FILM EDITING UNETHICAL

BY THE SIGNPOST EDITORIAL BOARD, April 23, 2008
Weber State University SignPost

Clean Flicks and video editing companies like it need to be stopped, and it is great Hollywood has finally taken legal action against companies that do so. This illegal film editing is this generation's version of book burning.

In the United States, people are guaranteed the freedom to create artistic visions of their choice and retain ownership of creations. Altering them violates the artist's creative rights.

People who want the videos edited do so because they do not want to expose themselves to offensive material. By closing their eyes to theatrical art, people are closing their eyes to life. Art and literature have always reflected history. Do these people really not want to know what is happening around them? Life is offensive, but how do people learn what is offensive and what they stand for, if they have no knowledge of it? How do parents teach their children values if they have no examples to contrast or question their values? Children are going to face these examples in life. What better way to prepare them for it than through knowledge?

Despite the moral issues involved with censorship, there are legal issues as well. Clean Flicks is violating copyright laws with its practices. To alter a piece of work, one must seek permission of the author, often paying a fee to do so. Clean Flicks failed to do this. They are trying to operate under what they believe is a loophole in the law that allows customers to make one copy of material for personal use. However, by altering these copies and providing rentals of altered movies, Clean Flicks has bent the rules.

People argue that films get edited for television or airplane viewing, so why can't Clean Flicks do the same? The difference is that broadcasters and airlines pay for the edits, and the edits are done and controlled by the film studios. This is the way it should be. By allowing editing enterprisers to randomly cut content out of films, studios comprise the film maker's artistic integrity.

If Clean Flicks prevails in the court case, what could that mean for the future of all literature? Will a Clean Books editing company sprout up, providing offensive free books? Will printers begin processing nudity free alterations of famous art? And do proponents for censorship really think that will make a difference on our society?

According to the February 2003 edition of "Playboy", some common film cuttings include: "the farting in 'Dr. Doolittle 2'; thirty seconds of sexual innuendo and swearing in 'Shrek'; two minutes of sexual discussion in 'Bridget Jones's Diary'; 139 f*#@* and 29 s%&#* in 'Good Will Hunting'; the genitalia and breasts of the concentration camp victims in 'Schindler's List.'" By removing these from the eyes and ears of viewers, censors are not extinguishing them from society.

It is historically proven that art reflects society, not the other way around. The atrocities of WW2 happened long before Stephen Spielberg attempted to recreate them on film. Profanities have always and will always spew from mouths, with playgrounds being the practice arena for trying out these new insults. People have been finding ways to discuss and participate in sex since the dawn of man. And no matter how much people try to remove farting from celluloid, boys are going to think it is hysterical. Parents need to be confident of the moral values they instill in their children. And, instead of fearing that film content is somehow going to strip their children of values, trust that perhaps their children may have learned enough to rise above it.