Subject:
|
Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 28 Dec 2001 18:29:24 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1227 times
|
| |
| |
Forgive me for jumping in late here, but I haven't been hanging around
.debate much the past few days...
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> > But I'm saying that it might not _be_ filth in my eye...or our kids'.
>
> But you agree that at some point it *could* be.
And at some point it *could* be the finest piece of art ever crafted by
humankind; *that* is the point at which we should decide. To enforce a
summary prohibition before the fact is dangerously myopic and at best
speculative.
> > I am not put off by 99% of pornographic content, but at the same time I am
> > insufficiently familiar with the industry to give you citations of quality
> > porn. And even if I did, you would -- I think, just say that you thought it
> > was bad.
>
> hehe I know nothing about the porn industry, except that I hear it's huge, and
> that it's largely due to the net. Perhaps I'm speaking from ignorance, but it
> seems to me that porn exists for one reason, and it isn't "artistic" expression.
Well, Snickers bars exist for one reason--because people want them. The
same is true of porn and Beanie Babies and Christian bookstores. None of
these fine institutions would continue to exist in the absence of adequate
public demand.
Further, while it is true that the porn industry is huge because of the
net, it can also be argued that the net is huge because of the porn
industry. Just do a websearch for any of a dozen evocative porn buzzwords,
and you'll wind up with millions of hits. For example, a search on
Altavista for the word "porn" returned 5,610,985 results, while a search for
the word "Christ" returned a mere 3,495,329 results.
As a parallel, the VCR industry has also been recognized to grown
hand-in-hand (insert favorite metaphor here) with the home-video porn
industry; once people could view porn without going to a dirty, smoky
theater, the market was much more free to expand to fit public demand.
> > Actually, I just thought of _Crash_. It borders on pornography and I consider
> > it a good (if a bit twisted) movie. _Eyes Wide Shut_ bordered on being porn
> > and bordered on being good.
>
> Missed them both.
But why? If one would presume to judge what is and what is not filth,
then one should have a reasonable (if academic) familiarity with it. And
this isn't a case of "I don't have to fall in the mud to know it makes you
dirty." At stake here is the very definition of "mud" (to continue the
metaphor), and if a person makes no effort to look beyond his preconceptions
and prejudices, then his opinion must be acknowledged to be deliberately
limited.
> > It is caving in to political correctness. Since there isn't anything
> > inapropriate (that I saw) for kids on the site, there is no need for an adult
> > check system. To install one because a few users were raving would be silly
> > and weak. People who are allowed to self regulate, can.
>
> Unless the webmaster saw merit in the raving? Then it would become sage
> advice? :-)
Smiley-face or no, if the webmaster bears primary responsibility for the
site's content, then it is obviously the webmaster's choice to cave or not
to cave.
> Yeah, sex is good, until someone comes along and perverts it. And it seems
> that someone is always coming along...
and that someone is always declaring that somebody else's sexuality is
perverse.
Dave!
|
|
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
|
|
|
|