My Film BANNED from Shooting People.org!
- Thread starter DirtyPicturesTV
- Start date
I have to admit, personally it was hard to watch your video. I didn't make it through. Only because the graphic images were just hard to look at. I'd say you pushed the limits which most people here can appreciate, but I could see how some sites wouldn't want to host it. You used graphic images and pitch black humor on an extremely touchy subject -- a subject bound to two of the nastiest elements in our culture: Religion and Politics so not everyone can appreciate the short. Don't take your foot off the gas though. Banishment can be a badge of honor.
Lots of valid points here -- thanks for your thoughts. Let me clarify a few things.
Firstly, I'm also not completely happy with my own video. But I think it's always better to finish these things as best as one can before moving on. (Wombat -- glad you noticed the production value. A lot of work went into it even if the result was not to your liking.)
And yes, I totally expected it would offend some people. In fact, I hoped it would. Having a film banned is like a badge of honor, as far as I'm concerned. However, I did not set out to get it banned from the site. I posted it there without fanfare as I did here, and let people make what they would out of it. I don't care how people react to it, just that it gets seen (though my preference is a reaction of some kind, even negative). I know it's not for everybody.
Zensteve, I only described the e-mail exchange as drama since the site's content cops seemed to want to create some where none need have existed. As I alluded to in my e-mail response, their most recent judge would probably not be allowed to show his own films on their site. I find that position to be hypocritical, which is one of the reasons I asked a long list of questions; if the woman who sent it to me was was honest about further discussion, she might have made at least token effort to respond. To me their approach demonstrates that their own censorship policies are unclear and inconsistently applied.
Plus, and this is a big point for me, the site promotes filmmaking. Censorship is the opposite of that kind of mission statement, and taking offense is all about personal taste. In running a public site that encourages artistic expression, I personally don't think banning anything (other than, for example, pure porn, real-life graphic violence, or blatant advertising) is a valid choice. Not liking a particular work is absolutely a valid choice, but a choice that should be left for individual users to decide. If you ban a work, you're basically being completely patronizing to your users, saying, in effect, that you know what's best for them. Is that honestly a defensible position these days?
I am not, by the way, averse to content warnings on films, or filter systems that utilize such markers to remove such content from search results. But people still must be allowed to decide what they want to see. (Anybody who thinks children are protected from offensive online content by banning it is deluded; only direct parental supervision is truly an effective filter.)
By the way, I don't have a ShootingPeople.org paid membership, but a free one. Not that it would have made a difference!
Thanks again for the thoughtful comments.
Firstly, I'm also not completely happy with my own video. But I think it's always better to finish these things as best as one can before moving on. (Wombat -- glad you noticed the production value. A lot of work went into it even if the result was not to your liking.)
And yes, I totally expected it would offend some people. In fact, I hoped it would. Having a film banned is like a badge of honor, as far as I'm concerned. However, I did not set out to get it banned from the site. I posted it there without fanfare as I did here, and let people make what they would out of it. I don't care how people react to it, just that it gets seen (though my preference is a reaction of some kind, even negative). I know it's not for everybody.
Zensteve, I only described the e-mail exchange as drama since the site's content cops seemed to want to create some where none need have existed. As I alluded to in my e-mail response, their most recent judge would probably not be allowed to show his own films on their site. I find that position to be hypocritical, which is one of the reasons I asked a long list of questions; if the woman who sent it to me was was honest about further discussion, she might have made at least token effort to respond. To me their approach demonstrates that their own censorship policies are unclear and inconsistently applied.
Plus, and this is a big point for me, the site promotes filmmaking. Censorship is the opposite of that kind of mission statement, and taking offense is all about personal taste. In running a public site that encourages artistic expression, I personally don't think banning anything (other than, for example, pure porn, real-life graphic violence, or blatant advertising) is a valid choice. Not liking a particular work is absolutely a valid choice, but a choice that should be left for individual users to decide. If you ban a work, you're basically being completely patronizing to your users, saying, in effect, that you know what's best for them. Is that honestly a defensible position these days?
I am not, by the way, averse to content warnings on films, or filter systems that utilize such markers to remove such content from search results. But people still must be allowed to decide what they want to see. (Anybody who thinks children are protected from offensive online content by banning it is deluded; only direct parental supervision is truly an effective filter.)
By the way, I don't have a ShootingPeople.org paid membership, but a free one. Not that it would have made a difference!
Thanks again for the thoughtful comments.
Then you have no complaints.
How do you sign up for free? I can't find the area. I just see Enroll Now and they ask for $45.
Sorry to hear the dissappointment.
See if you can turn lemon to lemonaide and get some press over this. This is the stuff that makes news and gets you exposure.
See if you can turn lemon to lemonaide and get some press over this. This is the stuff that makes news and gets you exposure.
Your email is rife with bitter sarcasm. It is difficult FOR ME to take it seriously because of that. I'm not suggesting that it is wrong - it's just not the approach I would've taken.
To each his/her own.
To each his/her own.
Then you have no complaints.
How do you sign up for free? I can't find the area. I just see Enroll Now and they ask for $45.
Some complaints. I see now there are no more free memberships!
I was an original site member when they first went up over a decade ago. So I think that I have some kind of legacy free account, which does not allow me the same access to site functions as full members (though long ago, it used to). And as an Original Gangsta, I thought maybe they'd treat me with a little more respect. But no, since I'm too cheap of a bastard to cough up any fees. And getting a film banned isn't much of an incentive to ever pay them. I can get banned for free elsewhere!
You noticed!
True, but I wouldn't say it was utterly disrespectful. Just cheeky. I thought the Brits appreciated a little cheek!