Subject:
|
Re: More LP S P A M : (was Re: Scary Survey results about the US First Amendment)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 11 Jul 2001 21:28:33 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
885 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Duane Hess writes:
>
> > He never stated that films were an objective account of life, nor did I mean
> > to imply that they were. My intention is to show that sex and violence
> > happens in movies as well as real life. Why invite the government into your
> > household to regulate what your children can watch on the television when
> > they (your children) can see very similar things in their own daily life?
>
> I don't mean to come down on the side of censorship here, but if you haven't
> noticed, we do have laws against public indecency and lewdness and laws >against violence too. So your analogy, it seems to me, works against your >stance.
I think the key phrase is "public indecency and lewdness." Sex, violence,
indecency etc. don't always happen in public.
>
> > However, I don't think
> > that the media should be censored for the same reason that we shouldn't try
> > to censor real life. The only difference between a violent act on TV or one
> > at the local mall is that I can choose not to see the one on TV. But I want
> > it to be *my* choice.
>
> But we _do_ censor 'real life.' Violence at the mall is against the law. >And, I might add, much less common than violence in the media.
The reason that I chose that particular incident, is because there was a
double shooting at a local mall the day before I wrote that post.
Just because something is against the law, doesn't keep it from happening.
Granted, laws reduce the amount of lewd acts and violence because they set
up consquences for violating social standards, but they don't completely
stop them.
>
> > Is my assertion about Scott's personal life nonsense as you claim? Probably.
> > In fact, I will say yes. To make my point, take a quick mental test. Imagine
> > a camera following you around for a time 24 hours a day for a month
> > (arbitrary time frame). In that amount of time, how many sexual encounters
> > will you have, and how many violent episodes will you witness in real life?
> > Now take that imaginary camera and publish the imaginary movie. I
> > *guarantee* that there will be things on that imaginary film that the
> > government wouldn't let through by todays standards. Now, why is it we can
> > *experience* those things in real life, but can't *express* them through
> > freedom of speech?
>
> I'm not sure I buy the notion that you can't. Who would stop you from either
> writing and publishing your account, or making such a movie (boring as it >would be, at least in my case) and sending it out?
True enough...
> As far as I can tell there are damn few things that happen in my life that >would be against the law to broadcast.
That hits near my point. Why is it against the law to broadcast those acts?
The government is telling us what we can and cannot see on television. I
would rather kick them (governement bureaucrats) out of my living room and
let the broadcasters know what I want with the channel button on my remote.
> My sex acts in any random month (or lifetime) have included only
> living humans who consented.
>
> Chris
-Duane
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
189 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
|
|
|
|
