Censorship of shows on streaming services is wrong and technically illegal.

[LoudyKaizoku]

As you no doubt know, the First Amendment gives people the right to free expression.
Due to streaming services censoring shows, isn't it true that they are in direct violation of the law? If so, why haven't they been taken to court?
Censorship is wrong. Freedom for all creators is law, so to all the streaming services out there: Obey the law, or go to jail.

 

[the greenman]

I'm hearing about the changes to some Disney+ stuff. One thing I do not care for is them changing the Fox stuff.

Sent from my LM-Q730 using Tapatalk

 

[LoudyKaizoku]

I'm hearing about the changes to some Disney+ stuff. One thing I do not care for is them changing the Fox stuff.

Sent from my LM-Q730 using Tapatalk

This has to be illegal.

 

[Dantheman]

I heard about Peacock removing the episodes of 30 Rock that use blackface to point out how ridiculous and stupid the whole thing is, and I'm like, "Huh?",

 

[PF9]

Star Trek: Lower Decks bleeps out swear words, which as a streaming original should not do. Hence my user title.

 

[Erased Paper]

It's not illegal.

 

[Surreal Kangaroo]

It’s not illegal. Companies can put whatever they want on their streaming services. Besides, the First Amendment does not protect against vulgarity.

 

[Zorak Masaki]

I heard about Peacock removing the episodes of 30 Rock that use blackface to point out how ridiculous and stupid the whole thing is, and I'm like, "Huh?",

I'd just remove the scene in question instead of removing the whole episode. Thats what SNL does with controversial sketches.

 

[Pooky]

I'm kind of in two minds about censorship on streaming. I used to be (and still am) OK with censorship on TV (within reason), providing any physical media releases were uncut and thus available for serious fans and historians*. Arguably the same should apply to streaming; the missing episodes of 30 Rock and Community can still be bought on DVD if you really want them. But on the other hand Streaming is arguably replacing, or could in the future more or less replace, Physical Media as well as traditional TV so does the same logic apply? I'm not sure.

It's not really a breach of the first amendment though; by that logic so are script rewrites, exec notes, choices made by the editor and director. The entire production process for more or less all filmed fiction falls apart by that logic.

*And no we're not owed uncut physical releases, any more than we're owed a watch that works for more than day if it's not guaranteed, but in both cases I think it's a bit of a shoddy product.

 

[Light Lucario]

As you no doubt know, the First Amendment gives people the right to free expression.
Due to streaming services censoring shows, isn't it true that they are in direct violation of the law? If so, why haven't they been taken to court?
Censorship is wrong. Freedom for all creators is law, so to all the streaming services out there: Obey the law, or go to jail.

I really don't think that you understand what the First Amendment actually is. It isn't the right to free expression or freedom for all creators. It's about how the government can't stop people from expressing their opinions. People are entitled to their opinions and are free to express it, but the First Amendment doesn't mean that people can't have consequences for what they say or do.

Censorship isn't really the same thing as freedom of speech. There are still standards and practices when it comes to what is allowed on TV and I assume the same is the case for streaming services too. Companies are not going to go to jail for editing shows on their streaming platform, especially when in many cases they actually own these shows. Disney owns plenty of Fox shows, so having them censor their own products for Disney+ isn't illegal. You could maybe argue whether or not censorship is necessary or justified, but editing shows isn't really breaking the law.

 

[the greenman]

Apparently Disney + has fixed some of those edits. So blame the people that work there. The 'F&WS' altered fight scene with US Agent was not an accidental Foreign cut of the film like what happened to 'Splash'. So I am kinda curious.

Sent from my LM-Q730 using Tapatalk

 

[Hanshotfirst1138]

I doubt it’s illegal.

 

[Spacething7474]

censorship is cool, overhated, and should be employed far more often

 

[LoudyKaizoku]

censorship is cool, overhated, and should be employed far more often

Take that back, you communist.

 

[Classic Speedy]

Um, no. The creators/studios can do whatever they want with their own properties. It's the same reason why Facebook and Twitter are not out of bounds for banning people that violate their TOS; they're private companies and can run them however they wish.

The First Amendment only applies to the idea that the government can't arrest you for what you say about the government. i.e. You can't be arrested for criticizing the current administration.

You don't like studios censoring stuff? Write them expressing your dissatisfaction. "Vote" with your dollars. But if you think you can sue them on the grounds that they're violating free speech? Good luck.

 

[LoudyKaizoku]

Um, no. The creators/studios can do whatever they want with their own properties. It's the same reason why Facebook and Twitter are not out of bounds for banning people that violate their TOS; they're private companies and can run them however they wish.

The First Amendment only applies to the idea that the government can't arrest you for what you say about the government. i.e. You can't be arrested for criticizing the current administration.

You don't like studios censoring stuff? Write them expressing your dissatisfaction. "Vote" with your dollars. But if you think you can sue them on the grounds that they're violating free speech? Good luck.

Can't the government just pass a modification to the First Amendment stating this:
Free Expression also applies to streaming services. If the streaming services censor a program, they will be fined.

 

[Light Lucario]

Can't the government just pass a modification to the First Amendment stating this:
Free Expression also applies to streaming services. If the streaming services censor a program, they will be fined.

No because that still isn't what the First Amendment is about. Censoring a program on a streaming service isn't the same thing as the idea of people being arrested for voicing their opinions on the government. One is about protecting people and the other is about streaming services. The idea of making companies pay a fine for censoring their own programs or whatever they allow to put on their streaming services is ridiculous. That would be pointless, especially when plenty of these companies would actually own the rights to these shows or movies that they edit too.

If you don't like how some shows or movies are edited or censored, that would be one thing, but trying to make it illegal is just pointless. You don't understand what the First Amendment is if you really want to have it apply to streaming services.

 

[Fone Bone]

This is probably the stupidest thread in the past month or so. Yeah, I know what a statement that is. But it's so damn dumb I miss the subtlety and nuance of a dude asking why a decade is half over.

If someone wants to chide me for being indecorous or rude my response is the damn thread is still freaking open. While this train wreck is occurring I'll say my piece.

 

[Surreal Kangaroo]

censorship is cool, overhated, and should be employed far more often

I’m not sure if I would go that far, but I wish more streaming services would offer more “family friendly” edits of movies. I know Disney+ had one for Avatar. Just to be clear, I’m not saying things must be censored, I just wish there were more options.