Your home for intelligent conversation on the web
The Chamber of Politics General Is censorship on images useful? The LeBron James-Nike case
THINQon is a platform for a more intelligent web. It aims to replace the ruling paradigm of the web – that of sharing and gathering information – with a sharing and achieving of understanding. Instead of the Q&A model it offers an experience. A platform for discovery of ideas, people, and yourself.     Continue >
Is censorship on images useful? The LeBron James-Nike case
LeBron James was dunked on by a college kid in a college kids training camp. No big deal you might think, but James immediately went to the Nike representative there and asked that a film of the event be confiscated. First of all - how pathetic is that! Especially pathetic given his recent childish antics like not shaking hands after losing to Orlando in the conference finals, and the Ariza case. From a respected person he is turning himself more and more into a pathetic figure (and given my assumption that he won't win a championship in the next couple of years, I wonder what will happen there). He's a great basketball player (amazing even) but unless he goes to a shrink his image and even career might suffer. But there is actually a point to this story:

Is censorship of images useful? Did he hurt his case and would he have been better off letting the video be watched millions of times on youtube? (Even if the video will get to youtube they'll probably try to ban it). After the video would the words LeBron James and Dunk have been associated together as: LeBron James was dunked on?

I think there is a clear answer and that's that hiding images is almost always useful. Think of Abu-Ghraib without pictures, of Clinton affair without the stained dress - images are strong, and are getting stronger.
The people in Iran might be speaking to the west but without strong images the effect is weakened. We are so dependent on videos that without it the story might die today. Today it will still run, make the rounds, but tomorrow, it might just disappear. What's there really to say: he was dunked on? So what. People might mention the censorship, but not very often.
He's taking a hit, but perhaps a minor one, and at least in his strange mind, a lesser one from being seen dunked on by a college kid (Ha LeBron, you were dunked on; ha ha ha - that's what he's afraid of I guess.)

One always hopes that censorship will work against the censor, but if they succeed it usually works for them. If they succeed. If public outcry will force these videos out, he will have definitely lost from it.

Where does Nike fit in all this? Shouldn't the consumers objects to such blatant censorship (using the excuse that filming is not allowed, which didn't bother them until he was dunked on). Shouldn't we complain? I'm a Nike fan, and I buy mostly Nike. Should I next time think Puma? How do I as a customer force Nike against censorship?

I hope the film crew will take it to court, claim it as a newsworthy event. It should be interesting.
What do you think, do censoring images work, and if so, why doesn't everybody do it? How should we act against this censorship? Would you still wear a LeBron James TShirt?
The video was finally released about a week ago and was ultimately an irrelevant clip. The whole event was blown up way out of proportion and probably would have been nothing at all if the footage wasn't confiscated.

But in a continuation of this censorship issue and a couple of others on THINQon (post ) Apple was fingered in a similar case this week. In Europe an iPod touch overheated and exploded, it burned a large hole in a car seat and jumped 10 feet into the air in a final blaze of touch technology and awesome-looking production quality.

When the owner of the itouch contacted apple for an apology and a refund he talked to an executive who agreed to the refund under the condition that he should keep his part about the exploding apple product secret. The father refused and so we now have this photo. I don't particularly think Apple should be attacked on this (apple fanboys ) as it would have been under a contractual agreement with the owner who would have received compensation for their silence. Though, I guess really an exploding iTouch might be worth a lot more than a refund if taken to court as the 11 year old girl who used it may have been seriously injured. Had that happened and the girl had become an iVictim, you can bet the contract certainly would have been for a lot more money than the 200 or so odd pounds.

Can companies protect their image with money? I don't see why not, if both parties agree to the terms (which in this case they did not) that a company couldn't censor product information. But in this case maybe I'm wrong. When a product explodes and leaves a crevice in a seat, maybe that's when information should be handed to the public for their own safety. If I owned an iPod touch I would want to know if it runs the risk of exploding in my pocket while I'm listening to Explosions in the Sky or some other band with a suitably coincidental name.

I don't think Apple was breaking any laws by offering this contract with the owners, right? And if that is legal, think of all the censored product information that may be locked away behind sealed lips and cases of money.

Should money be able to purchase silence? In a free market world I don't see why not.
Join the Community
Full Name:
Your Email:
New Password:
I Am:
By registering at, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
Discussion info
Latest Post: August 3, 2009 at 9:57 PM
Number of posts: 2
Spans 26 days
People participating

No results found.