Are you proud of banning media being impossible in the US?

[JohnFKennedy]

Most censorship in any work of fiction or act is done before its even produced. The US Army for example "inspects" most hollywood films with military themes in the post-production phase before the final cut is ready.

cite?

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/entertainment/july-dec06/hollywood_10-06.html

One bit I'd pay particular attention to:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course this isn't de facto censorship and film makers like those of 13 days can bypass or ignore it; but I think the point remains.

That's if they want the DoD's cooperation.  ie, they want stock footage, or actual tanks and planes.  Why would the military let their men and equipment get used in a movie that was going to bash them?  The DoD has no power to stop somebody from making a movie, but they do have the power to say, no, you can't use our sh**t.  If that's censorship to you, then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Think about it historically and it is censorship of a type. In the absence of more recent CGI technology, filmmakers wishing to produce a military/war film would have necessarily needed the cooperation of the Department of Defence for most projects. It's not necessarily just about 'bashing' the military but often about creating an accurate reflection of an event which the military would prefer to be seen in a different light.

[dead0man]

So, your argument is that the US military should help filmmakers when they ask, no matter the cause, in the making of movies.  Do they only have to be BIG STUDIO films or can any jackass with a steady cam call?  How far do they have to bend?  How many tax dollars should they spend?  Obviously they can't help every jackass with a steady cam, so who draws the line?  Do you let the DoD draw the line, no you probably wouldn't.  What if the liberal thinker you put in charge of making that choice makes the DoD help in a movie they know will hurt them in the public light, a movie that is total fiction.  Exactly how helpful do you think the military is going to be?  If you want the US military to help make movies and TV shows, you have to let them decided who does what.  Anything else is unreasonable and unfair.

Again, if that's censorship (of a type) to you, we'll have to agree to disagree.

[JohnFKennedy]

So, your argument is that the US military should help filmmakers when they ask, no matter the cause, in the making of movies.  Do they only have to be BIG STUDIO films or can any jackass with a steady cam call?  How far do they have to bend?  How many tax dollars should they spend?  Obviously they can't help every jackass with a steady cam, so who draws the line?  Do you let the DoD draw the line, no you probably wouldn't.  What if the liberal thinker you put in charge of making that choice makes the DoD help in a movie they know will hurt them in the public light, a movie that is total fiction.  Exactly how helpful do you think the military is going to be?  If you want the US military to help make movies and TV shows, you have to let them decided who does what.  Anything else is unreasonable and unfair.

Again, if that's censorship (of a type) to you, we'll have to agree to disagree.

I never said that they should help filmmakers when they asked. I merely pointed out that it can be seen as a form of censorship because non-compliance historically could completely sink a film. I don't like your insinuation that I 'probably wouldn't' let the Department of Defence decide. Personally I would say that if a script makes an entirely baseless attack on the military then of course they should refuse to help them. I'm not saying the Department of Defence is 'wrong' to interfere if they are helping with a film, just that this is a form of censorship.

[they don't love you like i love you]

The things you are talking about has nothing to do with banning Manhunt 2 or anything similar.

[dead0man]

Well sure and not all forms of censorshiop are bad either.  If I tell my kids not to scream swear words when in public, I'm censoring them.  I thought you were agreeing with Gully that it was a bad thing when the military did it.  My mistake.

[Хahar 🤔]

Well sure and not all forms of censorshiop are bad either.  If I tell my kids not to scream swear words when in public, I'm censoring them.  I thought you were agreeing with Gully that it was a bad thing when the military did it.  My mistake.

Well, somebody (can't remember who) once said, "Charity, like censorship, should begin at home. But unlike charity, it should also end there."

[A18]

Reporters Whithout Borders rates the US as 48th in the world for worldwide press freedom ranking (between Nicarague and Togo). Which up from joint 53rd in 2006, so is moving in the right direction.

The UK is at 24th place, Australia at 28th... and the United States, 48th. And we're supposed to take this seriously?

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Reporters Whithout Borders rates the US as 48th in the world for worldwide press freedom ranking (between Nicarague and Togo). Which up from joint 53rd in 2006, so is moving in the right direction.

No way.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I guess this is one thing BRTD and I can agree on.

[Јas]

Reporters Whithout Borders rates the US as 48th in the world for worldwide press freedom ranking (between Nicarague and Togo). Which up from joint 53rd in 2006, so is moving in the right direction.

The UK is at 24th place, Australia at 28th... and the United States, 48th. And we're supposed to take this seriously?

A compelling argument...

[Хahar 🤔]

Reporters Whithout Borders rates the US as 48th in the world for worldwide press freedom ranking (between Nicarague and Togo). Which up from joint 53rd in 2006, so is moving in the right direction.

No way.

No way, what? You haven't realized this?

The nationalist bullshit about freedom is ridiculous.