Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: E Rocc
"The only thing unacceptable was doing it in public."

So the idea of a commercial enterprise making money by degrading and insulting the most cherished beliefs of millions on private property is ok by you. And those that object are stiff necked Puritans? What if these losers had slipped into your backyard and performed their "act" for your children and the listening public? Any problem w/ that?

This species of anti-logic is exactly how we come to have pornography defended as political speech. Apparently Larry Flynt is a "journalist" in your lights. And if Hustler is providing a valuable public service why not NAMBLA and child pornographers?

So tell me, why do you consider performing this act in public unacceptable? It is free expression after all.

87 posted on 08/21/2002 5:45:19 AM PDT by Pietro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies ]


To: Pietro
So the idea of a commercial enterprise making money by degrading and insulting the most cherished beliefs of millions on private property is ok by you.
On private property? You'd better believe it. It's called "free speech". Consider that we insult and degrade the most cherished beliefs of liberals here all the time.

One may or may not approve of what's done on a given TV or radio show, or website for that matter. If no one approves or enjoys it, no one will patronize it and it will go away. Freedom is not infringed until one considers banning such things by law.

-Eric

92 posted on 08/21/2002 6:38:47 AM PDT by E Rocc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson