So on the strength of a discussion this weekend about good words to describe breasts, I had a line of thought. I wish there was more censorship on TV
( Read more... )
Sorry Dave, but I have to disagree with you on this one. Vehemently, in fact. Censorship of any stripe is a horrible slippery slope. What we need in this country is less, not more. Allowing full frontal nudity on everyday television would mean that people who chose to bare-all would become commonplace - we'd talk about them less than we do now. This in turn would force them to be creative, which was your stated goal after all, right?
Even if you don't agree with me %100, I refer you to that sculptor-not-painter Michelangelo. His works truly are magnificent. Too bad a bunch of thought police decided to go around painting fig leaves over the naughty bits of his paintings, and worse outright chiseling off the penises of his greatest marbles. Tell me, Mr. Pro-Censor who is ostensibly not a fascist, what purpose did that serve exactly?
I have to admit, I don't recall any inappropriate fig leaves or chiseling the last time I checked them out. I do, in fact, remember feeling vaguely inadequate in the face of his David. Although I do recall a Plexiglas/lexan shield around one of his Pietas to protect it from vandalism. (The story went that some guy who had a problem with his mother attacked it as a scene of motherly love
( ... )
However, I'm of the opinion that the Super Bowl thing really shouldn't happen in the future, and trying to come up with something that would prevent it.
Yeah? And you really think more stringent censorship will help?
I'm worried that removing the obscenity and profanity laws would allow more ridiculous stunts to happen, an ever escalating quest for shock and awe.
See, I'm of precisely the opposite opinion. And the thing is, history and statistics are on my side. More lax standards of censorship remove the lure of the forbidden, thus making "shocking" stunts less shocking and thus less likely. Whereas the more exacting and puritanical you make the laws, the farther people will go to break them utterly.
Sorry Dave, but I just can't see eye to eye with you on this one. Something must be done, indeed - but I think the something in question is not agonizing over Ms. Jackson's breast and getting the hell over nudity of any kind. Its only a big deal if we make it a big deal.
Comments 3
Even if you don't agree with me %100, I refer you to that sculptor-not-painter Michelangelo. His works truly are magnificent. Too bad a bunch of thought police decided to go around painting fig leaves over the naughty bits of his paintings, and worse outright chiseling off the penises of his greatest marbles. Tell me, Mr. Pro-Censor who is ostensibly not a fascist, what purpose did that serve exactly?
Reply
Reply
Yeah? And you really think more stringent censorship will help?
I'm worried that removing the obscenity and profanity laws would allow more ridiculous stunts to happen, an ever escalating quest for shock and awe.
See, I'm of precisely the opposite opinion. And the thing is, history and statistics are on my side. More lax standards of censorship remove the lure of the forbidden, thus making "shocking" stunts less shocking and thus less likely. Whereas the more exacting and puritanical you make the laws, the farther people will go to break them utterly.
Sorry Dave, but I just can't see eye to eye with you on this one. Something must be done, indeed - but I think the something in question is not agonizing over Ms. Jackson's breast and getting the hell over nudity of any kind. Its only a big deal if we make it a big deal.
Reply
Leave a comment