![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Well, we're all very active and idealistic on ye olde LJ today, aren't we? I logged in to find my friends' page overrun with posts about various causes. I'm not complaining. I've been known to do a bit of idealistic ranting myself some days. :)
Anyway, probably the most prevalent post today is the "Gay Rights" post. Because I agree with and like the quote, I am going to post it here as well, though everyone has doubtlessly seen it by now.
Most people have pasted the accompanying part about posting it to show your support or ignoring it to show your lack, but since this has caused problems on the journals of well-meaning people who inadvertantly offended those not prone to post-spam of this sort, I'm going to refrain from that. I don't think that there are any homophobics on my flist anyway. I can't imagine that they'd stay around long, what with me posting slash on a regular basis.
If posting the quote makes you feel as though you are making a positive difference, though, by all means, please post it! I certainly don't mind seeing it around more.
But I'd sooner hear people stop using "gay" as an insult, sooner see people make an effort to become more aware of how they stereotype others not alike to them, and sooner see people have the guts to speak up when some idiot starts their BS about gay people being somehow less of human beings because of their orientation. Perhaps this would lessen the perception that homophobia is okay.
Or maybe posting a thought-provoking quote is a place to start. :)
On a more frivolous--though equally heated--note, there is a petition on LJ to convince LJ not to allow companies to purchase "sponsored accounts" that would allow them to promote their products on LJ. I gave the debate on![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
lj_biz a quick scan, and there seems to be a lot of questions and concerns over this. People fear the power of the Almighty Dollar trumping the rights and wishes of LiveJournal customers.
Having read all of the posts made by the LJ folks and a handful of comments by disgruntled LJ members, I do get the distinct impression that LJ was trying to slide something past us, dressing it up as something that will benefit us as users while really trying to ease past LJ's longstanding commitment to "no ads anywhere!" A commitment that was somewhat broken by instituting the "Plus" accounts that show ads. I know for a fact that sponsored communities were showing up on the front page of LJ for paid users becausescienceofsleep showed up on mine for a couple of days as a "Sponsored Community," then disappeared. I remember seeing it and thinking, "Huh. What's this? So now I can get silwritersguild on the front page by handing over some bucks?" Never mind that 99.9% of LJ users won't give a damn about silwritersguild, but money talks more than customer interest, otherwise we would talk to real live people when we call our banks, Internet providers, and credit card companies and our IT concerns would be handled by people who at least spoke our language.
Of course, when the paid users began to complain that they paid not to see adverts--and this includes adverts cloaked as communities--scienceofsleep mysteriously disappeared from my front page. And suddenly, "No, no, no! Paid users won't see this at all unless they choose to see it!" and admission to poor choice of wording on the part of LJ staff (who did, in fact, say that paid users would not be able to avoid seeing sponsored communities listed). However, I saw it for several days, enough to wonder over it, so this makes me immediately skeptical of their honesty on this issue.
Slippery slopes are a dangerous place, but I think that a valid point is made by the folks pointing out the insidious introduction of advertisement onto LiveJournal. First the Plus accounts, now the "sponsored communities"...frankly, I am sick of advertisement, period. I am sick of not being able to go to "Ravens Stadium" but having to go to "M&T Bank Stadium." No, it's not the fucking bank that plays there, it's my damned favorite football team, the Ravens. Or the Republicans who wanted to open national parks to corporate advertisements on the sides of park buildings and buses so that Exxon can dump oil into the sea with one hand and pander to environmentalists with the other. Is there any place left to go where some eejit isn't trying to hawk something at me? I pay $9.25 for a movie ticket (well, really $8.00 since I still have my old UMBC ID card) to sit for the half-hour before the movie starts watching disgusting Sprite commercials of sumo wrestlers smashing a guy's head between their bellies and advert after advert for TV shows where the same startled-looking yuppies somehow go missing. Meh. Let them stay missing, I say.
Advertisement is a necessary evil; I am not so dumb to think otherwise. But as it fills the world more and more, it becomes more and more obnoxious to draw your eye from That Guy's ad to Our Ad. I won't even listen to the radio anymore because I can't stand the blaring, strident ads designed at getting my attention.
So anyway, I signed the petition because LJ, for me, is a community for sharing my thoughts and writing and striking up conversation with like-minded folks and keeping in touch with friends. It is not where I go to watch movie trailers or get free deals, and I think that a good point is made by the folks who bring up that LJ had proclaimed relatively few restrictions for these "sponsored accounts" until a shitstorm was made over the idea that didn't go over quite as well as planned. When companies start throwing big money into a service, those of us who pay our paltry 20 buckaroos per year start to feel understandably nervous of how our rights as customers will shake out next to theirs, and as someone with a fan fiction community, say "Children of Hurin" was made into a movie. Wouldsilwritersguild be made to shut down to give monopoly to the ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
childrenofhurin sponsored community? Surely, they can outbid me.
Anyhoo, those who agree with me or want to read further, check out the petition. And thanks toithilwen for calling my attention to it! Additionally, the lj_biz community has the posts that have been made about this move and the literally thousands of comments mostly against it.
Anyway, probably the most prevalent post today is the "Gay Rights" post. Because I agree with and like the quote, I am going to post it here as well, though everyone has doubtlessly seen it by now.
"Why is it that, as a culture, we are more comfortable seeing two men holding guns than holding hands?"
- Ernest Gaines
Most people have pasted the accompanying part about posting it to show your support or ignoring it to show your lack, but since this has caused problems on the journals of well-meaning people who inadvertantly offended those not prone to post-spam of this sort, I'm going to refrain from that. I don't think that there are any homophobics on my flist anyway. I can't imagine that they'd stay around long, what with me posting slash on a regular basis.
If posting the quote makes you feel as though you are making a positive difference, though, by all means, please post it! I certainly don't mind seeing it around more.
But I'd sooner hear people stop using "gay" as an insult, sooner see people make an effort to become more aware of how they stereotype others not alike to them, and sooner see people have the guts to speak up when some idiot starts their BS about gay people being somehow less of human beings because of their orientation. Perhaps this would lessen the perception that homophobia is okay.
Or maybe posting a thought-provoking quote is a place to start. :)
On a more frivolous--though equally heated--note, there is a petition on LJ to convince LJ not to allow companies to purchase "sponsored accounts" that would allow them to promote their products on LJ. I gave the debate on
lj_biz a quick scan, and there seems to be a lot of questions and concerns over this. People fear the power of the Almighty Dollar trumping the rights and wishes of LiveJournal customers.Having read all of the posts made by the LJ folks and a handful of comments by disgruntled LJ members, I do get the distinct impression that LJ was trying to slide something past us, dressing it up as something that will benefit us as users while really trying to ease past LJ's longstanding commitment to "no ads anywhere!" A commitment that was somewhat broken by instituting the "Plus" accounts that show ads. I know for a fact that sponsored communities were showing up on the front page of LJ for paid users because
scienceofsleep showed up on mine for a couple of days as a "Sponsored Community," then disappeared. I remember seeing it and thinking, "Huh. What's this? So now I can get silwritersguild on the front page by handing over some bucks?" Never mind that 99.9% of LJ users won't give a damn about silwritersguild, but money talks more than customer interest, otherwise we would talk to real live people when we call our banks, Internet providers, and credit card companies and our IT concerns would be handled by people who at least spoke our language.Of course, when the paid users began to complain that they paid not to see adverts--and this includes adverts cloaked as communities--
scienceofsleep mysteriously disappeared from my front page. And suddenly, "No, no, no! Paid users won't see this at all unless they choose to see it!" and admission to poor choice of wording on the part of LJ staff (who did, in fact, say that paid users would not be able to avoid seeing sponsored communities listed). However, I saw it for several days, enough to wonder over it, so this makes me immediately skeptical of their honesty on this issue.Slippery slopes are a dangerous place, but I think that a valid point is made by the folks pointing out the insidious introduction of advertisement onto LiveJournal. First the Plus accounts, now the "sponsored communities"...frankly, I am sick of advertisement, period. I am sick of not being able to go to "Ravens Stadium" but having to go to "M&T Bank Stadium." No, it's not the fucking bank that plays there, it's my damned favorite football team, the Ravens. Or the Republicans who wanted to open national parks to corporate advertisements on the sides of park buildings and buses so that Exxon can dump oil into the sea with one hand and pander to environmentalists with the other. Is there any place left to go where some eejit isn't trying to hawk something at me? I pay $9.25 for a movie ticket (well, really $8.00 since I still have my old UMBC ID card) to sit for the half-hour before the movie starts watching disgusting Sprite commercials of sumo wrestlers smashing a guy's head between their bellies and advert after advert for TV shows where the same startled-looking yuppies somehow go missing. Meh. Let them stay missing, I say.
Advertisement is a necessary evil; I am not so dumb to think otherwise. But as it fills the world more and more, it becomes more and more obnoxious to draw your eye from That Guy's ad to Our Ad. I won't even listen to the radio anymore because I can't stand the blaring, strident ads designed at getting my attention.
So anyway, I signed the petition because LJ, for me, is a community for sharing my thoughts and writing and striking up conversation with like-minded folks and keeping in touch with friends. It is not where I go to watch movie trailers or get free deals, and I think that a good point is made by the folks who bring up that LJ had proclaimed relatively few restrictions for these "sponsored accounts" until a shitstorm was made over the idea that didn't go over quite as well as planned. When companies start throwing big money into a service, those of us who pay our paltry 20 buckaroos per year start to feel understandably nervous of how our rights as customers will shake out next to theirs, and as someone with a fan fiction community, say "Children of Hurin" was made into a movie. Would
silwritersguild be made to shut down to give monopoly to the childrenofhurin sponsored community? Surely, they can outbid me.Anyhoo, those who agree with me or want to read further, check out the petition. And thanks to
ithilwen for calling my attention to it! Additionally, the lj_biz community has the posts that have been made about this move and the literally thousands of comments mostly against it.
Tags:
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-04 01:23 am (UTC)Hmm, interesting. I hadn't heard anything about LJ selling out. I have my plus account and thus, ads because I neeeeeeed more than 3 icons! Must look into this.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-04 02:10 am (UTC)That's how I read it too, but some friends had problems with people reading it as "if you don't spam your flist with this immediately then you are a HOMOPHOBE!!11!1one!!1on1!!"
The perils of interpretation, I guess. I try not to take my chances. ;)
Must look into this.
I've spent the last hour or so looking further into it, and it seems that the deal is signed, sealed, and delivered, but I'm keeping the link to the petition up anyway in hopes that maybe it will discourage such decisions in the future? Maybe??
Though the comments to those posts should do that if nothing else.... o.O
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-04 02:16 am (UTC)I've spent the last hour or so looking further into it, and it seems that the deal is signed, sealed, and delivered, but I'm keeping the link to the petition up anyway in hopes that maybe it will discourage such decisions in the future? Maybe??
Yeah, it definitely sounds like a done deal to me too. Really not cool. Maybe we'll get a stroke of luck? Come on, let us sad nerds continue our fantasies! Who else would buy the new Children of Hurin if not for us!?
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-04 02:35 am (UTC)Lol! Indeed, this crossed my mind when reading some of the posts along the lines of "good, let the stupid fandoms be shut down." Well, that's easy to say from the outside looking in. I don't pretend that everyone will understand the lure of this for us, but it's a mostly harmless activity that we keep among ourselves. It's not as though we're demanding recognition alongside Tolkien. If people seem like they're overreacting, perhaps it's because we're afraid of overreaction in the other direction, and we're not even necessarily breaking the law.
Meh.
I never knew that you had a Plus account...but of course, I can't see the ads! :^P I'm tempted to log out just to see what they look like. 8^B <--geek
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-04 03:00 am (UTC)I never knew that you had a Plus account...but of course, I can't see the ads!
Haha! Yep, how else do you think I got my 15 icons? Those ads don't bother me that much. I'm actually kind of amused that the ads I see at the bottom of the muse journal are for pet supplies!! Very appropriate, I think.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-04 03:41 am (UTC)*snicker*
In the House of Felagund, my muses have determined the hierarchy as follows:
Meryth is the pet of my unicorn Nelyo.
Nelyo is my pet.
I am Bobby's pet.
This is according to the muses, mind you, so understandably lacking in intelligence. :^P
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-04 03:51 am (UTC)My muses probably think that I am one of the other muse's pet. "Elladan's Annoying Pet Human" or something, probably. :P
If I find this is true, no more cookies!
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-04 03:52 am (UTC)Where does my beloved Finrod fall in that hierarchy? :P
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-06 12:23 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-06 12:43 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-04 08:40 am (UTC)Just read this;
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/07/14/one_domain_to_rule_them_all/
http://www.planet-tolkien.com/news/article_84.html
The Tolkien estate doesn't back down. Tarrant told me that they even force a teenage girl to shut down a website which was hardly about Tolkien, but they scared her into doing it. So yeah.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-04 10:36 am (UTC)The problem is often not really copyright or fair use - but the money involved.
I think that there are good chance that many fandom activities are actually fair use. But which fan has the money and the guts to tell Tolkien Estate, "Fine, let's go to court and see what the judge says." - And then, "Let's see what happens if I appeal." And so on.
*That* is the real problem. Especially in common law countries. It's a bit easier in civil law countries, because case law is not as important there. Our fight is about new copyright laws - and in the making of those laws against powerful and rich lobbies bent on getting even more powerful and even richer.
The free exchange of information or the encouragement of creativity is no big deal to them. *sigh*
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-04 11:28 am (UTC)"As Costelloe recalled: "A friendly gentleman ... asks me if I am who he was looking for and continues to query my intentions of whether or not I intend to hand the domain over to them, which I said no. He then instructed me that this was likely to end up with me being taken to court and I kindly replied with 'good'..."
Mr Costelloe has since reported the phone call to the Law Society of England and Wales claiming harrassment."
This truly happened. In the end it cost Tarrant more and the last I heard was that the case wasn't over yet. But you really have to be careful with it.
The free exchange of information or the encouragement of creativity is no big deal to them. *sigh*
It depends. As long if you don't start to copy information about HOME series in a knowlegde database and therefore people won't buy the HOME books anymore because it is there and such so why bother, then you are in a serious copyright infringement unless you asked specific permission to do so. The ency of Arda has asked permission and has, most likely, give a share of the profits to the estate (I remember reading that). Companies are fine until they feel it in their profits.
When it comes down to photography and digital arts, it becomes a bit more difficult (I graduated on this). For example if I edit a photo in photoshop, apply my own homemade brushes or use a photo of myself and add it to a piece of artwork of someone else, I am a copyright holder too of that image. The differences are made during contract negotations when you ask someone to make something for you (paint a picture of your kid, your backyard shed), you and that other party agree to that you won't manipulate it, you have to uphold that contract. For my graduation study we concluded that the ministery had to go over all the contracts they had with individual photographers to see if they could reproduce the images elsewhere (reports and such) even if they were the sole owner of which was captured on image. If there are no such things, you have bought the rights as soon as you paid for the work and can do with it whatever you want. We studied (well I did) EU and Dutch law regarding this. I can't help it but to follow this topic.
Now as for DVD's and screencaps, yes you are allowed for copies of such things, you did buy the thing and therefore as well the copyright fee over it, so you can use screencaps for your own personal& private enjoyment. The problem arises is once you make it available for others and post it thusly for others to download or use, then you are in 'trouble'. That is why people who upload material in torrents or other means of programmes are persecuted (this is internationally done), but those who download it are not.
Now back to elll jeee, If I have my own account and it is friends locked, I keep my edited pictures of DVD's and such in the private environment. So I won't be breaking any laws. The question still remains though how long LJ will hold to the
However, we are (and have always been) legally obligated to act if we receive complaints indicating that someone is violating copyright or infringing on a trademark. This is a long-standing practice; we *have* to do this to avoid getting into legal trouble.
Knowing how far the laywers of the Tolkoen Estate want to go and this combined: I am sceptical. And now I am gonna feed this bouncy baby.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-04 11:45 am (UTC)Actually the same is true for writing, at least in German law. It's called the "collage"- principle. (I'm qualified to work as a judge/lawyer/public prosecutor, having specialized in European and international law *g* - lawyers lurk everywhere, hehehe).
Having studied Fair Use I still think that mose fandom actvities (which are, - as a rule - not uploading and redistributing the complete texts/movies in torrents) would have a good chance to be considered as Fair Use. After all, there are several factors that need to be considered for that decision, and the two most important factors are probably the money & the market factor. (And they'd need *proof* for the impact on the market...)
But considering their methods and how easy it is for big money and powerful companies to intimidate the individual fan I think it will be a long time until the legal aspects of fandom related activities are really clarified.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-04 12:28 pm (UTC)Here those two are seperated because the portrait right and 'image' right (where you can forbid that people make images of your house, building, bridge) apply too and therefore they got their own articles in the bill. But we're still working with legistation of 1912 (with amendments for movierights and software rights), but they do distinguish literairy works, science and art. For example for a book, the portrait and image rights don't apply, for art it does and partly for scientific material.
And they'd need *proof* for the impact on the market...)
Sales figures and such yeah. The probs with the European directives (I believe the latest European one for copyright is of 2004) is that nationwide, the national legislation is always placed above it. And I don't think we Dutch will vote *for* European legislation any time soon.
Anyhow, it still remains interesting how LJ will go about this now that they are an American company. We'll see.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-04 04:41 pm (UTC)Aiya, let's not talk about that...Especially what with the period of judicial restraint we have over here.
And it always helps when your brainless president gets to appoint the justices...Luckily, presidents sometimes make "mistakes", i.e. hiring Chief Justice Warren (who overturned rulings like Plessy v. Ferguson and the 'separate but equal' doctrine...) was the "biggest mistake [Eisenhower] ever made". O.o(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-04 04:38 pm (UTC)Hmmm, I wonder if we have a section on copyright in my law class...
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-05 01:09 am (UTC)*sigh*
It really doesn't surprise me. The possessiveness of people over stuff...wow. I mean, I am an artist and wholly for artists' rights. I am against free downloading of music or movies or books because it hurts the artist who produced them. But beyond that, this nitpicking over names and details...ugh. I was bowled over by the first article's mention of how DC Comics tried to sue the owner of www.dc.com who had a site about Washington, DC. Duh. Washington, DC was around well before DC Comics, if we want to go that route. Secondly, something like "DC"--like the word "shire"--is hardly unique. I'm waiting for the day when each letter of the alphabet has a little © tag and requires permission to use.
(Also, what of Shire horses? Do Shire horses have to be called something else now? Or maybe the Shire horses should sue the Tolkien Estate since they had the name first? :^P)
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-04 02:11 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-04 02:31 am (UTC)A couple people thought they were clever to say, "Well, you all are breaking the law so don't complain that LJ won't protect you!" But that assumes that fanfic/fanart is in fact a violation of the law. So far, I've seen convincing arguments for both sides, though I am not trained in law enough to make an expert assessment of either. But it seems that lawyers have found "proof" for both sides based on the outcomes that the want to see, i.e. a corporate attorney for a popular movie is of course going to find laws backing up their desire to have "destructive" fandoms removed. Whereas, if I was an attorney, I'd be able to find laws showing the opposite since--as a fandom community owner--I have a vested interest in seeing our rights to explore the story through fanfic preserved.
*sigh*
The big difference seems to be that corporations have the bucks to throw into these fights whereas a teeny-tiny group like SWG...what would my options be, even if I was violating no laws? I lack the expertise to defend myself on that point and lack the income to pay someone to do it for me. I could be strongarmed into closing SWG, even if I was doing nothing wrong. (I believe that I even make that point on the userinfo page!)
Cease & Desist letters seem to have a powerful lure in this regard. And it seems very easy to do a search of "silmarillion" as an interest, see who pops up, who posts fanfic, and C&D them. Of course, they could do this all along, but as someone remarked, it's a lot easier when they're right in your backyard, and some companies have a legal obligation to do this (or so it is said) if they share the same space.
Frankly, I think that we have far less to worry about in the Tolkien fandom than, say, Harry Potter, particularly the adult/racy/slash comms. Aside from the occasional Morgoth/Maedhros bondage tale, we don't do much harm (and someone shrewd could maybe even argue the canon of that? I know I'd like to try! :^D)
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-04 02:44 am (UTC)Frankly, I think that we have far less to worry about in the Tolkien fandom than, say, Harry Potter, particularly the adult/racy/slash comms.
That is probably true. Still, with the new book coming out, we'll be more in the forefront than we were a few months ago. Hopefully, if the TE even glances at LJ, they'll take to heart JRRs words saying he meant for the tales to be complete, to allow readers' imaginations room to interpret things (or w/e he said, something to that effect).
Aside from the occasional Morgoth/Maedhros bondage tale, we don't do much harm (and someone shrewd could maybe even argue the canon of that? I know I'd like to try! :^D)
Haha, that's what happens when all you say is, "And then Maedhros was captured and detained in Angband for a long time by the sadistic dark lord Morgoth." ;P Although, we do a little bit more harm than that. You forgot Sauron/Finrod tales. >;)
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-04 02:58 am (UTC)For some reason, my thought shies away from the new book. I mean, three hundred plus pages on Túrin?
Haha, that's what happens when all you say is, "And then Maedhros was captured and detained in Angband for a long time by the sadistic dark lord Morgoth."
Fifty years, even. People are going to wonder if Morgoth got... inventive.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-04 03:05 am (UTC)Lol! I'm with you, there! I skipped most of the Túrin section the second time through the Silmarillion! Whether or not I buy the book depends on whether it's $5 like a normal book or $30 like HoME.
Fifty years, even. People are going to wonder if Morgoth got... inventive.
Not gonna lie, I certainly wonder sometimes...And didn't Maedhros never really tell anyone what happened during those years? I wouldn't either...*I'm such an evil and sadistic person. I need to try to stop that.*
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-04 03:38 am (UTC)Juno posted this interesting article about copyright law to the HA Yahoo list the other day. I don't know if you saw it then, but if not, it's worth checking out!
It's kind of scary, though, how corporate interests are taking over copyright, taking away the rights of future artists and students to expand upon existing ideas in order to monopolize profits for themselves. The example was brought up of a student who had written a paper about (ironically) early 1900 adverts, and the journal would not let her use copies of the old ads because they were afraid someone would sue for copyright infringement. Wow. Really? Illustrations that are almost 100 years old being used in an academic journal is copyright infringement? That's sad.
On the heels of that, suddenly this issue comes up. I don't feel that nervous about Silmdom, as I've said. But corporations are becoming so much more eagle-eyed, it seems, on issues like these, and it's not a comfortable feeling knowing that--though it's a fight we could win--we could never afford to fight it.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-04 03:48 am (UTC)I took a class on multimedia, so we had to learn about copyright, since half of the assignments basically involved ripping works. I just don't remember all of the details.
Illustrations that are almost 100 years old being used in an academic journal is copyright infringement? That's sad.
Indeed. Especially, in an academic journal, depending on its purpose, may fall under the general fair use rule that works can be used for educational purposes.
(OT: I definitely just stole a Maglor quote and used it on my friend, entirely out of context. Go me.)
Yes, with corporations, copyrights can practically last forever, which is not the original intent of copyright protection.
I don't feel that nervous about Silmdom, as I've said.
I'm not as nervous as I would be if I were a part of, say, the Harry Potter fandom. Still, if one or a few corporations set an example, how soon will other fandoms fall? (Damn, I could definitely have survived the First Age, with my brutal outlook!)
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-04 02:58 am (UTC)I think maybe I should say something before folks start wondering why I haven't posted this to my lj. I support Gay Rights, and I'm not a homophobe. People can do whatever they want with whomever they want, and I got no problems with it. Fine, dandy, I'll live my life like I always have been. ;-) But as you've said, there are likely folks out there who will refrain from posting this in order to keep from spamming their flists, and I'd be one of them (though I am just as guilty of spamming in other cases). In fact, I'd go as far as to say that I'd rather be left alone about it, as it's one point of contention that I'd happily avoid. If that sounds bad, or makes me into a bad person, then I guess that's how it is. *shrug*
People will do what makes them happy, and I'm all for that, because I'll do what makes me happy. Read romance novels, hang with friends (online and offline), and write. And do whatever else that comes along and sounds like loads of fun! *grin*
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-04 03:28 am (UTC)There's nothing wrong with not posting it. Living a tolerant lifestyle with the sort of outlook you describe is far more important, imho!
I tend to be funny about mass emails/forwards myself. I get some from friends and family at times that are really quite lovely, beseeching me to forward them to all of my friends, including the person who sent it to me. I never do that. Sometimes, an email might include something that I know will appeal to one or two people. Like cute cats: I will send them to my sister and mom because they like cute cats. But my entire address book? Nah....
I don't really think that forwarding or copying something into LJ shows much of anything. I'd sooner show my love for my friends by reading and commenting on their journals, cheering them when they need it, maybe writing the occasional gift story or sending along a picture that will make them smile. I'd sooner show my support for gay rights by behaving in a tolerant manner and setting an example in my own behavior.
Not that such "spams" offend me in the least, but I just don't think that it's the productive way to create change!
Or--maybe for some people--it is. I liked the quote and so wanted to remember the quote. But not making my flist feel bad for not following the masses who are likewise posting it. :) And I think it's sad that the quote has created such an environment where you feel that you must justify, "Hey, I'm not one of them!" I don't think that's what any on my flist posting the quote intended, but it does give that feeling.
Have I rambled enough? :^P Shutting up now.... ;)
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-04 08:32 am (UTC)I think the quote is incredible touching & relevant in the light of the recent shooting in Pennsylvania, yeah. There are many things which amaze me about the States...
Anyhow. I am one of the persons who replied to
But well because of this it feels as if I would post it, I would be closing my eyes for other, equally important rights which deserve the same amount of spotlight. The right of children to go to school, civil rights over the globe ect ect. It also implies that if I don't choose to post it, I am a gay basher, which is obviously not the case as you (& others) know, so I fully agree with Maldy here. I hope you are not mad at me.
I am more for giving more attention to children's rights to gay rights. I am a big supporter of Warchild (their motto: you can take the child out of a war, but how do you get the war out of a child) because year in year out children (besides women) are victims of wars, riots, border troubles and so on. So instead of seeing one of those posts again, I rather would see posts about that. But yet I won't do it. Because whatever cause you are supporting: everything is equally important. Here gays rights are accepted, constitutional even, people are seen as part as the community, can marry, can adopt, can join the army and what more. The battle has been won. Maybe in the States it is completely different. But I do think this post that went around does singles them out again, place them on an isolated spot and the last sentence is just wrong. Especially for those who are very weary of the whole thing because by now ... it feels so overhyped by now (for me it most certainly feels that way). Is it a cause worth fighting for? Of course it is, but be careful the way how. You can overdo it.
As for LJ, I was the second one in that initial thread to ask what would happen if there would be a conflict of interests if a user or a community posts fan fic. (I am on page 13 or something like that).
I just read this:
So ultimately, our existing policies on copyright and trademark aren't going to change if a sponsor is on LJ; if they want to report icons or screencaps, the copyright holder will always have a legal right to do so. We're neither going to encourage them to do that, nor are we going to discourage them, either. LiveJournal needs to remain neutral in this type of situation, due to existing United States laws. We still have to enforce these laws whether or not we have sponsored communities.
In the case of the Tolkien estate, Addleshaw Goddard is very active in shutting down sites, so I am very doubtful about what is stated above. If you write fan fic, there is always the rule of fair use. If you build a site and your knowlegde database of characters contains more than the actual percentage of the fair use... yeah be careful. Ask the estate for permission first. So I am still worried. The good thing is though that as a paid user there won't be adds to see, but yet again I remain sceptical because they said things before they would never do, but it happened anyway.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-05 01:05 am (UTC)I specifically removed the last sentence so that you wouldn't feel that you had to explain. :) I am not in the business of making my flist feel that they have to follow what I say or label themselves in an untrue manner.
I also took issue with the last part of the post, though I know that others have interpreted it to mean "if you don't agree, just ignore it and don't start a flame war over this." To me, it read rather black and white: If you agree, you will repost. If you don't, you will ignore. As someone who rarely returns or posts "forwards" in either email or LJ, I can understand how some people were made uncomfortable by this. And as I said in my post and told Isil in the comment above yours, living a tolerant lifestyle is equally or more important than participating in "chains" like this.
At the same time, I do not mean to imply that people who pasted the whole post meant to be hurtful or make this an "either you're with us or against us" sort of issue. There seem to be two ways to read the last part of the post; I walked on the safe side and cut it out entirely. :)
Because whatever cause you are supporting: everything is equally important.
True that.
Maybe in the States it is completely different.
It is. It is very different here. We had a Congresswoman not too long ago stand in front of the nation and say that the biggest threat this country is facing is gay marriage. Because being involved in a ne'erending war, having an economy in the toilet, an administration that routinely lies...none of those things are threats. It's the idea that people of the same gender might be extended the same rights to marry as hetero couples. Really?
So while I am so pleased to see the huge steps that have been made in Europe and elsewhere in the world, for me, the issue is far from over. My own country remains a nation trying to legalize bigotry.
Also, this issue is very personal to me because of my sister. One of the people whom I love most in the world cannot even live freely in her own country right now because of the person that she is. She has to fear holding hands with her wife because if she gets beaten or killed over it, it isn't considered a hate crime and is treated the same as a bar-fight gone bad. She can't marry or adopt children. And there are many jobs where she wouldn't even be allowed to reveal her "identity" as a bisexual woman.
So, yes, I will admit that I will shout louder about this issue than almost any other. And I will probably get on the nerves at times of my European friends who live in more progressive nations. But I ask everyone to keep in mind that, for me, this is an issue very close to home. Someone I love is being attacked every day in this country because of narrowminded views of a few, and so yes, I will speak out, and I do think that it's important. When Sharon can move home if she wants to and live with her wife as a married couple, then maybe I will shut up. But until then, no.
Of course it is, but be careful the way how. You can overdo it.
Well, I'm not really sure that I agree that posting a quote in my journal that totals twenty-one words (including Mr. Gaines' name) and asking people to be aware of how they treat human beings different than themselves is exactly "overdoing it" but okay....
Children of war is an important issue for me too, btw. It was actually my specialty in uni: post-traumatic stress disorder in childhood victims of political violence. I will check out the organization you mentioned. :)
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-05 09:42 am (UTC)I know, but I see it coming back and it made me wonder if I did something wrong.
It's the idea that people of the same gender might be extended the same rights to marry as hetero couples. Really?
And therefore 'threatening' a corner stone or basic foundation as a society... to their beliefs. Don't forget that politicians will twitch and turn to follow trends. Just a nice example:
Rep. Dennis Kucinich “This bill is everything we don't believe in.” No Republican spinmeister could have put it better.
http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20060928/1041359.asp
Spinmeister is the correct term here.
We see it here now too with the upcoming elections because the reign of this cabinet has caused a lot of misery. Anyhow. It is brought as a threat, it looks like a threat so it must be a threat? I don't think so. What is wrong with people loving each other? What's next, mixed marriages based on race? I think, honestly, that this reign of fear must end. Because when you look at it from the outside, it is a reign of fear. The new terrorism act is there because as 'Bush says: "We do anything to protect America." The emergency rule or constitual order has become a rule & norm in life and I do think this administration will do anything to stretch the presidents power or even go beyond that. Separation of church and state? Is it there honestly?I think when a state wants to approve gay marriage, then they should allow it but not act from the presidential office because personally the president doesn't like it.
Montesquie and Locke had reasons to come up with that, because: "the separation of powers constrains rulers (be they constitutional monarchs or elected executives) and thereby guarantees, according to Montesquieu, the "tranquillity" that is the political liberty of the individual; the second is secured thanks to the first."
Let good parenting (whether they are gay, straight, bisexual, signle, married, divorced) be the cornerstone/foundation of society. Parents who are happy, content, upbeat and such just make good parents. An economy will thrive if people are optimistic and not when they feel opressed by the 'own' commander in chief. But in order to achieve that, give people the right to do what they believe in and do not set a norm based on your own standards. Being a moral leader of a free country... I think Mr Bush report card will have a 1 regarding that.
My own country remains a nation trying to legalize bigotry.
Which makes it so sad, you know. Dr Martin Luther King would turn around in his grave.
{edit: LJ thinks I am rambling]
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-06 12:36 am (UTC)Actually, not so long ago, this battle was fought in the US much along the same lines as the same-sex marriage battle now. Mixed-race marriages were illegal in many states, and the same fundamentalists who oppose same-sex marriage were protesting mixed-race marriage using the same tired rhetoric from the Bible.
So GLBT activists have likened this fight to the fight to legalize mixed-race marriages not so long ago.
The new terrorism act is there because as 'Bush says: "We do anything to protect America."
I get so sick when I think of this, when I read articles like the one you linked. I get so sick to think that people in this country actually approve of this. And what's worse, this slander aimed at opposition that--in the same vein as what this administration has been saying all along--"if you disapprove of this, you're against national security."
Okay. What the fuck.
There is no one in this country who cares more about national security than I do. I live within a half-hour of DC, and a large enough attack could threaten my home. Furthermore, my husband goes to work everyday in an office where he can see the White House from his window. Don't think that the thought of a dirty bomb in the streets of DC and where Bobby will be when that happens doesn't cross my mind every damned day that he goes to work.
But this administration says one thing and does another. While they are berating the Democrats for being "weak on national security," then they are cutting funding to Customs, law enforcement, and first responders. A terrorist cell was found in my hometown of Baltimore. I ask you, who would have had a better chance of finding that cell? A beat cop who noticed unusual activity in the neighborhood, kept an eye on it, and had the appropriate channels to have it investigated? A Customs agent who noticed a strange pattern or got a tip from an agent in the field? Or an aircraft carrier? Yep. So why do we provide unlimited funding for the latter, i.e. the military, and our intelligence and law enforcement communities are starving?
And because I believe in a fair trial does not mean that I am against national security. Putting innocent people in jail or detaining innocent people solves nothing. I honestly believe that these idiots think that the number of brown-skinned people they have in prison in an indicator of how well they are doing in the "war on terror." It's not. It creates a false sense of security while the bad guys roam free, and it means more reason why Moslems have to be pissed off at us. Which fuels the propaganda that Islamic extremists use when recruiting the next set of hijackers or suicide bombers. Which means more terrorists. And nothing is solved.
Separation of church and state? Is it there honestly?I think when a state wants to approve gay marriage, then they should allow it
Yeah, it exists in theory, but when half of the elected representatives are in the pockets of the Christian Coalition, then it does not hold for long.
And Republicans, again...a bunch of hypocrites. There are certain things that are supposed to be managed by the states and certain things by the feds. Marriage has always been one of them. Every state has different marriage laws. And Republicans are supposedly founded on protecting the rights of states to make their own decisions. When it comes to abortion or gun control, feds are told, "Hands off!" But now when a national law would benefit them, suddenly they no longer care about the rights of states to make their own decisions.
And it should be a state decision. States have always presided over marriage except in instances (like mixed-race marriage) where denying marriage violates the Constitution. In terms of same-sex marriage, that's a fight for another day, but in the meanwhile, this crap about how states shouldn't be allowed to decide this issue...it's just wrong.
rramble
Date: 2006-10-05 09:46 am (UTC)and
Well, I'm not really sure that I agree that posting a quote in my journal that totals twenty-one words (including Mr. Gaines' name) and asking people to be aware of how they treat human beings different than themselves is exactly "overdoing it" but okay....
I know that, but I wonder about the effectiveness of it, especially the post (which you edited) in question. Why did it evoke such reactions? Did it damage the cause (see myspace) or not? Will it reach your states representative? Or your leader? Will 2008 come too late? With a president like this and his administration I think you have to act now. For the two parties which I associate myself the most with, I can go to the party leaders blog and leave my concerns there.
Right now teens associate the term gay with euww no way, how much can be taught now by showing those kids the true story of how it feels like to be gay and how they aren't so much different than your neighbours. Showing, sharing, educating and teaching them to look beyond a word is important.
Marian Wright Edelman: "A lot of people are waiting for Martin Luther King or Mahatma Gandhi to come back but they are gone. We are it. It is up to us. It is up to you."
I somehow can't help to wonder what would have happened if Gore won the elections you know. Hmmm nice soap box LOL
Just a small sidenote, over here things aren't perfect. Last week in the debate our PM said that we should go back to the VOC (Dutch East India Company) mentatlity during the golden century, which basically means going back to selling people into slavery, allowing slavery as a standard, simply invading and claiming the lands of other countries as ours.. I don't think we should go back to that. So we do have ruling idiots here too.. but soon precious... soon!
Oh and {{{hugs}}}
Re: rramble
Date: 2006-10-06 12:40 am (UTC)I don't think that the post--even the original version--turned anyone who was for same-sex marriage against the cause. (Though I don't use MySpace, so I can't speak to what went on there.) The issue as I saw it was with the rather demanding tone of the original version that conveyed a "with us or against us" sort of attitude. This naturally turns people off because everyone chooses to express their beliefs differently, and someone who supports same-sex marriage might not necessarily feel compelled to repost this particular meme.
I think it's really unfortunate that the quote in this post has been often ignored in favor of the less-than-perfectly-worded plea to "REPOST OR ELSE!!!" after it. The quote is wonderful and thought-provoking especially--as you said--in light of all of the school shootings that have been going on in the US lately. But that is why I cut that part of the post; because I wanted the quote to shape people's perceptions and the discussion afterward. Unfortunately, I think I came in after the damage had been done. :) *shakes fist at work comp that will not allow LJ-posting from work*
Will it reach your states representative?
Probably not, but that really wasn't the point for me in this particular instance. Actually, I live in one of the most liberal states in the country, so most of my representatives (perhaps all) would vote in favor of same-sex marriage. And I do vote, and I would not vote for someone who made it part of his or her platform to be opposed of same-sex marriage.
The point of this post for me was to reach someone other than goverment representatives because I think that two kinds of change are needed in this country right now. Yes, the law needs to change. But perhaps more importantly, minds need to change because the people elect the representatives that make the laws. The representatives are (supposedly) only doing what the people want, so until the people realize that homosexuals aren't evil and same-sex marriage will not spell our downfall, then the law will not change.
Most of my flist is for same-sex marriage. (I would say "all," but I don't want to assume!) At the same time, people who are not on LJ or my flist do read my journal. One mind changed is a powerful thing. One mind changed strongly enough means another voice to change more minds. That is my hope in posting such quotes and discussions on my LJ: not because I believe that Bush will read my LJ and be persuaded to my side (even if he was, the people who fund his campaign would not tolerate it, and money speaks louder than ethics in too many instances) but to maybe catch the eye of a visitor who might be undecided on the issue or even against it and maybe change a mind.
Also, it is to eliminate the feeling--in the US anyway--that those of us who are straight and care for GLBT issues are a slim minority.
So we do have ruling idiots here too.. but soon precious... soon!
It's the "grass is always greener on the other side of the fence" mentality: Every country looks good but the one you're in! :^D But everyone has problems.
America has it's (big) problems, but we'll work through them. I have faith in this.
And of course: {{{{{hugs back}}}}} Thanks for listening to me rant & ramble! :)
Oops, ran out of room! :^P
Date: 2006-10-05 01:08 am (UTC)I was put off by the way that the whole thing came about, having spent most of last night reading the
But they came out and said, "Hey guys, here are these awesome features that you're going to love and they're being paid for by these companies that you're going to love too!" as though we were expected to simply go along and say, "Yay! LJ says we're going to love it, so it must be okay!" No. When you bring big bucks into what has always been a free or low-cost community, people are going to get scared, kind of like finding out that a WalMart is moving into the neighborhood. Yeah, there might be lots of good to go with that WalMart, but how many little guys are going to be closed or suffer to make way for it?
Secondly,
Thirdly, all of the rules--some of which are very good--were put into place only after thousands of posts complaining and protesting. These things should have been taken care of right away, before the plan was even announced to users. While I am not sure that I agree with the people insisting that LJ should have polled their userbase first (since a business sometimes must act in a business's best interest and a customer can't possibly know all that goes into that), I don't think that it would have been a bad idea to discuss it with some users and community leaders, sort of a focus group. The issues that they are only now addressing seem like no-brainers to me, and it--again--leaves me wondering: Is LJ really that naive or were they really trying to pull something over on us?
I can't believe that they could be so naive not to set rules in place, for example, for sponsored comms spamming users and regular communities with posts.
Or maybe I'm just getting old and cynical. :)
Re: Oops, ran out of room! :^P
Date: 2006-10-05 04:54 pm (UTC)Oh I know that, I read and replied. It is bad enough when the founder of Livejournal has to sweep in for damage control. To put a nice ribbon around it and make it look good doesn't fool the long members and supporters of LJ. To put it bluntly: we felt screwed.
Secondly, scienceofsleep did appear on the LJ homepage to me for several days, and I am a paid user.
I can't help to read scienceofsheep here LOL. I have a different login screen bookmarked, so I never was confronted with it. What I didn't agree with is them telling about products where they work with a company on it, it will costs me more money because I don't live in the states. LJ suddenly doesn't feel international to me anymore. Myspace never felt that way, but in a way, lj always felt international, but now that they are gearing up to american companies only.. yeah. So I think I am gonna play with Vox more.
While I am not sure that I agree with the people insisting that LJ should have polled their userbase first (since a business sometimes must act in a business's best interest and a customer can't possibly know all that goes into that), I don't think that it would have been a bad idea to discuss it with some users and community leaders, sort of a focus group.
Here I have a different view on it. I do believe strongly in this. A focus group can never represent all. If someone says: you have been asking for this... I will say: no I have not. If you want to develop a good service, you will have a fine--tuned service if you do listen to your user base. A focus group will most likely only have pioneers and early adaptors, but they will never represent your user base fully.
I wonder how easy it would have been if they simply set up a couple of polls in
The issues that they are only now addressing seem like no-brainers to me, and it--again--leaves me wondering: Is LJ really that naive or were they really trying to pull something over on us?
I can't say. What I did see over the course of a year alone is a change in how they talked with their users. More distant. What has surfaced now is that you do see the company six apart shining through more and that the industry has discovered LJ as a way to advertise and harvest user data from.
Or maybe I'm just getting old and cynical. :)
Maglor says you are a wonderful young flower. ;)
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-04 10:45 am (UTC)Posting a meme like that - or even only that quote - may be an easy, idealistic way to make a stand. But... I don't think that it's completely useless or without any positive effects at all. I'm thinking of all the kids growing up with MySpace and LiveJournal - if they see such things on a regular basis, that there are so many people out there who are ok with homosexuality, who support human rights etc, well, I think it might make them think about how they'll vote.
And not everyone can be an activist. I guess those little things are maybe even more important to get things into the heads of the masses. It's not a quick or spectacular method. The beauty of it is that it turns open support for gay rights (I agree about the labelling issues, I just can't come up with a better word right now) into something completely ordinary.
If something's ordinary, unthreatening, then someone who tries to make a big deal about being against it will eventually look ridiculous to more and more people. So... in spite of my misgivings against chain letters and guilt tripping...
I think it's a good idea to post such things.
(Oh, and yes: I rather had the impression that the explanation was more of a "please no flame war" than anything else... I guess certain phrases have become so standard with memes like this that ppl who make them don't really think about what they are really writing in those explanations?)
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-05 01:15 am (UTC)So do I. Which is why I removed the last part of the post since it seemed to be inspiring its fair share in some places. ;)
And not everyone can be an activist.
I don't expect that everyone should. I have been for half of my life now pursuing one cause or another. I have participated as an activist in marches, boycotts, telephone/letter-writing campaigns...and I have come to the conclusion that these sorts of activities do less good for the cause than simply educating and informing the public.
I believe that sitting and talking to people is one of the best ways to go about things. An interesting "case study," if you will, of this point involved myself and my best friend in our freshman year of high school. We were both animal activists and started an animal rights' group at our high school. Now my friend was very in-your-face; she was the type who would say, "Ewwww, you're eating a ham sandwich; do you know what was done to that pig??" or make a point of looking at slaughterhouse photos at lunch. I was the sort to sit quietly and wait for someone to ask me why I was a vegetarian, then attempt to discuss it with them. Not attack them or throw something that they were not ready to see in their faces but stand on equal ground and just talk.
The result? Many people became vegetarians because of me, and many more cut back their consumption of animal products. The result for my friend? She was frequently mocked and despised for her attitude, and she ended up driving our group into the ground because she was the only one radical enough to stomach what she was doing.
I believe the same for GLBT issues.
I post things like this because I believe that getting people thinking and opening the conversation in as many places as possible is never a bad thing. And your point about creating an attitude that it is okay to be gay--rather than the often-prevalent (in the US anyway) attitude that gays are dirty or stupid--is effectively done this way too. Social psychology research has shown over and over again that people will go along with what they believe to be wrong simply because they believe their dissenting voice to be against popular opinion. I hear kids slinging around the word "gay" like it's an insult, and they all do it and no one thinks anything of it. Or the people that stereotype. Or the people who don't say, "Hey, that's not appropriate here," when their coworker makes a "fag" joke that makes them uncomfortable. Someone taking a stand against any of these things are not activists, but all are making more of a difference than the silent majority.
But if we change the direction from anti-gay to okay-to-be-gay...well, social psychology applies to the idiots too. ;)
Oh, and yes: I rather had the impression that the explanation was more of a "please no flame war" than anything else...
I can see how it could be read this way, and while the phrase never sat quite right with me, I was far from outrightly offended, recognizing that the folks I saw posting this meme were not the sorts who would take a "with us or against us" attitude. So I went the conservative route and cut it entirely when I decided to repost the quote. (Dawn? Conservative?? I know.... ;^D) Because the point for me is less about labeling my friends as with or against a cause than opening a discussion or encouraging people to to take a stand against what they feel is wrong.
But I understood people's discomfort with it because I often feel the same when I receive a forward from a friend along the lines of "If you love me, you will send this back to me!" I love my friends...but I don't generally forward emails. I'm not against receiving them, just not apt to forward them along. It's just not my thing. Just as it's not many people's thing--people who do in fact support GLBT rights--to forward along these sorts of posts.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-04 01:36 pm (UTC)But this LJ statement that floats about here these days pisses me off, not only because is gay right such a matter of course to me that I´m having difficulties understanding it´s actually a matter of discussion anymore, but the statement indicates that if you chose NOT to put it in your LJ, you do NOT support gay rights.
I´m easily provoked, I know. I´m also stubborn and I do not intend to spam my journal with that post, but I really do dispise the way it was presented, no matter how good the cause is.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-05 01:17 am (UTC)Well, yes. It is. :)
While I am so pleased to see the sorts of progress being made in many countries around the world--particularly European countries--not everyone in the world is so fortunate yet.
I live in the US, and only a short while ago, a Congresswoman stood before her peers and nation and claimed banning gay marriage to be the most important issue at stake now in our country. Not the war that we can't seem to end, not the fact that we have made asses and enemies of ourselves all over the world, not the faltering economy, crappy education system, lack of healthcare...but gay marriage.
Legislation is constantly being introduced here to limit the rights of homosexuals in regards to marriage (or even cohabitation), adopting children, or being able to be honest about their identities in the workplace. For every tiny step we make, it sometimes feels that we are pushed back three.
So, like I said, I am so happy to hear that many places in the world are no longer like this.
But for me, this is my reality, and until my sister Sharon can come home and live with her wife the same as any married couple, then I will be raising my voice against such discrimination. Because it is still an issue throughout much of the world.
but the statement indicates that if you chose NOT to put it in your LJ, you do NOT support gay rights.
Which is exactly why I cut that part of the post off when choosing to share the quote in my own LJ. :)
Because I do not believe this. People have a wide variety of reasons for posting or not posting something like this, and their actual support of the cause in question is only a small part of it.
If I am a homophobic but don't want to lose half of my flist when they find out, I will post this quote.
If I am a GLBT activist but not fond of "forwards" or memes such as this, then I will not post this quote.
So is the first a better support of GLBT rights than the second? I don't think so.
Yet, idealist that I am, I agree with
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-05 07:43 am (UTC)And it´s rather strange that such a vast country with such a varied background (people-wise) is like that.
The article also said that in Europe, Bush would likely never have been elected president. Of course, half of us are constitutional MONARCHIES, but you know what I mean... ;o)
Anyway, America is lucky to have people like you, I think and we have to keep hoping that these idiots (pardon my French) in your country who sit on their high horse and decide that some people are less worth and should have less rights than others, will eventually be overcome.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-06 12:33 am (UTC)The uproar that this created was amazing. People were boycotting the network on which it was shown, boycotting MTV (who had produced the halftime show), actually suing the network because of the trauma that they or their child had endured during the split second where Janet Jackson's breast was on the screen. Legislation was proposed regarding stricter "decency standards" on network television.
Through this all, I'm throwing my hands in the air and wondering, "Am I the only one who doesn't think that having a woman's breast on television is traumatizing!?"
And: "Am I the only one who is forgetting the number of Americans who are dying in an overseas war based on lies??"
And: "Am I the only one who thinks that the plummetting economy and sky-high unemployment is more of a cause for concern than Janet's boob??"
But the problem here is (and this comes back to the gay marriage thing too) that a radical few in this country have very loud voices. For one, the Christian Coalition (which does not represent Christians so much as fundamentalist Christians) is one of the biggest lobbies in Congress. They fund campaigns for politicians, and the politicians vote what the Coalition wants. For another, these few nutjobs are very good at organizing themselves and creating the impression of a mass hysteria where really there is none.
To go back to the Janet incident, a single group was responsible for most of the uproar, instructing their members to write everyone from Congress to the Federal Communications Commission to express their outrage. Of course, the media jumped all over it. First they had this picture-perfect opportunity to exploit celebrity humiliation, then the sensational stories of people suing because their four-year-old sons were traumatized by Janet's breast. (Guess those mothers didn't breastfeed, eh?)
When I see examples of adverts and programs that you have over in Europe, I am amazed because most of that stuff would either be outrightly illegal here (on network TV anyway) or only permitted to be shown at certain late "adult" hours. Yet you look at American crime statistics and really have to ask if Janet's boob or gay marriage or a horse farting in a Budweiser advert are really our problems here. Or are they convenient straw men to take people's eyes from the real problems?
(pardon my French)
*giggle* Oh, I call them much worse than idiots! :^D You're pardoned (and encouraged to call them whatever foul names you'd like on Dawn's LJ! :^D)
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-06 09:27 am (UTC)I basically agree with you in everything you said. And I think it´s really great that you bring up subjects like this, it´s good for us to air out different views on things, I think, especially since LJ is such an international arena.