WTF? Russia bans swearing in the arts

[peoli]

Source: The Guardian

From today, 1 July 2014, the words khuy (cock), pizda (cunt), yebat (to fuck) and blyad (whore) — a smutty quartet known as mat — will be banned from use in the arts in Russia. Violators of the law face fines of between $70 and $1,400 depending on whether they’re an individual, an official or an organisation.

This isn’t the first time that the state has intervened in this manner — the Soviets too attempted to dispense with foul language to preserve the beauty of the Russian language. But add to this law a legislative debate in the Duma on banning foreign, mainly English, loanwords last month, as well as a crackdown on independent media, and you start to sense the presence of a much more pernicious effort to restrict both information and language.

Together, the law on profanity and the bill on foreign words serve as a two-pronged attempt to cleanse the Russian language in order to ensure its “purity”, a moral crusade that dovetails with President Vladimir Putin’s ideological hopes to create a “national and spiritual identity” for Russia.

.....

With the ban on swearing, which includes books, film, music, theatre and popular blogs, Putin has the spiritual side of things covered. Films containing expletives won’t receive general distribution, and copies of DVDs, books or CDs will come sealed and labelled as obscene. Yet the law is so hazily worded that it is not known which cursewords are out and which are in — what counts as profane will be determined by an expert panel, making effing and blinding a risky business.

Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/01/russia-bans-swearing-arts

[RKP5637]

1. Typical dictatorial power grabs used in the past by dictators. Putin and his herd

working hard to return Russia to a dictatorship with Putin at the helm. It's so blatantly obvious IMO what is going on in Russia.

[Benton D Struckcheon]

3. His speech today was total hilarity.

It basically amounted to "Why can't I do what I want?" mixed with "I will anyway! So there!"
Bottom line: he's still not invading, and it's NOT because he doesn't want to either. But he will continue "covert" assistance - like it fools anyone.

[malthaussen]

2. Mr Putin wants to turn Russia into a country the Birchers would be proud of.

Now, if we could just persuade the Birchers to move there.

-- Mal

[PatrickforO]

10. I'm thinking the ultra -right wing nuts in the Tea Party

are wanting this country to become a place Birchers could be proud of. Most fringe right wingers are crazier than hoot owls, but heavily armed.

[onehandle]

4. Our fabulous allies.

I mean, Our fucking allies.

[bemildred]

5. It is mass media and the profit motive that are at fault.

To make money, the media have to get your attention, and to get your attention, they have to appeal to your baser instincts. Normal people are so exhausted and deep in ego-deficit that they cannot be prodded into action with wit and high culture. So we live awash is fear and hate and sex and hunger.

[RKP5637]

6. Isn't that the truth. It's the SOS day after day, as you say, "we live awash in fear

and hate and sex and hunger. ... wit and high culture (and I'm adding intelligence too) are not in the recipe today for attention grabbing for most ... as we move exponentially along the road to full Idiocracy.

[bemildred]

7. The thing is, I don't favor censorship, except where commercial factors intrude.

When money becomes involved, you always get a race to the bottom among the bottom feeders, so you have to set some standards for parties that have extra big megaphones and want to make money from them, or In the end, everything is corrupted.

[ballyhoo]

11. Excellent, bemildred.......

Putin gets it. He doesn't want Russia to replicate Sin City, which is in a declining moral syndrome replete with omnipresent fear. Will the US public finally understand the limits to first amendment protections when the three big networks start showing executions on live tv or something else equally horrific. Is there a point when each of us awakes from our stupors and say: I get it--

[bemildred]

13. Freedom is never absolute.

Freedom and responsibility go together, you get the freedom to do certain things BECAUSE you assume responsibility for other things. You are free to walk around in society BECAUSE you are assumed to be responsible for controlling yourself. Try acting "crazy" and see what happens to your autonomy.

The argument is always ulitmately about what those boundaries should be, and about who decides these things. There are people who favor disorder too, chaos, the unregulated free market, and war, but then there is nothing to dispute intellectually, you can just do as you like, and nobody has to agree.

I think there is something to be said for boundaries based on good taste and intellect, but legal process to defend them is appropriate only where money is involved, and only to that extent. It is easier and more appropriate to bankrupt them with taxes, to pay for the damage they do.

[ballyhoo]

14. Absolutely. You know, bemildred,

you and DeSwiss should write a book. Both your writing skills and logic are the best I've seen here.

[bemildred]

15. I don't like that much attention.

I've thought about it, but I haven't figured out how to do it anonymously, and I don't know if my ego could take it if it bombed. Here is safe, everybody bombs here.

And I'm lazy. This is not work I do here, this is entertainment, what I do intead of TV. When I am less lazy, I am not here either.

I was originally trained as a mathematician, which is where the logic comes from. And then worked as a software engineer, which teaches you to think dynamically, many steps ahead. So I always think: "well, and then what?" And there always is a then what?

And then I did a lot of technical writing, and I read a lot, good stuff, bad stuff, after a while you get a feel for it. But I still make lots of typos. I can relate to guys that still write with a pencil on real paper because they want to do it slowly.

[Jack Rabbit]

18. I really have to disagree with you this time, partner

The Russian law is not designed to set standards in mass media. It is aimed at the arts. We Yanks are used to a world where a federal agency controls that sort of thing over broadcast media but leaves everything else alone. So, while that which is broadcast over the airwaves deals with regulations concerning taste set by the government, the books and magazines we read, the cinema we enjoy and even television and radio transmitted through fiberoptic cable is not so stringently regulated or not regulated at all. The individual consumer has more control over what he art he experiences through those media and liberty is a better rule of thumb than for what come over the airwaves.

By prohibiting the use of profanity in the arts, Putin, ever the demagogue, is appealing to the fears and hates of the masses in order to set up a broad system of mass censorship. It is consistent with Vladimir Vladimirovich's other initiataves: bombing Chechens, invading the former subject nations of the Russian/Soviet Empire and persecuting homosexuals. One would think that Vladimir Vladomirovich is attempting to model Russian society on Jerry Falwell's wet dreams. That might be the case if Vladimir Vladimirovich held strong Orthodox Christian beliefs, but I don't believe that for a minute.

Putin's version of the Federal Communications Act may get smut off the air in Russia (I don't know whether or not it's really a problem there), but it will also get a great deal of art out of libraries and bookstores and out of the cinema. What's the purpose of this? We learned that from George Orwell ages ago. If the powerful can control the language, then they can control the free flow of ideas. I and many of my friends in high school and college during the sixties and early seventies were influenced by the fiction of Kurt Vonnegut. Much of our opposition to the Vietnam War was influenced by Vonnegut's humanism. However, rules like these could be used as a pretext to ban Vonnegut's works from public libraries since Vonnegut, in order to give his ideas a stronger punch, employed strong language. Would there have been less opposition to the Vietnam War if fewer young people at the time had read books like Slaughterhouse Five? We'll never really know, but it's hard to imagine the anti-war movement without ideas like that floating around the dormitories.

[bemildred]

21. The arts are a problem.

What you want is to allow "serious" artists to say what they like, while still forbidding child pornography, say, or having to see penises as one waits for a checker in the supermarket. And that all depends on what you think is serious. Some people think "Piss Christ" was serious, some do not. But I don't see any solution that is without flaws, people do not agree in general, and in the meantime I don't want to be annoyed. Much that passes for "art" is little more than visual trolling anyway, especially when it becomes about money. So again I come back to the money, when you want to sell things for the big bucks, you can be regulated, including content. When you or I blather away here on the internet, we can say what we like, no holds barred (almost).

If I am browsing a porn site, that is one thing, you get what you go looking for. In other places, people don't want their feelings jerked on with provocative pictures, and they don't want to be distracted by issue advocates or trolls, and they have a right to expect that in public spaces, there have to be rules.

Putin is trying to rebuild Mother Russia, and I'm not defending Putin or what he might choose to do. I'm just pointing out that you cannot in fact say anything you want anywhere you want and that is a good thing, so we need to think about it and use some judgement, not just insist that everybody must agree. Diversity and disagreement are the point. It needs to come bottom up, not top down.

Edit: Hi Jack, nice to see you around.

[Jack Rabbit]

27. My point is that there are better ways to go about encouraging discussion

That, of course, assumes that encouraging discussion is what one wants to do when "rebuilding" a country.

It is easier to ignore the smut and do nothing about except in those places, as you have pointed out, where a child runs a greater risk of being exposed to it. There are places where an adult are more likely to exposed to only when he wants to be. We can assume the adult knows what he's doing and that's fine.

Basically, that's how it works here. Control of pornography, rather than it's outright ban, is an example of a market based solution to a problem working better than any government solution. The government bans pornography from the airwaves, where access is totally public and all one has to do is turn on the television and see what's there. The "entertainment" that comes over the airwaves is incredibly banal, so if you want something more thought provoking you shell out the cost of a video rental or a night at the movies. Better yet, read a book. I don't have a television set in my place and I don't miss it. If you really want to make sure your children aren't exposed to pornography, then first your internet options can be set accordingly and, second, there is computer software that will also restrict access. The children are protected and the rule for the adults is liberty. The government doesn't waste a lot of time or taxpayer money controlling something it can't control anyway.

However, I don't think Vladimir Vladomirovich is satisfied with this type of libertarian approach. He'd rather censor the internet to keep smut and other undesirable material off of it and fine people for using naughty language. Here's an example of something that pushes the envelope. Meanwhile, he can always jail human rights activists, like the band members of Pussy Riot.

Did I say that I just don't trust Vladimir Vladomirovich?

[bemildred]

28. The number of politicans I have seen that want to "encourage discussion" is very small.

Most of them seem to view their jobs as being somewhere between used car salesman and military general. Few indeed want to find out what the public wants and then do that. If you don't get rich in DC you're a loser. They see politics a being largely about fund-raising and then dispensing largesse to your friends or keeping it yourself.

As I said, I think "market based solutions" produce crap. I see no reason why the government ought not regulate the availability of the crap so it does not degrade the level of discourse elsewhere. The fairness doctrine worked great, it is possible to have rules, and it is possible to enforce them with tax law, when there is money in it, it's been done, is being done now.

Putin is Russia's problem, not mine. He has made more than one mistake of late, but is blessed with enemies dumber than he is.

[saidsimplesimon]

19. bemildred, we can't, nor should ignore profit motives.

We can work together to make it more profitable (or economically painful) for those who ignore the power of women on financial/political outcomes.

We are at fault if we do not push the narrative.

[bemildred]

22. I'm a guy, and I totally support women kicking some political ass.

They have the power, they just have to see it as something they should use. "The Women's Party", can you see it? That would wake some people up.

[saidsimplesimon]

23. Nyet, no women's only party, we are inclusivive. (grin)

[bemildred]

24. Come come, we will make good pets. nt

[saidsimplesimon]

25. mildred, men/women as you know, should never

ever be treated with disrespect. It makes US angry. "good pets" is an insult that some men and women can comment on.

Are you a "good pet" bemildred? Are you a strong soul who refuses labels? Come come, let's hear it.

[bemildred]

26. I'm a good pet when I want to be, otherwise not. It depends.

I might allow my wife to call me a good pet, but few others would be so lucky.

Any good dog is just like that, and I respect a good dog a lot more than a bad person.

[hangfire00]

8. Putin! That no good little pizda

[PatrickforO]

9. Reminds me of

George Carlin's routine on the seven words you can't say on TV. Censorship generally bugs me, but we are every bit as bad. On some stations, they even obscure butt cracks. And if you happen to see a nipple, STOP the world! Everybody's gonna die.

Aaaagh!

[saidsimplesimon]

20. Patrick, you may be old enough to remember the Statue of Justice

draped by an Attorney General with the vapors? John Ashcroft has nearly been wiped from the Internet record of Bush appointees. Ashcroft dared to challenge the Patriot Act?

[geomon666]

12. Fascism n/t

[valerief]

16. The New World Order is closing in on us plebes. nt

[Yavin4]

17. All Russian David Mamet plays will now be 10 minutes long n/t