Smut

Post Reply New Topic

Because PPR hasn't had a censorship debate yet this week, and I'm bored.

I'll start it off with a video from Tom Lehrer.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pva35TFiBfI[/youtube]
As you can see, this video is satirical, meaning Lehrer presumably would have been in favor of censoring obviously obscene materials. However, as he says, "filth... is in the mind of the beholder. When correctly viewed, everything is lewd!" Given that the interpretation of what is "obscene" is so obviously subjective and has even by described by Supreme Court Justices as "I know it when I see it," can we say there is any objective basis for banning certain materials?

The peanut gallery will take over and just yell obscenities without having anything substantial to say. I don't want to see PPR go downhill. I like witty intellectuals over base teenage humor.
I'm not for censorship, but I also don't want a bunch of dummie Howard Stern wannabes infiltrating this forum.

The basic concept of banning objectionable material is a procedure to enforce the prejudices of the banner. My own feeling is that if material is objectionable to me I simply ignore it or confront it with what I see as truth. Most so called objectionable material is merely silly. A stupid and clumsy attempt to be nasty merely disqualifies the person from serious consideration and can be ignored as long as it does not actually engender violence.

Ding, Ding, Ding...and we have a winner! This is where these topics always lead. The question is always...where to draw the line. I have been a vacillator on this subject in the past. I am not a fan of censorship, but still have conflicting thoughts about what should or should not be censored. As for smut...if it is adults...smut if fine with me.

I say we draw the line at violence. That gets rid of the fuzziness.

Where is the violence line? Are you drawing a line at threatening violence, or promoting it, or both?

Edit: What about smut with violence?

The violence line is violence. I thought that was already clear.

There is a very contemporary example of the difference between the US and Australia. Westboro Baptist Church: in the US they can get away with picketing with their revolting, inciting messages, they are planning to come to Melbourne and picket the National Day of Mourning for the recent bushfire victims. They will be arrested here for attempting to incite hatred towards homosexuals. This is as it should be.

Aussies tend to take a very pragmatic solution to problems and I am worried that someone or a group will take too these people and get themselves into serious trouble

Claire: Latin / Clear...which I am rarely ever. You will have to help me with this one.

Why should it be that way? I don't think that it should. I think everyone recognizes that WBC are fringe nutjobs, and they only do this crap for the publicity. Ignore them, don't make them look like oppressed martyrs by arresting them. Let them face the scorn and ridicule of a public that can see their folly. Only a coward tries to suppress opposing viewpoints. Confront lies and hatred with truth, out in the open.


Arresting harmless (if delusional) nuts is pragmatic? Imagine the legal hassle that's likely to ensue.

Some people seem to believe that freedom of speech is for only the speech they agree with. This is not the case. Freedom of speech is for all speech, whether we like it or not. You, Dent, are a Communist. I disagree passionately with your political views, but I would fight to the death to preserve your right to hold and promote those views.

I said I would draw the line at violence. I mean that a crime occurs when there is violence. Mere speech can never be a crime. Words are not violent.

where I come from birth New Zealand, raised in England, immigrant to Australia; all three draw the line at Incitement to cause violence.

And how exactly do they define "incitement" to violence? Simple violence is much clearer as a legal demarcation.

I favor censoring all opinions the expression of which undermines my specific and completely arbitrary view of how the world should be.

Everyone's entitled to My opinion.

But if there IS going to be censorship of certain varieties of pornography such as child pornography I STRONGLY believe that pornography involving coprophilia should also be outlawed.

That must be hard to do. Violence is everywhere...personal opinions, books, tv, games, music. I always have enjoyed violent music.