BBC pulled Little Britain
HBO pulled content too
Now Netflix Australia pulled Chris Lilley’s shows
https://www.smh.com.au/culture/tv-and-radio/netflix-removes-…
Political Correct Censorship of Entertainment Streaming Services
00 on 11/06/2020 - 08:11
Last edited 11/06/2020 - 08:12
Last edited 11/06/2020 - 08:12
Poll Options
- 3Censor anything that may tarnish the media service brand
- 10Censor only government legislated illegal content
- 157Censor nothing but clearly label and define content
Comments
more a fan of Little Britain tbh
You’ll take my concrete Aboriginal in the garden from my cold, dead hands!
Puck you sir
Summer Heights High was definitely his peak, good series though.
They should clearly label that it is offensive and doesn't reflect the current environment.
Whoopi Goldberg says it well in the Looney Tunes collection "because removing these inexcusable images and jokes from this collection would be the same as saying [these prejudices] never existed"
That being said, Little Britain was less than 20 years ago and having black face then was inexcusable, regardless it being a joke.
Harry & Paul was ~10 years ago but Enfield impersonating Nelson Mandela was funny af.
The character would suffer without the makeup and costume.Ir's a shame that artistic expression is such an easy mark when emotions are heightened.
Only inoffensive comedy should be allowed. Please make me a list of the best inoffensive comedies.
jim jefferies, when will it die
Bill bur: no reason to hit a women
I'm not saying you should do it…. But there are plenty of reasons.
As the poll is starting to indicate, the problem appears to be with the Australian Classification Board rather than the content makers.
If material was labelled appropriately, those that want to could avoid the items that may cause offence.What does the Australian Classification Board have to do with the BBC and HBO, neither of which broadcast in this country?
Good point; I was focused on the poll option:
"Censor nothing but clearly label and define content"
and how that could / should be handled here.
The poll options are not helpful, all 3 options are problematic.
a) So we're trusting facebook, foxnews and Disney to decide; thats how we got to herer
b) Govts censor for politics not necessarily harm, you want Scotty deciding what you can watch? *
c) Clearly unsustainable answer though a runaway OzzieB poll leader. CPron on Channel 10 with a warning? Yeah right.
- Small example: I grew up listening to Gerry Adams being voiced by an actor because he was a "terrorist", it didn't stop his words being broadcast on TV or a the government negotiating a cease fire with his boys. Now it turns out he wasn't a terrorist anyway as the government ballsed up the paperwork and his convictions have been overturned.
There is "offensive" and there is illegal. You are getting the two mixed up.
so the gov could make something illegal because it doesn’t fit their political viewpoint
@00: I think in this instance, what the above poster was talking about is illegal because the community at large deem it abhorrent.
Nope.
@LauralHardy: Yep. Cp cannot be shown because it is illegal, not because the censorship board has deemed it can't be shown.
Is that really the loophole they used because of his affiliation, or was it to use a softer accent, more pleasing to the ear?
Like I was thinking along the lines of what older Looney Tunes have - a disclaimer saying that this content could be triggering and the content contains racial stereotypes that are bad. A bit like when you get a M rated film or TV show where the network tells you that this content contains violence and sex. Or "Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander viewers are reminded that this content contains image and sound of people who have passed away."
Political correctness washing of history.
How ridiculous. The usual problem with serious blackface (as in - the joke is not the fact that their face is black), is that they should have hired a black actor. The point of Chris Lilleys shows is that he is playing the all of the characters. It's hilariously offensive in reverse furthermore, saying that any portrayal of someone, not done by another person who is almost identical, is somehow morally wrong. This is what we get for letting a US company come in and decide, context-less, that a great piece of original Australian content is somehow offensive. F uck off.
What amuses me is that countries who are openly racist and hate blacks (looking at you China!) can go around calling countries like Australia racist. Ffs, people in glass houses…
Off-topic perhaps?
Ffs, people in glass houses…
More a case of the kettle calling the pot black ( no pun intended). A 10-year long study found that 3 out of 4 Australians are biased against Indigenous Australians.
A racist can still call out another for being a racist; it isn't mutually exclusive.
Ditto for murderers, pedophiles, rapists, wife/husband bashers, kidnappers, burglars, thieves, shoplifters, and dare I say fellow Ozbargainers, those who have committed a traffic offense and been ‘unfairly’ fined.
@Ozpit: Hey!, I was doing 30 over the limit but that cop was condensending, should i take it all the way to the high court? /s
That's not a link to a study…
@[Deactivated]: I see it like dating preferences. I agree with the statement.
"A person may not necessarily be able to control that [bias], but they do have agency and choice."
"So whether or not a person acts upon that, will determine whether or not they engage in racist or discriminatory actions."
@ozhunter: Go and watch Meyne Wyatt's firsthand account of what it's like to be an Aboriginal Australian and then come and tell me it's like your dating life…
@[Deactivated]: We don't have any racial discriminatory laws here. On a societal level, it's to say you were discriminated against purely based on your race.
If I got rejected for a date, didn't get the job offer, or not get invited to an event, there is a possibility it could be due to my race or something else unrelated.
Aboriginals do seem to get the shorter end of the stick compared to other races, but you can't exactly force everyone to like each other.
Why can't they just repackage Little Britain without any of the blackface sketches?
I don't support censoring the artistic outputs. It is what it is.
In the case of Little Britain, and some of the other series mentioned, the content is obviously intended to provoke reactions from viewers. They achieved that. Some people are more offended than others, but if it were labelled appropriately it wouldn't be such of an issue.
If 80% of Nationals A are lying, would it be Racist to call A liars?
If 80% of Nationals B are only intent on getting your money, would calling Bs thieves be racist?
If 80% of criminals are Nationals C, is it racist to call Cs criminals?Some people call it racism, some call it prejudice. Prejudice is for people on the cautious side.
I mean, would a white person walking in a pub, with only people of dark skin, be perfectly fine? Would you.I walked ( unknowingly ) in a pub full of Bikies in Amsterdam, even bumped into one, and you know what? Nothing happened.
I walked into a shop in Gran Canaria ( long time ago ) and managed to hustle the price for a videocamera down to $200, when I came back with the money,
the Indian seller, refused to acknowledge the deal.Where is the racism here?
Which comedy series is that from?
"It's my life"
I'm waiting for ABC to drop the Black Comedy series, or edit out the Brooke Satchwell character.
Ay you don't mess with Tiffani cuz
I polled "Censor nothing but clearly label and define content" but here's the thing - Netflix removing the content is categorically not censorship. They are a private company so they can do w/e the frick they want.
it is still self censorship
a book publisher refusing to print an authors works is still censorship
It’s just not government censorship
Okay, I guess if we stretch the meaning of censorship, sure. But here's the thing … Netflix chose to remove the content, my bruv. SSsssooooo it isn't censorship.
A private company makes moves to improve their profit, market share etc - and protect their brand.
They explicitly removed content for one of these reasons. Due to the perception (accurate or not) that keeping it would be a liability to them. More importantly, removing it also sends a signal to the market.
I suppose it is the reason as to why they chose to.
Society says we can't put some make-up on to change the colour of our skin for comedy, but we can still bomb the crap out of people with different coloured skin. We can't use racial stereotypes in comedy but we can dehumanise a group of people by calling them terrorists. We can make excuses for war but not for comedy.
I thought Brooke Boney summed it up well on the Today Show (surprisingly) that the censorship of these shows isn't what's actually required, it's more accurate and true representations of our society in media that's required. It's have more BIPOC on our TV shows. Getting rid of these shows won't really achieve that.
Better download White Chicks before that gets axed too! Terry Crews performance is hilarious.
That would be white facing. Nothing wrong with that… yet.
I wonder if the Goodies Rolf Harris episode can ever be shown again. It was a classic.
What bothers me is that this is just symbolic, low hanging fruit, I feel pretty confident people marching in the BLM movement were not angry at how they were represented in the Mighty Boosh.
I have no major objection to removing TV shows (or adding warnings) if elements of them are problematic but in the UK I am confident that the BBC, who are so moved by BLM to remove Little Britain, will still be happy to wheel out Nigel Farage every second day to spout his racist rhetoric, which is far more insidious.
Apparently they've banned Gone With the Wind also.
https://www.thechronicle.com.au/news/hollywood-classic-pulle…
As one poster put it.
"1984 “Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book has been rewritten…every statue and street and building has been renamed, every date has altered. And that process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped.” "
Apparently they've banned Gone With the Wind also.
Funnily enough, that is the first movie than an African American won an Oscar.
Funnily enough, the decision to censor that movie, and all the others, was made by a group of 'progressive-thinking' white men.
That's not funny lol. It's sad. Who do you think they are trying to appease?
Vrtue-signalling is praised by 'progressives' it makes them feel good.
As time passes, certain books will start disappearing from library bookshelves, then an increasing number of authors will find it impossible to have their books published, then there will be communal book bonfires, then bookshops will start beIng raided by the police, then people will be ostracized/fined/jailed for owning/reading particular books… as time passes, certain films and TV shows will no longer be shown, then certain film and TV content will not be made, then… then… then before long we will live in a different world.
I dont use this streaming crap and for those who I know that do, I recommend they Boycott and dont use these services in aid of Pushing back to give them a hint.
What is next, they then tell everybody how to vote, what to wear or what to eat and speak? Disgusting in every way, imho!
The only thing that political correctness has going for it is that it forces racists to become poets.The way they weave euphemisms , alliterations and rhyming couplets on the daily, would put even Shakespeare to shame :P
1) Classification boards, distributors, TV networks, et al have censored/banned movies since at least the 1930s (see "Pre-code", "Hays Code"). It's definitely more of an American thing than a European thing and Australia has been American in this regard. It's also been regional (I recall the Bad Taste VHS with "Banned in Queensland" on the front cover).
2) The 'problem', according to a lot of people, is that it's either limiting our freedoms or it’s ideologically-motivated censorship. Today they blame political correctness; a few decades ago it was Christian groups. It's not a new thing, there's just a different set of beliefs some active people want to uphold. In 2003 Margeret Pomeranz was detained by the police protesting the banning of Ken Park (which is still ‘refused classification’) and she’s a hero because of it. In history anti-censorship ideas has been leftwing/progressive but these days ‘remove X off Netflix’ is motivated by self-identified leftists/progressives. This IS new. A couple years ago the likes of Jerry Seinfeld, John Cleese and many others were publicly anti-political correct. I don’t believe they would be today, not that they’ve changed their minds, but because the twitter mobs are simply too annoying (on both sides of the issue). Mob mentality is a hell of a thing.
3) Who’s removing content? It’s the businesses that own the rights, making business decisions. Business decisions have never been, and never will be, moral - especially if they’re made for publicly moral reasons. They’re simply opportunistic. Anything that ‘helps’ the brand. Certain forms of bad publicity also helps the brand. Simply talking about this helps the brand. Clickbait 101.
4) So now you might have the desire to watch Chris Lilley for the first time in your life but you feel you don’t have the 'opportunity' anymore because your 'freedom' has been limited. Well, check out JustWatch.com and see what other platform has it. Or check the catalogue for your local library system. How cool is that - now you have the opportunity to expand your accessibility! Limiting your viewing to Free to Air and Netflix is sad.
3) I'm surprised so many people voted for "clearly label and define content". Like, to what degree? Aren't you afraid of spoilers? Or, at the very least, unintended expectations? But I hate watching a trailer of the film I'm about to watch (I know many people do this to gage interest). To be clear, I like knowing something is R and has “Medium Level Sex Scene” but I have noticed in certain places the content warnings are getting more specific these days, warning the show you’re about to watch contains rape or suicide.
Saying that, I miss when Aussie TV stations did this:
There should never be any censorship just suitable classification, eg for age, and perhaps a warning where necessary that says something like "when this was made this language, image, etc was acceptable" or "this is a historical drama when people …."
OK, now they've gone too far.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/jun/11/fawlty-towers-…
An episode of Fawlty Towers famous for coining the phrase, “Don’t mention the war!” has become the latest “classic” British television programme to be taken down from a BBC-owned streaming service, as broadcasters continue to conduct a reappraisal of old British television content.
The episode of the 1970s sitcom – in which John Cleese as Basil Fawlty goose-steps around a Torquay hotel while shouting the phrase – was recently removed from the BBC-controlled UKTV catch-up service.
It is unclear what prompted the company to stop streaming the episode, which culminates in Cleese’s character making comments about the second world war to a German family.
The original broadcast also included a scene in which Major Gowen, a regular guest at the hotel, uses very strong racist language in relation to an anecdote about the West Indies cricket team. A decade ago many broadcasters began editing out this part of the programme, although the racist language can still be heard on the version hosted by Netflix.
Thanks God for DVD's and non-corporate viewing options. We've also been re-watching married with children lately, It's amazing to sit there as a family and have everyone actually laughing again. It's been years since TV 'comedies' have been able to do that now that the PC nazi's (don't mention the war!)have turned EVERYTHING into one bland shade of beige. Though I do give credit to the currently screening What We Do In the Shadows, a shining jewel in an ocean of TV garbage at the moment.
My wife just reminded me that Sybil's doctor was black, and Basil did a double-take at that, plus some (possibly) race-based comment relating to that issue. We're about to fire up the DVD…
Sounds about right. So what?
- Basil physically recoils from West-Indian doctor in hospital.
- Major uses N-word a few times in reception.
- Basil effectively mentions UK entry to the EU.
I think the last one would have offended the Johnson government most. Given Germany is the economic powerhaus they are, it's a stinging reminder to the Brexit Bunch.
"How did they win the war?"
How indeed.
Referencing the war isn't allowed, but how many times did he beat the crap out of Manuel?
Kind of interesting that people think that nothing should be censored; should this create an obligation on content providers to serve problematic legal content?
You'd have to assume that censorship generally means government censorship, otherwise the above is true - I could create the most problematic, offensive, racist and misogynistic show, and make any broadcaster or service provider stream/broadcast it, right?
As for calling it politically correct, that label is rubbish and is basically coded speak for "I want to keep being offensive and people don't like it" and "oh no, I can't keep punching down!"
If they remove racist content, what's next? Sexist content? Ageist content? Content making fun of people for their weight, illnesses, or eating disorders? Oh nooooooo!
Get over yourselves. You want to be offensive, do it on your own time. Buy the DVDs/discs, but to say that private companies must continue to serve offensive content is insanity.
Just download whatever you want to watch. No restrictions, no cost, no bans. I've got Netflix and Amazon Prime but barely watch anything on there. They can take off a show when you're halfway through a season, as they only have the rights for a certain amount of time. Unless its an Amazon or Netflix original you get heavily compressed video and audio. You can't passthrough lossless audio and Netflix isn't great for 4K content, as they smooth out everything where it loses clarity.
if you dont like whats on tele, then turn the (profanity) thing off, instead of bitching.
Go get a bloody life.if you find a topic on OzB forums uninteresting, move on or go to another website instead of bitching.
Go get a bloody life.
This move is just a marketing pitch. Debate it all you want. It should be debated and is long overdue so in that sense it is good timing. Every incident that gets world wide attention by calling out racism or any other horrible behaviour is changing the world for the better one thing at a time. Some get more coverage than others but they all count. Otherwise we’d all be working for people like Scrooge in Dickensian times.
Meh. It’s commercial media, they can do whatever their business needs are. Times and culture changes - get over it!
We are a country that mandated racism up to 50 odd years ago and we are changing fast. I think that’s a good thing. We still have a ways to go I think and it’s always good for us to question ourselves and our culture. Lots of the stuff I found funny years ago I look at and cringe a bit now.But, at the end of the day it’s just bl@@dy television. If you’re that obsessed with it get off your bum and go do something else,
Chris Lilley is awful, so no loss in Australia. If you're that concerned you can still buy the DVDs to display at home next to your Golliwog collection.