations are different. Tolstoy's books have some differences in translation. To me, the difference is that the translators are clearly identified on the book and it is made clear that you are reading a translation of Tolstoy's original work. If these books are being marketed as abridged versions of the original, then I don't really have a problem with them.

Do you think the only differences among bible versions are due to translations? That they are otherwise articulating the original authors' intents?

[Cartierfor3]

dlew i think that how little you care about the original use of the word fat is equal to how little i care that they changed it to enormous.

We've all established that nobody thinks that the modifications in and of themselves are that big of a deal.  It's more the concept of modifying dead authors' works to make them less offensive/irreverent that I think is a little hairy.

I mean look at the Bible. Yikes

say more about this

[Rage Against the McKee]

dlew i think that how little you care about the original use of the word fat is equal to how little i care that they changed it to enormous.

We've all established that nobody thinks that the modifications in and of themselves are that big of a deal.  It's more the concept of modifying dead authors' works to make them less offensive/irreverent that I think is a little hairy.

I mean look at the Bible. Yikes

Translations are different. Tolstoy's books have some differences in translation. To me, the difference is that the translators are clearly identified on the book and it is made clear that you are reading a translation of Tolstoy's original work. If these books are being marketed as abridged versions of the original, then I don't really have a problem with them.

Do you think the only differences among bible versions are due to translations? That they are otherwise articulating the original authors' intents?

Yeah. There aren't any important differences between any of the translations that I have seen. Some of them try to translate word-for-word and others try to translate phrase-for-phrase.

[michigancat]

dlew i think that how little you care about the original use of the word fat is equal to how little i care that they changed it to enormous.

We've all established that nobody thinks that the modifications in and of themselves are that big of a deal.  It's more the concept of modifying dead authors' works to make them less offensive/irreverent that I think is a little hairy.

I mean look at the Bible. Yikes

Translations are different. Tolstoy's books have some differences in translation. To me, the difference is that the translators are clearly identified on the book and it is made clear that you are reading a translation of Tolstoy's original work. If these books are being marketed as abridged versions of the original, then I don't really have a problem with them.

Do you think the only differences among bible versions are due to translations? That they are otherwise articulating the original authors' intents?

Yeah. There aren't any important differences between any of the translations that I have seen. Some of them try to translate word-for-word and others try to translate phrase-for-phrase.

Translate them from what?

[Rage Against the McKee]

dlew i think that how little you care about the original use of the word fat is equal to how little i care that they changed it to enormous.

We've all established that nobody thinks that the modifications in and of themselves are that big of a deal.  It's more the concept of modifying dead authors' works to make them less offensive/irreverent that I think is a little hairy.

I mean look at the Bible. Yikes

Translations are different. Tolstoy's books have some differences in translation. To me, the difference is that the translators are clearly identified on the book and it is made clear that you are reading a translation of Tolstoy's original work. If these books are being marketed as abridged versions of the original, then I don't really have a problem with them.

Do you think the only differences among bible versions are due to translations? That they are otherwise articulating the original authors' intents?

Yeah. There aren't any important differences between any of the translations that I have seen. Some of them try to translate word-for-word and others try to translate phrase-for-phrase.

Translate them from what?

Hebrew and Greek.

[Cartierfor3]

The interesting thing about the bible is most decent translations will note in footnotes something like "many early manuscripts do not have this" etc.

For instance in the NIV, at the end of Mark 16 it has this footnote:

Mark 16:8 Some manuscripts have the following ending between verses 8 and 9, and one manuscript has it after verse 8 (omitting verses 9-20): Then they quickly reported all these instructions to those around Peter. After this, Jesus himself also sent out through them from east to west the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation. Amen.

Many Biblical scholars are dedicating their entire lives to figuring out what words the original author wrote when there are disparities in manuscript evidence. I think that's pretty neat!

[michigancat]

dlew i think that how little you care about the original use of the word fat is equal to how little i care that they changed it to enormous.

We've all established that nobody thinks that the modifications in and of themselves are that big of a deal.  It's more the concept of modifying dead authors' works to make them less offensive/irreverent that I think is a little hairy.

I mean look at the Bible. Yikes

Translations are different. Tolstoy's books have some differences in translation. To me, the difference is that the translators are clearly identified on the book and it is made clear that you are reading a translation of Tolstoy's original work. If these books are being marketed as abridged versions of the original, then I don't really have a problem with them.

Do you think the only differences among bible versions are due to translations? That they are otherwise articulating the original authors' intents?

Yeah. There aren't any important differences between any of the translations that I have seen. Some of them try to translate word-for-word and others try to translate phrase-for-phrase.

Translate them from what?

Hebrew and Greek.

Yes but did the original authors write them down in Hebrew in Greek?

[Rage Against the McKee]

dlew i think that how little you care about the original use of the word fat is equal to how little i care that they changed it to enormous.

We've all established that nobody thinks that the modifications in and of themselves are that big of a deal.  It's more the concept of modifying dead authors' works to make them less offensive/irreverent that I think is a little hairy.

I mean look at the Bible. Yikes

Translations are different. Tolstoy's books have some differences in translation. To me, the difference is that the translators are clearly identified on the book and it is made clear that you are reading a translation of Tolstoy's original work. If these books are being marketed as abridged versions of the original, then I don't really have a problem with them.

Do you think the only differences among bible versions are due to translations? That they are otherwise articulating the original authors' intents?

Yeah. There aren't any important differences between any of the translations that I have seen. Some of them try to translate word-for-word and others try to translate phrase-for-phrase.

Translate them from what?

Hebrew and Greek.

Yes but did the original authors write them down in Hebrew in Greek?

Seems most likely.

[Cartierfor3]

Depends on the book but archeological evidence would suggest almost all of the New Testament was written in Greek. Matthew might have been Aramaic and Hebrews might have been Hebrew. But the Paulian letters were almost certainly written in Greek, likely any writing attributed to John was also, as was Luke and Acts.

The Old testament was most likely written in Hebrew, but we're talking about many books written hundreds of years apart.

[Cartierfor3]

The discovery of things like the Dead Sea Scrolls show that certain books of the bible were being translated into Greek and Aramaic by ancient Jews. Where there are text variances that's where scholars have their work cut out for them!

[Spracne]

I have many thoughts about the translations, retranslations, reretranslations of the Bible, etc. But that probably deserves its own thread.

[Cartierfor3]

I have many thoughts about the translations, retranslations, reretranslations of the Bible, etc. But that probably deserves its own thread.

would be interesting.

[Gooch]

Apparently it is a short walk from Willy Wonka to Jesus.

[michigancat]

dlew i think that how little you care about the original use of the word fat is equal to how little i care that they changed it to enormous.

We've all established that nobody thinks that the modifications in and of themselves are that big of a deal.  It's more the concept of modifying dead authors' works to make them less offensive/irreverent that I think is a little hairy.

I mean look at the Bible. Yikes

Translations are different. Tolstoy's books have some differences in translation. To me, the difference is that the translators are clearly identified on the book and it is made clear that you are reading a translation of Tolstoy's original work. If these books are being marketed as abridged versions of the original, then I don't really have a problem with them.

Do you think the only differences among bible versions are due to translations? That they are otherwise articulating the original authors' intents?

Yeah. There aren't any important differences between any of the translations that I have seen. Some of them try to translate word-for-word and others try to translate phrase-for-phrase.

Translate them from what?

Hebrew and Greek.

Yes but did the original authors write them down in Hebrew in Greek?

Seems most likely.

Seems like a lot of it was passed down orally!

[catastrophe]

I’ll try it simpler: at the point you give up the right to make changes to your work, you cannot be censored. It’s nonsensical.

So, as soon as the author of a work (music, painting, movie, literature, whatever) dies (or otherwise releases the rights), the work is immune from censorship?  Any modifications to it are just "edits" as distinct from "censorship"?  At least when the modifications are done by the rightsholder?

I really wasn't expecting this conversation to dovetail this way, but I gotta say I find it fascinating.

On the topic of censorship, if whoever owns the rights to Orwell's 1984 goes in and replaces every utterance of the word "eff" with "fudge" for future prints, you would view that as something other than "censorship"?

As far as “anytime they die,” I don’t necessarily think that’s the case here. Not my expertise at all, but I’d sure expect that an artist could make arrangements to ensure their work isn’t tampered with after they die.

And otherwise, yes. If you give those rights away (not being coerced of course), you have no space to complain when the rightful holder changes them as they see fit. What else is the point of ownership vs licensing?

You don’t see me claiming censorship when I sell my house and the new owner takes down the Ernie Barret replica statue I had in the courtyard. It’s up to the new owner’s completely terrible tastes.

[Rage Against the McKee]

I’ll try it simpler: at the point you give up the right to make changes to your work, you cannot be censored. It’s nonsensical.

So, as soon as the author of a work (music, painting, movie, literature, whatever) dies (or otherwise releases the rights), the work is immune from censorship?  Any modifications to it are just "edits" as distinct from "censorship"?  At least when the modifications are done by the rightsholder?

I really wasn't expecting this conversation to dovetail this way, but I gotta say I find it fascinating.

On the topic of censorship, if whoever owns the rights to Orwell's 1984 goes in and replaces every utterance of the word "eff" with "fudge" for future prints, you would view that as something other than "censorship"?

As far as “anytime they die,” I don’t necessarily think that’s the case here. Not my expertise at all, but I’d sure expect that an artist could make arrangements to ensure their work isn’t tampered with after they die.

And otherwise, yes. If you give those rights away (not being coerced of course), you have no space to complain when the rightful holder changes them as they see fit. What else is the point of ownership vs licensing?

You don’t see me claiming censorship when I sell my house and the new owner takes down the Ernie Barret replica statue I had in the courtyard. It’s up to the new owner’s completely terrible tastes.

What are your thoughts on the new owner telling everyone that you are responsible for his horrible design?