Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Wednesday May 03 2017, @12:06PM   Printer-friendly
from the talk-to-your-kids dept.

The controversial show about teen suicide millions of your friends on Twitter are talking about is getting increased content warnings.

The move is the latest in the conversation about the Netflix original program "13 Reasons Why", coming as a response to the backlash and concern about the show's suitability for young viewers.

The streamer released a statement Monday promising to "add an additional viewer warning card before the first episode." It has also "strengthened the messaging and resource language in the existing cards for episodes that contain graphic subject matter, including the URL 13ReasonsWhy.info."

Mental health organisations in Australia reported increased calls and emails since the program's launch in March. In April, New Zealand's classification body ruled that Netflix would have to display a clear warning for the entire series as well as individual episodes, branding it with the region's first ever RP18 rating. The new classification -- created for the program -- recommends people under the age of 18 watch the program only under the supervision of a parent or guardian.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday May 04 2017, @04:06PM (4 children)

    by tangomargarine (667) on Thursday May 04 2017, @04:06PM (#504366)

    Well I'm glad we have you around to tell us what we are and aren't talking about and be the arbiter of right and wrong, then.

    --
    "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by Wootery on Friday May 05 2017, @08:08AM (3 children)

    by Wootery (2341) on Friday May 05 2017, @08:08AM (#504728)

    That's just silly.

    Some things really are just wrong. Suppose there's a tribe that ritualistically blinds every third born child, because of their superstitious beliefs. If you're going to tell me that their moral opinion on the matter is no less valid than mine, then you're out of your mind.

    I see little reason to be any less dismissive of absurd claims like moral equivalence between a small bundle of cells and a fully (or, heck, even partially) developed human.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 05 2017, @02:39PM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 05 2017, @02:39PM (#504878)

      we need a -1 arrogant mod

      • (Score: 2) by Wootery on Friday May 05 2017, @08:36PM (1 child)

        by Wootery (2341) on Friday May 05 2017, @08:36PM (#505140)

        No counterpoint? Try name-calling!

        I take it you have no response to the thought-experiment, then?

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 05 2017, @08:49PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 05 2017, @08:49PM (#505150)

          picking and choosing of examples here is arbitrary. surely you'd agree that vanilla vs. chocolate ice cream is a right vs. wrong choice, and anyone who picks chocolate must surely die?