Subject:
|
Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 20 Dec 2001 22:26:31 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1668 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> 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?
(Church of Jesus Christ of) Latter Day Saints; commonly refered to as Mormons.
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
