Censorship or basic decency?

[somerfrost]

Here is a link to a hot topic as documented in the Huffington Post, I found it of course cause Joss Whedon cared enough to comment on the issue (first of the comments below the article)...it is the type of issue that always creates a stir...and plenty of emotions. I have always maintained that freedom of speech is not an absolute, that "speech" that harms others is not protected. The other issue here of course is government vs private response.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jill-s...m_b_44404.html

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

IMO, this is how it should work. The government doesn't have to be involved in every damn thing. Let public discourse, public and financial pressures cause a "natural" censorship, of sorts. While unintended, these billboards have allowed some real meaningful discussions to take place on some important topics, some of which may never have happened in the first place.


(also, fwiw, wrt the first amendment, "speech" does not mean any sort of verbal or written utterance. There is a distinction between "speech" and verbal acts - the distinction is often unclear, but a good starting point when thinking about it is what is the intended "target" is (eg mind vs groin, mind vs pure shock) and how the message is actually received (causes thought vs some kind of lower level "arousal" (and I mean arousal in a broader sense than what you may typically consider in this context...perhaps "response" would be a better word). That being said, I tend to agree with Joss' assessment of this being something less than speech...not even commerical speech which has some 1st amendment protections).

Baba,
I agree! I think a distinction can be made here as well regarding private vs government, the marketplace is the best place to protest in a capitalistic society...no government action is needed. A billboard, publically displayed forces folks to see it's contents...the contents in this situation is so perverse as to be harmful...I think the rights of the many win out here!

[Danzig]

cigarette makers were banned from advertising in most media, i see no reason the same could not apply here. and once again i thank my lucky stars that i live in the middle of nowhere.

[GenuineRisk]

As a big fan of horror movies I think it sucks that most of them suck these days. Great, now another crappy one will make a lot of money from the publicity.

My favorite comment from the link you provided, Somer:

<<look at it this way
if we don't want (fake) pictures of it on our streets we shouldn't be allowing our government to torture behind closed doors.
If we're smart (and women are) we should use this to our benefit.....
to congress anyone?>>

By the way, "The Descent" is really scary and not a bit of the scare came from eroticizing violence against women. Just a free plug for a movie I watched while peeking through my fingers.

[ultracapper]

reminds me of the outrage over the billboard advertising for the stones "black and blue" album in the mid-70s. a girl with black eyes tied up to a chair with a torn blouse. it was their worst album of the 70s and they felt they really needed some shock value to stimulate interest.

[docicu3]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

Here is a link to a hot topic as documented in the Huffington Post, I found it of course cause Joss Whedon cared enough to comment on the issue (first of the comments below the article)...it is the type of issue that always creates a stir...and plenty of emotions. I have always maintained that freedom of speech is not an absolute, that "speech" that harms others is not protected. The other issue here of course is government vs private response.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jill-s...m_b_44404.html

As much as I agree with your sentiment in concept as the violation of material like this at it's core is nothing less than vulgarity beyond reasonable rights of freedom of speech.

I would just be very very careful about sanctioning censorship of this nature lest you open the door for government action of same on far lesser threatening material.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by docicu3

As much as I agree with your sentiment in concept as the violation of material like this at it's core is nothing less than vulgarity beyond reasonable rights of freedom of speech.

I would just be very very careful about sanctioning censorship of this nature lest you open the door for government action of same on far lesser threatening material.

Don't disagree...keep in mind, it's not the government that would act here but the industry itself in giving it a restrictive rating. Putting stuff like this on a public billboard thereby forcing folks to see it is the issue for me. You want to make garbage and call it a movie, the boxoffice will take care of that, but publicly displaying gratuitous violence is over the line imo.

[SOREHOOF]

It probably shouldn't be on a billboard but that is what decency has devolved into. When the columnist put Abu Ghraib in the same sentence with the Holocaust she lost all credibility with me.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

If I had to choose between being baked to a crisp---or having a bunch of naked men piled ontop of me---I'd settle for the former in a heartbeat.

[SOREHOOF]

Me too, but if the choice is worked or starved to death, or some kind of diobolical medical experiment it gets a little tougher. If the choice was having naked women piled on me and they all looked like that bimbo who was in the photos and subsequently arrested I might pick the oven.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

The real rough looking girl with the dog leash? Or that other girl who had the blue gloves who was always smiling and giving the thumbs up?

I agree with you about the former.....it's a coin-flip with the latter.