×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Content Most Foul: the British Library's Nanny Filter Blocks 'Hamlet'

timothy posted about 8 months ago | from the censorware-is-the-right-word dept.

United Kingdom 107

An anonymous reader writes "A man using the British Library's public wi-fi found that access to an on-line copy of 'Hamlet' was blocked for 'violent content'. Now, it is true that 'Hamlet' is pretty violent (8 murders, including one before the play starts, plus one suicide). But the heavy-handed irony of a guardian of British cultural heritage censoring the greatest work of British literature is just too blatant to be ignored. Library staff initially didn't seem too interested in fixing the problem, but in the end they adjusted the filters."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

107 comments

Not So (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44576327)

... the greatest work of British literature ...

Not. Both King Lear and The Tempest are better plays. Hamlet is, however, likely the best vehicle for an actor to present himself.

1st Psot?

Re:Not So (4, Insightful)

dkleinsc (563838) | about 8 months ago | (#44576495)

The old joke: Hamlet is a lousy play because about half its lines are cliches.

Not that Bill didn't write some other great stuff, but the fact remains that Hamlet is more influential than Lear or The Tempest or Richard III.

Re:Not So (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44576651)

Brevity is the soul of wit.
Conscience does make cowards of us all.
Dog will have his day.
Hoist with his own petard.
In my heart of hearts.
In my mind’s eye.
More in sorrow than in anger.
Neither a borrower nor a lender be.
Primrose path.
Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.
The lady doth protest too much, me thinks.
There’s a divinity that shapes our ends.
To be, or not to be: that is the question.
To the manner born.
To thine own self be true.

Contrast with, oh, Pulp Fiction:

Zed's dead, baby.
It's the one that says "Badass Motherfucker."
$5 milkshake? What, does it have bourbon in it?
Do you see a sign outside that says "Dead nigger disposal"?

Heh, great flick.

Re:Not So (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44577017)

The line is: "Do you see a sign outside that says 'Dead nigger storage'?".

Get it right man.

Re:Not So (1)

TheCarp (96830) | about 8 months ago | (#44577157)

On the Shakespear side I always liked "The heads of maids or their maidenheads, take that how thou wilt"; because nothing is as classy and high brow as opening your play with jokes about raping or murdering the women of the family you have a rivalry with.... far be it from shakespear to not include some entertainment for the rabble, every penny counts :)

Re:Not So (5, Interesting)

mbkennel (97636) | about 8 months ago | (#44577669)

JULES
My coinpurse is the one
With "Blasted Oedipus" stitched upon it.
I pray you, open it and count its hoard.
How much find you?

PUMPKIN
I guess at ten times five score sovereigns.

JULES
That sum is yours; add it to thy purse.
Consider, if you add to that
The balance from our innkeepers' till
And the tally of what is in the others,
It may be thought a sum
That any would be glad of.

VINCENT
Sirrah, I pray,
Let not these ruffians rob thee,
Or I may slay them for the spite.

JULES
O, thou shall not, thou cur!
Be still, be silent and stand down!
They do not rob me, nor is it a gift;
It is payment for a purchase.
Knows’t thou what I purchase, friend?

PUMPKIN
I know not.

JULES
Your life. If I give it to you thus,
Then thou and I are spared
My need for vengeance for thy thievery.
I pray, do you often read the Bible?

PUMPKIN
Not regularly.

JULES
There is a Scripture verse; I did commit it to my brain.

Ezekiel 25:17. "The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of the darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is The Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee."

I have for years recited thus. If thou didst but hear,It was as clear a sign of your demise As found in any witches' scry.
Yet never had I ponder'd its intent; T'was simply fiendish sounds I could thus speak/ Before I dealt my foes the final stroke
That sent them on to God's Own Realm../ But just this morrow hence, I saw such things/That lead me to reflect upon my words
And divine what the meaning was therein./Perchance, I guessed, you are the evil man,And I the righteous man. As for the shepherd, Methought it could have then stood for my blade../Anon, perhaps the righteous man is you;I then may be the shepherd, and the evil and the selfish Is all that stands about us in this world. Such is a pleasing thought. But such is also false.
In truth, you are the weak. And I, the tyranny of evil men.Yet, henceforth, I assure you, I shall try In all my ways to now become the shepherd.

[Jules lays down his sword. Pumpkin and Yolanda run off. Jules takes a sip of his ale.]

JULES
Anon, my ale is warm.

[He pushes it aside.]

VINCENT
My friend, mayhap we should depart.

JULES
An excellent idea, my friend;
And so, let us be gone.

[Vincent throws a coin on the table and Jules grabs the chest. They exeunt.]

Re:Not So (1)

c0lo (1497653) | about 8 months ago | (#44580563)

Contrast with, oh, Pulp Fiction:

There [wikispaces.com] you have it.

Zed's dead, baby. - Zed's dead./Rest easy, love, the rascal's truly dead. [wikispaces.com]

It's the one that says "Badass Motherfucker." - With “Blasted Oedipus” stitched upon it. [wikispaces.com]

$5 milkshake? What, does it have bourbon in it? - Tis laced with spirits, to be sure! for sweet cream / from e'en the fines't cow could not be so dear. [wikispaces.com]

Do you see a sign outside that says "Dead nigger disposal"? - Didst chance to read a sign which beckoned out,/ "Dead Nigger Storage" declaring my trade? [wikispaces.com]

Re:Not So (5, Funny)

nukenerd (172703) | about 8 months ago | (#44576923)

The British version of this joke is about an American seeing the play, and complaining afterwards that the writer had merely strung a load of quotations together.

Oops, this is an American web site.

Re:Not So (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44576519)

... the greatest work of British literature ...

Not. Both King Lear and The Tempest are better plays. Hamlet is, however, likely the best vehicle for an actor to present himself.

1st Psot?

On top of that, Hamlet is stolen from the old Danish story of Amleth. Which is a lot more violent :)

Re:Not So (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44576661)

Aha! So it was really blocked for copyright infringement.

Re: Not So (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44577001)

All of his stories were stolen. There was no copyright then, that's why the Renaissance sucked like the dark ages. Wait....

Re: Not So (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | about 8 months ago | (#44577023)

Not stolen. Shakespeare was a screenwriter doing adaptations of public domain legends. Like Disney. Ironically.

Re:Not So (2)

Drishmung (458368) | about 8 months ago | (#44577597)

On top of that, Hamlet is stolen from the old Danish story of Amleth. Which is a lot more violent :)

There's always Titus Andronicus if that's what you like.

A scottish schoolmaster called Adam McNaughtan took on the challenge of summarizing the whole play in one song. [youtube.com] If you need a translation from Scots to English, then you might prefer Martin Carthy's version. [youtube.com]

I love the bit towards the end. "Fortinbras, knee-deep in Danes, lived happily ever after."

Re:Not So (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44576647)

Does it also block it if it's in the original Klingon?

Re:Not So (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44577257)

What's Klingon for, "Get thee to a nunnery" ?

Re:Not So (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44578971)

well, according to bing translate, which has a klingon translater, "SoHvaD Suq nunnery". sadly, that's not much help, as nunnery is really the most important part of the phrase. I couldn't find any other word that would translate, I tried convent, abbey, monastary, etc. there's got to be something.....
I wonder if anyone has a copy of the Klingon Hamlet and can chime in here.

Re:Not So (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44581925)

If you go with "Get thee to a priest house" you get "SoHvaD Suq lalDanyaS tuq", but Bing can't translate "Priestess".

Re:Not So (3, Insightful)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 8 months ago | (#44576669)

Rule 18.1: if you admit to liking some popular work of art, be it a song, a painting, a book, a movie, a videogame, or a play, and do so on the internet, someone will immediately criticize it. "Overrated" has a 50/50 chance of being used.

Observe. (ahem) The Beatles were a pretty good band. They had good songs. Like "Hey Jude." That was a good song.

...

your troll was verbose. you scream and you leap. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44577213)

Observe. (ahem) The Beatles were a pretty good band. They had good songs. Like "Hey Jude." That was a good song.

Troll: You guys will fight about anything.

Biter: fuck you, no we won't!

Re:your troll was verbose. you scream and you leap (1)

HiThere (15173) | about 8 months ago | (#44577831)

Larry Niven, Ringworld. First appearance of Speaker-to-Animals.

Doctor Dolittle speaks fluent animal (1)

tepples (727027) | about 8 months ago | (#44579375)

Larry Niven, Ringworld. First appearance of Speaker-to-Animals.

Only "first" in the sense of failed attempts to get the earliest post on a Slashdot story. Ringworld was first published in 1970. The Story of Doctor Dolittle was first published in 1920. Other examples are older [tvtropes.org].

And did it let through... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44576355)

And I suppose it lets through the Sam Pechinpah "Tennis Anyone" sketch that Monty Python did.

Cheese Shop!. (1)

tekrat (242117) | about 8 months ago | (#44576867)

Dude!!! That's the same episode with the Cheese Shop Sketch, the greatest bit of funniness since the Ministry of Silly Walks. I love the Cheese Shop Sketch! That should never be banned since it's one of the finest moments of television ever made.

Missing second story? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44576383)

But the heavy-handed irony of a guardian of British cultural heritage censoring the greatest work of British literature is just too blatant to be ignored.

So, we got the story about Hamlet, then they start talking about censoring Blackadder and provide no link.

No doubt they just "adjusted" to pass Shakespeare (5, Interesting)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | about 8 months ago | (#44577183)

But the heavy-handed irony of a guardian of British cultural heritage censoring the greatest work of British literature is just too blatant to be ignored.

So, we got the story about Hamlet, then they start talking about censoring Blackadder and provide no link.

I'd bet they just "adjusted" the nannyware to pass Shakespeare. So The Bard's work will be seen, but any new talent whose work's quality might approach or surpass his will not.

(Not to say that Blackadder and Hamlet are even in the same league. But that IS something to be decided by tens of generations of readers and viewers, not a piece of software written by a handfull of people from this one.)

Banning Hamlet (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44576399)

The next thing you know they will be banning Bambi.

Re:Banning Hamlet (4, Informative)

Rob the Bold (788862) | about 8 months ago | (#44576711)

The next thing you know they will be banning Bambi.

They just might. Bambi is pretty violent.

An excerpt from the English translation, where the Old Stag is showing Bambi that Man is not all-powerful:

He was lying with His pale, naked face turned upwards, His hat a little to one side on the snow. Bambi who did not know anything about hats, thought His horrible head was split in two. The poacher's shirt, open at the neck, was pierced where a wound gaped like a small red mouth. Blood was oozing out slowly. Blood was drying on His hair and around His nose. A big pool of it lay on the snow withc was melting from the warmth.

"We can stand right beside Him," the old stag began softly, "and it isn't dangerous."

Bambi looked down at the prostrate form whose limbs and skin seemed so mysterious and terrible to him. He gazed at the dead eyes that stared up sightlessly at him. Bambi couldn't understand it all.

Why... (5, Funny)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 8 months ago | (#44576469)

> "Library staff initially didn't seem too interested in fixing the problem, but in the end they adjusted the filters."

Nooooooooooo! They were trying to get kids thinking it was forbidden to them.

Re:Why... (1)

lightknight (213164) | about 8 months ago | (#44576637)

Sounds like they were somewhat apathetic / tired of the problem. But then, if you're dealing with a populace that prefers home trepanning / self-lobotomization (censorship), I suppose it's difficult to get too worked up after a while...

Re:Why... (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 8 months ago | (#44576881)

This is the part that shocked me.

When there was a big push to include content filters in our local library system, the Board said, "Okay. But it's going to be strictly optional for anyone over the age of 12."

Re:Why... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44577875)

so basicly, works that are of equal content of violence to shakespear are still banned.

So if Willy was a modern author, he'd most likely get blacklisted, and the next shakespear will never see the light of day.

That, or british government is going to censor everything, and then only allow those authors that it likes. Meaning, that the net effect isn't going to stop a certain type of content, but make some form of loyaly test, bribe, formal affiliation, state sponsership or approval all writers will need to get from the state.

Congrats, England is the new China.

Once the copyright expires, so does blacklisting (2)

tepples (727027) | about 8 months ago | (#44579399)

That or William Shakespeare has been dead long enough (70+ years) that his works have expired from the blacklist.

Why are they blocking violent content? (5, Insightful)

Rob the Bold (788862) | about 8 months ago | (#44576483)

TFA's a little short on detail, but why are they blocking violent content in the first place? I assume they have some reason to do so. And if that's the case, should it matter how old or famous the unacceptably violent work is?

Bottom line: if Hamlet fits their definition of inappropriate content, should they make explicit exceptions for particularly famous and important works, or should they evaluate the overall filtering/blocking objectives and rationale as well as the mechanisms and algorithms implementing those restrictions?

Re:Why are they blocking violent content? (2)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 8 months ago | (#44576509)

but why are they blocking violent content in the first place?

They don't want you to read the world news.

Re:Why are they blocking violent content? (1)

Rob the Bold (788862) | about 8 months ago | (#44576895)

but why are they blocking violent content in the first place?

They don't want you to read the world news.

As if the local news isn't bad enough most days.

Re:Why are they blocking violent content? (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 8 months ago | (#44576715)

I'd generalize it more to "Bottom line: censorship is always an annoying, stupid waste of time."

In protest, I'm going to play fallout new vegas today and murder EVERYONE in it. Dogs, women, men... and I'm going to fire ineffectively at the immortal children.

Re:Why are they blocking violent content? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44577433)

To properly protest, you need to use the Killable Children Mod.

Re:Why are they blocking violent content? (5, Insightful)

SoTerrified (660807) | about 8 months ago | (#44576719)

This, in a nutshell, is the real problem with censorship, even well intended. If you have a human doing the censoring, you'll get personal opinions influencing your judgement. (Example, see the judge who prevented parents from naming their child 'Messiah' because "There is only one true Messiah".) If you automate it, you get pieces falling through the cracks like Hamlet. Now, in this case, they were able to reverse the censorship because everyone knows Hamlet. But suppose this wasn't already well known? What if this was the first work of a new author? And you saw it, thought it might be interesting, but it's blocked. Are you going to 'know' it's not really something that should be censored? Are you going to know that it's a mistake and get the library to do something to fix it? Nope. A potentially ground-breaking work like Hamlet gets buried, never to see the light of day instead of becoming a classic for the ages.

Re:Why are they blocking violent content? (1)

nbauman (624611) | about 8 months ago | (#44578459)

Example, see the judge who prevented parents from naming their child 'Messiah' because "There is only one true Messiah".

Or Jesus.

Re:Why are they blocking violent content? (1)

The Wild Norseman (1404891) | about 8 months ago | (#44578607)

Example, see the judge who prevented parents from naming their child 'Messiah' because "There is only one true Messiah".

Or Jesus.

Not in Mexico.

Re:Why are they blocking violent content? (2, Insightful)

flayzernax (1060680) | about 8 months ago | (#44578575)

Pardon me if I'm going to hitch on to your +5 insightful. This whole idea of censoring and removing decensatizing violence from our cultures is all wrong.

In cultures with high levels of violence. People manage just fine. Violence happens and it does not create a mass stampede of stupidity. People are able to resolve their issues with no problem.

When you brainwash people and the only way they know how to deal with anything "dangerous" or "aggressive" is to seek authority. This is when you get serious psychological issues. People who loose their minds over minor problem. The lack of respect. The lack of courtesy.

Media, art, and play are not the places to "pacify" us. It will create worse psychosis than the most horrible warfare known to man. We'd be better off living in the bibles figurative hell.

No one can be enlightened by previous human experience if we cannot share that experience. Through fiction, or history. Legend, or school.

The goal of these draconian rules (regardless of what the people actually implementing them believe) is to create the ultimate strife and slavery and tyranny. The destruction of our minds. Our power. And our ability to cope with life.

Re:Why are they blocking violent content? (1)

Jedi Alec (258881) | about 8 months ago | (#44581979)

While a lot of what you say sounds like it makes perfect sense...do you have anything to back it up? Studies? Data? Actual examples of countries or communities that have done this?

Or is it just ideology? Which is fine, when it isn't being advertised as fact...

Re:Why are they blocking violent content? (1)

RoknrolZombie (2504888) | about 8 months ago | (#44577065)

TFA's a little short on detail, but why are they blocking violent content in the first place? I assume they have some reason to do so.

They do - it's because they are your betters. All they want is to keep you safe, and in order to do that they have to protect you. This is that.

And if that's the case, should it matter how old or famous the unacceptably violent work is?

I don't think that this should matter anyway, personally, but then again, I'm an American so I'm only used to my freedoms being suppressed in subtle ways.

Bottom line: if Hamlet fits their definition of inappropriate content, should they make explicit exceptions for particularly famous and important works, or should they evaluate the overall filtering/blocking objectives and rationale as well as the mechanisms and algorithms implementing those restrictions?

IMO we can "should" all day long...I think that they "should" realize that censorship is a waste of time that does more harm than good. They *won't* realize that, but I think that they *should*.

Re:Why are they blocking violent content? (1)

kawabago (551139) | about 8 months ago | (#44577737)

Because they can! They're also blocking access to Medical Marijuana information. Want information on sexing hatchling chickens? Sorry, sex is banned. Want information on the French Revolution? Sorry, insurrection is a banned subject. These tools are instituted with the goal of preventing children from seeing pornography but they end up being used to squelch anything out of the ordinary. That is how a society dies. Censorship is slowly strangling ours.

Re:Why are they blocking violent content? (1)

mwehle (2491950) | about 8 months ago | (#44577951)

These tools are instituted with the goal of preventing children from seeing pornography but they end up being used to squelch anything out of the ordinary.

Several years ago I would have thought this was hyperbole, and then found AT&T's parental control filter blocked my son's smartphone from accessing lego.com. The prohibition might have been based on the violence shown by the Dragon Knights to the Castle Knights, but my guess was it was because of the "leg" in "lego".

Re:Why are they blocking violent content? (1)

Rob the Bold (788862) | about 8 months ago | (#44578613)

. . . my guess was it was because of the "leg" in "lego".

I guess polite people build things with "limbo".

Re:Why are they blocking violent content? (1)

Hatta (162192) | about 8 months ago | (#44577741)

Why are they blocking any content at all? Because they are small minded fools, that's why.

What a big Hamlet you have, Sir! (2)

turgid (580780) | about 8 months ago | (#44576499)

Brannagh had a huge Hamlet.

Re:What a big Hamlet you have, Sir! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44576629)

Hamlet is a new slang word for cockhead, isn't it? I have a nice big hamlet as well, shaped like a mushroom. It's purplish and shiny, looks pretty cool. If I had the necessary dexterity to suck myself, I'd never leave the house. I could feed on cum alone.

Next book (1)

michaelmalak (91262) | about 8 months ago | (#44576565)

The next book to be censored will be Ezekiel.

Re: Next book (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | about 8 months ago | (#44577061)

Nah. Song of Solomon. They're more afraid of porn than violence.

Although, is there a book of the bible that doesn't have any deviant sex or over the top violence in it?

Re: Next book (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44577289)

This is the UK. According to reports they tend to be a bit saner than the Southern US and are harsher on violence than porn. Alas, like certain folks in the Southern US they seem to think censorship has a snowball's chance in hell of success.

Re: Next book (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44577541)

Saying the UK is more sane than "The South" is just choosing which neuroses and prejudices you can tolerate.

Shakespeare has one of the oldest blue jokes (2)

maroberts (15852) | about 8 months ago | (#44576575)

Hamlet (Act 3, Scene 2)....

QUEEN GERTRUDE: Come hither, my dear Hamlet, sit by me.
HAMLET: No, good mother, here's metal more attractive.
LORD POLONIUS: [To KING CLAUDIUS] O, ho! do you mark that?
HAMLET: Lady, shall I lie in your lap?

        Lying down at OPHELIA's feet

OPHELIA: No, my lord.
HAMLET: I mean, my head upon your lap?
OPHELIA: Ay, my lord.
HAMLET: Do you think I meant country matters?
OPHELIA: I think nothing, my lord.
HAMLET: That's a fair thought to lie between maids' legs.
OPHELIA: What is, my lord?
HAMLET: Nothing.

Re:Shakespeare has one of the oldest blue jokes (2)

Ol Biscuitbarrel (1859702) | about 8 months ago | (#44576705)

There's more to it than the obvious one in that scene: Hamlet Steaminess Rating [shmoop.com]

OPHELIA: I think nothing, my lord.
Translation: I'd rather not keep talking about this and I can't acknowledge your sexual innuendo because that would suggest that I, an unmarried maid, know a little too much about sex.

HAMLET: That's a fair thought to lie between maids' legs.
Translation: In Shakespeare's time, "nothing" was another slang word for female genitalia.

Re:Shakespeare has one of the oldest blue jokes (1)

Farmer Tim (530755) | about 8 months ago | (#44578645)

Translation: In Shakespeare's time, "nothing" was another slang word for female genitalia.

I'm never going to listen to this song [youtube.com] again the same way...

Re:Shakespeare has one of the oldest blue jokes (1)

Ol Biscuitbarrel (1859702) | about 8 months ago | (#44579095)

Don't go there, man.

Judy Garland: No Love, No Nothin' [youtube.com]
Billy Preston - Nothing from nothing [youtube.com]
Sinéad O'Connor - Nothing Compares 2U [youtube.com]

Now, these fellows set a Blake poem to music so they may have been hip to this...nega entendre, I think you'd call it:

The Fugs - Nothing [youtube.com]

Re:Shakespeare has one of the oldest blue jokes (1)

king neckbeard (1801738) | about 8 months ago | (#44579665)

Given that "Nothing Compares 2 You" is a Prince song, I wouldn't put it past him, either.

Re:Shakespeare has one of the oldest blue jokes (1)

Farmer Tim (530755) | about 8 months ago | (#44579827)

But wait...if "nothing" compares to you, doesn't that mean he's calling someone a twat?

Re:Shakespeare has one of the oldest blue jokes (1)

Rob the Bold (788862) | about 8 months ago | (#44576883)

Not as old as, e.g. Lysistrata, which has, to my knowledge the oldest surviving example of the "is that a lance under your cloak . . ." gag.

Re: Shakespeare has one of the oldest blue jokes (2)

ceoyoyo (59147) | about 8 months ago | (#44577087)

One of? Shakespeare wrote popular plays for the commoners. They're filled to the brim with multilayered sex jokes. You can find a lot older though.

Blocking the Bible and Koran are next! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44576673)

Maybe this blocking idea isn't so bad after all! ;-)

Re:Blocking the Bible and Koran are next! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44576725)

Beat me to it. The Bible and Koran are for more violent and objectionable than any Shakespeare work.

Fifty shades of Song of Solomon (1)

tepples (727027) | about 8 months ago | (#44579639)

The Bible and Koran are for more violent and objectionable than any Shakespeare work.

Especially when you get past the sermon on humankind's futility in "Ecclesiastes" and hit the fifty shades of grey that are "Song of Solomon".

Damn the censors (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44576675)

Damn those leeches of public money and corroders of Western liberalism to hell.

Hamlet was a Dane... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44576691)

"the greatest work of British literature"

& that's BEFORE you try & tell me any work of Shakespeare can compare to The Young Ones!

Re: Hamlet was a Dane... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44577029)

there's more to literature than the freakin' plot! So Shakespeare's version of a Danish story can still be fine British literature. particularly if it's written in English.

Good move. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44576959)

They're doing it deliberately. If the nanny state wants violent things blocked, then that includes Hamlet.

If they want Hamlet, they have to give up their censorship BS.

HAHAHAHAHAHA (1)

techsoldaten (309296) | about 8 months ago | (#44577315)

OMG that's so funny. Porn filters blocking great literature.

What would the bard say?

"With this bit I damn thee..."

"She censored well but not wisely"

"O, reason not the need!"

"Art made tongue-tied by authority." (had to look this one up)

What about the Bible (3, Informative)

Jason Levine (196982) | about 8 months ago | (#44577475)

If they think Hamlet is too violent with 8 murders and one suicide, what about the Bible? That thing's full of people killing other people for various reasons. Heck, the exodus from Egypt alone kills all of the Pharaoh's soldiers while the Israelites celebrate on the shore. (To be fair to the Israelites, they did just escape from slavery. Seeing your former slave masters drowning as you escape to freedom is cause for celebration.) Is the Bible censored too? Do we need to come up with a child-friendly version of it?

"And so, as Lot escaped Sodom and Gomorrah, God came down and... gave them a very stern talking to.... then Lot's wife looked back and... got really dizzy so she had to lie down for a bit..."

Re:What about the Bible (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44578419)

I would like to see your verion of Judges. For entertainment purposes only

Alas, poor Yorick (1)

david999 (941503) | about 8 months ago | (#44579601)

Something is rotten in the state of Denmark. This bodes some strange eruption to our state. Contagious blastments are most imminent. Who is't that can inform me? (of how low England has sunk) And then it started like a guilty thing (soon Top Gear will be blocked) O villain, villain, smiling, damned villain! These tedious old fools!

Re:Alas, poor Yorick (1)

staalmannen (1705340) | about 8 months ago | (#44581057)

Something is rotten in the state of Denmark. This bodes some strange eruption to our state. Contagious blastments are most imminent. Who is't that can inform me? (of how low England has sunk) And then it started like a guilty thing (soon Top Gear will be blocked) O villain, villain, smiling, damned villain! These tedious old fools!

I know what's rotten in Denmark: their cheeze smells like old feet

Um did he check the book shelves? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44580951)

I wonder how many copies of Hamlet were on the book shelves in that library or are physical books not hip enough to read these days?

Why is this a news? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44581901)

The filtering works correctly so why do I read this in Slashdot?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...