Subject:
|
Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 22 Dec 2001 08:20:27 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1432 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.mediawatch, James Powell writes:
>
> > Well - if according to you its similar to "R" rated films, then they should
> > be treated like "R" rated films. Those films are restricted to people over
> > 18 unless they have adult supervision. Shouldn't the same apply here?
> >
> > I agree with John - it is not being handled responsibly when it is freely
> > accessible to children.
>
>
> Why? Just because the US _tries_ to restrict the showing of "R" rated material
> -that doesn't mean that the material should be restricted. Go to your local
> public libary. Ask for a copy of Lolita. I'm fairly sure you can get it on
> most libary cards-excepting the "under 12" cards. If, as a parent, you are
> afraid of the content which your childern are seeing, you _need_ to monitor
> with them what their choices of sites are on the internet. (read
> www.peacefire.org, or www.2600.com or www.spectical.org for examples of how
> blocking software doesn't work)
Sure, a computer whiz-kid could probably defeat blocking software, but the real
intent of such products, in my mind, is to prevent random hits from search
engines when a child is researching breast cancer, for instance.
I am more worried about accidental stumblings onto inappropriate sites rather
than thwarting mischievous 12 year old boys....
>
>
> Don't blame the medium for the message. In this case, Brickfilms is linking to
> another site. IIRC, the content of the other site is not the responsiblity of
> the linking site, nor is providing restrictions to what content is on other
> sites a responsibility of the linking site. In this case, brickfilms has
> followed good, sound practice, and indicates that the film contains "adult"
> themes.
hehe To a 12 year old boy, "Warning, Adult Content" reads "Check *this* out!";-)
The computer with net access of today is akin to the Playboy left around the
house of yesterday-- it's all about accessibility. Then, you hid the Playboy;
now you restrict net access.
>
> If you don't like it, don't watch the film. But, then don't be critical of
> those of us who have watched it, and found it funny -and are upset at Lego for
> trying to get it removed. It _is_ artwork - no matter if it is in "bad" taste
> or not. It is not strict porn - at least, I didn't find it arousing, and since
> that is what 'porn' is supposed to do, it wouldn't fit into what I consider
> porn.n Mature content, yes. Artwork, yes. Porn, no.
Let's not get into a debate over what the definition of art is-- art is
everything, and so consequently art is nothing. True, I do hold disdain for
people who would create pornographic images, movies, whatever from LEGO, and
that's my opinion. Fine. I'm not trying to stop them. But what I am arguing
for is restrictions for this kind of material so that it won't be seen by
minors.
>
> (and yes, I do think that registering the page with the various sites that _do_
> block sites is a good thing to do- but, at the same time, don't think that a
> machine can do your job as a parent)
Agreed! I just happen to believe my job as a parent is to get a machine to do
the job;-)
-John
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
101 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
