RE: [Videolib] Censorship from NAATA & Fox Movie Station

Lisa Irwin (
Wed, 2 Jul 2003 12:12:52 -0400


Just wondering what you think about applying the same rationale to public libraries and public schools. If the public doesn't want to pay for them, do you think it is acceptable that public schools and libraries are privatized by the for-profit sector as well?

Lisa Irwin
Audiovisual Services
Kalamazoo Public Library
Library of the Year 2002
(269) 553-7923

-----Original Message-----
From: Linda Fox []
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 11:34 AM
Subject: RE: [Videolib] Censorship from NAATA & Fox Movie Station

I think we have given the broadcast spectrum away to the highest
bidders (media moguls) and will continue to do so - because we must
continue to lower taxes. If the public doesn't want to pay for the
broadcast spectrum (and they don't ) then it goes to private hands. The
same way that we now have a Pepsi Arena here in Albany, NY. Because the
city didn't want to pay for the arena. Since the Pepsi company now owns
arena, they can for example, decide not to allow Eminem to perform
there. I think it's an old but increasingly true adage - that he who
pays gets to make the rules. If our public officials insist on lowering
taxes and increasing privitization, corporations will be making the
decisions and "we the people" have "sold" them that right - for lower
Just a note - the ALA didn't define censorship as control by a
government entity - Webster's dictionary did.
Have a good day.
Linda Fox (not Fox news)

>>> 07/02/03 11:05AM >>>
I think the ALA is missing the boat. Like so many things, government
outsourced censorship. Have we given away the monopoly on broadcast
spectrum without retaining any interest in it as a commons?
PS Does anybody know who controls the performance license for the
Chan films

-----Original Message-----
[]On Behalf Of Linda Fox
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 10:09 AM
Subject: RE: [Videolib] Censorship from NAATA & Fox Movie Station

Of course the ALA has an Office of Intellectual Freedom. But the Fox
Channel is a private organization that can do as it pleases.
is specifically defined as a banning of information by a public or
government agency (like a school or a state government office). On a
somewhat different but related note: There is a book titled Censorship
2001: 25 Years of Censored News (Available on amazon). The book tells
the stories that never make to your news broadcasts. Take a look at -
get it from your local library. You will be shocked!
News channels make decisions (right or wrong) all the time about what
they will and will not show their viewers. And isn't that why there
such a hue and cry over the latest FCC decision about ownership of the
media? This is much bigger than Charlie Chan. Charlie Chan is the tip
this proverbial iceberg.

Linda Fox - Director VOICE: (518) 786-3221
School Library System FAX: (518) 786-6401
Capital Region BOCES E-MAIL:
6G British American Blvd. URL:
Latham, NY 12110 Member - NYLA Legislative Committee

>>> 07/02/03 09:34AM >>>
I agree. Mr. Chan is a hero of mine. So what can we do about it?
the ALA have a group involved in censorship issues?
Jed Horovitz

-----Original Message-----
[]On Behalf Of Mary M.
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 7:59 PM
Subject: Re: [Videolib] Censorship from NAATA & Fox Movie Station

Bravo, Jessica. This would be terrible censorship, if indeed it

Has the NAATA watched these movies before deciding to "ban them"?
doesn't sound like it.

Mary Kirby
Library Media Project

At 06:56 PM 7/1/03 -0400, you wrote:

I am sure I am opening up a BIG can of worms here but I am VERY
and sad that due a complaint from NAATA and other Asian American
organizations the Fox Movie Channel has abruptly cancelled
showings of
the classic Charlie Chan films from the thirties. I think it is
and tragic that ANY media organization would encourage censorship
to the
extent of preventing films from being seen. What is particularly
upsetting is that I doubt most of these people have ever WATCHED
films. While the issue of white actors playing Asian roles can be
debated , do we ban ALL films in which white actors play Indians,
Asians , Non- Jews playing Jews etc ? In fact the Chan character
the shuffling pigeon English speaking buffoon described in NAATA's
letter of
complaint , but a well educated , well spoken HERO who always
solves the
mystery the white police CAN'T . I realize it is not
my place to tell someone what is and is not a stereotype of their
I would love to know exactly WHICH films people watched to come to
conclusion. The Charlie Chan films are much prized by film &
and are wonderful "B" movies that helped launch the careers of
directors, writers & actors
To get these films "banned" by removing them from TV ( You can't
legally on video) is the worst kind of censorship. Should Kino
BROKEN BLOSSOMS or THE CHEAT since they contain respectively a
playing a Chinese character and a stereotype of a lustful Asian. I
plan on campaigning against the many of the films by starring Anna
& Sessue Hayakawa which often contain stereotypes for worse than
Chan even if the actors were Asian

It is just inexcusable to encourage Fox or anyone to remove
a film that you find offensive. If they wanted Fox to do some
commentary or have links to a web site explaining their position
have been an excellent way of getting their view across. This is
pure & simple

There is one amusing bit of irony in that the highest rated show
on the Fox News Channel is Bill O'Reilly who spends a LOT of time
attacking the "left" for their "PC" attitudes on cultural issues
I suggest he look in his own backyard.
Jessica Rosner
Kino International
333 W 39th St. 503
NY NY 10018

Videolib mailing list
Videolib mailing list

Videolib mailing list
Videolib mailing list

Videolib mailing list