Skip to comments.
More Than Seven Dirty Words
July 25, 2003
| Marjorie Heins
Posted on 07/31/2003 7:31:26 AM PDT by theoverseer
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61 next last
If you don't like something, don't listen/watch it, and keep your children away from it.
To: theoverseer; gcruse
How soon will it be before the righteous, holier-than-thou crowd comes storming in here to defend such 1st Amendment a$$wiping done in the name of "decency"!
CENSORSHIP IS INDECENT!!
2
posted on
07/31/2003 7:48:25 AM PDT
by
bassmaner
(Let's take back the word "liberal" from the commies!!)
To: bassmaner
What about kiddie porn? Forbidding the distribution of kiddie porn is censorship.
To: The Hon. Galahad Threepwood
That is not a good analogy. Kiddie Porn/Child Abuse is illegal. Talking about sex acts may be offensive to some, but its not illegal.
To: The Hon. Galahad Threepwood
I believe that sex with/distributing scenes of sex with minors is a crime. Barring criminal activities, I do not believe anyone has the right to tell a consenting adult what they may, or may not watch/hear/read. I may not agree with your tastes, but I will defend your right to indulge them.
5
posted on
07/31/2003 8:09:44 AM PDT
by
Texan5
To: chriservative
That is not a good analogy. Kiddie Porn/Child Abuse is illegal. Talking about sex acts may be offensive to some, but its not illegal. Yes, kiddie porn is illegal. That's censorship. Making the distribution of certain images illegal is censorship.
To: theoverseer
If you don't like something, don't listen/watch it, and keep your children away from it.Hard to do when it's everywhere now days. We watched the premeire of the new series "Nip/Tuck" the other day. Won't be watching it again. I lost count of how many times they said "sh*t" on the show. Then they showed the previews for the upcoming season which included bare breasts, a girl's face between the legs of another girl, and other things that, IMO, shouldn't be on regular TV.
Looks like Carlin's list has been shortened.
7
posted on
07/31/2003 8:13:28 AM PDT
by
al_c
To: Texan5
I believe that sex with/distributing scenes of sex with minors is a crime. Yes. That's what I mean by "censorship." Distributing the images is a crime.
To: chriservative
That is not a good analogy. Kiddie Porn/Child Abuse is illegal. Talking about sex acts may be offensive to some, but its not illegal.Talking about sex acts where a minor can hear is illegal. It is called corrupting a minor. Why are the public airwaves any different?
To: The Hon. Galahad Threepwood
It actually harms a kid. What a straw man.
10
posted on
07/31/2003 8:17:22 AM PDT
by
KCmark
(I am NOT a partisan.)
To: KCmark
What you've done is give a good reason for censoring kiddie porn--a reason with which I wholeheartedly agree. But it is still censorship.
It is perfectly legitimate for you to defend censorship of kiddie porn while rejecting censorship of other material, but censorship is still censorship. Remember that everyone who advocates censorship thinks there's a really, really good reason for it.
Of course, I recognize the inconvenience of admitting that censorship of which you approve is really censorship. That would mean that you couldn't engage in easy blanket condemnations of censorship, but would actually have to debate the issue of where the line is to be drawn between acceptable and unacceptable censorship.
To: The Hon. Galahad Threepwood
Sorry, I don't have a problem with child porn distribution being illegal. I'm not an attorney, but it would seem that the reason distribution is a crime is because the images were made of a felony sex crime. So would distributing them not constitute a perpetuation of this crime? Like dealing crack, which is an illegal substance produced against the law, etc, etc. Is there a lawyer in the house to clarify this one?
12
posted on
07/31/2003 8:23:00 AM PDT
by
Texan5
To: Texan5
I'm not an attorney, but it would seem that the reason distribution is a crime is because the images were made of a felony sex crime. No, the reason it's a crime is becauae there is a law against it. I don't know that any jurisdiction outlaws the distribution of pictures of car theft.
In any case, it's still censorship, even if it's a really good idea.
To: The Hon. Galahad Threepwood; Texan5
No, the reason it's a crime is becauae there is a law against it. I don't know that any jurisdiction outlaws the distribution of pictures of car theft.Snuff pictures and films are illegal to possess or distribute also.
To: theoverseer
While it appears that Congress may thwart at least part of the FCC's plan to increase media consolidation, The FCC has no plan to INCREASE media consolidation. It has plans to loosen regulations regarding media consolidation. Big difference.
And this announcement came at a time when the constitutionality of the FCC's censorship regime is more doubtful than ever.
This author has no problems with the FCC restricting ownership, but questions the constitutionality of its so-called 'censorship'.
less attention has been given to its tough new stance against "indecent" words and ideas.
The FCC's power to censor the airwaves goes back to the beginning of radio,
This "new" stance is more akin to the "old" stance. Where was this published? Pacifica's website?
15
posted on
07/31/2003 8:41:19 AM PDT
by
Grit
(Tolerance for all but the intolerant...and those who tolerate intolerance etc etc)
To: Between the Lines
Thank you, sir. I had forgotten about those-also images taken of a felony crime against another human being. A car is an inanimate object, so distribution is not a crime.
16
posted on
07/31/2003 8:50:15 AM PDT
by
Texan5
To: The Hon. Galahad Threepwood
I'm sorry. I just don't see the illegalization of kiddie porn as censorship, just as I wouldn't view the illegalization of snuff films as censorship. Such images are documentations of actual crimes for unconventional (read sexual) use. That is the reason they are illegal. A dramatization of a murder, however, as we see on TV all the time is not a crime and although some may view that dramatization as offensive, it is not illegal. In my opinion, to equate the two is really inaccurate.
Nip/Tuck is a very promising show. Just as with "The Shield", it is shown at 10pm during core adult viewing hours. You may not like it because it offends your sensibilities, but its incredibly well written.
To: al_c
It's on cable. Cable is optional, not mandatory. Also, most cable boxes allow you to block out channels.
To: chriservative
In other words, you react so negatively to the word "censorship" that you deny that censorship of which you approve is really censorship.
OK. No point in continuing the discussion, then.
To: al_c
You were suprised "Nip/ Tuck" was offensive? I saw that one coming halfway through the first commercial.
Try Monk, that's a good show. Plenty of clean shows out there. My fave is still Junkyard Wars, I just like watching people weld.
20
posted on
07/31/2003 9:00:37 AM PDT
by
discostu
(the train that won't stop going, no way to slow down)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson