Subject:
|
Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 20 Dec 2001 22:18:00 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1040 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.mediawatch, Curt Tigges writes:
> I am shocked and disgusted at anyone who would be immoral and low enough to
> display these films on the Internet. Even though I have not watched them, I
> have learned enough reading this thread. It is not right for anyone to
> display this trash anywhere. Legos were not meant to be used in digital
> films filled with smut, they were meant for enhancing creativity through
> building and designing. I hope nobody flames me for this, but if they do, I
> will still stand by my opinions.
Well, 1st off, I have to defend free speech. I mean, after all, back in the
50's (or so) bikinis were indecent. Way back in the 20's, showing your
calves (or was it knees?) in public was a disgrace. Supposedly there's blue
laws in Boston about how couples may not hold hands in Boston Common (from
way back in the 1600's). Clearly the idea of what is and isn't smut changes
with time, location, and people in general.
> Curt Tigges
> (who is also 14 and an LDS)
What's an LDS?
DaveE
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
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
|
|
|
|
