Writers and the Law

[42]

Well, I found this to be an interesting developement.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/TV/12/23/tv.friends.lawsuit.ap/index.html

I agree with the statement that writers can't duck responsibility for what they write or say. But I'm not sure what would be the end result of this law suit.

[Archon]

I think that if the prosecution wins this case, it will be another step closer to censoring thoughts. Think about it, if you can't just throw out ideas, then you are deprived of the most important part of creative thought.

[42]

Yes, but some thoughts need to be thrown out because the thoughts are detrimental to society. All thoughts aren't innocent.

Course, I also have a hard time seeing how these things can be governed.

[Entsuropi]

According to european politics, with miles of red tape and hundreds of little fines.

[MsFish]

I don't see what governing sexual conversation which may have turned into sexual harrassment has to do with governing thoughts.  Just because you can't say things in a work environment that are harmful to others doesn't mean you can't think whatever you want.  Honestly, if the creative processes involved in shows like Friends are jeapordized, all the better, I say.  We aren't exactly talking high art here.  

[Archon]

To 42, I say: You can not govern thoughts and be just about it. It is impossible. Even if someone is thinking about breaking a law, you have no proof that they will. Everyone has impulses, most of society knows how to control them. And the question must be asked, who is going to decide what is moral and immoral? Would you really trust someone, or even some group, to decide what thoughts that you might have would be moral and immoral?

To Fish: First of all, you said "may have turned into...." I may have had my eleventy first birthday last night. But I didnt. You cant make more rules that restrict people of basic freedoms, especially on the principle that something might have happened. Second of all, when a group is working together on something like a comedy show, they are working to get ideas together. If you restrict what ideas can be expressed, then you are restricting the creativity of the group. When people have to think twice about what they can say out of fear of legal punishment, that is pretty close to Thought Police. And last of all, just because it is not an upper class habit, does not make it any less invaluable. I personally really like the show, and I think it is fairly stuck up to say that the writers should be restricted from their thoughts because their show doesnt fit your taste.

[MsFish]

Oh my goodness.  

When I said "may have" I meant in the sense that I wasn't there.  I don't know if there was sexual harrassment going on.  I'm assuming that the lawyers/jury/judge will determine that and that I need not make final judgements about it, hence the word "may".  I was not implying that they should deal out any punishments based on what may have happened.  Capiche?  

And I meant what I said.  If the creativity of flagrantly sexually explicit and (in my not-so-humble opinion) degrading TV shows is hampered, then I say, hooray for that.  

As I read this over I realize that it sounds harsh.  Please don't take it that way.  I just enjoy a good argument.  



What strikes me as truely hilarious is that I'm re-reading what I've written here tonight, and I'm not sure that it's actually representative of my opinion.  It's an opinion that I might entertain.  But the fact that I'm arguing it means that I've waxed argumentative.  So I'm going to go read something instead now.  

[Archon]

You know what Ms.Fish, I have decided that your ideas offend me. Therefore I am going to say that you aren't allowed to have those ideas. So from now on, you are no longer allowed to think or talk about any of the following: Feminism, Any holiday that celebrates being female I.E. Mother's day, any female organization, Lifetime T.V., and, just for good measure, the accomplishments of female politicians.

This has been an example of thought policing. Now imagine I had the law on my side and could actually take money from you every time you mentioned any of the above topics. But still, this is a good thing because I dont like your opinions, and you can't express them anymore.

[42]

First, Archon. Your example is stupid. There are lots of groups that are oppressed in a current society. Often they are oppressed for a reason. Nazis, satanist, and terrorists are all oppressed as are their ideas.

For societies to function, there has to be agreements. This means that needs of individuals are often sacrificed. Usually, the benefits of being part of a society outweigh the loss of the individual.

So the question, is limiting the creativity of script writers, helping or hurting the society. Well, first you have to think, how important is the function of script writers in society compared to everything else. Compared to doctors, teacher, and farmers; script writers are pretty low on the totum pole as far as providing a useful function to society. Not to completely dismerit script writers, they do provide some funtion, but not a function that will cause the society to collapsed if they can no longer do it.

There are plenty of societies that have gotten along just fine without script writers.

So before restrictions are placed on script writers, you have to ask are they necessary.  Well, the script writers are saying that the restrictions will deny them their basic human rights. Yet, the plantiffs are saying that the restrictions will protect their basic human rights. So which basic human right is more important?

Personally, I have a grudge against the "freedom of expression" argument. I find it to be one of those hippy terms that was never thought through, but sounds nice. Obviously, there are lot of things that can't be said or expressed in public. If you want to get along you have to agree to follow what the majority finds acceptable. Societies, economies, language, and culture are all based on that concept to some degree.

Now, if the complaints agianst these script writers is accurate. Then the script writers may have commited a serious harm to the society. Allowing a minority group to mentally and emotionally abuse another group for the sake of creativity just seems ascewed.

I think between having a safe work environment and having creative control. I would go with the safe environment. I find that creativity is over-rated and severely misunderstood.

[Skar]

42 has hit the nail on the head.  You can't govern thoughts and to attempt to do so invites/causes huge infringements on peoples pursuit of happinness and freedom.

We already have thought law on the books.  It's called hate-crime legislation.  If you murder someone you get different penalties depending on what you were thinking at the time.  

"Stupid jerk cut me off, I think I'll shoot him."

"Stupid faggot cut me off, I think I'll shoot him."

There's only a small step between punishing someone for thinking a certain thing while committing a crime and punishing someone for what they were thinking period.

The root problem is enforceability.  It is totally impossible to show what someone was/is thinking.  Thus their can be no standard of evidence and anyone can be convicted for thinking anything, whether they did or not.

When it comes to writers being offended by crude language in a writer's room my gut reaction is let it bounce off or leave.  Just stop whining.  There is a well-defined line between sexual harassment and simple crude language.  If the behavior crosses the line, take them to court, if it doesn't don't, simple as that.  If you don't like working for a certain organization, shop around and find a position somewhere else.  It's what the rest of us have to do.

That poor Hirsch lady should have had the exposers picked up on charges of indecent exposure.

The lawsuit's attempt to define it as a free-speech versus creative environment situation sounds like smokescreen to me.  I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out that it's just another activist groups trying to twist the law to its own ends by setting advantageous precedents with frivolous law suits.

[42]

A lot does depend on how hurtful the actions of the script writers really were. They sound like they were definitely unprofessional. Very few work environments would tolerate that kind of behavior. But are they hurting people or groups of people in a significant way?

[Gemm: Rock & Roll Star; Born to Rock]

I didn't want to chime in or anything, since I'm not too big on law. But I figured I'd add in my half of my own two cents. (You try and figure that one out, I was never very good at math.)

So, on mIRC I have this group of friends that do much writing for the games they run. And whenever I'm around I usually get to be a part of whatever they're talking about currently. Usually it's just mild conversation, until someone brings something odd into the mix, and then it goes asunder from there. Of course I'm delving into a whole different beast with the Internet and all.

But that's my barely divisable two cents.

[Archon]

First, Archon. Your example is stupid. There are lots of groups that are oppressed in a current society. Often they are oppressed for a reason. Nazis, satanist, and terrorists are all oppressed as are their ideas.

For societies to function, there has to be agreements. This means that needs of individuals are often sacrificed. Usually, the benefits of being part of a society outweigh the loss of the individual.

So let's take this a step backward. If that were the case, then black people should never have fought for their rights, because the benefits of being part of society outweigh the racism. One could argue that they were hated for a reason.
Second paragraph translation: some people have to be sacrificed so that other people can enjoy their beautiful image of reality. They either accept it or hike (which isnt really an option in this day and age)
Really? Because by the same logic, you could easily justify slavery. Hey, I control the white majority and I think that black people should sacrifice their freedom so the rest of us can enjoy the benefits.

[42]

Archon you severely misunderstand how societies work.
Haven't you ever had a sociology, political science, or economics class?

You also don't seem to understand what caused slavery and how it ended. Slavery didn't end because the blacks fought against it, it ended because white people fought for them. If the majority had decided that slavery was just, then we would still have slavery today. Sad, but true.

Now returning to the original discussion, I don't see that writers be censored is violating any of their basic rights. It may inconvenience them, but it is far from depriving them of basic rights.

But, if the claims angainst the writers are true, then the writers were depriving someone else of their basic rights.

I see that freedom of expression has limits. There are already a host of expressions that are censored in our society. Religious expression being a prime target. If writers can behave lewdly and have it protected, then why can't they protect praying in schools?

[Archon]

I should have clarified, in my first statement, I didnt mean they fought against slavery, I meant they fought for the right to not be legally discriminated against i.e. Jim Crow laws. I know that white people ended slavery.

Second of all, how can you not see that preventing people from saying what they want, the limit being threats of bodily harm, is immoral. Making lewd remarks is not taking away the rights of other people. It isn't a right to like everything that everyone else says. It even says in this article that the woman who is suing was not directly harassed, but that what they said about women "added up to harassment." It sounds to me like this woman needs to go bakc to kindergarten and learn that phrase about sticks and stones. They didnt threaten her, they didnt directly harass her, so if she cant stomach what they say, she should just leave.

Praying in school is another issue altogether. This is only the case in schools paid for by the government. Allowing the faculty to favor any religion would be discriminatory. The kids can still choose to pray if they like, but the school can't have an official time for prayer or anything like that, because it would be favoring one religion.