Is censorship acceptable if it gets rid of gross things like groping and transphobia?

Are you from these faggots that defend censorship unless LGBT episodes of children's shows get censored/banned?

Attached: censorship_apologists_bingo.png (600x665, 190.08K)

>Using the word "transphobia" unironically
OK tranny

Attached: 14690900_1262325670473960_5977848632267998042_n.jpg (540x444, 40.49K)

censorship is never acceptable

>Make a product
>Not happy with the results of that product two decades later
>Tweek it
>HOW DARE YOU CENSOR YOURSELF

Unless the government kicked in their door and told them to make these changes I really don't care. There's something to be said about preserving the original for posterity, but otherwise it seems like making a mountain out of a molehill.

>Bottom pic, that picture on the mirror
Holy fuck, she's the same fat lady during the 'On the Open Road' segment. All these fucking years and I never saw that

>Disney changes a Disney product to reflect Disney values
Muh zen sure ship.

meme position.
to take the position of opposing all censorship is to take the position of a penis pill advert spammer. censorship is an invaluable tool against spamming, so the position that censorship is never acceptable (rather than just acceptable in incredibly limited circumstances) is a ridiculous one.

>Free expression means that the artists are free to censor themselves
>Nobody forced them to censor it
>They created it: they have the right to edit it

These all seem pretty reasonable though, which begs the question, what's the actual difference between censorship and editing?

>HOW DARE YOU CENSOR YOURSELF
>acting like this is "director's vision" tweaks and not "corporate agenda"
So disingenuous.

>implying director's vision aren't corporate market ploys to begin with
>implying the director has some sort of supreme authority on the product

It's still a Disney product though. the corporate agenda is a factor from day one because these movies are being made by a major corporation. You're looking for a level of artistic independence for the director from a company and industry that is built from the ground up to deny its existence.

No. A director has a vision they want to communicate. It is literally their job to have a vision and get it across. A corporation has an image to protect, and that's their only concern. It doesn't matter if a corporation put him there, he SHOULD BE there to make the best movie he can.

If you don't even want a "Director's cut" that's fine, but at least DC's are sometimes warranted and a movie CAN benefit from them.

It "being a factor" is irrelevant. Late changes made by the corporation to make something more socially acceptable are never desirable. Why do you think that justifies their meddling and changing the product that already reached consumer hands? You're muddying the waters to justify heavy-handed altering of work done by artists just because a corporation is "involved?" Really?

These are so egregiously minimal that it begs the question why they were changed in the first place if children aren't going to see this movie with the eyes of an adult

I mean I can understand the first 2 but the fat lady doesn't make sense.

>modern SJWs going back and censoring old movies

is this the beginning of the end?

Attached: clinteastwood.jpg (358x450, 56K)

>so the position that censorship is never acceptable
it never is

What is your preferred term for transphobia, since it hurts you to call it by that name, tranny?

Just think, soon we'll be able to go back to old movies and turn every single plot into a story about a trans quadrapeligic black lady who's independent and don't need no man.

Attached: 1580708980804.gif (652x562, 391.51K)

>What is your preferred term for transphobia
Isn't that just being normal?

Attached: 1557117313943.jpg (1576x1920, 151.63K)

Understandable you'd think that way. From how you type, I assume you probably don't understand even half of what he posted.

That rare time I got the Looney Tune's VHS with that warning my parents taught me the monstrosities and racism during WW2.
It was when Iearned of truly evil things in the world when I was like 8.
Being able to reflect on the past is amazing for education purposes.

>an invaluable tool against spamming
That isn't censorship, that's crowd control. Preventing 500 people from screaming at the top of their lungs with air horns blaring while marching down a street isn't censorship because they would be asked to stop disturbing the peace no matter what they were saying. So in a scenario like that, it's not about silencing the message, it's about getting them to keep in down in general so people living their lives nearby aren't stressed out having to listen to blaring noise for hours on end.

youtu.be/vMSmUzDt-7U
I mean, do you really think if security stepped in and asked these people to stop disturbing an in-progress lecture, they would be called censorship?

>It "being a factor" is irrelevant.

It's incredibly relevant. Goofy is a Disney property, they own the rights to the character and his likeness. A Goofy Movie doesn't even get one foot of the ground without a bunch of corporate suits deciding that this is profitable and a good direction to take the character. The movie doesn't get funding without those suits so even if the director had the complete vision in his head entirely on his own he still wouldn't have had access to the VA's and artist and musicians who helped make the movie a reality and realistically probably impacted his direction somewhere along the way. So arguing about the validity of editing/censorship in such a product with this many hands involved gets really muddy really fast.

>Late changes made by the corporation to make something more socially acceptable are never desirable.

Completely subjective, I don't even necessarily disagree, I can't really think of any last minute changes I was especially happy for, off the top of my head, but treating it like an absolute seems needlessly stubborn. It's a self righteous moral stance that I don't think even a tenth of people who preach it would actually stand by if you could sit down with them and go over every aspect of what it truly means.

>Why do you think that justifies their meddling and changing the product that already reached consumer hands?

Because consumers change. Disney has the right to try to appeal to a changing audience by making changes to an older product, doesn't mean they'll succeed, doesn't it mean it won't mostly be a waste of money, but they have the right to do so.

If you don't want your artwork altered by a corporation don't create corporate art. It's that simple. If you self publish and create and the government says you have to change it that's entirely different conversation, but if I'm supposed to care about the artistic vision of someone who got in bed with the mouse I just can't bring myself too.

Yeah OK corporate kiss-ass.

Based Donald.

What is every user's personal opinion about artists who go back and change things themselves? And I mean the main dude (Director, showrunner, whatever) and was not pressured by studio heads to make change.

If Tim Burton decided to go back and edit out "Fuck" from Beetlejuice, is that censorship, or can he do that if Beetlejuice is basically his creation (I'm aware BJ is not 100% Tim Burton's, but go through with this scenario)? What if Tim Burton decided to re-release Beetlejuice with a new scene added. Is that intent any different than editing stuff out?

Not a kiss ass, just a realist

>Company fucks over Pamela Travers on the creation of Mary Poppins
>Then goes back and makes a revisionist history movie about how they totally didn't fuck her over
>"How could these corporate overlords not respect the director's vision for the Goofy Movie?"