25 februari 1909

25 februari 1909

Zelfcensuur in de VS

Zelfcensuur in de VS
adat de burgemeester van New York op 24 december 1908 alle vergunningen voor filmvertoningen in zijn stad heeft ingetrokken, komt de filmindustrie een paar weken later in actie. Burgemeester George B. McClellan, jr. verbood de vertoningen omdat hij vond dat film een slechte invloed had op de moraal van de samenleving.
Enkele grote namen uit de filmindustrie, waaronder Marcus Loew (later oprichter van MGM) en distributeurs als Edison en Biograph, vormden hierop de New York Board of Censorship. Het idee van de Board was om zelf alle films te screenen (en eventueel te censureren) voordat ze aan het publiek getoond werden. Zelfcensuur dus, om wettelijke censuur te voorkomen. Op 25 februari 1909 werden de eerste films aan de keuring voorgelegd.

De keurcommissie van de Board bestond naast mensen uit de industrie bijvoorbeeld ook uit vertegenwoordigers van kerken en onderwijsorganisaties. Gezien de grote invloed van New York op de rest van het land werd de naam al snel veranderd in National Board of Censorship, en later in National Board of Review.

Hoewel het niet lang duurde voordat de NBR succesvol werd aangevallen door mensen die niet veel vertrouwen hadden in zelfcensuur – de NBR beriep zich overigens steeds op vrijheid van meningsuiting – bestaat het instituut nog steeds. Inmiddels houdt de NBR zich vooral bezig met promotie en ondersteuning van de Amerikaanse filmproductie.
Plaats uw reactie

Lyn op 27/10/2015

that there are a lot of very very wealthy saplucetors (the fees they have paid out to buy these derivatives is substantial and has inflated the profitability of the financial sector) who are gambling on the exact opposite happening. My guess is that they are right and the politicians and central bankers are wrong.If the politicians and central bankers can even see the brinkmanship they are engaging in, their conceits will never allow them to "fold". They think they can hold the tide back, and we, like King Canute's people, are stupid enough to trust them. We have become so used to huge, comforting nanny state hovering above us, that we are blissfully unaware even that the size of the mortgage market is several times as big as our govermments are, let alone the size of the bets that these saplucetors are placing on the inability of those politicians to turn the mortgage markets, and other markets, around.Of course the politicians believe that by doing what they are doing, they will turn the markets around and the derivatives liabilities will not eventuate. So, too, do most of the executives of the financial institutions that have been taking these derivative bets; otherwise they would not have taken them.This is a story begging to be investigated. As governments pour taxpayers money into financial institutions, and borrow and print more and more money for that purpose, how much of it is flowing straight out again into the pockets of George Soros and other successful derivatives saplucetors? Is that the purpose of politicians mortgaging the futures of their citizens and their citizens descendants of the next few generations?And who is in the know whether this is what is happening, and why are they not speaking out? The temptation must of course be strong, if you are clever enought to understand what is going on, to participate in the derivatives gamble and enrich yourself. Of course, some people are speaking out and are being politely ignored; like Peter Schiff, Nouriel Roubini, Steven G. Horwitz, Karl Denninger, Bruce Bartlett, George Reisman, Paul Kasriel, David Kenner, Bill Bonner, Harvey Golub, Roger W. Garrison, Steve Eisman,Ivy Zelman, Meredith Whitney, Robert Blumen, Thorsten Polleit, Hans F. Sennholz, Joseph Salerno, Bill Fleckenstein, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, Ron Paul, Dean Baker, Frank Shostak, Christopher Mayer, Kurt Richelbacher, Mark Thornton, Antony Mueller, and Stefan Karlsson, to name but a few. Many of these people are followers of the Ludwig Von Mises school of economic theory. I suspect that George Soros and other successful "market breakers" have also absorbed the principles of economic theory that are the achilles heel of our current crop of central bankers, and are using their knowledge and genius to outwit them.This also raises suspicions whether politicians, central bankers, and executives of financial institutions are complicit. George Soros practically owns the main Left wing politicians of the major countries, from President Obama down.If you thought that this part of the world was exempt from this kind of risk, think again. Here is Adele Ferguson, in "The Australian" in February 2008:".....Australian banks have a big exposure to derivative markets. Their total shareholder value of $110 billion is dwarfed by the size of the banks' collective exposure to derivative markets of $12.9 trillion.Put simply, the total derivative positions of the banks are 117 times as big as the banks' shareholder value. If even 1 per cent of these derivatives contracts default because third parties at the other end get into trouble, the whole shareholder wealth would be wiped out and our banks could be broke.Given total bank assets are $2.1 trillion, it begs the question why Australia's banks have exposure to $12.9 trillion of derivatives positions. All banks hedge to reduce risk, but this is a big amount of hedging....."Adele Ferguson fails to identify that this is not hedging, this is gambling. She also falls into the classic error that I have expounded on above, when she goes on:"....Banks worldwide are in a favoured position. While most are listed entities, they can always count on the shareholders being underwritten by the taxpayer in a crunch. The most recent examples of this were Northern Bank in Britain, which reportedly had about 25 billion ($54 billion) pumped in by the Bank of England, and Societie General attracted immediate support from the French Government. In the US, the Federal Reserve has been helping out its commercial and investment banks....."This confidence is completely and utterly false. The amount of the liabilities taxpayers are exposed to are astronomically bigger than anything they can cope with. This false confidence that politicians are engendering in us, whereby we all line up happily to give our life's savings into the care of our "safe and secure" banks, is merely setting us up to provide an increased haul for the biggest fleecing in investment market history; and more than that: the biggest POSSIBLE fleecing: almost all mom-and-pop and elderly folk savings and investments, and the future earnings of several generations of taxpayers.It just remains to be seen what the recipients of all this wealth choose to do with it. We will all be at their mercy.Can someone please explain to me where I am completely wrong? I simply cannot understand why this situation is not patently obvious to at least a few people who have it in their power to alert us.Posted by: PhilBest | February 21, 2009 at 06:28 PM On TBR.CC
Delphine op 27/10/2015

Hi to everyone, this is my first post, besucae I REALLY need help. Everywhere i see know this advertisements about Forex thing, got attracted, started to read about it, but still really confused about What is forex .All the explanations i find on the internet are very complicated. Too many smart words. Can someone explain what is forex by his own words ?Tired of websites. Thanks.

Uw e-mailadres wordt niet getoond.