Interesting to learn that ‘black-face’ and gay characters are, reasonably, equally offensive.
CMC
If you are talking about GWTW what content was removed?
Obviously the copyright holders can do what they like, by requirement I meant the cultural rules for what is deemed offensive. Who knows what will be reviled in 10 years’ time and get the axe?
Reductio ab absurdam, dear kswiss.
But to give credit where credit is due, does the racism in GWTW come from the book, or the studio adaptation, or is it inherent in any treatment of the period in question? Especially in a book written at a time when the Daughters of the Confederacy were doing their stuff. My memories of the book and the film are that the film comes off more racist, but then I would really have to ask how a hypothetical remake would handle the topic?
Or maybe it is one of those films like Lawrence of Arabia that made at a time of relative historical naivety and is about a topic that is now so emotionally charged that nobody could remake it.
The way we view films changes over time, too. I finally saw it about the year 2000. It is about the birth of Israel in 1948, but when i saw it, I thought: “change the clothes slightly and it is about the %&$#ing infitada.”
GWTW didn’t get the axe.
This is evidence that there are different licenses for different countries, not evidence of censorship.
I know of at least one program, can’t remember which title, that is available on Netflix in the US but not in the UK. Licensing issue, nothing to do with censorship.
What is about the birth of Israel? Your previous paragraphs discussed Gone With The Wind and Lawrence of Arabia.
I’m not, but these TV shows removed from streaming services in Britain that I linked to earlier:
Once upon a time, it was mostly the right who were censoring material for being offensive, and the left who were pushing for greater openness. Now apparently things have reversed.
Congrats on completely missing the point. Different groups of people find different things offensive, and under your reasoning, are equally entitled to ban them or pressure companies to make them unavailable.
I suspect people on this board are supporting the move because you think we’ve won the culture war. It’s okay to have moral guardians when we get to choose the morals; it’s only bad when the right do it and try to ban homosexuality or atheism. I disagree with this on both counts. The right is enjoying an unprecedented resurgence, and I don’t consider my Netflix hypothetical at all unlikely. And being too puritanical is bad in itself - though the removal may or may not be justified, there’s an aspect of shared culture that means it really is a loss. And it also creates a climate where artists are reluctant to take risks, which generally means shittier TV shows, books, and movies.
So, seeing black-face characters means we’re FREE!!11!!
Up next: Not tolerating intolerance is intolerant, checkmate hypocritical libs!
CMC
I know, but it still speaks to the power of unaccountable companies over what we are legally allowed to watch. Even if you are perfectly willing to pay, living in the wrong country can mean you are SOL.
The beauty of capitalism is we are entitled to pressure companies to make things unavailable.
It’s good to see that ‘libs’ are still capable of nuanced argument. 
If “unaccountable companies” 
are so puritanical that they begin banning huge swaths of content, that means that there will be a new market niche available for people who want to see that stuff. If enough people want to see it, the company will be profitable. That’s how capitalism works.
You seem to be advocating for some kind of government control over streaming services. Do you envision an arm of the government which levies fines against companies for not streaming certain movies and shows? Will there be legislation requiring that a service stream every single movie or show which it has a license for, regardless of demand or content? Will companies be forced to acquire licenses for content that they don’t want to show?
What exactly is your solution for the problem you’ve invented?
Beautiful?
Yes! It’s good when people refuse to pay for things they don’t want. To echo Johnny_Bravo, what alternative do you propose?
You have ‘nuanced’ yourself into supporting black-face in 20 fucking 20, congratulations.
CMC
Pleonast apparently supports banning gay jesus, so I guess we’re equal.
And damn, but why does everyone on this message board always leap straight to government control as a solution? Aren’t we allowed to think something is bad without wanting to make a law about it? Whatever happened to changing people’s attitudes?
You still dont understand the concept of nuance. Wanting a work of art to not be censored or made unavailable is not the same thing as supporting it.
Because many of them are OK with censorship when they get to decide what gets censored. Freedom of expression should be a universal concept. Instead it gets thrown to the curb when the art in question is unpopular or uncomfortable.
Thank you! I didn’t realise this was such a difficult concept.
Sadly, it looks like you’re right. It wasn’t like there was some massive public outcry, anyway; rather the companies removed this stuff preemptively out of fear of the new moral guardians. Seems like all the principles go by the wayside as soon as it’s convenient… 