Censorship?!
Wed, 5 Sept 2001, 02:11 amGambler29 posts in thread
Censorship?!
Wed, 5 Sept 2001, 02:11 amPersonally I am 110% against censorship. If people don't want to see nudity, hear swearing etc then they should just not attend the shows/watch the tv programs/buy the music that contains the stuff they don't want to see/hear. Classifications are fine but why should we be forced to accept the censorship that is forced into our faces[rhetorical question]? Society should grow up and stop sheltering everybody. any comments?...
PS. Dont' think I'm an arse for saying these things if you are for censorship, just tell me your opinions please.
Jason
PS. Dont' think I'm an arse for saying these things if you are for censorship, just tell me your opinions please.
Jason
RE: Censorship?!
Wed, 5 Sept 2001, 03:49 pmWalter Plinge
>I'm all for censorship.
Boo. Hiss.
>Sexually explicit content is almost based
>on a dominance/submissive dichotomy.
(I'm guessing you meant to say "almost always".)
If so, try telling that to Annie Sprinkle. Or Lydia Lunch. Or Candida Royalle.
>Guess where women, children and the
>generally unempowered fit into that one?
The aforementioned sex-positive feminist activists/artists are examples of those who made the choice to be empowered. Pain is life. Misery is a choice.
>Trawl through the net and type words like "Kiddie",
>"Neo-Nazi" and "Rape" into the search engine and
>then tell me you are 110% against all forms of censorship.
I've trawled for worse. When I was searching for poster artwork for a Nazi-era play I was directing, I entered "kike", "niggers", and "white-power" into a search engine... and you reeeeaally don't want to know what I saw on the sites listed.
But I found my swastika.
>Society needs to draw lines in the sand or subversive,
(Interesting choice of words, Leah.)
>overly simplified notions that prey on people's feeling
>of helpless and hopelessness and their need to feel
>strong in any way they can creep in and become
>acceptable.
To the weak-willed, maybe. Are you saying we should dumb down social politics in the same way we do with culture... ie: just to appease morons?
>We already have our sexual behaviours dictated to
>us by media and porn. Men @!#$, women are @!#$.
Jesus! Come on down, Andrea Dworkin!
Answer a question for me, Leah. Given the above statement, how on earth do you justify your involvement in "Don's Party"? Being -- in part -- a healthily ribald expression of early seventies sexual positivism, I wouldn't think you'd want anything to do with it, let alone in a capacity that requires Tim Collins to grope your backside on a nightly basis.
Freedom of expression is freedom of expression for everyone, not just the people with whom you agree. If a photograph depicts an illegal act, then the person has committed a crime, and they will be tracked down by the authorities and punished for it. Raping ten-year-olds and publishing the pictures on the net brought a world of trouble for the folks in Club Wonderland, so it's clear that the authorities are operating to protect legitmate victims of violent crimes.
But to say that censorship is a good thing because it protects us from "subversive" social/political ideas is a foul suggestion, and not what I'd expect from a fellow artist.
Your commitmment to freedom of speech can only be measured by your willingness to support speech you detest.
respectfully,
David Meadows.
Boo. Hiss.
>Sexually explicit content is almost based
>on a dominance/submissive dichotomy.
(I'm guessing you meant to say "almost always".)
If so, try telling that to Annie Sprinkle. Or Lydia Lunch. Or Candida Royalle.
>Guess where women, children and the
>generally unempowered fit into that one?
The aforementioned sex-positive feminist activists/artists are examples of those who made the choice to be empowered. Pain is life. Misery is a choice.
>Trawl through the net and type words like "Kiddie",
>"Neo-Nazi" and "Rape" into the search engine and
>then tell me you are 110% against all forms of censorship.
I've trawled for worse. When I was searching for poster artwork for a Nazi-era play I was directing, I entered "kike", "niggers", and "white-power" into a search engine... and you reeeeaally don't want to know what I saw on the sites listed.
But I found my swastika.
>Society needs to draw lines in the sand or subversive,
(Interesting choice of words, Leah.)
>overly simplified notions that prey on people's feeling
>of helpless and hopelessness and their need to feel
>strong in any way they can creep in and become
>acceptable.
To the weak-willed, maybe. Are you saying we should dumb down social politics in the same way we do with culture... ie: just to appease morons?
>We already have our sexual behaviours dictated to
>us by media and porn. Men @!#$, women are @!#$.
Jesus! Come on down, Andrea Dworkin!
Answer a question for me, Leah. Given the above statement, how on earth do you justify your involvement in "Don's Party"? Being -- in part -- a healthily ribald expression of early seventies sexual positivism, I wouldn't think you'd want anything to do with it, let alone in a capacity that requires Tim Collins to grope your backside on a nightly basis.
Freedom of expression is freedom of expression for everyone, not just the people with whom you agree. If a photograph depicts an illegal act, then the person has committed a crime, and they will be tracked down by the authorities and punished for it. Raping ten-year-olds and publishing the pictures on the net brought a world of trouble for the folks in Club Wonderland, so it's clear that the authorities are operating to protect legitmate victims of violent crimes.
But to say that censorship is a good thing because it protects us from "subversive" social/political ideas is a foul suggestion, and not what I'd expect from a fellow artist.
Your commitmment to freedom of speech can only be measured by your willingness to support speech you detest.
respectfully,
David Meadows.
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···