 | | Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms" —William R. Ward
|
| | | (...) Your definition of "pornographic" is clearly out of sync with the generally-accepted definitions in society, then. I haven't seen the brickfilm in question, but my understanding is that it is not *about* sex, though it happens to have sex in (...) (23 years ago, 21-Dec-01, to lugnet.mediawatch)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms" —Tim Courtney
|
| | | | "William R Ward" <bill@wards.net> wrote in message news:m23d242o2n.fsf@...rds.net... (...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 21-Dec-01, to lugnet.mediawatch, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms" —James Powell
|
| | | | (...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 22-Dec-01, to lugnet.mediawatch, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms" —Tim Courtney
|
| | | | | "James Powell" <wx732@freenet.victoria.bc.ca> wrote in message news:Goq2K4.Irv@lugnet.com... (...) material (...) local (...) on (...) are (...) monitor (...) how (...) I never said it wasn't the parent's responsibility to monitor what material a (...) (23 years ago, 22-Dec-01, to lugnet.mediawatch, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms" —James Powell
|
| | | | | | (...) I get (from Pocket Oxford) 1. A human creative skill or its application (snipped some stuff about beauty). I would say that the films _do_ represent "a human creative skill or its application", therefore are "art". I think they are at least (...) (23 years ago, 22-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms" —Tim Courtney
|
| | | | | | "James Powell" <wx732@freenet.victoria.bc.ca> wrote in message news:GoqCy3.F37@lugnet.com... (...) many (...) attacked. (...) people (...) an (...) I'm sorry, I wasn't clear enough and because of that you misinterpreted my intent. I meant to say - I (...) (23 years ago, 22-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms" —James Powell
|
| | | | | | (...) -its just that "family values" are too often used as a codeword to bash gays and lesbians. Having lived in a womans housing coop for 8 years, I was fairly well exposed to most possible combinations of alternate relationships- and I won't (...) (23 years ago, 22-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms" —John Neal
|
| | | | (...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 22-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms" —James Powell
|
| | | | (...) real (...) Why? Take a look at the 2600 page- or even better : (URL) you put too much faith in a computer to censor? If you do any research, you will find that the blocking engines don't work-and _do_ block some sites they shouldn't on (...) (23 years ago, 22-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
