120 products were found matching your search for censors in 2 shops:

From the late eighteenth to early twentieth centuries rigid attitudes about how people ought to look and act elevated the discussion of swimsuits and beach wear from fashion news to social maelstrom. The societal debate over who ought to wear what while bathing grew so contentious that some communities employed censors to patrol their beaches. Fines and time behind bars were real possibilities if one were caught exposing more than the recommended amount of skin. From horse drawn bathing machines to the rebellions of beach going flappers, this book offers opportunities to examine societal norms and conflicts around bathing costumes that may seem silly now, but are useful in reminding us that our current freedoms have come through the struggles of earlier generations, and that further progress is only possible when repressive attitudes and laws are challenged by everyday people.

From the late eighteenth to early twentieth centuries rigid attitudes about how people ought to look and act elevated the discussion of swimsuits and beach wear from fashion news to social maelstrom. The societal debate over who ought to wear what while bathing grew so contentious that some communities employed censors to patrol their beaches. Fines and time behind bars were real possibilities if one were caught exposing more than the recommended amount of skin. From horse drawn bathing machines to the rebellions of beach going flappers, this book offers opportunities to examine societal norms and conflicts around bathing costumes that may seem silly now, but are useful in reminding us that our current freedoms have come through the struggles of earlier generations, and that further progress is only possible when repressive attitudes and laws are challenged by everyday people.

"Splendid...[Darnton gives] us vivid, hard-won detail, illuminating narrative, and subtle, original insight." ―Timothy Garton Ash, New York Review of BooksWith his uncanny ability to spark life in the past, Robert Darnton re-creates three historical worlds in which censorship shaped literary expression in distinctive ways.In eighteenth-century France, censors, authors, and booksellers collaborated in making literature by navigating the intricate culture of royal privilege. Even as the king's censors outlawed works by Voltaire, Rousseau, and other celebrated Enlightenment writers, the head censor himself incubated Diderot’s great Encyclopedie by hiding the banned project’s papers in his Paris townhouse. Relationships at court trumped principle in the Old Regime.Shaken by the Sepoy uprising in 1857, the British Raj undertook a vast surveillance of every aspect of Indian life, including its literary output. Years later the outrage stirred by the British partition of Bengal led the Raj to put this knowledge to use. Seeking to suppress Indian publications that it deemed seditious, the British held hearings in which literary criticism led to prison sentences. Their efforts to meld imperial power and liberal principle fed a growing Indian opposition.In Communist East Germany, censorship was a component of the party program to engineer society. Behind the unmarked office doors of Ninety Clara-Zetkin Street in East Berlin, censors developed annual plans for literature in negotiation with high party officials and prominent writers. A system so pervasive that it lodged inside the authors’ heads as self-censorship, it left visible scars in the nation’s literature.By rooting censorship in the particulars of history, Darnton's revealing study enables us to think more clearly about efforts to control expression past and present. 12 illustrations

This concerned review demonstrates through the weight of evidences that censorship is unrestrained by geographic, economic, religious, or political boundaries it pervades the United States. From Maine to California books are be­ing wrested from the hands of teachers and pupils to be edited with magic mark­ers, mutilated by razor blades, and burned. These events are ordered by lo­cal school boards after they have been informed of the books’ questionable content” by parent groups. Administrators of a midwestern grade school hired an artist to pencil pants on cherubs in a Maurice Sendak tale while in West Virginia police escorting school buses filled with children through par­ent picket lines were fired upon by snipers. Books written by individuals judged to be homosexuals are removed from li­braries and schools as it is time that, along with thieves and murderers, they be branded for the sinners they are and removed from society.” Some of the writers whose work was considered ob­jectionable by this Save Our Children” group were John Milton, Emily Dickin­son, Walt Whitman, and Hans Christian Andersen. It is not enough to portray the excess­es of such movements. Only through calm, informed discussion of the issues and a keen awareness of the organization and goals of the pressure groups can their efforts be effectively countered. Jenkinson offers some suggestions for concerned teachers, librarians, and par­ents who would have an active voice in the decision of who will guide the minds of children. Keep those teachers on their toes. Let them know you are there and watch­ing!” advises the Plan of Action” of the Parents of Minnesota, Inc. And they do.

An argument that the system of boards that license human-subject research is so fundamentally misconceived that it inevitably does more harm than good.Medical and social progress depend on research with human subjects. When that research is done in institutions getting federal money, it is regulated (often minutely) by federally required and supervised bureaucracies called “institutional review boards” (IRBs). Do―can―these IRBs do more harm than good? In The Censor's Hand, Schneider addresses this crucial but long-unasked question. Schneider answers the question by consulting a critical but ignored experience―the law's learning about regulation―and by amassing empirical evidence that is scattered around many literatures. He concludes that IRBs were fundamentally misconceived. Their usefulness to human subjects is doubtful, but they clearly delay, distort, and deter research that can save people's lives, soothe their suffering, and enhance their welfare. IRBs demonstrably make decisions poorly. They cannot be expected to make decisions well, for they lack the expertise, ethical principles, legal rules, effective procedures, and accountability essential to good regulation. And IRBs are censors in the place censorship is most damaging―universities. In sum, Schneider argues that IRBs are bad regulation that inescapably do more harm than good. They were an irreparable mistake that should be abandoned so that research can be conducted properly and regulated sensibly.

Analyzes Marlowe's Doctor Faustus, argues that the original text was subjected to religious censorship, and speculates on the original theme of the play

Oxford Scholarly Classics is a new series that makes available again great academic works from the archives of Oxford University Press. Reissued in uniform series design, the reissues will enable libraries, scholars, and students to gain fresh access to some of the finest scholarship of the last century.

Analyzes Marlowe's Doctor Faustus, argues that the original text was subjected to religious censorship, and speculates on the original theme of the play

From 1934 to 1954 Joseph I. Breen, a media-savvy Victorian Irishman, reigned over the Production Code Administration, the Hollywood office tasked with censoring the American screen. Though little known outside the ranks of the studio system, this former journalist and public relations agent was one of the most powerful men in the motion picture industry. As enforcer of the puritanical Production Code, Breen dictated "final cut" over more movies than anyone in the history of American cinema. His editorial decisions profoundly influenced the images and values projected by Hollywood during the Great Depression, World War II, and the Cold War. Cultural historian Thomas Doherty tells the absorbing story of Breen's ascent to power and the widespread effects of his reign. Breen vetted story lines, blue-penciled dialogue, and excised footage (a process that came to be known as "Breening") to fit the demands of his strict moral framework. Empowered by industry insiders and millions of like-minded Catholics who supported his missionary zeal, Breen strove to protect innocent souls from the temptations beckoning from the motion picture screen. There were few elements of cinematic production beyond Breen's reach—he oversaw the editing of A-list feature films, low-budget B movies, short subjects, previews of coming attractions, and even cartoons. Populated by a colorful cast of characters, including Catholic priests, Jewish moguls, visionary auteurs, hardnosed journalists, and bluenose agitators, Doherty's insightful, behind-the-scenes portrait brings a tumultuous era—and an individual both feared and admired—to vivid life.

From 1934 to 1954 Joseph I. Breen, a media-savvy Victorian Irishman, reigned over the Production Code Administration, the Hollywood office tasked with censoring the American screen. Though little known outside the ranks of the studio system, this former journalist and public relations agent was one of the most powerful men in the motion picture industry. As enforcer of the puritanical Production Code, Breen dictated "final cut" over more movies than anyone in the history of American cinema. His editorial decisions profoundly influenced the images and values projected by Hollywood during the Great Depression, World War II, and the Cold War. Cultural historian Thomas Doherty tells the absorbing story of Breen's ascent to power and the widespread effects of his reign. Breen vetted story lines, blue-penciled dialogue, and excised footage (a process that came to be known as "Breening") to fit the demands of his strict moral framework. Empowered by industry insiders and millions of like-minded Catholics who supported his missionary zeal, Breen strove to protect innocent souls from the temptations beckoning from the motion picture screen. There were few elements of cinematic production beyond Breen's reach—he oversaw the editing of A-list feature films, low-budget B movies, short subjects, previews of coming attractions, and even cartoons. Populated by a colorful cast of characters, including Catholic priests, Jewish moguls, visionary auteurs, hardnosed journalists, and bluenose agitators, Doherty's insightful, behind-the-scenes portrait brings a tumultuous era—and an individual both feared and admired—to vivid life.

Ships from the UK. Former library book; may include library markings. Used book that is in clean, average condition without any missing pages.

Dust Jacket has edgewear, tattered and soiled.

Hentoff's timely, fact-filled, and illuminating book describes the current assault on free speech from all points of the political spectrum--even from the traditionally liberal groups now intent on repressing opinions thought "politically incorrect."

A history of the censorship of films in the United States describes the legal battles over the banning of movies from 1908 to the present

Buy with confidence! Book is in new, never-used condition 1.15

The only thing Hollywood likes more than a good movie is a good deal. For more than fifty years producers and directors of war and action movies have been getting a great deal from America's armed forces by receiving access to billions of dollars worth of military equipment and personnel for little or no cost. Although this arrangement considerably lowers a film's budget, the cost in terms of intellectual freedom can be quite steep. In exchange for access to sophisticated military hardware and expertise, filmmakers must agree to censorship from the Pentagon.As veteran Hollywood journalist David L. Robb shows in this revealing insider's look into Hollywood's "dirtiest little secret," the final product that moviegoers see at the theater is often not just what the director intends but also what the powers-that-be in the military want to project about America's armed forces. Sometimes the censor demands removal of just a few words; other times whole scenes must be scrapped or completely revised. What happens if a director refuses the requested changes? Robb quotes a Pentagon spokesman: "Well I'm taking my toys and I'm going home. I'm taking my tanks and my troops and my location, and I'm going home." That can be quite a persuasive threat to a filmmaker trying to keep his movie within budget.Robb takes us behind the scenes during the making of many well-known movies. From The Right Stuff to Top Gun and even Lassie, the list of movies in which the Pentagon got its way is very long. Only when a director is determined to spend more money than necessary to make his own movie without interference, as in the case of Oliver Stone in the creation of Platoon or Francis Ford Coppola in Apocalypse Now, is a film released that presents the director's unalloyed vision.For anyone who loves movies and cares about freedom of expression, Operation Hollywood is an engrossing, shocking, and very entertaining book.

A state-of-the-constitution analysis of free speech today laments assaults on this fundamental privilege by the left and the right and passionately reaffirms the right of free expression. By the author of The New Equality. Tour.

Unread book in perfect condition.

The Price of Truth: The Journalist Who Defied Military Censors to Report the Fall of Nazi Germany 1.2

Marcia Pally, a social scientist at New York University, examines the hypothesis that government censorhip of offensive books and images will reduce anti-social behavior, including delinquency, violence, and rape. After extensive review of the sociological, psychological, criminological, and cross-cultural research, Pally finds that the causes of anti-social conduct lie in the life experiences of perpetrators, which are unfortunately not likely to be addressed by merely removing images from the public sphere. Moreover, government censhorship in one area may open the door to censoship in other arenas and thus threaten democracy. Pally notes that those in favor of censorship and those opposed share the goal of reducing violence and abuse, and so both might use their energies to further substantive solutions to anti-social conduct. This, Pally suggests, will require a deep look at our values, family structures, parenting, educational systems, and other of our basic institutions.