Where is that line between social responsibility and censorship? Or… does such a line even exist? Is any form of social restraint just an expression of censorship, and if so, what do we deem the line between acceptable censorship and non-acceptable censorship? These types of questions are raised all the time, and they’re being raised again now over a decision in the United Kingdom to take down certain posters for the film “Shoot Em Up” that highlight guns in them.
Our friends over at FilmJunk give us this:
The Advertising Standards Authority ruled that two of the posters for the action-comedy Shoot ‘Em Up glamorized guns and should no longer be displayed in public places. Over 55 complaints were received about the posters, a strong reaction which may have resulted from a recent shooting in Liverpool resulting in the death of young schoolboy Rhys Jones.
I’m not really going to offer an opinion here. I’m more interested in what you guys have to say. In a situation like this, is this censorship or just common sense given the situation that community finds itself in? Where is the line between the two?
8. RyanMag!!!
Hey john if your interested in doing what post 8 said.
The Plugin require to do this is here
http://blog.chweng.idv.tw/wordpress/ajaxified-expand-post-now
this plugin just changes the function of the more… tag just to expand post without load new page.
The story is being mis reported the posters were removed not due to censorship but due to the fact that a young girl was shoot very close bye and it is in bad taste just to leave they up, with peeps leave flower etc
From the UK also, I dont really care for censorship and the lunacy of man is to blame for idiot killings.
But from the first time I saw the ad’s for the flick on TV I thought there would be complaints and a backlash from certain people.
The ads were in bad taste, as was the film – I didnt see it and tbh it looked like a load of crap and from what I read was a load of crap.
But we see guns day in day out in lots of film and TV, so imo its just a rediculas action by the censors to calm the minority in a troubled time over here in the UK where Gun crime is rising and is making the headlines more now then ever before.
The UK is going through a big problem with gun crime at the moment, like we have never seen before – I dont want guns here, I’m sure the vaste vaste majority dont either, but I’m also guessing that the vaste majority dosent consider a ridiculas fictional gun filled flick to be influencing the gangs that use guns in the UK today.
Stupid reaction to an outcry ffrom a very small section of the fantasist public.
laters
Ricci
I’m against any form of censorship but sometimes it makes sense. Let’s say your brother or someone close to you was shot by some kids/teens or somebody who shouldn’t have a gun in the first place. Then you go out and see the poster above basically everywhere, saying “shoot’em up! shoot’em up!”. Wouldn’t you be upset?
Also, the toaster comparison is a bad one. Guns are made to kill people; toasters are not made to kill people. When guns are used for their intended purpose it’s normal for people to get upset when they see them glamorized somewhere. When someone uses a toaster for the wrong purpose, you can’t actually blame toasters or be upset by them. Unless, I don’t know, people frequently died due to bad toasted bread and nobody did anything about it.
Taking the posters down is not due to violence or guns . It is the embarrassment of a stinker to start with.
BTW, if it was sex & booze, it would not only be a full Quad, but the fuckers would be framed and displayed in front of Buckingham Palace.
I think the whole movie is a bit of a sick idea. The less guns the better.
It would be hilarious if they did mandate that guns were not used on posters or DVD sleeves. Just go through the video store and look at the number of DVD sleeves with a gun in the image (in any of the ‘genre’s – even Drama and Comedy). The mind boggles how many of them have guns on the cover!
Censorship is part and parcel of society and probably always has been. Plato advocated censoring all ‘poetry and music’ (meaning all art really). Obviously, Plato can shove it though. As a few commenters have noted, the UK is probably tightening up censorship of gun-related items because of the massive increase in gun crime we’ve experienced lately. Pragmatic censorship is fair play, but we have to watch out that it doesn’t go too far.
That completely changes the story. I would ABSOLUTELY agree the posters would be in bad taste in the location now. No fault of the film but out of respect for a tragedy i would not want gunplay images of anykind there either.
this whole brew-haha started because the posters were put up[ in a bus stop next to where a 4 year girl was shot dead about two weeks previously.
picture going to lay flowers in respect at the site having to see clive owen looking that cool and badass.
Just thought I’d echo some of the thoughts already here – being a Uk’er and all. The film was out ages ago, and it was rubbish. 2 good reasons to take the posters down in my opinion. But also, if they were up in areas sensitive to gun crime then its fair enough to ask them to be removed.
Question:
I like the new format of the site and all, with like the shortened stories on the front so you can skim through. But is there a possible way to maybe make it so that, when you click the “more” button, it extends the article on the same page without reloading the whole thing on a new page?
Just thought I’d ask, it’s not really a HUGE deal but didn’t know if you already thought of it.
I enjoyed the film but the poster does glorify the use of guns, and i think it should be banned. A man standing heroically holding two pistols as a beautiful women stands in the back in awe, does send out a message. Call me lame if you want but the media shapes all parts of our life it may not make us go and shout someone but it will give you a certain attitude of an ideal thats shallow.
That Clive Owen’s a bad influence, let’s lock him away in the London Dungeon.
What happens when somebody dies from a lunatic beating them to death with a toaster? Will be ban toaster ads next because it gives a ‘strong reaciton’. I mean come on where do we draw the lines? Makes me wonder how the 300 movie posters were allowed but this is not.
If it had violence / blood / graphic content I would 100% back this move, but the depiction of a gun is not enough to get me riled.
No offence to anyone who made the film but it didnt do well when it was out here and dont know any kids that have seen it and if they did they would see that it was impossible to do half the things that he does
I’m sorry, but if they think that kids will shoot up their schools because of a damn movie poster, they’re nuts. You’ll have to get rid of all the tv shows with guns next. Then rid the country of any and all DVDs with gun content in the films. Next, purge the libraries of any violent books. Then you’ll never have a school shooting ever again.
Oops, but there’s still that pesky Internet…………….
I am also from the UK. I don’t see how Clive Owen holding guns is any different to Clive Owen snorting drugs on the poster. They both glamorize, or put images into the public eye that are frowned upon. I mean the title itself would raise a few eyebrows so no doubt people will complain.
Personally I’d rather just watch the film but films and their messages affect a % of the population so things need to be accommodated.
I live in the UK and these postes have been up for months and the have been taken down so long ago it must be in the most randomsit places.
I’am not saying that it is right to have it on pictures but the death of the lad happend months after the film was relaeased and that seems taht they wasnt many people complaining.