OK, in the wake of the To Kill a Mockingbird, I bring forward another (sensitive) issue of censorship.


I just watched the trailer for Karla (the movie) on its website (www.karlathemovie.net) and that alone almost brought me to tears. It did, however, really make me want to see it. That, and this amazing article written about it (with a not-so-subtle jab at censorship built in) on CBC: http://www.cbc.ca/arts/film/karla.html .

I'll definitely be making a point of seeing this movie when it comes out, even if it means making a trip to Buffalo to do it. What about everyone else? Will you be seeing the movie? Waiting for the DVD? Boycotting? Joining picket lines to oppose it?


And how do you feel about the censorship aspect of it, especially re: the recent pulling from the Montreal Film Fest, at the request of corporate sponsors?

censorship is such an interesting form of human protection/control.

Should we censor our teenagers from some racist slurs in a book that contextually teaches them to discontinue this type of behavior... when we should really be censoring our preadolescents from all the violence and racists acts they see on primetime tv, not to mention... the news.

I took a course in university solely on the effects of media on children. Children see more than 1,000 murders before the age of 10... on television alone!

personally, I believe in censorship for children... but adults can make their own choices. If you don't want to see a movie about Karla Homolka, don't watch it. Simple as that. Trying to censor it will only bring more attention to it and encourage people to satiate their curiosity by going to see it... Reverse publicity.

For instance... Nabokov's "Lolita" was banned when it first came out as child pornography. In fact, not once does Nabokov describe a sexual act in the entire novel. YOU are the one who fills in that part of the story... so, really, that makes YOU the pornographer. (yes, I know that is a risky statement to make...)

anyway... my two cents.

~nicole g

I agree with Nik. Parents should have the responsibility to restrict the content their children watch. But if you're an adult and you don't want to watch a movie or read a book, then don't.

i've never heard of the movie mentioned, but on the topic of censorship in general, i think it's bullshit.

if you show me how a video game, or a book, or a movie, or a cd can physically kill somebody, i'll be willing to consider changing my stance. but until then, sorry.

i don't know how it is in canada, but in the states the current funked up administration is rooted in personal opinion ruling over freedom of choice, whereas an 'elite' (i.e. rich) group of people who have no real pulse on society outside of their circle of Jesus lovers, make the decision of what is right/wrong, good/bad, decent/unacceptable for everyone else. it's wrong. people have to be able to choose for themselves. to think for themselves. and to know for themselves what their own definition of what is right/wrong acceptable/unacceptable is.

i've been watching violent movies and playing violent video games since before the age of ten. my dad had me shooting guns since i was five. my sister was handing me nudie magazines when i was four. i've never shot anyone, raped anyone, or run down someone with a chainsaw. i'm heartbroken if i run over some animal on the road.

the earlier you expose kids to the 'seedier' parts of society, the earlier they can get an understanding of what right versus wrong [i:117a8aac8a]really[/i:117a8aac8a] is. and the more you hold them back from seeing something, the harder they are going to work to see it. it's like alcohol in this country. you have to be 21 to drink but you can sign up to have yourself killed at the age of 18? you have to be 18 to be able to buy a magazine to look at naked women/men in it? that makes no damn sense whatsoever.

how can someone justify censoring a book? it's a book for christ's sake. a bunch of words, binded in thick paper, with glue holding it together. last time i tried, the worst thing you can do with a book to harm someone is to chuck it at someone else. it'll sting, but it's not going to kill you.

how about refocusing this 'censorship' talk and energy towards things that should really be censored, things that really harm people. like presidents who lie to their citizens when it comes to matters of war, invading foreign countries for no real reason, killing thousands of innocent people along the way. or people who use the name of God to promote hateful speech against other human beings, inciting their followers to act violently against people who don't believe the way they do. can't we censor real problems, like hunger, and poverty, and disease, or the lack of health care?

a book? a cd? a movie? a video game? add all four together and the body count they are physically responisble for is still zero.

^ ^ ^