What are the specific lab content policies?

[VideoFred]

I agree that open dialog about this problem is a good thing. But setting a precedent where you destroy the rights of others to choose as a pretext to dealing with what you or I view as religious fanatics is a very, very dangerous road to travel down.

Exactly, this would be a fanatic reaction, too.
All fanatism is to avoid.
The midway is the way to go, if you ask me.

Fred.

[FilmIs4Ever]

B&H Photo in NYC is run by Orthodox Jews. I'd like to be able to order from their site on Saturday, but it is closed. They are not fanatics either, and they are not imposing their religion on me, simply asking to be allowed to observe their faith in peace. If I expect freedom, I have to be willing to allow them the same.

I think it is great that B&H holds fast to the religious heritage of many of its employees, but I do find it disquieting that they are closed for several weeks for all of their religious holidays, as well as some Christian Holidays, like Christmans, but are open on the Fourth of July, which I'm pretty sure is a national holiday.

Regards.

~Karl Borowski

[MovieStuff]

All fanatism is to avoid.
The midway is the way to go, if you ask me.

I'm all for moderation, when it is appropriate. I'm also for boycotts, when they are appropriate, too.

For the record, I've participated in my share of real boycotts, such as when a station fires a reporter for telling the truth or a resturant refuses service to old people, etc. I see a boycott as an instrument used to right an injustice and not something to be swung about simply because of a difference in personal values. In my opinion, a boycott should never be just symbolic. It should affect the company being boycotted at the bottom line, where it will have some teeth and be effective. Because of this, I see a real boycott as being a very, very powerful tool that can do real damage to a business and should, therefore, be used judiciously. A symbolic boycott is about as useful as as circle jerk outside the castle walls. It might make you feel better but accomplishes nothing in terms of the seige.

What I find amusing in all this talk about "open dialog" and "censorship" and "fanatics" is this: I am willing to bet bottom dollar to navy beans that everyone that has called for a boycott of Yale has never, at the very least, bothered to pick up the phone and discuss their content policy with the owner. They have all the time in the world to discuss what is wrong with Yale based on gossip and rumors but not one moment to do real research and talk with Yale directly to see if there is really an issue or not. If it's serious enough to deserve a real boycott then, at the very least , it deserves a 5 minute phone call.

If intent of their policy is really the issue, then would it not be prudent to find out what Yale Labs really thinks and not make assumptions? I talked to them long, long ago and was satisfied that they were honorable people. I absolutely do not agree with their policy but I respect them enough to defend their right to choose. Calling for a boycott based on a lack of real information is as fanatic and knee-jerk a reaction as Yale is being accused of and, frankly, worse because Yale has made their decision based on principle while those that cry foul prematurely are just being presumptuous, impatient and spoiled.

Roger

[Mitch Perkins]

Roger, you are arguing with yourself -

In my opinion, a boycott should never be just symbolic. It should affect the company being boycotted at the bottom line, where it will have some teeth and be effective. Because of this, I see a real boycott as being a very, very powerful tool that can do real damage to a business and should, therefore, be used judiciously.

If Yale does represent such an extreme belief system, then boycotting them is obviously pointless because they would rather go out of business than violate their principles.

So then, wouldn't a "real" boycott have the precise effect you mention?

-----------------------

What I find amusing in all this talk about "open dialog" and "censorship" and "fanatics" is this: I am willing to bet bottom dollar to navy beans that everyone that has called for a boycott of Yale has never, at the very least, bothered to pick up the phone and discuss their content policy with the owner.

Oh for pete's sake. Here's their policy, as stated clearly on their website:


We realize that the artist has full and total choice of expression. However, we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone. As a policy, we do not and will not...

The policy is clear. Why call them up to discuss it?

--------------------------

[edit] Missed this one -

I agree that open dialog about this problem is a good thing. But setting a precedent where you destroy the rights of others to choose as a pretext to dealing with what you or I view as religious fanatics is a very, very dangerous road to travel down. I can guarantee you that religious fanatics will use that precedent later on to try and force their own agenda by then limiting your right to choose.

For the record, I've participated in my share of real boycotts, such as when a station fires a reporter for telling the truth or a resturant refuses service to old people, etc.

Did the restaurant use your boycott as a precedent for forcing their own agenda by then limiting your right to choose? Of course not. We don't operate under fear of retaliation; such retaliation is illegal. Same goes for religions.
Who said anything about destroying anyone's rights? Can you stop that please?
Freedom of expression does not mean hate literature is allowed - somebody always loses. Who loses is based on the constitution/beliefs of the particular nation/society.
And please, I'm not saying Yale is engaging in hate literature - I'm saying the *mindset* behind their *reasons* for choosing not to deal with certain image content aligns them with dangerous people. And that's worth keeping an eye on.

-----------------------

VideoFred wrote:

"But then why boycot them? (not meaning you, Bolex)
Just leave them alone."

Yeah, that's what I meant - leave 'em alone. Though I'm not sure what the difference is...
I am sure sorry I used the word "boycott"...

"Freedom of religion" should also include freedom from religious tyranny, wrt founding fathers etc.
Not saying Yale is engaging in said tyranny, just that their mindset aligns them with folks who are gearing up to do so. Worth keeping an eye on, that's all. And, in the meantime, leave 'em alone.

Mitch

[etimh]

Roger, you are arguing with yourself.

Exactly. One minute it's "if you don't like it just go down the street," and the next its "call them up and question the policy." You can't argue convincingly for both positions, can you?

But who really cares about Yale? The policy stinks and there are plenty of other cheaper, more progressive places to go. Yale chooses to live by the sword and they'll die by the sword. So to speak.

Tim

[Mitch Perkins]

Roger, you are arguing with yourself.

Exactly. One minute it's "if you don't like it just go down the street," and the next its "call them up and question the policy." You can't argue convincingly for both positions, can you?

But who really cares about Yale? The policy stinks and there are plenty of other cheaper, more progressive places to go. Yale chooses to live by the sword and they'll die by the sword. So to speak.

Tim

http://www.affirmation.org/memorial/his ... ents.shtml

' The Mormon Church has taken a strong stand against homosexuality. At a 1974 General Conference, President Spencer W. Kimball, said, "Every form of homosexuality is sin. There is no half way. Certainly men and women who would change their sex status will answer to their Maker." '

Oh, brother!

What I find most amusing about the issue is that mormons would open a business dealing with image content, when they're opposed to so much of it!

Mitch

[MovieStuff]

Roger, you are arguing with yourself -

Not at all. Read more carefully and don't take my statements out of context.

So then, wouldn't a "real" boycott have the precise effect you mention?

If you are going to try and get other film makers not really affected by Yale's policy to also join the boycott, then that is something more aggressive than a "symbolic boycott" that amounts to nothing and changes nothing. The effect of a real boycott can do damage to a company financially, which is why you have to be careful how it is used and why it is being called for.

Now, regarding such, you previously stated:

No, Yale is not breaking the law, and yes, they are free to refuse to handle certain types of footage, but I don't think that's what has people responding here - I think it's what their choices are based on, their reasons, that *scare* people. Those reasons represent a mindset people have fought long and hard from which to free themselves.

If their suspected intent is all that important to why a boycott should be called, then why not spend as much time talking to them as talking smack about them.

The policy is clear.

To me it is. Apparently, others are having a hard time understanding it.

Why call them up to discuss it?

The more important question is why not?

Are you afraid that you might find another human being on the other end of the phone with a family and grandkids and mortgage payments and dental bills, just like you? Calling for a boycott that is designed to do harm to a company is pretty severe, just to be based on speculation, don't you think? As you said, what they are doing is legal, so what's the real problem here other than a different set of values? It is always easier to demonize someone or something that you don't agree with or understand than it is to reach out and try to communicate.

Exactly. One minute it's "if you don't like it just go down the street," and the next its "call them up and question the policy." You can't argue convincingly for both positions, can you?

What's not to understand, guys?

If you don't like their stated policy as you interpret it, then don't use them. If in doubt and you want to find out what their stated policy really means as opposed to what you think it means, then call them. But to posture and call to arms over an assumption is silly when the answer is only a phone call away.

Really guys, you can't whine about the supposedly malicious intent of their content policy and then refuse to find out what that intent is really all about when given the chance. I mean, it's not like they operate from a hilltop castle surrounded by a moat in a dark and dangerous forest inhabited by evil spirits that makes approaching them for answers impossible. They're just a tiny family owned business trying to eek out a living in a fading film market. If it's worth the effort of a real boycott that might possibly drive them out of business, then it's worth a goddamn phone call.

How simple can it be?

Roger

[MovieStuff]

For the record, I've participated in my share of real boycotts, such as when a station fires a reporter for telling the truth or a resturant refuses service to old people, etc.

Did the restaurant use your boycott as a precedent for forcing their own agenda by then limiting your right to choose? Of course not.

To my knowledge, there is no "restaurant fanatic" sect trying to establish a New World Order for dining, so your analogy is, well, kind of silly. What the restaurant was doing was illegal so we boycotted them to draw attention to them. It worked. They got fined and they also lost business in the process.

Who said anything about destroying anyone's rights? Can you stop that please?

Can you stop pretending that we're not talking about sacrificing personal rights here? Since, by your own admission, Yale isn't doing anything illegal, then any attempt to force them into submission -just to satisfy the desires of others- is nothing less than a supression of their right to choose. Call it whatever you want but that's just what it is.

I'm saying the *mindset* behind their *reasons* for choosing not to deal with certain image content aligns them with dangerous people.

Nonsense. You don't know what they are thinking, Mitch. You called for a boycott without even knowing so much as the owner's name or what his reasons are for their content policy.

And that's worth keeping an eye on.

Or making a phone call about. ;)

Roger

[Scotness]

What do they do with the film they don't approve of - is it true they actually destroy it?

If so then my hunch is that more than wanting to just innocously conform to their own moral code they would enjoy getting worked up and indignant about things - it's a form of evangelical zeal - and if they do destroy all such film then in my opinion they have crossed the line and are forcing their views on others and the world around them.

The problem is whether something contravenes their content policy could truly only be determined in the context of the finished film, not at the the transfer or development stage.

I see they hire gear out - do you have to tell them what you are going to film with it as well??

Scot

[Mitch Perkins]

Roger, you are arguing with yourself -

Not at all.

Very much so.

Read more carefully and don't take my statements out of context.

I'll do better: I'll re-post your easy to fathom, stand-alone statements right here -

MovieStuff wrote:
In my opinion, a boycott should never be just symbolic. It should affect the company being boycotted at the bottom line, where it will have some teeth and be effective. Because of this, I see a real boycott as being a very, very powerful tool that can do real damage to a business and should, therefore, be used judiciously.


MovieStuff wrote:
If Yale does represent such an extreme belief system, then boycotting them is obviously pointless because they would rather go out of business than violate their principles.

[mitch]
So then, wouldn't a "real" boycott have the precise effect you mention?

-----------------------

MovieStuff wrote:
What I find amusing in all this talk about "open dialog" and "censorship" and "fanatics" is this: I am willing to bet bottom dollar to navy beans that everyone that has called for a boycott of Yale has never, at the very least, bothered to pick up the phone and discuss their content policy with the owner.


MovieStuff wrote:
Oh for pete's sake. Here's their policy, as stated clearly on their website:


We realize that the artist has full and total choice of expression. However, we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone. As a policy, we do not and will not...

[mitch]
The policy is clear. Why call them up to discuss it?

--------------------------

[edit] Missed this one -

MovieStuff wrote:
I agree that open dialog about this problem is a good thing. But setting a precedent where you destroy the rights of others to choose as a pretext to dealing with what you or I view as religious fanatics is a very, very dangerous road to travel down. I can guarantee you that religious fanatics will use that precedent later on to try and force their own agenda by then limiting your right to choose.


MovieStuff wrote:
For the record, I've participated in my share of real boycotts, such as when a station fires a reporter for telling the truth or a resturant refuses service to old people, etc.

[mitch]
Did the restaurant use your boycott as a precedent for forcing their own agenda by then limiting your right to choose? Of course not. We don't operate under fear of retaliation; such retaliation is illegal. Same goes for religions.
Who said anything about destroying anyone's rights? Can you stop that please?
Freedom of expression does not mean hate literature is allowed - somebody always loses. Who loses is based on the constitution/beliefs of the particular nation/society.
And please, I'm not saying Yale is engaging in hate literature - I'm saying the *mindset* behind their *reasons* for choosing not to deal with certain image content aligns them with dangerous people. And that's worth keeping an eye on.

------------------------

So then, wouldn't a "real" boycott have the precise effect you mention?

If you are going to try and get other film makers not really affected by Yale's policy to also join the boycott, then that is something more aggressive than a "symbolic boycott" that amounts to nothing and changes nothing. The effect of a real boycott can do damage to a company financially, which is why you have to be careful how it is used and why it is being called for.

"Not *really* affected"? For how long?
"Symbolic boycott" is your term. I don't know what it means.

Now, regarding such, you previously stated:

No, Yale is not breaking the law, and yes, they are free to refuse to handle certain types of footage, but I don't think that's what has people responding here - I think it's what their choices are based on, their reasons, that *scare* people. Those reasons represent a mindset people have fought long and hard from which to free themselves.

If their suspected intent is all that important to why a boycott should be called, then why not spend as much time talking to them as talking smack about them.

If you hadn't noticed, I haven't called for a boycott. I mentioned it in the other thread.
Though it appears right above, I'll repeat my stance: I think it's what their choices are based on, their reasons, that *scare* people. Those reasons represent a mindset people have fought long and hard from which to free themselves.
Religiously based or no, the mindset is that certain images are "bad". They include nudity in this category. Need more be said?

The policy is clear.

To me it is. Apparently, others are having a hard time understanding it.

Why do you think that?

Why call them up to discuss it?

The more important question is why not?

Why is that the "more important question"?

Are you afraid that you might find another human being on the other end of the phone with a family and grandkids and mortgage payments and dental bills, just like you?

Yeah, that's what I'm afraid of. Get real or expect silence from my end; it's not worth it.

Calling for a boycott that is designed to do harm to a company is pretty severe, just to be based on speculation, don't you think? As you said, what they are doing is legal, so what's the real problem here other than a different set of values? It is always easier to demonize someone or something that you don't agree with or understand than it is to reach out and try to communicate.

1) I'm not calling for a boycott.

2) The different sets of values of various religions have been kept in line and out of the secular world for a long time and for good reason. Sorry that the world is like this, but you have to take a side.

3) I'm not "demonizing" anyone. Can you stop that, please?

4) I understand perfectly the mindset that deems images of nudity "bad".

5) Reaching out and trying to communicate is what filmmakers/artists do. A good case can be made for the idea that art should be disruptive, unless the artist resides in a "perfect" society.
Now, we have some folks refusing to touch images of nudity across the board.
Could that possibly mean they think such images are good?
Are thay aligning themselves with a mindset historically proven to be disastrous?
If I reach out and touch these beautiful grandparents, do I have a chance of convincing them that depictions of nudity are okay?
Is it my responsibility to do so?

For the last time, I simply think an institution deeming images of nudity as "bad" is worth an open dialogue, and worth avoiding if one values freedom of artistic expression, because otherwise you're just giving money to people who, beyond a shadow of a doubt, would love to see other labs adopt their policies. It's only natural that people like to be agreed with.

mitch

[Mitch Perkins]

For the record, I've participated in my share of real boycotts, such as when a station fires a reporter for telling the truth or a resturant refuses service to old people, etc.

Did the restaurant use your boycott as a precedent for forcing their own agenda by then limiting your right to choose? Of course not.

To my knowledge, there is no "restaurant fanatic" sect trying to establish a New World Order for dining, so your analogy is, well, kind of silly. What the restaurant was doing was illegal so we boycotted them to draw attention to them. It worked. They got fined and they also lost business in the process.

Sect or no, the point, which you conveniently snipped, is that we do not operate under fear of retaliation. The analogy stands.

Who said anything about destroying anyone's rights? Can you stop that please?

Can you stop pretending that we're not talking about sacrificing personal rights here? Since, by your own admission, Yale isn't doing anything illegal, then any attempt to force them into submission -just to satisfy the desires of others- is nothing less than a supression of their right to choose. Call it whatever you want but that's just what it is.

Personal rights are *always* sacrificed to the greater society.

You continue to use phrases like "force them into submission", as though it's something I've been promoting. It is *extremely* tiring and makes you look foolish.

I'm saying the *mindset* behind their *reasons* for choosing not to deal with certain image content aligns them with dangerous people.

Nonsense. You don't know what they are thinking, Mitch. You called for a boycott without even knowing so much as the owner's name or what his reasons are for their content policy.

The owner's name? Please specify the relevance. I'm looking forward to that....

If someone refuses to deal in images of nudity/violence across the board, can there be any other reason than that they deem such images as "bad"?
It is totally disingenuous to pretend you don't know *fully* what this policy represents. I can't help you.

And that's worth keeping an eye on.

Or making a phone call about. ;)

Roger

The call will be a waste of time - no one is going to convince them to change their policy, especially if it's faith-based, which is by definition impervious to rational arguement.

You yourself suggest going somewhere else. That's my suggestion too. If it doesn't amount to a boycott [which can be held by one person, for what that's worth], then I simply used [*used* - as in the *other* thread] the wrong word, and can we drop it, please?

Mitch

[MovieStuff]

I'll do better: I'll re-post your easy to fathom, stand-alone statements right here -

Thanks. They're just as easy to understand now as before. Sorry you and those that agree with you have a hard time following my logic. I'll try and do better in the future.

If you hadn't noticed, I haven't called for a boycott.

So you're saying that a boycott is inapproriate? Terrific!

The more important question is why not?

Why is that the "more important question"?

Because if you are talking about a real boycott, one that can do damage, then I think it is best to try and talk to the owner before taking drastic measures that can affect the livelihood of a group of people.

Oh, sorry. My mistake. You don't think a boycott is appropriate. Glad to know that you agree with me on this point.

For the last time, I simply think an institution deeming images of nudity as "bad" is worth an open dialogue....

With everyone except the institution in question, right? Talk up a storm to anyone and everyone that you can rally around you to support your presumptions but, for heaven's sake, don't bother talking directly to the company you're concerned about.....

...and worth avoiding if one values freedom of artistic expression,

What nonsense is this?!!! The very first words of their content policy reads:

"We realize that the artist has full and total choice of expression."

They aren't suppressing your right to freedom of expression. You can make any kind of film you want with all the naked girls and violence your budget can afford. They are choosing what sorts of jobs they want to work on based on their own values. News flash: You have that right, too.

because otherwise you're just giving money to people who, beyond a shadow of a doubt, would love to see other labs adopt their policies.....

More assumptions piled on top of needless suppositions. If you aren't going to bother even reading the first line of their content policy before accusing them of suppressing freedom of expression, then you clearly have not done your homework on this topic.

Pointless.

Roger

[MovieStuff]

What do they do with the film they don't approve of - is it true they actually destroy it?

No.

[MovieStuff]

If you hadn't noticed, I haven't called for a boycott.

Really? Then why did you write the following when you were discussing Yale in the other thread:

I suggest an all-out boycott of any labs engaged in such offensive, infantile behaviour.

viewtopic.php?t=13808&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=30

I suppose you could have been talking about all labs except Yale, but I doubt it. ;)

Roger

[David M. Leugers]

"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for
people we despise, we don't believe in it at all."


For those of you who may think I am talking against Yale, please review my posts on this subject in past go-rounds on this issue. Yale openly expresses their policy. It only affects those who wish to have films processed by Yale which goes against Yale's policy. If you do not like Yale's freedom of expression, go somewhere else and enjoy your own expression. Freedom of expression carries no gaurenty of service, publication or even an audience. From what I can see, Yale makes no attempt to prevent you from doing whatever you want to with film. But to involve them, they have policies you must observe. Do we really want to go down this road of forcing our viewpoints on everyone? History is full of wonderful examples of that logic...


David M. Leugers