News   Nov 28, 2024
Wallace Emerson Community Centre Growing Beside Galleria on the Park
 182     0 
News   Nov 28, 2024
27-Storey Tower on Queen West Proposed North of Future King-Liberty GO
 597     1 
News   Nov 28, 2024
Drone Flights Capture Sub-Grade Construction at Cielo Condos
 603     0 

Harper Tories to Cut Funding for "Offensive" Films

jefferiah said:
No it isn't. That is a highly flawed comparison. The Soviet Union was a society dominated by public funding. Independent artists were censored and often imprisoned. No one is saying that films with explicit content is banned, but that it is not the governments job to fund them. That actually makes complete sense to me. I am sure that, since education is in the public domain in most western nations, some funding in the USA must also go to educational films as opposed to other genres. Where the USA is not funding the production of most other films, no one would call it censorship. I am sure perhaps there can be funding for cultural ventures like a ballet or something like that (even though I would rather not spend my tax dollars on that). But no one would call it censorship if the USA does not fund the making of the movie Jackass. The government is not deciding what is appropriate to view, but what is appropriate to fund. The same way we can determine what is and what isn't appropriate language in a public funded school. Makes a lot of sense to me.

Nice try with the scaremonegering, MTL, but completely unreasonable.

In response to the person who said he would like a Canadian voice out there---What is and is not Canadian culture can easily be determined by a democratic decision by the consumer on the free market? If more Canadians choose to view CSI than Little Mosque, then CSI is more indicative of Canadian cultural tastes.
Click to expand...

Tax credits (because that's what we are talking about here) are not to be confused with regular government art fundings. Tax Credits is first and foremost an economic incentive and it does exist also in the USA. Many American states are in direct competition with Canadian provinces to get movie shoots by offering tax credits. And believe me, they won’t mind in Arizona or Florida if the 100$ millions movie production coming to town has explicit violence or sex in it. They look at the numbers, not the script.
 
MartinMtl said:
Tax credits (because that's what we are talking about here) are not to be confused with regular government art fundings. Tax Credits is first and foremost an economic incentive and it does exist also in the USA. Many American states are in direct competition with Canadian provinces to get movie shoots by offering tax credits. And believe me, they won’t mind in Arizona or Florida if the 100$ millions movie production coming to town has explicit violence or sex in it. They look at the numbers, not the script.
Click to expand...

Even with it being an issue of tax credits, it is still not censorship, nor is it in anyway comparable to the old Soviet Union. Again more apt comparisons would be made with things like the HRCs or CRTC which can actually punish you or censor you and dictate your content. They have not passed a law which dictates the content of movies or bans content.
 
jefferiah said:
It's not censorship period. There is nothing being censored.
Click to expand...

so i guess there will be no more crime stoppers reenactments on TV because it uses public funds and shows violent situations?

will the CBC still be allowed to report the news?
 
Prometheus The Supremo said:
so i guess there will be no more crime stoppers reenactments on TV because it uses public funds and shows violent situations?

will the CBC still be allowed to report the news?
Click to expand...

Now you are just being ridiculous. And you know it Prometheus. There will be no tax breaks for things like "Young People Fucking". That does not mean its banned or censored. And if you can't tell the difference between something like that and a crime stoppers ad or the news, then you have a problem.

But if you are pissed off about the enforcement of PCness, you should direct more attention to entities such as the HRC or the CRTC. Because this decision does not enforce any sort of PCness. There is nothing illegal about making a violent film with the most gory content. There is no attempt to stop anyone from viewing such material. All that happens here is they don't get a tax credit. The inalienable right to free speech does not include an inalienable right to tax credits.

However with things like the HRC people can be brought before a tribunal which does not consist of judges. They can be charged for saying offensive things. The process itself is punishment enough even if the defendant wins the tribunal, because he can be set back a great deal in legal fees, without recompense. The CRTC actually does have the power to censor content and dictate. They decide how much Canadian content you ought to have. In some cases they have told private radio stations that they must include a certain percentage of certain types of cultural programming. These are real breeches of fundamental freedoms.
 
He is being ridiculous, but it's also being ridiculous to claim that this isn't an attempt at censorship. Moreover, it's much more insidious than a law banning specific content. It means that pretty much any Canadian filmmaker can be bankrupted on the whim of a handful of Harper appointees.
 
unimaginative2 said:
He is being ridiculous, but it's also being ridiculous to claim that this isn't an attempt at censorship.
Click to expand...

What is being censored?

Personally I think it is an attempt to seperate the government from things like Young People Fucking. Stuff like this has nothing to do with the vital functions of government.
 
unimaginative2 said:
Moreover, it's much more insidious than a law banning specific content. It means that pretty much any Canadian filmmaker can be bankrupted on the whim of a handful of Harper appointees.
Click to expand...

They won't be taxed if they don't make money. And if they do profit, thats where tax comes in. It's the same for everyone else in life. Net profit is taxed. He is not passing a bill which allows him to raise taxes against these film makers. You cannot just bankrupt them.
 
unimaginative2 said:
Moreover, it's much more insidious than a law banning specific content. QUOTE]

This has to be the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Banning something is making it illegal and taking away the fundamental freedom to free speech. Not giving perks to something is not taking away a vital freedom.
Click to expand...
 
jefferiah said:
Now you are just being ridiculous. And you know it Prometheus. There will be no tax breaks for things like "Young People Fucking". That does not mean its banned or censored. And if you can't tell the difference between something like that and a crime stoppers ad or the news, then you have a problem.
Click to expand...

but it fits the criteria.

both use tax dollars, both reenact a situation of violence. one you can use to find criminals and one you can use to show the negative effects of crime & violence.

i honestly hope that a producer tries to make a film about the life of jesus using those government tax credits. i would like to see if this evangelist would request this movie not be funded because it shows a man getting nailed to a cross and being tortured.

if showing a murdered man nailed to two pieces of wood is acceptable but showing something similarly grotesque is unacceptable because it's not religous, something is wrong.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top