From Merlot to Cockfosters
01/08/2005 . Source: Mark R. Leeper 
There is a law called The Law of Unintended Consequences, says Mark. According to this law almost all human actions have at least one unintended consequence. What ever you do, it will have additional side effects that you did not intend. Sociologist Robert K. Merton's name is associated with this rule, though Mark remembers musing about it back when he was in high school and before it was ever spelled out for him. I got e-mail from someone asking about why Miles Raymond, the Paul Giamatti
character in SIDEWAYS, despised Merlot wine. The lines in the film are this:
Jack: "If they want to drink Merlot, we're drinking Merlot." Miles Raymond:
"No, if anyone orders Merlot, I'm leaving. I am NOT drinking any f***ing Merlot!"
This got us onto a discussion of unintended market consequences of lines in
films and comments in the entertainment industry. Actually Merlot growers are
having some real problems as a result of this film. Sales of Merlot are down
while Pinot Noir sales are booming.
http://tinyurl.com/aqjxd
Something similar happened when Oprah Winfry said negative things about beef
in her program. The cattle industry has their own beef with Oprah. That ended
in a lawsuit that Oprah won, but of course it also reminds us that we are morally
and sometimes legally responsible for the unintended consequences of our actions.
http://www-tech.mit.edu/V118/N8/doprah.8w.html
Rumor has it that the old song "Beans in My Ears" was banned from the radio
because kids would hear it and put beans in their ears. I can find the lyrics,
but not documentation of the problems the song caused.
http://sniff.numachi.com/~rickheit/dtrad/pages/tiBEANEARS.html
This sort of thing is an old story. Columbia Pictures faced a similar charge
over IT HAPPENED ONE NIGHT.
http://www.snopes.com/movies/actors/gable.htm
There is a serious issue of whether writers for entertainment are responsible
for the unintended consequences of dialog in their films. The sad fact is that
innocently intended dialog and character actions can have serious social consequences
and the question arises of who is responsible for them. It can be considered
negligent harm to put dialog in a film and not worry about the effect it will
have on viewers. This is a slippery slope on either side. Do writers have to
self-censor everything they write? If so, what happened to the First Amendment?
On the other hand, I would not be at all surprised to see little whimsical slams
of one political party dropped into films that just happen to be in part funded
by members of the other political party. A product placement does not have to
be a product; it can be an idea. It is not clear what can be done about that.
After all, some films are overtly political. It probably is perfectly legal
to make them subtly political in return for pay. There are accusations that
some political editorials are being paid for by a certain political party in
power now who would like to see political thought spun in their direction. I
don't want to be more specific than that, because I do not want action taken
against me.
Speaking of which, I am bound by unintended consequences of what I put in writing.
But it is not so much by the law. If the language I use in the MT VOID gets
too explicit I cannot send out the VOID. Some ISPs have language protection
for their customers and will not pass on mail in which I use the bad words.
That is why up above I had to say "f***ing Merlot." If I used the real word
there are some Internet Service Providers who would censor the VOID and not
pass it on to the readers. We have had that experience in the past. So we end
up with a sort of self- censorship. This is a self-censorship that is stronger
than anything that the Government has ever imposed is. And if the Government
had imposed it, the ACLU would be all over it as an infringement of First Amendment
rights. But we have to live with it because the body that is imposing the restriction
is really not as reasonable, friendly, and accommodating as the United States
Government is. This restriction is being imposed by a piece of software written
by an un-elected software engineer. Yet she or he is putting restrictions on
me more restrictive than the government could and with very little legal recourse.
As an example of how extreme this power of software can be there is a well-known
account, documented in a fanzine (as well as several other places, but I will
give a little plug to the fine fanzine Plokta). They said:
"If you're a computer geek who happens to live in Scunthorpe, you should be
careful about who you pick as your Internet Service Provider. America OnLine
has expanded into the UK market whilst retaining its self-appointed position
as the guardian of American public morals. Although they deny that they censor
Internet articles, it is rumoured that AOL once closed down a support forum
for women with breast cancer because of the wicked use of the word 'breast'.
They have now turned their attention to the fair city of Scunthorpe. People
living there who have attempted to register for AOL have discovered that the
name of the town is rejected by the server because it's rude. Complaints were
to no avail; AOL has decreed that Scunthorpe is rude and has renamed the town
Sconthorpe. Anybody who uses the name Scunthorpe in an article will find that
their writing is electronically vaporised. Plokta wonders why they didn't just
go the whole hog and rename the town Lower Corte."
"All of this is reminiscent of a scene in Superman, in which Superman flies
over London with Lois Lane. A Piccadilly Line train is visible in the foreground.
Unfortunately, this meant that it was necessary to retouch every frame to blank
out the destination board; you can't say Cockfosters in a PG-rated movie. And
if you do happen to live in Cockfosters, I wouldn't bother ringing AOL."
http://www.plokta.com/plokta/issue1/aol.htm
Gee, now that I have talked about all this, I am wondering if I have now created
an issue that AOL will refuse to send to its members.
Mark R. Leeper
Copyright 2005 Mark R. Leeper 
|
