My first reaction was to say that if cersorship was abolished altogether, no director would need to make split second decisions about when to cut someone off.

At the same time, I admit that I wouldn’t be comfortable with a speech that was just a string of obsenities Nor would I like to hear a campaign speech at an entertainment awards cerremony. So, I’m kind of torn between a deep dislike for censorship and an appreciation for what is proper.
The trouble is, of course, that what is proper means something different to different people

I’m not offended by the occasional curse, or the sight of a woman’s breast. Even a reasonably brief political statement is okay by me. But- and there’s the ‘but’- there are limits.
There are limits even at TMV, as we see by the very sensible comment code, which has proved to be necessary in order to prevent an exchange of insults replacing discussions.

I guess we’ll just keep on arguing about censorship and speech codes, because no rules can be found that suit everyone.

For the accusation of Fox political censorship to stand the following assumptions must be true.

1. Fox would have cut her off even if she has said this (1 word removed): ” If mothers ruled the world, there would be no wars in the first place.”

2. That goddamned couldn’t have been the reason because the FCC hasn’t specifically banned it. I might remind people that networks, particularly the big three, are a bit sensitive since ever since a booby popped out in another live show.

Sally did not say anything about the Iraq war. She was talking about wars in general. Such comments are fairly common in these kinds of shows. The broadcast was time-lagged and was cut of right at god-damned – that should tell you something.

Now, let’s look at it from the network’s perspective, where the director only has about 5 seconds to make a decision to cut it off or not. Now, one might reasonably assume that in the current environment, and given recent history of live broadcasts, that god-damned might only be the beginning of more and so rather than risk it, they cut it off. One might reasonably argue that if Fox intended to censor political speach that they’d hit the cut button at “wars” instead. But such reasonable assumptions are dismissed along with people’s critical thinking skills in a mad dash to make this a political “issue.”

I think most know what Miss Fields meant. We dont carry and bring
children into this world and dedicate all the years of raising them, protecting, educating, teaching, loving them into fullest being,including getting sideways with them once in a
while, in order to give our young to deadend wars run by old
men….

And, just some levity; If mother’s ruled the world,
some of our mothers would have to be taken out of
the equation because they were, are and would be on the
rampage alllllll the time.
dr.e

What, no love for the nations biggest news service?

You boys just have to fight about everything!

Of course a mother wouldn’t want their child to be killed in a war nor killed at all. Sally Field was speaking to the mother “choir”. This censorship is just plain silly stupid.

If the idea is to prevent it from going out on the airwaves, the next day the incident will be all over the news, in newspapers and flash across the increasingly influential and demographically youthful Internet like a lightning bolt.

Well, what would be a fair test of this assertion?

Should we consider appearances in ThinkProgress, HuffPo, Daily Kos and Crooks and Liars (in additon to those above) as validating?

How about we look at the home page of CNN? Actually, how about we look at the “entertainment” page of CNN? ……..what??? not there????? How can this be?????????

You don’t think Bill O’ would be mean to the flying nun do you!

How would William Donohue deal with the cognitive dissonence?

(H/T to Think Progress)
As per custom, Sally Field began her acceptance speech for “Best Drama Actress” at the Emmys by thanking this guy, that guy, this gal, that gal, etc., etc., etc. Then, she appears to lose her composure for a few mom…

If she had said ‘No surrender”, would that have been okay?

A more apropos question might be “If she had said ‘No surrender’, and that was censored, would it be OK?

Personally, if any movie or TV star gets up at an awards show and wants to toss in an anti- or pro-war statement, that’s fine by me. I may not agree with the celebrity, but I’ll never support the idea that they should be censored for a political statement. Political censorship scares me more than the opinion of a celebrity.

I’m not sure that an awards ceremony for an entertainment indurstry is an appropriate venue for political statements, but people like Sally Field take the responsibility for the reaction.
If politics is forbidden, then that should be make clear in a policy statement before the ceremony. Censoring after the fact just draws attention of the problems with censorhsip per se. That’s something that should be discussed in its own right.

If she had said ‘No surrender”, would that have been okay?