Offensive Content: Only When It Offends the liberal Elite
April 15, 2008 · By Shane Edwards
How insane is Canada?
Or is it just Canada’s media?
We are already intimately familiar with the media elites, uniting in solidarity to cut off Canadians from viewing the “offensive content” produced by the Danish cartoonists a few years ago. In their own eyes, they were righteous in their roles as gatekeepers of knowledge, to keep us from offensive content then.
But now, with Bill C-10 and the government’s efforts to save Canadian taxpayers from paying for porn and snuff, they are crying out that it is ludicrous to talk about censoring “offensive content”. Open season, they call for! Artistic expression they cry!
Unless it offends their orthodoxy that is.
Or maybe they are just railing about who makes the decision. When it’s themselves, that’s fine, because they know what is right.
When it’s the Conservative government, it’s censorship of the arts.
Painting all liberals with the same brush, Shane? While you make an interesting point, you are assuming that all liberals hold both views. Personally, I’m again government censorship in either case.
You’re right, anyone who can talk themselves into both positions is probably being hypocritical.
Snuff films? Do you honestly think this is about people decrying the censorship of criminal materials? How about kiddy porn - we don’t want to be subsidizing that either. Do you think maybe you’re oversimplifying just a bit?
Yes, and as we all know, there was no such thing as ‘the arts’ prior to government funding.
I am speaking mostly about the media elites. The Star was one of the papers who refused to print the cartoons. Now, they are publishing editorials railing against “government censorship” - the same kind of privelege they seem to feel they should be free to excercise.
Except with a significant difference. The Star is beholden to nobody but their subscribers, and if they fail their constituency, then they will go out of business.
The government, on the other hand, is responsible for public money, and hence must act as stewards of the public’s funds. They must be prudent in their subsidization and think of what is the best use. Hence, they need to consider questions like what is “art” that benefits society by supporting, and what is not art, and hurts society by supporting.
Frankly, I would rather see the government discontinue all subsidization of the arts. But as long as they are, I demand discretion. Hence I am in favour of the legislation.
But that is beside the point of the post.
The most prudent use of public money is to refrain from taking that money from the public at the very outset.
I find it more productive and consistent to demand less government intrusion in our lives rather than fine-tuning the current intrusions. Therefore, I advocate that all of the film industry gets tax breaks regardless of what films they make.
Wait! That is preferential treatment for the film industry, you say??
Yes, it is and I do not care. Our whole fiscal system plays favorites anyway.
Way to go Shane for further exposing this hypocrisy.