[ SECRET POST #3003 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3003 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.


__________________________________________________



14.


__________________________________________________



15.


__________________________________________________



16.


__________________________________________________



17.


__________________________________________________



18.


__________________________________________________



19.


__________________________________________________



20.










Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 043 secrets from Secret Submission Post #429.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

It doesn't even portray sexual assault?

Kind of scary though that the tumblrinas got it banned, makes you wonder what precedent this is going to set at the big two.

[(Anonymous)]

It's not banned. The story isn't banned. It just didn't get published, for the 3484234242th version of the Killing Joke.

[dethtoll]

It wasn't even fucking banned (nevermind that "free speech" and "censorship" only apply in relation to governmental authority.) The artist himself requested that the variant cover he did be pulled, and only because people who were upset were getting death threats.

[blitzwing]

(nevermind that "free speech" and "censorship" only apply in relation to governmental authority.)

That's actually so much bullshit and I'm getting sick of hearing it (someone trots that line out every time the word "censor" or "censorship" is used, in any way.) Where do people even get this idea? Did one person spout this shit and it just spread virally?

There's nothing in the formal definitions orthe common usage of the term that suggests it's limited to government restrictions only, and quite a lot that suggests otherwise.

[dethtoll]

I'm a journalist. We take censorship and free speech very seriously, and that means knowing its limits and knowing what actually constitutes an infringement of free speech.

Or do you think a newspaper choosing not to release the name of a rape victim is infringing its own right to free speech?

[blitzwing]

Your reply is a complete and total non-sequiter. "I AM JOURNALIST, SO CLEARLY I AM RIGHT!" is not much of an explanation for why you're peddling information that is so incorrect it borders on mythological.

[(Anonymous)]

Whoa whoa whoa are you saying it was wrong for the Halifax family to have the publication ban overturned? I will be the first one to spew venom about social media "justice" but I do think, in the NS case, it did something good and effective.

[dancing_clown]

I'm a journalist, too. Things can be censored and banned all the times by groups without being an infringement on free speech.

When I elect not to say things because I don't want to deal with the backlash, it's self-censorship. When my newspaper elects not to publish the name of rape victims, it's still a censoring of those names. When my office forbids the microwaving of popcorn, the popcorn has been banned.

Whether any of that applies to this cover is debatable (but it probably doesn't), but acting like the words censor(ship) and ban only apply to freedom of speech issues is just entirely inaccurate.

[(Anonymous)]

Out of curiosity, what do you think about companies not allowing things to be printed in newspapers/magazines? These days, it seems much more likely that the parent company would refuse to let something be printed than the government doing so.

[(Anonymous)]

You're a Journalist?! Jesus fucking christ.

...

Waitaminute, Are you moviebob?

[elialshadowpine]

...I'm just gonna leave the rest of this clusterfuck alone, but I had no idea you were a journalist. Very cool. :)

[caerbannog]

What does your journalism consist of? Or the type of journalism I guess? Are you like the daily news or rush hour or science or X area of interest? Or what kind of media? I do media releases for work sometimes but I don't get to actually speak to the journalists when they run with it.

[cbrachyrhynchos]

Where do people even get this idea? Did one person spout this shit and it just spread virally?

They read the Constitution.

Freedom of speech actually includes the liberty for publishers to decide what they want to print and how.

[dethtoll]

THIS THIS THIS THIS OH MY GOD THIS

[blitzwing]

They read the Constitution

The Constitution defines "censorship" as something only a government can do? Mind telling me what article of it says that?

[(Anonymous)]

Oh, I agree (Caveat: not in this circumstance. a company does have the rights to dictate the speech of it's employees in the context of their employment. They don't have the right to silence an employee, but they do have a right to fire them if they want for saying (or wearing) something they do not want them to say while representing their company. Free speech does not protect your job,)

I don't understand the logic. If I come up to you an physically gag you, I am infringing on your free speech, but I am not a government. If me an 100 of my mates come to your house, and tell you "If you say XYZ we will beat you to death" I am infringing on your right to free speech (although I will admit to that being more of a grey area, because in a literal sense you CAN exercise your right to say whatever, but the consequences are unreasonably harsh), Those dudes who shot up that magazine not only killed a bunch of folk, the infringed on free speech, not just the free speech of the magazine, but of every magazine that now has to think twice before saying anything that might get them killed. They were not a government. If a magazine decides not to publish a risky cartoon in light of that attack, it is being censored. Not by a government, but by the threat of violence. Hell, if a magazine decides not to run something just out of good taste, it is effectively censoring itself.

These words have meanings and are not just buzzwords lifted off some old piece of paper in america.

Saying "The government is not stopping you from talking so it's not censorship now shut up" is ridiculous.

Free speech should be assured to everybody, by everybody, and should only be met with the free speech of others. When free speech is met with measures greater than that of speech (Violence, arrest, harassment, abuse or the threat of these things) THAT is censorship. Whether it comes form the government or anyone else.

It becomes a bit trickier and a bit harder to make neat when countering free speech is the hate mobs of the internet, then it becomes a more intimidating situation and I don't have an answer for weather that is free speech countering free speech, or a bunch of bullies playing their numbers to censor people. I don't know. But I DO know that free speech can be assaulted and censorship can come from more places than the government.

[(Anonymous)]

Did the Joker rape Barbara? I thought he just tortured her/shot her in the spine. Maybe I'm forgetting something. I think they implied it was sexual assault because the gun is pointed down towards her privates.

[(Anonymous)]

I can understand why people found the cover disturbing, but I found that "gun pointing between her legs = rape" argument to be a stretch.

[(Anonymous)]

You don't even have to look where it is pointing, The Joker is resting the gun on her breast. That is molestation right there. If you fondly someone's breast against their will, and yes I assure you that using an instrument is still classed as fondling under the law, then that is molestation. You cannot get any more of a symbol of power and domination than a gun, modern culture and the NRA has ensured that, and he is resting his on her breast.

[(Anonymous)]

He also took some inappropriate photos of her. I'm not sure if that was the intended implication, but was all very sleazy-feeling, so I can't blame people for interpreting it that way.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm not saying it depicts sexual assault but I'd def say the picture is at least somewhat sexualized

[(Anonymous)]

The one in the secret? How so?

[dethtoll]

Alan Moore insists no rape happened, but it's Alan Moore saying it and I have a hard time believing him given his predilection for rape.

[(Anonymous)]

That makes the opposite of sense

[(Anonymous)]

No, he shot her in the spine, leaving her paralyzed, stripped her down, took pics and used them to torture her father. No rape. Some people interpret it as rape but the author insist there wasn't anything sexual so no rape. But, you know, torture and humiliation is no big deal at all, since only the imaginary rape is the PROBLEMATIC part /s