My Film BANNED from Shooting People.org!

D

DirtyPicturesTV

I was surprised to see this in my inbox this morning, a little missive from ShootingPeople.org that my film, "Dark America: The Final Abortion Debate," was removed from the site. Maybe "unimbedded" is a better term, as the film is actually hosted by YouTube.

Read on:


Hi Allen,
I've just watched your film, 'Dark America - The Final Abortion Debate' and have strong feelings that it could be offensive to our members, despite it's satiricle (sic) approach. We don't feel it's right for our platform so I'm going to have to take it down. If you'd like to discus this further feel free to contact me.
Thanks,
Stephanie

--
Stephanie Walton
Communities Manager
Shooting People
PO Box 51350
London
N1 6XS​


Of course, I had a few questions. Here's my response:


Stephanie,

Thanks very much for your e-mail. It's always lovely when people actually tell me that they've deleted my content, rather than deleting it and not saying anything. Very considerate of you.

I have some questions that I hope you can please take the time to answer for me. I really want to be clear about Shooting People's rules and procedures, because as written on the site, I find them very vaguely defined. Rather than post movies which will only be deleted, I'd really like to know Shooting People's expectations so that the site's boundaries are clear to me.

1) Did you receive any specific complaints from any of your members about the content of my film? Did my content actually offend a member?

2) Does the site typically delete content that it thinks might be offensive, and is content deemed offensive by Shooting People employees often deleted before offense has actually occurred?

3) Are you the only person who reviewed my content?

4) Do you review all films for their content, or do you only act on complaints?

5) How often, on average, are films deleted from the site for their content?

6) Are there particular topics that you feel cannot be included in member films that are shown on the site?

7) The only clause I can find on your site that mentions content, on your Terms and Conditions page, says this:

* 3.1 You may not post anything on Shooting People that contains any offensive language or anything which is considered by us to be obscene, threatening, harassing or defamatory or otherwise unlawful.

Can you tell me in what way my content specifically violates these guidelines? Can you tell me what constitutes "obscene"? Also, I see no mention of the word "offensive" in the guidelines; is such a rule governing "offensive" content written somewhere else? Also, how do you define "offensive"?

8) Does Shooting People often delete content that it considers to be adult-oriented? Does the site have hard restrictions against posting films containing violence, language, or mature themes and content? If so, where are these restrictions posted on the site?

9) Would your most recent Shooting People judge, John Waters, be allowed to post his 1972 film "Pink Flamingos" on the site, given that it depicts such moments as actor Divine eating fresh dog feces?

10) Does Shooting People support freedom of artistic expression?

Thanks very much for taking the time to answer my questions. I really appreciate your replies, which should be an easy task for you given that these are important, essential questions that Shooting People has no doubt already asked and answered during the process of setting the policies that govern deleting films from your site.

Yours,

-Allen​


Note that nowhere did I specifically challenge their right to remove content.

And yes, John Waters was really Shooting People's Film of the Month contest judge for July. Let's see if they understand irony.

I'll keep you posted when (and if) this drama continues. :censored:
 
Sucks that they pulled your video; I thought it was pretty funny. Yeah, offensive, but not nearly as bad as some (Pink Flamingos, that you mentioned, is a prime example). Your response was very mature; as you pointed you, you never said it was wrong for them to not want your video on their site. It's their playground, and they CAN make any rules that they want to, but really crappy that they didn't tell you those rules before you posted it.

I'd send the video to John Waters. Not only is it his brand of humor, he might step up if the site asks him to participate again.

Also, pretty funny that satire was found offensive by a site called SHOOTING PEOPLE. Shoot them...just don't say anything politically sensitive to them!
 
Last edited:
I only had a chance to see the beginning (I'm at work).

I can see how some people will be offended by the piece. But, some people will be offended by most anything nowadays.

She just jumped the gun. It sucks for you because John Waters was a judge. I'd have bitched about that pretty loud.
 
Well, your film does have "offensive" language, which they explicitly state is against their rules. Apparently...

(I found your movie offensive only because it tries way, way, way too hard and thus kills any comedic value it could've had.)
 
DirtyPicturesTV said:
Note that nowhere did I specifically challenge their right to remove content.
Click to expand...

But you did ask some very biased, leading questions. Number 10, specifically,
is very difficult to answer. Every American supports freedom of artistic
expression but most understand that website owners have the right to their
own standards.

It seems you made a product with the intent to offend some - or at the very
least you know when making this some would be offended. You shouldn't be
surprised when people are offended.

So has she answered?
 
Having said that... now I've watched the video...

I think it was right to remove the content. not because it could offend people, but because it's not funny.

Your script is terrible and the delivery is about as well thought through as your whiny email.

I'm glad it was "unimbedded" [sic]

Smith
 
@directorik: I wasn't surprised that I offended somebody. What surprised me was that a filmmaker's site would take it down. Which of my questions is biased or leading? They are all fair points, and she did offer to discuss it further. In any case, so far there's no reply.

@Smith: To quote that comic -- you're a dick. Not because you don't like my movie, but because you're deliberately being personally insulting for no reason other than your own insecure need to pump up your own ego. Childish.

@Wombat: Thanks for your viewpoint, but should I have not tried at all? "Trying too hard" is a meaningless phrase. How hard do you try when you create something? :huh:
 
DirtyPicturesTV said:
@Smith: To quote that comic -- you're a dick. Not because you don't like my movie, but because you're deliberately being personally insulting for no reason other than your own insecure need to pump up your own ego. Childish.
Click to expand...

Hmm, well I guess you didn't get it. :lol:

I think you're making a big stink over nothing, tbh. The website doesn't want to host your material. It's not like they're the only video website out there.

I'll keep you posted when (and if) this drama continues.
Click to expand...

Why are you pushing for drama?
 
I just watched the video. I liked your BP/Godzilla one but thisnone didn't work for me. I think that Wombat and Smith are kind of right it was shocking where it should've been satirical and tried way too hard to keep flogging the same joke.

And as has been pointe out the ShootingPeople contest said that they wouldn't allow offensive language so I can't see why you're surprised that this got pulled.

If you want to have a man beat a foetus puppet to death with a hammer for the sake of 'comedy' then you've got to be prepared for some people to find it offensive. Clearly the people who count at SP did and that's pretty much that.
 
Zensteve said:
Hmm, well I guess you didn't get it. :lol:

I think you're making a big stink over nothing, tbh. The website doesn't want to host your material. It's not like they're the only video website out there.
Click to expand...

But, you pay to post on the site. That's kind of a big deal. I was going to check it out, and it's $45. I'd be pissed. But, I'm just an angry old man.
 
ussinners said:
But, you pay to post on the site. That's kind of a big deal. I was going to check it out, and it's $45. I'd be pissed. But, I'm just an angry old man.
Click to expand...

Shooting People is a subscription based website, yes, but you get a lot more for your money than just entry into these contests.

So yes it's frustrating to have the video removed but it's one of those things. If you're a Premiere member here on Indietalk, does that mean you should never be banned or suspended?
 
NickClapper said:
Shooting People is a subscription based website, yes, but you get a lot more for your money than just entry into these contests.

So yes it's frustrating to have the video removed but it's one of those things. If you're a Premiere member here on Indietalk, does that mean you should never be banned or suspended?
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone should ever be banned or suspended unless they're spamming or just outright nasty for no reason. Which is something I will never understand. If you have nothing helpful to say, then don't waste the energy to write something moronic.

I completely understand why the video was removed. But, would I remove it? No. We've become a world of political correctness where you can't say anything without offending someone. Which is what I loved about the comedians video. I'm going to say it, FUCK political correctness. Offend everyone, because it's so easy to nowadays.

We need to grow our backbones back.
 
DirtyPicturesTV said:
@Wombat: Thanks for your viewpoint, but should I have not tried at all? "Trying too hard" is a meaningless phrase. How hard do you try when you create something? :huh:
Click to expand...
It's foolish to assume the alternative to trying too hard is to not try at all.

Most of the short felt forced. I consider myself a connoisseur of comedy, and for me, nothing kills the humor in something more than it feeling forced.

Two quick examples:

1) The subversion of using the fetus as the straight man and the anchor as the stooge is an okay concept but frankly the execution was pretty bad. The anchor was overbearing and had mediocre delivery and timing.

2) It was a pretty poor characterization of the anti-abortion argument. I know, I know, it was a comedic sketch, but it's rather obvious that you took a position on the issue and as such it would've been a lot funnier if you were satirizing the salient issues of the debate rather than awkward strawmans and tertiary positions.

The production values were nice, though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top