Censorship?!

>it's really great that someone else white, male,
>middle class, and able-bodied is jumping on the
>free speach bandwagon. Very helpful to the exploited.

The use of language here is very interesting. Excuse me for picking up on semantics, but the use of the phrase "the exploited" is rather patronising, don't you think?

>>If so, try telling that to Annie Sprinkle. Or Lydia Lunch.
>>Or Candida Royalle.

>And Chris Lewis played football and is on
>Getaway so all Aboriginal people are successful.

You really just wilfully stupid, aren't you, Leah? Here, let me explain it for you slowly: HE REPRESENTS A SHIFT IN ATTITUDE THAT IS ALL TOO RARE.

While you crap on endlessly about the exploited (from your _own_ white, anglo, able-bodied, affluent western-society perspective, may I add!), you continue to perpetuate -- rather than help to eradicate -- attitudes that many people in society -- black, white, yellow, green, male, female, gay, hetero, transgender, able-bodied, disabled, (add to the list at your discretion), etc. etc. etc. -- have made active choices AGAINST!

You choose to wallow in your man-hating, sex-negative, self-loathing (anyone who is "with" a rabble-rousing, hate-mongering psychotic like Andrea Dworkin can be nothing less) because you WANT TO!

Chris Lewis is a successful aboriginal person because he chose to ignore the self-serving sh*t about "the weak" and "the unempowered" and the "ones who need protecting". He got out there, changed his mind and his life.

Sprinkle, Lunch, and Royalle are sex-positive because they choose to be. They took something that had previously exploited them and turned it around, making it something that actually empowered them. Just because you and your Dworkin-ite cronies regard sex as repulsive and all men as potential rapists, doesn't make you right. It's just your opinion. You're entitled to it, just as I am entitled to fire back at it.

>Thank you for putting me in my place as a
>woman by making certain parts of my anatomy
>a matter for public discussion.

Do _you_ get many dinner invitations, Leah?

>That particular scene is not my favourite in the play.
>The reason I agreed to do it was that I knew that
>almost every member of the audience would react
>to it with shock and the realisation that we don't
>treat women that way anymore. I felt proud to be
>a catalyst for reminding soicety how far we have
>come and that the rules of male female relations
>have changed. Don's Party is a period peice.

Point taken.

I have to say though, I would rather you had said that you agreed to do it because it was in the script. There is a worrying implication here that you may have agreed to do the play and then insisted on changing this scene to suit your personal politics. Tell me you are not that kind of self-serving actor.

>(Would be very interested to hear what you thought
>about the parts that didn't involve my bottom David).

You may have noticed my absence from the review page. I try not to review performances given by my peers. I consider it the height of presumptuousness.

>It's extrodinarily easy to sit in a privileged position and say
>"This is the price we pay for freedom" when you are not
>now, nor ever will pay that price.

Yes. It is. Isn't it, Leah?

Maybe when I'm lucky enough to reach the lofty heights on which you stand, I'll understand the hypocrisy of decrying the very thing in which you are engaging.

It's very easy to accuse you of hyporicy, Leah, when you can't even see the irony of your own accusations.

>I don't look at society from the top down
>with my weighty ideological standards.

Really?

>I look at it from the bottom up, from the
>position of those in the most need,

Been working with Hindu women in Afghanistan recently, have you?

>and those who need to be protected from porn,
>from racial vilification and hate speach and from
>people who think, on behalf of these people,
>that they are being patronised by all this protection

Bwahahahahahahaha!

ROTFLMAO!!!!!! You are so FULL OF IT! You cannot even BEGIN to appreciate the sheer, unadulterated hypocricy of your statements.

>and would be much better attempting to stand
>on their own two feet

As opposed to yours?

>I maintain that free speach is a luxury only the
>privileged can afford.

And I'll bet your glad to be privileged, Leah.

And for the record, I don't regard the distribution of violent, abusive child pornography as an inherent adjunct to the right of free speech. But I do take into account the words of a police officer interviewed for a Danish documentary on child porn, who said that (and I'm paraphrasing here) "each photograph of a child being forced into a sexual act is merely a document of a criminal act, and as long as we can publish the faces of the child in the mainstream media, and investigate the surroundings in the room in which the picture was taken, we have a better chance of arresting and prosecuting the rapist."

The risk in the material being all-too-readily available to paedophiles must be weighed against the evidentiary value of said material in prosecuting those responsible for producing it.


not-so respectfully anymore,
David Meadows
(possessor of both a penis and a brain)