Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
i have nothing against the shock jocks, like Stern.
i don't think trying to attract attention to onself is a reason for the authorities to shut you down.
there perhaps need to be period of time, on radio, TV and other media when it's safe for kids [clean speech, images], like say, 7-9am and 3-7 pm.
---
i don't think 'trying to make a buck' is much of an argument for censorship, and am puzzled by S Des
--
The truth is, the music, videos, and other medium are getting more outrageous. A long time ago, the corporate execs figured out that if filth sells, then use it until it's not selling as well, then make it filthier.
---
artistic expression aimed at adults has to be protected, regardless of whether someone calls it "filthy" and says the "expression" [song, picture, story] is put out there [printed, broadcast, put on the 'net] "only to sell." note that this argument would result in Lit being shut down.
You should understand, as a musician, I'm really sensitive to censorship and would much prefer that the crap be cleaned up by the people involved.
"self censorship" while under the gun is what Hollywood did up through the 1950s, e.g. people in bed always fully clothed, side by side. if S des means without the 'gun', threat of goverment action, the he's shown the ineffectiveness of such and approach in his other li[n]e about execs going for the increasingly filthy material.
S des example muddies the water entirely:
I was visiting a site that is accesible by anyone (all you have to do is say you're 18), which has videos gathered from all over the net. They had one of a girl from England (probably underage), letting herself be fucked with a pool cue by a group of boys, while they stood around talking about what a "slag" she was. She knew they were videotaping and played up to the camera.
IF, ftsoa, a 14 is penetrated by a pool cue, by some guys, you have a crime in progess. The ACT is illegal, as is the showing of it.
HOWEVER: if ftsoa, someone writes a STORY about a 14 year old being penetrated ---either liking it or not liking it [=forceful rape]-- that's protected under the First Amendment, afaik. the story is *made up* and legal, even if not postable at Lit. the same should apply to a movie, aimed at adults, where only adults are involved and no actual sex is occurring (iow, it's, for example a movie about the rape of a 14 year old, where the actress is 18, and there is only simulated sex.)
i don't think trying to attract attention to onself is a reason for the authorities to shut you down.
there perhaps need to be period of time, on radio, TV and other media when it's safe for kids [clean speech, images], like say, 7-9am and 3-7 pm.
---
i don't think 'trying to make a buck' is much of an argument for censorship, and am puzzled by S Des
--
The truth is, the music, videos, and other medium are getting more outrageous. A long time ago, the corporate execs figured out that if filth sells, then use it until it's not selling as well, then make it filthier.
---
artistic expression aimed at adults has to be protected, regardless of whether someone calls it "filthy" and says the "expression" [song, picture, story] is put out there [printed, broadcast, put on the 'net] "only to sell." note that this argument would result in Lit being shut down.
You should understand, as a musician, I'm really sensitive to censorship and would much prefer that the crap be cleaned up by the people involved.
"self censorship" while under the gun is what Hollywood did up through the 1950s, e.g. people in bed always fully clothed, side by side. if S des means without the 'gun', threat of goverment action, the he's shown the ineffectiveness of such and approach in his other li[n]e about execs going for the increasingly filthy material.
S des example muddies the water entirely:
I was visiting a site that is accesible by anyone (all you have to do is say you're 18), which has videos gathered from all over the net. They had one of a girl from England (probably underage), letting herself be fucked with a pool cue by a group of boys, while they stood around talking about what a "slag" she was. She knew they were videotaping and played up to the camera.
IF, ftsoa, a 14 is penetrated by a pool cue, by some guys, you have a crime in progess. The ACT is illegal, as is the showing of it.
HOWEVER: if ftsoa, someone writes a STORY about a 14 year old being penetrated ---either liking it or not liking it [=forceful rape]-- that's protected under the First Amendment, afaik. the story is *made up* and legal, even if not postable at Lit. the same should apply to a movie, aimed at adults, where only adults are involved and no actual sex is occurring (iow, it's, for example a movie about the rape of a 14 year old, where the actress is 18, and there is only simulated sex.)
Last edited:
