Subject:
|
Re: Clearly those Canadians are concerned about censorship...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 8 Apr 2004 16:25:47 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
297 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
| |
John may not know what hypocrite means, but I do.
|
I have only recently returned from a family vacation and was content to lurk
around a while, but since my name was envoked, I thought I’d comment on
Alanis’ behavior and the pious criticism of America’s “prudishness”.
Let’s cut to the chase, shall we. Let me ask you Dave, you freedom-loving
Canadian you. Since you are SO freedom-loving (and we aren’t), do you
believe ANY kind of censorship is warranted?
|
http://money.cnn.com/services/tickerheadlines/for5/200404080418DOWJONESDJONLINE000193FORTUNE5.htm
And we’re back to Howard Stern--if you don’t like what he has to say (and I
don’t) then for the love of freedom of choice, turn the radio station.
As far as censorship goes--to that old arguement ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theatre is
wrong (unless there really is a fire ;) ) but curtailing the yelling of ‘fire!’
isn’t censorship, it’s a safety issue and falls out of the domain of censorship
and into the domain of personal fredom and responsibility--like the right to
swing my arm until it contacts your nose. Janet didn’t harm anyone with her
covered nipple, nor does Stern harm anyone with his daily antics.
Do I believe in censorship? Well, I can’t answer ‘no’ or the discussion will be
done. I will say that censorship has to be done on the personal level, not on
the society level. I censor what I read, watch and hear, just like I ‘censor’
what I eat and drink. I don’t expect anyone else to follow my stance on
alcoholic beverages not entering my system, but I wouldn’t ‘censor’ others from
partaking if they so desired.
| |
If you answered “NO”, then we have nothing to talk about. If you answered
“YES”, then we are the same in kind, but different in degree. Now the term
“hypocrite” might start creeping into the conversation, but let’s let that
tired epithet go for a good while. I think it is a bit silly to boast that
you as a culture tolerant X more than culture Y does. What ever happened to
viva la differance?
|
I think it’s silly that people got into a furor over a covered nipple.
Especially in a country that prides itself as freedom loving. If you wish to
read ‘boasting’ into my ‘Hey, isn’t this little thing that Canadians are doing
good ‘nuff for debate?’ then I’ll read ‘hypocritical’ into ‘hey, we believe in
the first ammendment except when we don’t like what we hear or see’.
| |
The irony is that, in theory, I am against governmental censorship. What I
ferverantly believe in is personal censorship-- that is, personal
responsibility and civility. That is why I rant on about morality so much,
because immoral people act irresponsibly and need a government to be their
moral compass. How rich is that idea! I am a conservative because I believe
in limited government, and if everyone behaved we’d need less of it!
|
Now we fully agree--but what’s this knocking on the door? Oh look, it’s the
FCC. Something about the letter F screams, oh I don’t know, Federal or
something. Sounds like governement intervention to me. And once you play that
card, then you start the ‘big brother’ scenario--if I say this on the air, I may
get fined--therefore I will not say that on the air.’ The gov’t can sit back
and say, “Well, we didn’t censor anything!” but in a way they did by the thought
of the threat. And that’s a very difficult hill to get over. How can the
political debaters feel ‘free’ enough to point out perceived flaws in the system
if they feel the system will punish them? It starts with the Sterns, et al, but
the precident is then made.
| |
And speaking (elsewhere actually) of the American porn industry (which may or
may not be the BEST in the world;-) I would say this. Though I personally
find it sad and degrading, I wouldn’t deny anyone’s right to participate in
it. But I would sure as hell expect those that do to take great lengths to
insure that it is consumed only by adults (which of course they don’t), and
that is immoral and wrong.
|
On this we agree. Since others have stated better right here in this very NG
that children do not have the legal faculty to enter into a proper contractual
obligation, then we have to ‘protect’ them from things that may harm them.
Porn, in my humble opinion, isn’t appropriate for non-adult consumption. We
have no idea of the ramifications, short or long term, that viewing pron would
have on a child. We are obligated to protect hte child, therefore no porn for
kids.
We also don’t know the short or long term issues associated with adults watching
porn either, but an adult can make his or her own decision about that.
| |
I’m hoping that the proposed .XXX config goes through and all porn must be
changed over to this domain so that there is never any mistaking it or
stumbling upon it by children.
And that is all I have to say about that;-)
|
On this I agree--but you never know what you are going to get.
Dave K
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
22 Messages in This Thread:
   
 
- 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
|
|
|
|
