To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 23694
23693  |  23695
Subject: 
Re: Clearly those Canadians are concerned about censorship...
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Thu, 8 Apr 2004 19:03:04 GMT
Viewed: 
685 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:

  
   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.

Of course, there’s absolutely no way to implement that policy effectively, or to police it credibly, unless we have a clear, precise, and consistent definition of what qualifies as pornography. Who would care to posit such a definition?

Consider:

The scenes in Schindler’s List of dozens of naked Jews being led to slaughter

The Ecstasy of St. Catherine of Siena

Naked Lunch

Henry and June

The Collected Works of Ms. Jenna Jameson

The Collected Works of Mr. Robert Mapplethorpe

Any of a zillion figure studies for the artist

Are all of these pornographic or deserving of censorship? Are any of them? Why, or why not, in each case?

Etymologically, the origin of “dirty” words in English stems largely from the conquest of 1066 and the resulting scism between Anglo-Saxon and Norman ways of referring to things. But beyond that, it seems to me that puritanism seems to abhor the realization that human beings are animals that (among other things) fornicate and excrete. The whole drive to declare some words or images “profane” seems to stem from a need to sanctify the human body, or at least to divorce it from its animal nature.

It’s all ridiculous, if you ask me. Janet’s ornamented breast or Howard’s racy questions or Jolene Blalock’s bared Vulcan butt are only verboten because of prudish fears that we would all destroy ourselves if we suddenly remembered that we’re flesh and blood.

Dave!



Message has 3 Replies:
  Re: Clearly those Canadians are concerned about censorship...
 
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote: <snip> (...) She's the 'daily hottie' today, coincidence of coincidences... (URL) be a PG-13 rating on that site--no nudity but some verrry nice pics from the likes of Maxim--so if ya don't like to (...) (20 years ago, 8-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
  Re: Clearly those Canadians are concerned about censorship...
 
(...) What!?! I missed that episode! Dang, at least that part of her is real...no, don't tell me if it isn't... -->Bruce<-- (20 years ago, 8-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
  Re: Clearly those Canadians are concerned about censorship...
 
(...) Luckily, we all have Jerry Springer every day on TV to remind us. Yep, even here in Australia. ROSCO (20 years ago, 9-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Clearly those Canadians are concerned about censorship...
 
(...) (URL) 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 (...) (20 years ago, 8-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

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
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR