Timewaster's Guide Archive
Departments => Books => Topic started by: 42 on December 23, 2004, 07:46:53 PM
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
According to european politics, with miles of red tape and hundreds of little fines.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. ;D
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
Well, like I said earlier, it depends on how damaging the actions really were.
From my volunteer work at the mental health center, I've met a lot people who have been severely damaged by words.
If someone hears enough offensive/abusive words, either directed at them or around them, it will trigger a psychosomatic response. Thus a person becomes physically damaged resulting from verbal assualt. It does take a fairly constant barrage of negative verbage to cause this, but it does happen and more often then many people will admit. Actions cause it to happen even faster. Also, genetics and age play a factor.
So while the stick as stones phrase is mostly true it is not entirely true.
Thus the extent of the damage to these women needs to be accessed. As I see it, if the women were simply disatisfied with the environment, then I don't see a change being necessary. But if the environment has left women with emotional scars that have hindered the women in performing basic tasks, then some action needs to be taken. There is a spectrum that will have to be evaluated by the courts.
-
Ok, but they chose to be there. In the time that it would take to inflict serious damage, I should think she could find a different job, or, as she ended up doing, join the military. And my bet is that she would have, if it were hurting her that badly. Therefore, I would bet that she is just whining so she can get some money out of it.
-
It is likely that she is just whining, but you have to consider that people often don't realize how damaging words are until after the fact. Often not until years later.
-
Ok, but they chose to be there. In the time that it would take to inflict serious damage, I should think she could find a different job, or, as she ended up doing, join the military. And my bet is that she would have, if it were hurting her that badly. Therefore, I would bet that she is just whining so she can get some money out of it.
I agree that what was described in this article was not very bad sounding or horrible. As someone who was sexually harassed in the past, I'm throwing in my lot with 42. You can say a lot of things in retrospect that you SHOULD have done in that situation. It's not always easy to think objectively while you're being subjected to it, especially if you happen to be an emotionally vulnerable person.
-
I was going to defend myself against that "thought police" example directed at me, but it looks like 42 has it covered. All I have to say is, are we in a work environment? No.
I was trying to come up with something else to say, but this argument is giving me a headache.
Merry Christmas, Archon.
And Merry Christmas everyone else too.
-
Merry Christmas MsFish, and everyone else for that matter. MsFish, I don't really know what to do with that last argument, so if you want to post a more lengthy response, we can continue, if not, we can let that rest. Fuzzy, I don't know enough about your situation to respond, and even if did, you would probably be dissatisfied with my response. So I am just going to bow out of that argument, to keep off of toes.
-
Oh but toes are so conveniently located for stepping on. You mean that's not what they're for?
-
Oh but toes are so conveniently located for stepping on. You mean that's not what they're for?
I'm sure it would seem that way to someone born with two left feet.
-
As a left footed person, I find that offensive. ;)
-
As a person with toes, I'm offended by this entire conversation, and intend to report it to the thought police. Where was their office located, again?
-
Correct me if I am wrong, it has been a long time since I read 1984, but I believe it is the Department of Love.
-
Yes, miniluv
-
I do want to chime in briefly on this topic, as the outcome of this case would directly affect my work environment. While I am not a television script-writer, I do work in the entertainment business, and I have been in many brain-storming sessions. When you're shooting things off the top of your head, sometimes things can get out of hand, especially when you are trying to capture that "something" that is fun or funny. When I worked for Acclaim, there was a game they were working on they were sure was going to be the next big thing in gaming. It was called BMX XXX. They wanted to create a whole line of XXX products. I was asked to come up ideas for a XXX version of the game I was working on, a professional wrestling game. Let's just say some of the ideas that came out of that meeting I would not have been comfortable saying in front of my mother.
Not to point fingers at anyone on this board, this is a general statement. But it has been my experience that the majority of those people who favor censorship do so when it conveniently reinforces their own particular views. In this example, the writing on Friends. You don't like it, then it doesn't bother you if it's censored. The problem with this is obviously, what happens when the government is trying to censor something we don't want censored? Expressing our personal views on religion in a public setting is a good example of a personal freedom we wouldn't want taken away from us.
In the example of this brainstorming room on Friends, I think it's clear that if her accusations are legitimate, the fact that someone is exposing themselves to her is clearly inappropriate behavior. Unless you're in the adult entertainment industry, that's not something you should have to deal with when you go to work. But to extend that to say, because I am an entertainment writer, I have less social worth than a doctor or humanitarian, and therefore I have less right to express my thoughts or ideas, I don't agree with that.
*SPOILER ALERT FOR THE GAME FAR CRY*
When I worked on Far Cry, I helped flesh out a little bit of the story. We had a cast of characters, including one guy who starts as your friend and double-crosses you later in the game. He happened to be a black man, which in-and-of-itself was no big deal. But when the game came out, all of a sudden we're reading criticisms that he was the ONLY main character that was black, we're a company based in Germany, so of course our facist mindsets cast the black guy as the villain. On the surface, that accusation was ridiculous. But what if the laws were such that someone felt we had offended someone in some way?
*END SPOILERS*
I'm just saying, regardless of whether or not the specific brainstorming sessions involved by the script-writers for Friends were inappropriate or not, I don't like the precedent it would set if from now on, a group of writers writing a show for an adult audience, involving risque situations and humor, if these writers have to weigh in every single thought they have before blurting it out under the deadlines and conditions they have to work in. Because that makes brainstorming A LOT more difficult, and I don't want that kind of restriction on me, especially when I am getting paid to be creative and it can directly affect my paycheck.
Basically, I don't expect to never be offended by what other people say, as long as I still have to right to say whatever is on my mind.
-
Well, just to add two bits, it is a legal fact that targetted sexual remarks are criminal if they are unwanted.
That sounds like the problem. The remarks, at least from what I read in the article, were not targetted. The "hostile environment" is often accepted as targetting, but the problem is that the complaintant has to point out that it's hostile. If she never did so, then in my view, she has no case at all.
I sympathize with fuzzy about not knowing when it's happening, but there's not a lot that can be done about that is there? If the victim doesn't know it's hurting him/her, then how can you possibly expect the abuser to know? It's unrealistic. Many people do not feel abused or offended by that type of conversation, and it seems an un acceptable limit on free speach to say the subject can never come up. It seems likewise absurd to ask a pre-conversation topic approval take place.
However, in a situation where you're brainstorming for a creative/entertainment situation, it should be understood beforehand that the topic may get out of control. I believe the employer has the responsibility to make sure any participants are aware of this so they can opt out. If someone feels targeted or offended, he/she must bring it up when it starts, to let people know, or else bring it up later so it doesn't happen again.
That seems to only fair and just way to enforce this type of behavior.
-
Bravo SE. Well put.
I agree.
-
Ok, new topic. 2 New Zealand authors are sueing Dan Brown (Da Vinci Code) for plagerism and stealing Intectual property since Brown's book used their book, holy Blood holy grail, as a bases for his book without their permission.
Now their book isn't fiction but an actual "historcal" research book that details all about the grail, the catholic secreat socitiys and all that stuff. I've seen the History Channel based off their book too. I don't think one can argure where Brown got the basis for his book since one of the main characters is named after the 2 that wrote HBHG.
One of the reasons I'm mentioning this is becasue last night EUOL told a mutial friend, who's been wanting to write a book, to "steal" a story for a book since so many authors do it.
here's (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/index.cfm?c_id=1&ObjectID=9003822) the link.
-
Does Brown cite the book at all in Da Vinci Code? Because if not, then I'd be happy to see them win.
-
No, I don't beleave he does.
But here's the crux of the argument for Brown. HBHG is a "thesius" as the book has been discribed. So how would Brown useing their research for a book any different then someone else useing another research book as refrence?
HBHG didn't create any of the mythos they reserached, though they were the first to actualy try and fact check everything (and write about it).
-
If HBHG is really a non-fiction work, well researched and all that, then the authors only have a very limited claim. They can claim that Brown drew source material from their book and didn't cite it properly but that's pretty weak. I mean honestly every time I write a military SF story and draw upon my knowledge of how the M240G machine gun works am I supposed to cite the manual? Would it be reasonable for the United States Intelligence agencies to sue Tom Clancy for plagiarism? Brown, after all, doesn't claim to have done the research. All Brown did was write a story. If anything, he gave a respectful nod in the plaintiff's direction by making one of the main characters resemble all three of them. The lawsuit is simply gold-digging. Brown achieved success and these "historians" are just trying to leech.
I am reminded of a story Orson Scott Card tells. He wrote a series of SF books that closely parallel in plot and character the Book of Mormon. He received angry letters from members of the LDS church accusing him of plagiarism. He smugly replied that he considered the BOM to be history rather than fiction so they could go stuff themselves.
Unless Leigh and Beagint (sic) consider their work fiction, they don't have a leg to stand on with the plagiarism charge. And really, since Brown's work was fiction and openly billed as such, they don't really have a leg to stand on with the "failure to cite" charge either.
-
actually they do still have that leg if he's using their research and using direct quotes or using verbage very close to their own. Just because it's fiction doesn't mean it doesn't steal someone else's non-fiction intellectual property.
-
NoBut here's the crux of the argument for Brown. HBHG is a "thesius" as the book has been discribed. So how would Brown useing their research for a book any different then someone else useing another research book as refrence?
The argument, as I think you're putting it, is that it's not plagiarism because the people who wrote HBHG are using other people's research too. The difference is, the authors of HBHG, i can guarantee you, cited their references.
I doubt they're asking Brown to cite on each page, just to acknowledge that he used their ideas in the book, like most professional fiction authors do when they refer to unique research in their writing.
If they are asking for more than that, then yeah, they're out of line.
ALso, the "similar character" bit is not plagiarism. Ever. There can be a case made for libel, if you can prove that he made it clear the character was supposed to resemble a real person and that there was something demeaning to his character that was false included. But simply having a character resemble a real world person has nothing to do with plagiarism.
-
actually they do still have that leg if he's using their research and using direct quotes or using verbage very close to their own. Just because it's fiction doesn't mean it doesn't steal someone else's non-fiction intellectual property.
Agreed. If he has his historian character quote their stuff or something like that then he should properly owe them some money but if he changed the words and lifted the idea he should have cited their work but owes them nothing more than an acknowledgement. Now that I think about it some more, if you'll recall, the one time I know of that we unknowingly abetted plagiarism at TLE (with that Sherlock Holmes/Jack the Ripper story) the solution was to print an acknowledgement in the next issue and send the whole payment to the original author.
But unless he DID quote their words directly he was just basing his story on history; and suing someone because they wrote a novel set in a historical period where you have done research is just silly.
-
I concur. But I'm also glad that some judge somewhere gets to resolve it, not me.
-
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.
But you dont seem to know that white people were instrumental in ending those Jim Crow laws as well. Think about it, those laws were repealed by votes, where did the majority of votes come from? Considering that balcks were in the minority a large number of those votes came from whites. Whites went down to mississippi to register voters, and they were in the national guard in little rock standing along the route a little girl took to go to the first integrated school. A lot of the people who marched with King to the steps of the Lincoln Memorial were white.
Obviously blacks were a big part of the movement, but so were whites,... thats how society works.
-
I think it would depend on how closely the books followed each other. I haven't read either book, but I don't think any author should be allowed to take a work of non-fiction and re-write it as a fiction story and pass it off as original. At that point you should need to have the permission of the author(s) before you publish.
It would be interesting to read both and see, but I heard the Da Vinci Code was less than stellar.
EDIT: It occurs to me that I ought to point out that if OSC did the same with the BOM, I can't really ignore this point after what I stated above. Again, I believe that it should depend on the extent of the parallels.
But, I accept the possibility that I could be wrong. That's just how I think things should work.
-
But the thing is MoD - the other authors didn't invent the history, they merely researched it. You cannot patent history. Otherwise band of brothers would be sued by people who wrote WW2 history books - its exactly the same situation.
-
I think you're stretching the point Entropy. I believe there is a big difference between reporting facts, especially on events and periods of history with hundreds of scholars and researchers, and writing a book that theorizes a completely different path of history than the standard accepted one.
Did that make sense?
-
No.
-
Okay, stacer summed it up better when I asked for her to look my response over.
The difference between generally accepted facts and a new theory.
Now, if you saying that you think my opinion doesn't make sense, well . . . there's not much I can do about that, and nothing I'm willing to. ;)
-
Ah, I see now, the difference between generally accepted facts and a new theory.
That line of reasoning makes sense but I think I'd have to come down on the other side. History is history. Just because it happens to be innovative history doesn't give the scholars the right to patent it anymore than that right is conferred upon those whose work is in line with the traditional views.