Movies banned in BC, Canada
Kenny Fung
Recently, in my search for obscure and foreign films,
I discovered that the following videos, in their unedited,
NC-17 (or 18+ in BC), or X-rated form, are "not available"
for rental "in accordance with the guidelines issued by
the BC Film Classification Office":
Title Year Director
----- ---- --------
Beneath the Valley of the Ultra Vixens 1979 Russ Meyer
Bloodsucking Freaks 1976 Joel Reed
Caligula 1980 Tinto Brass
Devil in the Flesh 1987 Marco Bellochio
Flesh Gordon 1974 H. Ziehm, M. Benveniste
Fritz the Cat 1972 Ralph Bakshi
Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer 1987 John McNaughton
In the Realm of the Senses 1976 Nagisa Oshima
Matador 1986 Pedro Almodovar
Mondo Cane II 1965 Gualtiero Jacopetti
Mondo New York 1988 Harvey Keith
Pink Flamingos 1973 John Waters
Salo: 120 Days of Sodom 1975 Paolo Pasolini
Sweet Movie 1974 Dusan Makaveyev
Taxi Zum Klo 1981 Frank Ripploh
Vixen 1968 Russ Meyer
In essence, they are banning several comedies, "documentaries,"
dramas, and even a cartoon. Some of these films have been discussed
in alt.sex.movies, alt.cult-movies, and rec.arts.movies. However,
nothing was mentioned about their availability. As it turns out,
some of these films are banned because the presence of scenes which
are sexually explicit (such as in Caligula, Flesh Gordon, In the
Realm of the Senses, Salo, Sweet Movie, Taxi Zum Klo), disgusting
(depends on your interpretation; Pink Flamingos, Salo, and Taxi
Zum Klo might be interpreted as such), or objectionable (Caligula,
Salo).
Note: Edited versions (R-rated) (if they are available) are allowed,
but a lot of footage is usually cut to meet the R-rating. For
example, the R-rated version of Devil in the Flesh is 1:07
minutes while the unedited version is 1:50 and the unedited
version of Caligula is 2:30 while the R version is about 1:45.
Now, several questions:
1) Is this banning of certain movies commonplace in Canada, or is
it just in B.C.? (I'm pretty sure these movies are "available"
in most parts of the U.S.)
2) Can they not just classify them as Adult films and as such
have these boxes placed into the adult sections of video stores
and allow rental only to those above the age of majority
(19 in BC, 18 in Canada)?
3) What's interesting is that some of these films are shown
at local theatres (not mainstream theatres, though) in Vancouver
in their unedited forms with a rating of "18+" (BC's version of
NC-17). Now, if they're unavailable, then why can theatres
show them but video stores can't rent them. For example,
Devil in the Flesh will be shown in its unedited form at
The Ridge (???) during April.
One more thing: Pasolini's Arabian Nights, The Canterbury Tales
and The Decameron also contain sexually explicit footage (not
sure about The Decameron, thought). These films will be shown
in Vancouver in April as well (at another theatre downtown) but
these films are not on the hit list. Does anyone know if these
videos are released in Canada or is it just that the government
doesn't know they exist yet?
Kenny Fung
Ban Censorship!
Jos Stam
>Hi netters (sorry for the wide range of crossplots)
[list of banned movies deleted]
>Now, several questions:
>1) Is this banning of certain movies commonplace in Canada, or is
> it just in B.C.? (I'm pretty sure these movies are "available"
> in most parts of the U.S.)
The video down the street from where I live (Queen Video) has most of the
movies that were listed (probably all of them I've just never looked for them
or came across them). So there is no ban here in Toronto.
>2) Can they not just classify them as Adult films and as such
> have these boxes placed into the adult sections of video stores
> and allow rental only to those above the age of majority
> (19 in BC, 18 in Canada)?
It still beats me why no one under 19 is allowed to see sex but is allowed
to see people being blown away. One of the many paradoxes I'm still not used
to in North America...
>3) What's interesting is that some of these films are shown
> at local theatres (not mainstream theatres, though) in Vancouver
> in their unedited forms with a rating of "18+" (BC's version of
> NC-17). Now, if they're unavailable, then why can theatres
> show them but video stores can't rent them. For example,
> Devil in the Flesh will be shown in its unedited form at
> The Ridge (???) during April.
they are probably afraid that video store owners won't enforce the law. I'll
be harder for the cops to enforce it. May be they should visit all the members
of the video store regularly, especially when parents leave the kids alone
for the weekend :-)
>One more thing: Pasolini's Arabian Nights, The Canterbury Tales
> and The Decameron also contain sexually explicit footage (not
> sure about The Decameron, thought). These films will be shown
> in Vancouver in April as well (at another theatre downtown) but
> these films are not on the hit list. Does anyone know if these
> videos are released in Canada or is it just that the government
> doesn't know they exist yet?
never seen them. I've seen Salo though. Great movie.
>Kenny Fung
>Ban Censorship!
goes without saying. Problem is, 80% of people here don't agree.
Gordon Shephard
>h4c...@rick.cs.ubc.ca (Kenny Fung) writes:
>>Hi netters (sorry for the wide range of crossplots)
>[list of banned movies deleted]
>>Now, several questions:
>>1) Is this banning of certain movies commonplace in Canada, or is
>> it just in B.C.? (I'm pretty sure these movies are "available"
>> in most parts of the U.S.)
>The video down the street from where I live (Queen Video) has most of the
>movies that were listed (probably all of them I've just never looked for them
>or came across them). So there is no ban here in Toronto.
Ahhh. But do you have them in "Unmodified" form. The idiots typically
decide that not only should the public not be watching these movies, but
they also "edit" and place them on the shelf for the unwary consumer
to rent. The only way I've ever been able to tell if I'm actually
renting an AUTHENTIC movie, is to look at the running time. Several
of Cronenberg's older flicks (Rabid, Shivers) have been mangled, without
notification of such on the package.
(Caligula is available at my local video store, but has had several
scenes cut from it)
--
| Gordon Harry Shephard | Distributed Computing Support Group |
| Academic Computing Services | Phone: (604)291-3930 (604)464-4991 |
| Simon Fraser University | |
| Burnaby, BC, Canada. V5A 1S6 | shep...@sfu.ca |
| |
| Disclaimer: In No Way am I speaking for my Employers or Simon Fraser |
| University. |
Miron Cuperman
> In the Realm of the Senses 1976 Nagisa Oshima
You can find this, unrated, on laserdisc at CaptainVideo on Robson.
--
Miron Cuperman <mi...@extropia.wimsey.com> | NeXTmail/Mime ok
<mi...@cs.sfu.ca> | Public key avail
AMIX: MCuperman | PSM 18Mar93 0/0
cyberspacecomputingcryptoimmortalitynetworkslaissezfaire
Stephen Buckley
[about films being banned in bc, and perhaps elsewhere...]
>Kenny Fung
>Ban Censorship!
and kill all extremists.
Taj Khattra
>Hi netters (sorry for the wide range of crossplots)
>
>Recently, in my search for obscure and foreign films,
>I discovered that the following videos, in their unedited,
>NC-17 (or 18+ in BC), or X-rated form, are "not available"
>for rental "in accordance with the guidelines issued by
>the BC Film Classification Office":
>
**FINALLY** someone else takes notice !! I thought I was the only
around here bitching and complaining about this.
I got to see "Beneath the Valley of the Ultravixens" and "Vixen" on
video before the dumbfuck censors banned them. Makes me wish I'd
pinched them and paid the price :^)
I just rented "Bloodsucking Freaks" a while ago - sure didn't look censored,
but I can't be sure. I believe "In the Realm of the Senses" and "Flesh Gordon"
are available on laserdisc (but I can't afford an LD player :^( )
Unfortunately, most people don't give a damn and probably agree with
this sort of censoring, though they'll line up for blocks and take their
kids to see most of the shit that comes out of Hollywood.
The censors are a bunch of DUMBFUCKS.
+-Taj
PS - Is ownership of these movies also banned, or is it just that you can't
rent them ? Could I bring them back across the border with me ?
Kenny Fung
>
>Unfortunately, most people don't give a damn and probably agree with
>this sort of censoring, though they'll line up for blocks and take their
>kids to see most of the shit that comes out of Hollywood.
>
hint of nudity or sex, it's "close your eyes, little Johnny."
>PS - Is ownership of these movies also banned, or is it just that you can't
> rent them ? Could I bring them back across the border with me ?
If you own them from before, you're ok. If a video store had them
from before, they have to remove it from their shelves. (Don't know
what the do with them, though.) If a video store tries to buy them
they will be seized at the border. And if you try to bring them
back across the border with you, say goodbye to them.
At least that's the impression I got from the clerk.
Kenny
Melvin Klassen
>
>>2) Can they not just classify them as Adult films and as such have these
>> boxes placed into the adult sections of video stores and allow rental
>> only to those above the age of majority (19 in BC, 18 in Canada)?
>It still beats me why no one under 19 is allowed to see sex but is allowed
>to see people being blown away.
>One of the many paradoxes I'm still not used to in North America...
I look forward to the day when **both** "violence" and "pornography" are banned,i.e., the anti-violence laws get updated/synchronized/harmonized with the anti-
pornography laws.
Taj Khattra
>
>I look forward to the day when **both** "violence" and "pornography" are banned,
> i.e., the anti-violence laws get updated/synchronized/harmonized with the
> anti- pornography laws.
And I look forward to the day when Disney movies are banned.
+-Taj
Keith Meng-Wei Loh
>>I look forward to the day when **both** "violence" and "pornography" are banned,
>> i.e., the anti-violence laws get updated/synchronized/harmonized with the
>> anti- pornography laws.
>And I look forward to the day when Disney movies are banned.
Ditto ___Chuck Norris films ___
>+-Taj
Jos Stam
Here come the puritans again. What are the benefits for society by banning
all violence and pornography in movies?
--- Jos
scott weaver 9209 U
> kla...@sol.UVic.CA (Melvin Klassen) writes:
>
> >I look forward to the day when **both** "violence" and "pornography" are banned,i.e., the anti-violence laws get updated/synchronized/harmonized with the anti-
> >pornography laws.
>
> Here come the puritans again. What are the benefits for society by banning
> all violence and pornography in movies?
>
> --- Jos
In case you haven't noticed the increase of real-life violence and
sexual-abuses happening, I wouldn't doubt for a second that this is in
part due to the increase of voilence and pornography in movies and on
television.
It starts with cartoon violence (e.g. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles), and
grows from there until we get to the level of Terminator, Exterminator,
and beyond. I don't see how it could possibly hurt to start severely
restricting or banning altogether these types of films / shows whose sole
purpose seems to be the portrayal of violence or pornography.
Of course, people will start complaining about 'where to draw the line'
with what is acceptable and what is not. But, to draw a parallel, we had
the same problems with the GST in Canada (what foods are exempt, what
foods aren't, etc...) Eventually, this would become less of an issue.
This is something which needs to be dealt with, and soon. I seem to
remember Brian Mulroney (Canadian Prime Minister) telling a young girl who
had written him on this subject (mostly the violence aspect for TV) that
he agreed that there was too much violence on TV and would start taking
steps to end the broadcasting of such violence. I haven't seen much
happen since then, though. (I realise this is not the TV newsgroup, but
the same could be said for movies, which are almost equally accessible as
television for kids and adults alike.)
There's my 2.3 cents worth. (2c + 7%GST + 8%PST)
--
Scott B. Weaver Internet: swea...@mach1.wlu.ca
"Dream Weaver" UUCP: ...!torn!watserv2.uwaterloo.ca!mach1!sweaver3
Patience comes to Snail: 2C-264 Regina Street North
those who wait... Waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2J 3B7
Jos Stam
>Jos Stam (st...@dgp.toronto.edu) wrote:
>> kla...@sol.UVic.CA (Melvin Klassen) writes:
>>
>> >I look forward to the day when **both** "violence" and "pornography" are banned,i.e., the anti-violence laws get updated/synchronized/harmonized with the anti-
>> >pornography laws.
>>
>> Here come the puritans again. What are the benefits for society by banning
>> all violence and pornography in movies?
>>
>> --- Jos
>In case you haven't noticed the increase of real-life violence and
>sexual-abuses happening, I wouldn't doubt for a second that this is in
>part due to the increase of voilence and pornography in movies and on
>television.
Ok so according to you there is a *correlation* between the increase of
real-life violence and the increase of violence in movies. It has never
been proven that there is *causality*. Following your logic you could
explain the increase in violence in real-life by the increase of talk-shows
on TV, therefore lets ban all talk shows (now thats a good idea...).
The fact that sexual-abuse is so big here in North America is amazing because
they have such strict laws against pornography. So this contradicts your point
altogether. Sexual abuse is not bigger in countries like The Netherlands and
Denmark where pornography is readily available.
The argument that one should ban violence and pornography is not based on any
rational thought, its just based on puritan morals.
>This is something which needs to be dealt with, and soon. I seem to
>remember Brian Mulroney (Canadian Prime Minister) telling a young girl who
>had written him on this subject (mostly the violence aspect for TV) that
>he agreed that there was too much violence on TV and would start taking
>steps to end the broadcasting of such violence. I haven't seen much
>happen since then, though. (I realise this is not the TV newsgroup, but
>the same could be said for movies, which are almost equally accessible as
>television for kids and adults alike.)
So a young girl of 14 year old is going to dictate what is good or bad for
the rest of society because her sister was killed. This is totally
ridiculous...
--- Jos
hist...@waikato.ac.nz
> Jos Stam (st...@dgp.toronto.edu) wrote:
>> kla...@sol.UVic.CA (Melvin Klassen) writes:
>>
>> >I look forward to the day when **both** "violence" and "pornography" are banned,i.e., the anti-violence laws get updated/synchronized/harmonized with the anti-
>> >pornography laws.
>>
>> Here come the puritans again. What are the benefits for society by banning
>> all violence and pornography in movies?
>>
>> --- Jos
>
> In case you haven't noticed the increase of real-life violence and
> sexual-abuses happening, I wouldn't doubt for a second that this is in
> part due to the increase of voilence and pornography in movies and on
> television.
Well I'm glad you're so sure - how about putting an argument together to
convince the rest of us. Such supreme confidence about cause and effect -
but where is the evidence?
> It starts with cartoon violence (e.g. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles), and
> grows from there until we get to the level of Terminator, Exterminator,
> and beyond.
Is this meant to be an historic or an aesthetic analysis? Are you actually
suggesting that Wylie E. Coyote being tossed off a cliff face leads directly
to someone being fed into a meat mincer in EXTERMINATOR? Are the two acts
of "violence" received in the same way by the spectator? How is it distinct
from violence say, in "MacBeth" or the Bible, or has the whole development of
Western civilisation lead directly via some sequential progression to the
"level" we (or some of us) now experience?
I don't see how it could possibly hurt to start severely
> restricting or banning altogether these types of films / shows whose sole
> purpose seems to be the portrayal of violence or pornography.
Don't you have any principles? Does free speech mean anything to you?
Why should your moral standard be enforced upon me?
> Of course, people will start complaining about 'where to draw the line'
> with what is acceptable and what is not.
Yes, it is called dissent - healthy and essential within a democracy. I
can see you respect it.
But, to draw a parallel, we had
> the same problems with the GST in Canada (what foods are exempt, what
> foods aren't, etc...) Eventually, this would become less of an issue.
You mean once you have brainwashed people into your way of thinking they
will shut up and stop complaining about basic human freedoms. Hopefully
some resistance is always possible, even in the most rigid regimes.
>
> This is something which needs to be dealt with, and soon. I seem to
> remember Brian Mulroney (Canadian Prime Minister) telling a young girl who
> had written him on this subject (mostly the violence aspect for TV) that
> he agreed that there was too much violence on TV and would start taking
> steps to end the broadcasting of such violence.
Why the hell didn't he just tell her to turn the TV off if it offended her so
much? Perhaps because he was politically grandstanding, and/or speaking out
of ignorance.
I haven't seen much
> happen since then, though.
Well I'm glad for Canada's sake.
(I realise this is not the TV newsgroup, but
> the same could be said for movies, which are almost equally accessible as
> television for kids and adults alike.)
Don't you have age restrictions on your films? Granted once a tape gets on
video its distribution is much harder to control, but that is the world we
are living in. Thankfully your petty minded attitudes in the long term will
not be able to counter the communications revolution.
I would suggest that if you are worried about your children's exposure to
material which you deem "offensive" (and this is ALWAYS a subjective call,
no matter what you say) why not try educating them about film and the nature
of cinematic fiction?. There is a difference between violence and its
depiction, and the relationship between is extremely debatable.
The answer is always education, discussion and debate - never censorship
Melvin Klassen
g...@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:
>>A person in **Victoria**, British Columbia, writes:
>>I look forward to the day when **both** "violence" and "pornography"
>>are banned,i.e., the anti-violence laws get updated/synchronized/
>One of the many amazing paradoxes about English-speaking Canada ...
>despite that we have more socially liberal attitudes than the U.S. all across
>the political spectrum, Victorianism artifacts are still very strong
^^^^^^^^
>in many sectors ...
So, it's "Victorian" to watch violence-filled movies,
and then to act-out that violence against spouses, children, and women?
In that case, I'm glad that I'm Victorian!!!
Steve (PrettyBoy) Barclay
>I discovered that the following videos, in their unedited,
>NC-17 (or 18+ in BC), or X-rated form, are "not available"
>for rental "in accordance with the guidelines issued by
>the BC Film Classification Office":
>
>
> it just in B.C.? (I'm pretty sure these movies are "available"
> in most parts of the U.S.)
>
>2) Can they not just classify them as Adult films and as such
> have these boxes placed into the adult sections of video stores
> and allow rental only to those above the age of majority
> (19 in BC, 18 in Canada)?
>
>3) What's interesting is that some of these films are shown
> at local theatres (not mainstream theatres, though) in Vancouver
> in their unedited forms with a rating of "18+" (BC's version of
> NC-17). Now, if they're unavailable, then why can theatres
> show them but video stores can't rent them. For example,
> Devil in the Flesh will be shown in its unedited form at
> The Ridge (???) during April.
>
>One more thing: Pasolini's Arabian Nights, The Canterbury Tales
> and The Decameron also contain sexually explicit footage (not
> sure about The Decameron, thought). These films will be shown
> in Vancouver in April as well (at another theatre downtown) but
> these films are not on the hit list. Does anyone know if these
> videos are released in Canada or is it just that the government
> doesn't know they exist yet?
>
>Kenny Fung
>
>Ban Censorship!
How much censorship are you in favour of banning? Would you mind having
kiddie porn flicks showing up in stores near you, or do you just want
Some Censorship banned?
Steve - In favour of censorship on a limited scale, but for the life of me
I can't answer who I want to make the calls.
--
###############################################################################
# Like cunnilingus, tending sheep is dark and lonely work; but someone has to #
# do it. - Joseph Heller (From God Knows) #
###############################################st...@mikejag.wimsey.bc.ca######
Gary L Dare
>g...@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:
>>>A person in **Victoria**, British Columbia, writes:
>>>I look forward to the day when **both** "violence" and "pornography"
>>>are banned,i.e., the anti-violence laws get updated/synchronized/
>>>harmonized with the anti-pornography laws.
>>One of the many amazing paradoxes about English-speaking Canada ...
>>despite that we have more socially liberal attitudes than the U.S. all across
>>the political spectrum, Victorianism artifacts are still very strong
> ^^^^^^^^
>>in many sectors ...
>
>So, it's "Victorian" to watch violence-filled movies, and then
>to act-out that violence against spouses, children, and women?
No, it's "Victorian" to advocate morally-relativistic legislation to
a problem easily addressed by not purchasing a product or changing a
channel. As for "acting out" violence, anyone who is incapable of
telling themselves "It's only a movie" has deeper-seated problems
that banning such media will not alleviate ... milder forms can be
found in adults who believe that Barney the Dinosaur or Star Trek
(excepting those who indulge in science fantasy on the Star Trek
technology discussion group) are real life ... it's only a show!
gld
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare
> g...@columbia.EDU GO Winnipeg Jets GO!!!
> g...@cunixc.BITNET Selanne + Domi ==> Stanley
Keith Meng-Wei Loh
>>>A person in **Victoria**, British Columbia, writes:
>>>I look forward to the day when **both** "violence" and "pornography"
>>>are banned,i.e., the anti-violence laws get updated/synchronized/
>>>harmonized with the anti-pornography laws.
>>One of the many amazing paradoxes about English-speaking Canada ...
>>despite that we have more socially liberal attitudes than the U.S. all across
>>the political spectrum, Victorianism artifacts are still very strong
> ^^^^^^^^
>>in many sectors ...
>So, it's "Victorian" to watch violence-filled movies,
>and then to act-out that violence against spouses, children, and women?
>In that case, I'm glad that I'm Victorian!!
I think you misunderstand what Victorianism is. It implies that you
have strict moral bearing bordering on the anal. You know, stiff upper
lip. Women's Temperance League. So, if you were FOR watching violent
movies and such, then you would be anti-Victorian. If you're against
such, you could be accused of having victorian attitudes. Personally,
I think you should not be so labelled in either case. It's too grey
an issue for that.
Keith Meng-Wei Loh
>Is this meant to be an historic or an aesthetic analysis? Are you actually
>suggesting that Wylie E. Coyote being tossed off a cliff face leads directly
>to someone being fed into a meat mincer in EXTERMINATOR? Are the two acts
To be sure, after being brought up on a steady diet of violent cartoons I
now am quite hostile towards coyotes and elicit a burning hatred of most
flightless birds. I also am typing this post on an ACME computer. Don't
worry, though, I rarely am run over by big honking trucks.
> I don't see how it could possibly hurt to start severely
>> restricting or banning altogether these types of films / shows whose sole
>> purpose seems to be the portrayal of violence or pornography.
>Don't you have any principles? Does free speech mean anything to you?
>Why should your moral standard be enforced upon me?
Oh, he does have principles. And they are likely honest as well. What
he does not have is a clear idea of the complexity of this issue. Every
question brought up begs more questions which you touched upon.
That is why there are literally hundreds of scholarly works, studies,
articles trying to prove/disprove/evaluate the correlation/cause or
effect of violence/porn on levels of violence/hatred toward women in
society. Some are convincing, some are not.
On such an issue, you cannot help but hold principles. But like in
most debates that have divided society, the truth is somewhere
inbetween and will not be found. To be sure, if there WAS a truth,
it SHOULD NOT be found.
Continue to speak out. Publilius Syrus: "I have often regretted my
speech, never my silence." Robert Louis Stevenson: "The cruelest
lies are often told in silence."
scott weaver 9209 U
>
> >In case you haven't noticed the increase of real-life violence and
> >sexual-abuses happening, I wouldn't doubt for a second that this is in
> >part due to the increase of voilence and pornography in movies and on
> >television.
>
> Ok so according to you there is a *correlation* between the increase of
> real-life violence and the increase of violence in movies. It has never
> been proven that there is *causality*. Following your logic you could
> explain the increase in violence in real-life by the increase of talk-shows
> on TV, therefore lets ban all talk shows (now thats a good idea...).
As far as I have seen, talk shows that deal with such topics are made to
OPPOSE the idea that such acts of violence, etc., are justifiable. They
are not made to glorify violence, as in movies and TV.
The proof that there is *casuality* between the violence shown on films
and TV *is* there. No one has yet (as far as I have heard) bothered to
set up a thorough study and publish results about it, so such results just
have not yet been found. But I have great faith that such proof (that you
seem to need in order to justify restriction/banishment) does exist.
> The fact that sexual-abuse is so big here in North America is amazing because
> they have such strict laws against pornography. So this contradicts your point
> altogether. Sexual abuse is not bigger in countries like The Netherlands and
> Denmark where pornography is readily available.
Pornography is still widely available, despite the status of its legality.
This renders your point practically irrelevant.
> The argument that one should ban violence and pornography is not based on any
> rational thought, its just based on puritan morals.
Ooooh. Now I have morals. Thank God!
> >This is something which needs to be dealt with, and soon. I seem to
> >remember Brian Mulroney (Canadian Prime Minister) telling a young girl who
> >had written him on this subject (mostly the violence aspect for TV) that
> >he agreed that there was too much violence on TV and would start taking
> >steps to end the broadcasting of such violence. I haven't seen much
> >happen since then, though. (I realise this is not the TV newsgroup, but
> >the same could be said for movies, which are almost equally accessible as
> >television for kids and adults alike.)
>
> So a young girl of 14 year old is going to dictate what is good or bad for
> the rest of society because her sister was killed. This is totally
> ridiculous...
The 14 year old girl is not dictating what is good or bad for society.
She was bringing her opinion to the Prime Minister. It is up to him how
to react to it.
scott weaver 9209 U
> In article <C4EEB...@mach1.wlu.ca>, swea...@mach1.wlu.ca (scott weaver 9209 U) writes:
> >
> > sexual-abuses happening, I wouldn't doubt for a second that this is in
> > part due to the increase of voilence and pornography in movies and on
> > television.
>
> Well I'm glad you're so sure - how about putting an argument together to
> convince the rest of us. Such supreme confidence about cause and effect -
> but where is the evidence?
Do you have another explanation for this rise in violence? The same could
be said for crimes where the criminals seem to have gotten the idea from a
movie, or some other like medium. Unless they directly admit it, is it not
safe to assume that this is the case?
> > It starts with cartoon violence (e.g. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles), and
> > grows from there until we get to the level of Terminator, Exterminator,
> > and beyond.
>
> Is this meant to be an historic or an aesthetic analysis? Are you actually
> suggesting that Wylie E. Coyote being tossed off a cliff face leads directly
> to someone being fed into a meat mincer in EXTERMINATOR? Are the two acts
> of "violence" received in the same way by the spectator? How is it distinct
> from violence say, in "MacBeth" or the Bible, or has the whole development of
> Western civilisation lead directly via some sequential progression to the
> "level" we (or some of us) now experience?
While I did not use the example of Wyle E. Coyote, I would say that
similar examples lead *indirectly* to the example from the Exterminator.
You must be able to see the level of difference between the Coyote /
Mutant Turtles and the Exterminator. If not, I'm not sure you should be
in this discussion.
> > I don't see how it could possibly hurt to start severely
> > restricting or banning altogether these types of films / shows whose sole
> > purpose seems to be the portrayal of violence or pornography.
>
> Don't you have any principles? Does free speech mean anything to you?
> Why should your moral standard be enforced upon me?
Oh, but I do have principles. The right to live (for me at least) ought
to supercede someone else's lack of respect for my right and their
decision to enact violence upon me.
Why should your apparent lack of a moral standard be enforced upon me?
> > Of course, people will start complaining about 'where to draw the line'
> > with what is acceptable and what is not.
>
> Yes, it is called dissent - healthy and essential within a democracy. I
> can see you respect it.
>
> But, to draw a parallel, we had
> > the same problems with the GST in Canada (what foods are exempt, what
> > foods aren't, etc...) Eventually, this would become less of an issue.
>
> You mean once you have brainwashed people into your way of thinking they
> will shut up and stop complaining about basic human freedoms. Hopefully
> some resistance is always possible, even in the most rigid regimes.
Which brings up the question as to whether we ought to be free to expose
ourselves to wanton acts of violence, for no other purpose than
"entertainment" (term used loosely).
<stuff I wrote about the 14 year old girl and BM the PM deleted>
> Why the hell didn't he just tell her to turn the TV off if it offended her so
> much? Perhaps because he was politically grandstanding, and/or speaking out
> of ignorance.
Why should one have to see violence on the TV in the first place?
>
> (I realise this is not the TV newsgroup, but
> > the same could be said for movies, which are almost equally accessible as
> > television for kids and adults alike.)
>
> Don't you have age restrictions on your films? Granted once a tape gets on
> video its distribution is much harder to control, but that is the world we
> are living in. Thankfully your petty minded attitudes in the long term will
> not be able to counter the communications revolution.
In many places, age restrictions have little effect on who gets to see a
film. In the US for instance, all someone pre-17 years of age has to do
is find *anyone* older than 17 to go and see an R-rated film. And I have
also seen many places that let teens into R-rated films without checking
ID for age.
Yes, the restrictions are in place. But, they are not always (perhaps
'often'?) followed. So if restrictions aren't working, something else
ought to be brought in that will work. If there are any suggestions on
how to do this without banishment, I would be glad to hear them. So far,
restriction and banishment have been the only arguments here.
> I would suggest that if you are worried about your children's exposure to
> material which you deem "offensive" (and this is ALWAYS a subjective call,
> no matter what you say)...
I agree with that completely.
> why not try educating them about film and the nature
> of cinematic fiction?. There is a difference between violence and its
> depiction, and the relationship between is extremely debatable.
And how about those people who are not educated about the depiction of
violence in films? Does their ignorance justify the influence violence
has on them, even if they decide to kill or injure someone else because of
this influence?
> The answer is always education, discussion and debate - never censorship
Education is a good idea. Unfortunately, this is very difficult to enact.
What do we do between now and when (finally) everyone *is* educated about
this?
Bob Blackshaw
>Ban ALL movies. And books, too. And UseNET. Ban messages, and chickens,
>milk, carrots, gasoline. Ban life, and .signature files, and people named
>Bob.
Chuck you Farley!
Bob. :-)
>--Harlan
>--
>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> Harlan Feinstein The Analytic Sciences Corporation
> hwfei...@tasc.com NeXTMail okay
>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Charles H. Sampson
> ... To be sure, if there WAS a truth,
>it SHOULD NOT be found.
??????
Peter Reiher
>Jos Stam (st...@dgp.toronto.edu) wrote:
>> swea...@mach1.wlu.ca (scott weaver 9209 U) writes:
><stuff Jos and Melvin wrote deleted>
>>
>> >In case you haven't noticed the increase of real-life violence and
>> >sexual-abuses happening, I wouldn't doubt for a second that this is in
>> >part due to the increase of voilence and pornography in movies and on
>> >television.
>>
>> Ok so according to you there is a *correlation* between the increase of
>> real-life violence and the increase of violence in movies. It has never
>> been proven that there is *causality*.
>The proof that there is *casuality* between the violence shown on films
>and TV *is* there.
Where? Point it out to me, it's just not as clear to slow folks like me
as it is to you brighter folks.
>No one has yet (as far as I have heard) bothered to
>set up a thorough study and publish results about it, so such results just
>have not yet been found. But I have great faith that such proof (that you
>seem to need in order to justify restriction/banishment) does exist.
Oh, so this is an issue of faith. Well, hallelujah. Yes, I need proof,
and damn strong proof, before I'll justify restrictions on freedom of speech.
You're telling me that you want to restrict what people can say and hear,
and you want me to believe that your faith is good enough reason? What if
I say that, yes, talk shows really are the problem, and I have great faith
that proof of it exists, if only someone did the right study? Why is your
faith better than mine?
Note that various people have spent lots of time and money doing their
level best to produce a definitive study showing, without question, that
television or movie violence makes people behave more violently. If the
evidence for this proposition doesn't exist, it's not for want of trying.
--
Peter Reiher
rei...@wells.cs.ucla.edu
Joseph Wu
<stuff Scott and Jos and Melvin wrote deleted>
>Actually there are a lot of studies which contradict each other. So there
>is no definite proof from the "scientific community". You are basing your
>opinion solely on your "faith". My point is that there is probably a
>link (in some cases) but it isn't the real cause of violence in society,
>instead of wasting time in censoring movies and figuring out what is
>acceptable or not, I think we should spend more time educating people
>and provide financial security (through social programs). The whole
>idea of censorship is an insult to the intelligence of the population.
You make a very big presumption when you assume intelligence in the
population. Or, more to the point, people seldom act on intelligence.
Rather, most people are either sheep, who have no opinion and simply
follow the dictates of their habits, or they are whining, self-centred
children who have never learned that "freedom" is defined for the
individual within a society, not for the individual himself. When
any one individual places his own personal freedom above and beyond
the individual freedoms of the people around him, is he not violating
the freedom of those others? That is part of the reason why we have
any sort of laws at all. People simply do not act in a rational way,
objectively considering everything that is at stake before deciding
to do something. And don't think that education will help very much
at all (if at all). Take a look at the problem of drinking and driving.
How much do we spend on educating about that problem? And yet, it is
still a very prevalent problem in our society.
So, back to the topic on hand. Is "definite proof from the `scientific
community'" the necessary criterion for deciding on whether censorship
(or banishment, or whatever you want to call it) should be practiced?
You will find that such studies are questionable in terms of reliability
at best. But why not look at the interviews with those convicted of
violence against women and children as indications of correlation?
The one that comes to mind is the last interview with Ted Bundy, who
blamed the easy access to pornographic and violent materials as the
fuel for his own depraved actions. I believe that there are other
such interviews that exist that also give credence to the belief that
such materials have at least a minor causal relationship to the violence
in society.
If you still disagree with me (as you probably will--people are creatures
of habit, as I have previously said, and are unwilling to change (myself
included)), I ask you, then, why do we bother with any sort of rules
and regulations in society at all? Are not intelligent enough to know
what is right and do it?
>No I am not saying you shouldn't have any morals. I have morals as well, they
>are just different. So why should yours be the rule?
Precisely the question that you should be asking yourself.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Joseph Wu <j...@cs.ubc.ca> | Witty quote is now back to the
Master's Candidate | drawing board due to squeamish
University of British Columbia | readers. Any suggestions?
Darren Stone
:
: How much censorship are you in favour of banning? Would you mind having
: kiddie porn flicks showing up in stores near you, or do you just want
: Some Censorship banned?
There are _laws_ against the production of kiddie porn. That is not
censorship. I assume you have a problem with kiddie porn being actually
_made_ more than it being viewed. Censorship does not solve this.
There are laws to protect childrens' rights. Censorship is not required.
:
: Steve - In favour of censorship on a limited scale, but for the life of me
: I can't answer who I want to make the calls.
Any kind of video (or magazine or whatever) that depicts an individual that
really had their rights violated solely for the purpose of others' viewing
pleasure can and should be eliminated with all the basic laws that are in
place which protect their rights.
This applies to snuff films, truly brutal sex or fight scenes, animal
abuse, kiddie porn, and the like.
The state has no reason to ban a movie that was produced without any laws
being broken. If someone _forces_ you to watch someone you don't like,
then you have a case against that person. If you're not being forced to
watch something, then who cares?
- Darren Stone
sto...@wimsey.bc.ca
Jamie Andrews
>Oh, so this is an issue of faith. Well, hallelujah. Yes, I need proof,
>and damn strong proof, before I'll justify restrictions on freedom of speech.
Do you have "damn strong proof" that showing sex videos in
the middle of Saturday morning cartoons will ultimately hurt
kids who watch them? Double-blind studies on large samples in
a realistic setting? No? Then presumably you don't support
"censorship" of such things. In fact, the only reason there's
no law against that kind of thing is that the broadcasters make
damn sure everyone toes the line of their regulations.
Otherwise there would be laws.
How about "damn strong proof" that pictures of 17-year-olds
having sex constitutes kiddie porn? Do you have that? Maybe you
think you do. But people in countries such as Holland would
disagree with you on the strength of that proof. Looks like
there is more "censorship" in the US than in Holland in some ways.
Different countries have different moral standards, and
their laws are built accordingly. Freedom of speech is balanced
with other freedoms in every country. I may not agree with the
banning of the particular movies mentioned, and might be able to
be persuaded to protest it. But this "ban censorship" approach
is ridiculous, extreme, and ultimately hypocritical. I won't
have any part of it.
--Jamie.
ja...@cs.sfu.ca
"We are close to waking up when we dream that we are dreaming." -- Novalis
scott weaver 9209 U
> point was, in societies where people can openly purchase any pornographic
> material and bare their breast on any beach (such as in The Netherlands
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
What does that have to do with pornography? Nudity does not equal
pornography, and never once did I imply such a thing.
> and Denmark) sexual abuse has not been found to be higher than in
> societies where censorship prevails (Great Britain and Canada), so why bother
> censoring at all, get my point? ACtually in the latter societies the
> sexual abuse in the home has been found to be higher. I am not making any
> conclusions just pointing out the correlations.
>
> No I am not saying you shouldn't have any morals. I have morals as well, they
> are just different. So why should yours be the rule?
That's quite the loaded question. In my previous posts, I was simply
voicing my opinion on the subject. I don't *expect* that everything that
I think is right will come to be. ('hope', ... maybe, but that's a
different discussion.) Someone's morals are the rule as it is. I simply
think that perhaps someone else's morals ought to be taken into account
and tried for a while. This of course does not happen overnight, but
rather through years, decades and centuries of development. It's just
that lately (since after WW2 primarily), I don't like the 'progress' and
growth that violence has taken. Mine was only one of many suggestions as
to how to counter this effect.
> >The 14 year old girl is not dictating what is good or bad for society.
> >She was bringing her opinion to the Prime Minister. It is up to him how
> >to react to it.
>
> Yes but the scary part is that he did react to it and promised to be more
> strict on banning violence. Hopefully it is just poor P.R.
What is the problem with banning the depiction of violence? It is (obviously)
something our society as a whole does not need (and many members of society
do not want). Right now, the majority of violence portrayed in movies,
etc., is "justified" under the guise of both "free speech" and
"entertainment". That's like justifying murder as "free will".
> --- Jos
James Davis Nicoll
>
>What is the problem with banning the depiction of violence? It is (obviously)
>something our society as a whole does not need (and many members of society
>do not want). Right now, the majority of violence portrayed in movies,
>etc., is "justified" under the guise of both "free speech" and
>"entertainment". That's like justifying murder as "free will".
Hmmm. 'Killing Fields', and in a sense 'The Wansee Conference'
both concern themselves with violence: The Wansee Conference has a
group of political extremists, military men and bureaucrats make decisions
which lead to the (off-screen) deaths of multitudes of helpless civilians,
and the Killing Fields concerns the effects of a revolutionary goverment.
Are the kinds of movies you had in mind, and if not, how might one
distinguish between bad violent films and good ones?
Ican't helpbut notice the majority of people display no need
for literature or the other arts: should the arts as a whole be
gotten rid of as (obviously) unneeded and unwanted?
James Nicoll
scott weaver 9209 U
> j...@cs.ubc.ca (Joseph Wu) writes:
>
> >the freedom of those others? That is part of the reason why we have
> >any sort of laws at all. People simply do not act in a rational way,
> >objectively considering everything that is at stake before deciding
> >to do something. And don't think that education will help very much
> >at all (if at all). Take a look at the problem of drinking and driving.
> >How much do we spend on educating about that problem? And yet, it is
> >still a very prevalent problem in our society.
>
> and perform acts of violence, or are you somewhat better than the rest of us?
If law did not exist, I believe people would act in whatever way they
wanted, without regard to anyone else's thoughts or beliefs (if they have
any). The whole concept of law is based on morals. If you don't grow up
with *any* morals, from where do you expect to receive any? The question
of whether someone would be better than anyone else in a lawless
environment would be irrelevant since morals too would be irrelevant.
Fortunately, we do have laws (and for the most part, morals). From this,
we have some sort of method to base our actions upon, and deem them either
right or wrong, or if you like, better or worse. To start removing the
restrictions that law imposes (in the name of "I have a right to view
pornography/violence...") turns us towards a lawless environment. The
result: utter chaos, in my guess. (Not being willing to try this, I
won't offer a definitive answer to it.)
> >So, back to the topic on hand. Is "definite proof from the `scientific
> >community'" the necessary criterion for deciding on whether censorship
> >(or banishment, or whatever you want to call it) should be practiced?
>
> of course what else do you want to base it on?
So, in other words, assuming that more studies are performed that could
possibly back up the position of the professor from the University of
Western Ontario (whose name eludes me right now) who claims he has
scientific proof that there is some sort of racial hierarchy in terms of
intelligence, one could legally bar someone from entering a university on
the basis of their colour or race? After all, it would be "proven" that
certain races could not perform at such an intellectual level, and thus
would be a waste of time on the school...
Science has proven itself wrong many many times. Take a look at the
'scientific' views of anything from the 1500's and compare it to now.
These 'corrections' will continue...
scott weaver 9209 U
> In article <C4Gun...@mach1.wlu.ca> swea...@mach1.wlu.ca (scott weaver 9209 U) writes:
> >
> >What is the problem with banning the depiction of violence? It is (obviously)
> >something our society as a whole does not need (and many members of society
> >do not want). Right now, the majority of violence portrayed in movies,
> >etc., is "justified" under the guise of both "free speech" and
> >"entertainment". That's like justifying murder as "free will".
>
> Hmmm. 'Killing Fields', and in a sense 'The Wansee Conference'
> both concern themselves with violence: The Wansee Conference has a
> group of political extremists, military men and bureaucrats make decisions
> which lead to the (off-screen) deaths of multitudes of helpless civilians,
> and the Killing Fields concerns the effects of a revolutionary goverment.
> Are the kinds of movies you had in mind, and if not, how might one
> distinguish between bad violent films and good ones?
I'm sure more than one criterion can be found. For example, context. You
mention the film _The Killing Fields_. (I haven't seen it, I am basing
this solely on the short description you wrote above.) It seems to be in
some sort of historical context, perhaps even based on fact. I would
guess that many people would look on the actions as historical fact (if in
fact that's what it is) and hopefully say something to the effect of "Boy
am I glad we aren't like that anymore" - refering to the necessity of war
to solve conflicts.
I cannot comment on _The Wansee Conference_ as I have not seen it either.
> Ican't helpbut notice the majority of people display no need
> for literature or the other arts: should the arts as a whole be
> gotten rid of as (obviously) unneeded and unwanted?
Without literature, half the movies that have been made would probably not
exist, since many are based upon literature. The other arts in general do
not depict acts of violence, and particularly do not glorify any violence
that there might be. (I realise there are exceptions to this, so you
don't need to start blasting me with examples of violence in the arts.)
On top of everything else, I would question that "the majority of people
display no need for literature or the other arts." The arts serve a
purpose. Do glorified depictions of violence serve a purpose?
> James Nicoll
tmdb...@cayley.uwaterloo.ca
>Jos Stam (st...@dgp.toronto.edu) wrote:
>> j...@cs.ubc.ca (Joseph Wu) writes:
>If law did not exist, I believe people would act in whatever way they
>wanted, without regard to anyone else's thoughts or beliefs (if they have
>any). The whole concept of law is based on morals. If you don't grow up
>with *any* morals, from where do you expect to receive any? The question
>of whether someone would be better than anyone else in a lawless
>environment would be irrelevant since morals too would be irrelevant.
>Fortunately, we do have laws (and for the most part, morals). From this,
>we have some sort of method to base our actions upon, and deem them either
>right or wrong, or if you like, better or worse. To start removing the
>restrictions that law imposes (in the name of "I have a right to view
>pornography/violence...") turns us towards a lawless environment. The
>result: utter chaos, in my guess. (Not being willing to try this, I
>won't offer a definitive answer to it.)
Scott, to get the censorship laws you seem to want, you'd also have to
remove some restrictions the law imposes - to whit, the freedom of
expression provisions in the Canadian constitution. Why wouldn't this
move us towards a lawless environment? For that matter, why isn't there
anarchy on the streets in Denmark or the Netherlands?
>> >So, back to the topic on hand. Is "definite proof from the `scientific
>> >community'" the necessary criterion for deciding on whether censorship
>> >(or banishment, or whatever you want to call it) should be practiced?
>> of course what else do you want to base it on?
>So, in other words, assuming that more studies are performed that could
>possibly back up the position of the professor from the University of
>Western Ontario (whose name eludes me right now) who claims he has
>scientific proof that there is some sort of racial hierarchy in terms of
>intelligence, one could legally bar someone from entering a university on
>the basis of their colour or race? After all, it would be "proven" that
>certain races could not perform at such an intellectual level, and thus
>would be a waste of time on the school...
Err, no, unless these repeated studies showed that given any black and
any white, the white would always outperform the black. Even Rushton
(the prof in question) isn't idiot enough to claim that.
Anyhow, the point is that more studies like Rushton's won't *get*
performed; in fact, there have been several saying the complete
opposite. This is the advantage of the scientific community - it weeds
out fringe whackos like him.
>Science has proven itself wrong many many times. Take a look at the
>'scientific' views of anything from the 1500's and compare it to now.
>These 'corrections' will continue...
No-one here is saying that science produces perfect results. What we
are saying is that science is considerably more reliable than
anecdotal evidence and intuition, which is what you seem willing to go by.
You want to impose a mighty big limitation on artistic freedom; don't
you think you ought to have some evidence it's worth it?
Matthew Butcher
tmdb...@descartes.uwaterloo.ca
Brad Templeton
>In case you haven't noticed the increase of real-life violence and
>sexual-abuses happening, I wouldn't doubt for a second that this is in
>part due to the increase of voilence and pornography in movies and on
>television.
I think you miss the point. Even if this connection were certain, even
if movies about rape were known beyond a shadow of a doubt to increase
rape, are you suggesting that they should be banned?
Karl Marx wrote a book once that inspired several societies who declared
it to be their highest ideal. They followed its directions about setting
up a dictatorship of the proletariat and in each case that dictatorship
became corrupt. In several of the cases it lead to economic ruin, oppression,
destruction, poverty and starvation for HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF PEOPLE,
perhaps BILLIONS of people, and the painful cruel murder of millions of
people.
This connection is far more certain than any connection ever suggested
between movie violence and real violence, between movie degredation of
women and real life repression of women. The people doing the murdering
and ruination actually held up the book as their guide as they were
doing it, declaring that it inspired them, even though they had
corrupted much of its message.
Yet in spite of this very compelling link between this book and the
ruin and death for millions upon millions of people, which to be frank
makes all the rape and violence in Canada look like a walk in the daisies,
I have not seen the suggestion that this book be banned.
And it should not be, nor the other things. There is no justification
to respond to portraits of violence with the real violence of book-banning,
the jailing of publishers.
--
Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Sunnyvale, CA 408/296-0366
Keith Meng-Wei Loh
>If law did not exist, I believe people would act in whatever way they
>wanted, without regard to anyone else's thoughts or beliefs (if they have
Hmmmm... Are laws negative or positive? Do you need a law to *tell* you
what to do or to tell you what *not* to do?
>any). The whole concept of law is based on morals. If you don't grow up
>with *any* morals, from where do you expec
Wait a minute. How can laws be based upon morals when you just said in
the above statement that without laws there can be no morals? Did laws
come first and then we suddenly got morals? If so, where did law come
from?
t to receive any? The question
>of whether someone would be better than anyone else in a lawless
>environment would be irrelevant since morals too would be irrelevant.
>Fortunately, we do have laws (and for the most part, morals). From this,
>we have some sort of method to base our actions upon, and deem them either
>right or wrong, or if you like, better or worse. To start removing the
>restrictions that law imposes (in the name of "I have a right to view
>pornography/violence...") turns us towards a lawless environment. The
>result: utter chaos, in my guess. (Not being willing to try this, I
>won't offer a definitive answer to it.)
Ah.. the Hobbesian argument. But that still begs the question. If we
were all immoral anyway, where did we get the ideas that laws would
help? We must have realized that something was wrong .. morals perhaps?
If we were all immoral, we wouldn't see anything good in laws, wanting
to continue in our immoral ways...
Peter Reiher
>In article <1993Mar25.1...@cs.ucla.edu> rei...@ficus.cs.ucla.edu (Peter Reiher) writes:
>>Oh, so this is an issue of faith. Well, hallelujah. Yes, I need proof,
>>and damn strong proof, before I'll justify restrictions on freedom of speech.
>
> Do you have "damn strong proof" that showing sex videos in
>the middle of Saturday morning cartoons will ultimately hurt
>kids who watch them?
> How about "damn strong proof" that pictures of 17-year-olds
>having sex constitutes kiddie porn? Do you have that? Maybe you
>think you do.
Note that both these cases deal with children. I have no problem with
structuring laws (and liberties) for minors differently than for adults.
You seem unwilling to trust adults with the freedom of choice of what
they look at and say.
>But this "ban censorship" approach
>is ridiculous, extreme, and ultimately hypocritical. I won't
>have any part of it.
I'm familiar with the practical implications of censorship. That's one good
reason why I oppose it, unless you have extremely compelling reasons for
doing it. The reasons I've heard have been "well, everybody knows . . ."
or "there are interviews and studies indicating . . ." and "it's against
the [fill in favorite holy book]" and "it's disgusting" and the equivalent
of "I'm too lazy to bother keeping my kids from watching stuff I think
they shouldn't, so I want to make sure there's no such stuff available."
Got any better arguments?
--
Peter Reiher
rei...@wells.cs.ucla.edu
Peter Reiher
>The other arts in general do
>not depict acts of violence, and particularly do not glorify any violence
>that there might be. (I realise there are exceptions to this, so you
>don't need to start blasting me with examples of violence in the arts.)
At least in regard to theater, literature, and painting, the above statement
is definitely false. We're not talking about just a few random exceptions,
here, in all of these arts violence has often played a major role, and
has often been glorified to the same extent that one could say it was
glorified in film today.
>On top of everything else, I would question that "the majority of people
>display no need for literature or the other arts." The arts serve a
>purpose. Do glorified depictions of violence serve a purpose?
Do "The Iliad", "Cyrano De Bergerac", and "Beowulf" serve a purpose?
--
Peter Reiher
rei...@wells.cs.ucla.edu
David Spanagel
>I look forward to the day when **both** "violence" and "pornography" are banned,i.e., the anti-violence laws get updated/synchronized/harmonized with the anti-
>pornography laws.
Right on! Let's ban farting, vomiting, belching, snoring, yawning,
sweating, coughing, sneezing (only gooey ones), and spitting too.
(Let's leave in nose picking - I'm kind of keen on it.)
Sorry for being so sarcastic, but I couldn't resist.
Peter Phillips
>swea...@mach1.wlu.ca (scott weaver 9209 U) writes:
>
>
>> [other stuff deleted]
>
>>> >So, back to the topic on hand. Is "definite proof from the `scientific
>>> >community'" the necessary criterion for deciding on whether censorship
>>> >(or banishment, or whatever you want to call it) should be practiced?
>>>
>>> of course what else do you want to base it on?
>
>>So, in other words, assuming that more studies are performed that could
>>possibly back up the position of the professor from the University of
>>Western Ontario (whose name eludes me right now) who claims he has
>>scientific proof that there is some sort of racial hierarchy in terms of
>>intelligence, one could legally bar someone from entering a university on
>>the basis of their colour or race? After all, it would be "proven" that
>>certain races could not perform at such an intellectual level, and thus
>>would be a waste of time on the school...
Nothing of the sort would be proven. Suppose we study two identifiable
groups, A and B. And suppose we really do have an accurate measure of
intelligence which indisputably distinguishes "smart" from "dumb". The
two groups are carefully tested and it is discovered that, on average,
group B is 10% smarter than group A. Even so, you've only said
something about the *average* of the two groups. There are many people
in the "dumb" group A who are "smarter" than the "smart" group B.
The university still must compare people based on their own merit.
Your proposal to ban group A from university would only make sense if
the experiment had shown that almost every member of group A is dumber
than almost every member of group B. It could happen; group A might
be Fir trees and group B might be people.
I'm being pedantic. Clearly, any "scientific" study has to be closely
scrutinized before you go changing your laws around.
--
Peter Phillips, <pphi...@cs.ubc.ca>
Michael Winston Woodring
> Do you have "damn strong proof" that showing sex videos in x
x>the middle of Saturday morning cartoons will ultimately hurt
x
x>kids who watch them?
Actually, I'd bet that showing Saturday morning cartoons to kids is
"ultimately more harmful" than sex videos. Which is more detrimental,
watching two people engaging in a natural act, or watching GI Joe fire a
hand-held rocket launcher at people?
One of the problems with people is their puritanical fear and loathing
of sex, and also their facist enforcement of their own sexual ideology
upon others. What makes you think that your views of sex are
legitimate, or is the only correct view? Do you object to porn because
the couples are often not shown in nurturing, monogomious relationships?
Well, not everyone's goal is to have this kind of relationship -- and
who says that this kind of relationship is the best. According to
Foucault, love can only be obtained or understood after the subject is
destroyed and made into an object (there is no "nurturing monogomy"
because there is no longer a subject to nurture -- the people are
objects of each others' desire and emotions). So there is one view of
sex which differs radically than yours. Is Foucault right and are you
wrong? Or is sexuality simply another construct, with a myriad of
differing views and ideas. Are people who are into S&M sick and
twisted, or are you unable to see past your own bedroom window to
understand (or if not understand, than at least acknowledge the
legitimacy of) their desires.
Also, according to Annette Kuhns (Women's Pictures), soft core porn (R
rated stuff) is more "detrimental" to the feminist movement than
hardcore porn. In soft core, the women is dressed in fantasy costume
and her body is made the object of a male's (and viewer's) gaze. In
hardcore, the sex act is the object of the gaze, both male and female
genitalia are shown (hindering a total male dominated gaze). Read her
book for a more detailed account.
Also, in hardcore, women have the freedom of an overt expression of
sexual desire, while in mainstream films, women with a strong sexuality
are punished through the narrative (Glenn Close's character killed off
in Fatal Attraction, or the sexual woman is discarded by the male lead
character for the wholesome, "virgin" female -- marriage ever after).
While most porn films are made by, and for the gaze of, men, women are
entering the porn industry and are trying to make these films more
accomidating to feminine sexuality (like eliminating "money shots" and
adding more of a believable plot and character development). So now
there is the possibility of "another porn" (although the word
pornography is vague in itself -- can be anything from seeing an erect
penis to sex with a child).
Getting back to children, I feel that they should have a healthy view of
sexuality, instead of having it regarded as some perverse, sick act done
in white surgical gowns behind barricaded doors. Do I approve of child
porn? No. Although there are differing views of sexuality, I feel that
one characteristic that should be present in all of them is that each
partner(s) should have a mature understanding and acceptance of the
ensuing acts and consequences (therein rape is not a legitimate sex act,
but one of violence). I feel that, basically, children are not mature
enough to make these kind of decisions or understand their full
consequences. at what age is a person ready? I don't know. Am i being
hypocritical? Probably. Who knows, maybe someday a child's sexuality
will be acceptable -- that is, if education of children's bodies is ever
accepted. Who knows. Like all views, they change from culture to
culture and over time. In the end, nothing is static.
mike
afterthought: Although I am not a great purveyor of porn, I have never
seen a simulated rape scene in a porn film. However, the use of rape in
mainstream films (or the mix of sex with violence) is more likely.
Gordon Shephard
>This applies to snuff films,
Just to keep this thread factual, these don't actually exist. At least
nobody has ever seen good evidence of one. (Far cheaper/easier to
use special effects. Not to mention safer.)
--
| Gordon Harry Shephard | Distributed Computing Support Group |
| Academic Computing Services | Phone: (604)291-3930 (604)464-4991 |
| Simon Fraser University | |
| Burnaby, BC, Canada. V5A 1S6 | shep...@sfu.ca |
| |
| Disclaimer: In No Way am I speaking for my Employers or Simon Fraser |
| University. |
Jet Wimp
The things that are often said in favor of film censorship seem
compelling and urgent, but they are entirely fear-driven. And what is
never addressed by the proponents of censorship is the basic question:
who is to do the censoring? If the films are innately corrupting, aren't
we exposing the censors to undue risk? And what constitutes their
authority? Greater expertise on film? I doubt it. Or, as is much more
likely, are they merely political hacks? Then their competence is
dubious indeed. The point is this: these "authorities" will decide not
simply what the great unwashed will see: they will decide what YOU and I
see.
Some time ago I reviewed the notorious Pasolini film, SALO, on the
Net. The film is an interesting litmus test for censorship since its
subject matter is probably the most extreme of any film by a major
director. It is also banned in Canada (as well as the UK.)
Nevertheless, it is a film that discusses very important issues. It is a
film that deserves to be seen.
My own view is that films that promote an unrealistically benign
view of the world (almost all the Walt Disney excreta, up to and
including BEAUTY AND THE BEAST) are quite as injurious as films that
stare evil unblinking in the eye. They impair our maturation, and make
us less competent to deal with ambiguity--- an inevitable feature of life.
I had many e-mail letters from Canadians wondering how they could
obtain a copy of SALO.
Jet Wimp jw...@mcs.drexel.edu
Department of Mathematics and Computer Science
Drexel University
Philadelphia, PA 19104
drb
swea...@mach1.wlu.ca writes:
>In case you haven't noticed the increase of real-life violence and
>sexual-abuses happening, I wouldn't doubt for a second that this is in
>part due to the increase of voilence and pornography in movies and on
>television.
Did it ever occur to you that it's just being *reported* more? Maybe
these films are a result and not a cause.
Just my 2 cents.
Jamie Andrews
>Got any better arguments?
Sigh. I really don't want to get into the whole long cycle
of arguments and counter-arguments involving exactly what I
think should be censored and why. I did it only a few months
ago on alt.censorship and don't have the energy right now.
Suffice it to say that I am not a Dworkin-style censor, but
am against some kinds of pedophilic and rape-oriented material,
whether or not actual child sex or rape was involved with its
production. Check out the research of Malamuth, Donnerstein,
Zillman, Bryant et al., summarized in _Men Confront Pornography_
and other books.
Followup if you like, but I probably won't respond.
Michael Collingridge
In <1993Mar25.1...@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>,
st...@dgp.toronto.edu (Jos Stam) writes:
>No there should be regulations. As long as no one is forced into the making
>of violent or pornographic material and is consenting then its ok. Also
>no one should be forced to watch pornographic movies. Following this
>logic child pornography is illegal, as the people involved are under the
>age of consent.
So, does this mean it is "ok" to produce or view child pornography
if the parent (or legal guardian) of the one who is under the
"age of consent", consents to have the child be involved in the
making of pornographic material? I think the logic breaks down here.
-- Mike
John Paul Morrison
why does your logic assume that a parent has the right to give consent
for the child? Logic doesn't break down if the parent cant consent
to letting a child be used in a porn film. This would make things more
consistent and easier to enforce (legally). It's a subjective decision
about whether a film is pornographic, but it wouldnt be subjective
about whether the actors were minors. Ie, ban any depiction of sex acts,
if the actor is child/minor, nudity etc. If there is 'artistic merit' to
the subject, then the role can be cast with young looking adults, or
if that's not realistic enough, then the director would have to use the
*suggestion* of some act, and not a visual depiction of it.
>
>-- Mike
--
__________________________________________________________________________
John Paul Morrison |
jmor...@rflab.ee.ubc.ca VE7JPM | .sigfile without a cause
ubc-cs!rflab.ee.ubc.ca!jmorriso |
________________________________________|_________________________________
Tim Nelson
>sto...@wimsey.bc.ca (Darren Stone) writes:
>
>>This applies to snuff films,
>Just to keep this thread factual, these don't actually exist. At least
>nobody has ever seen good evidence of one. (Far cheaper/easier to
>use special effects. Not to mention safer.)
Actually, a friend of mine was part of a group of police officers who were
required to watch this kind of movie, so that they could tell fact from
fiction. He informed me that they do exist, but very few are made in the
US, none in Canada. Most come from Eastern European countries, or from
Central and South America.
A very sad fact though is that some of these actually do reach Canada for
a market here.
--
Tim.N...@Canada.NCR.CA
NCR Canada +1 416 819 4112
Patricio V. Poblete
> In article <shephard....@sfu.ca> shep...@fraser.sfu.ca (Gordon Shephard) writes:
> >sto...@wimsey.bc.ca (Darren Stone) writes:
> >
> >>This applies to snuff films,
> >Just to keep this thread factual, these don't actually exist. At least
> >nobody has ever seen good evidence of one. (Far cheaper/easier to
> >use special effects. Not to mention safer.)
>
> Actually, a friend of mine was part of a group of police officers who were
> required to watch this kind of movie, so that they could tell fact from
> fiction. He informed me that they do exist, but very few are made in the
> US, none in Canada. Most come from Eastern European countries, or from
> Central and South America.
From "alt.folklore.urban Frequently Asked Questions":
By definition, a snuff film is one in which the film is the *purpose* of
(rather than incidental to) the murder and with some intent of commercial
distribution (i.e. if they ran out of film, the murder would be postponed
until someone could run down to the 7-11 & get more). Paul Lanning, the
FBI's chief researcher into child pornography was quoted by _The Times_
of London:
"In 20 years I have not seen any hard evidence that they have
commercially produced sexually explicit films of murders for the
gratification of other people. Simulated snuff movies using
special effects are so realistic there is no point in risking life
in jail."
Note to the new reader: please don't send or post e-mail saying "snuff movies
*could* exist, because people are naughty enough" - this is not in dispute;
the point is that no examples have yet come to light. Until someone shows
evidence of their existence, snuff films are in the same category as UFO's,
the Loch Ness monster, and Bruce Willis's hair -- i.e. "believed false."
Miron Cuperman
> Suffice it to say that I am not a Dworkin-style censor, but
>am against some kinds of pedophilic and rape-oriented material,
>whether or not actual child sex or rape was involved with its
>production. Check out the research of Malamuth, Donnerstein,
>Zillman, Bryant et al., summarized in _Men Confront Pornography_
>and other books.
Even if it was conclusively proven that pornography increases the
incidence of assault crimes, it wouldn't make a difference to me.
Every action has both bad and good indirect influences. It is
often impossible to ascertain all those influences. But when you
talk about criminal *responsibility*, it must rest entirely with
the direct perpetrators. This way we are assured that the criminal
action is discouraged but the (possibly beneficial) dissemination
of information is not left to the whim of politicians.
You can't control law-making on a law-by-law basis - there are just
too many and your influence is too dispersed. You might be able
to exert more control on the constitution or the bill of rights.
You must choose freedom of speech, otherwise you open the door to
totalitarian style thought-control.
I don't suppose you read "This Perfect Day"?
Steve (PrettyBoy) Barclay
>
>why does your logic assume that a parent has the right to give consent
>for the child? Logic doesn't break down if the parent cant consent
>to letting a child be used in a porn film. This would make things more
>consistent and easier to enforce (legally). It's a subjective decision
>about whether a film is pornographic, but it wouldnt be subjective
>about whether the actors were minors. Ie, ban any depiction of sex acts,
>if the actor is child/minor, nudity etc. If there is 'artistic merit' to
>the subject, then the role can be cast with young looking adults, or
>if that's not realistic enough, then the director would have to use the
>*suggestion* of some act, and not a visual depiction of it.
>
> jmor...@rflab.ee.ubc.ca VE7JPM | .sigfile without a cause
OK John. Here's one that came up at a recent sci-fi convention I attended.
We're almost to the point now where computer generated images are virtually
indistinguishable from real life. So soon we will be able to produce
kiddie porn, violent rape depictions, and whatever else our deranged minds
can come up with, with no eithical worries about anyone being vicitmized in
the production of the flick. Does this make it OK to sell? After all, there's
no law against making it, right?
Clearly, unless we as a society feel that the viewing of this material is OK,
then we must either a) make a law against the production of such material or
b) make a law against the distribution of such material. Regardless of what
we do, it is censorship. So let's ask the question again...
With this eventuality in mind, are you for or against censorship?
Personally, I'm for it. I don't like the idea of faceless masses in back
rooms making the desicions, but I feel it's better than having kiddie-porn
gracing the shelves of my local video store with my kids elementary school
a few blocks away. If we are to protect our children from the baser
elements of society, then we should do all we can not to promote an
environment where their abuse or exploitation is commonplace, even if it
is entirely computer generated.
Here in Canada censorship has been in place for YEARS. I have noticed no ill
effects on our society because of it. Sure, my version of Calligula at the
video store dosn't show as much gore as the American version, and I don't
get to see that nifty scene where Calligula shoves his fist up a soldiers
rectum, but really, I'm not all that broken up about it. I still feel that
censorship, when handled responsibly by reasonable people, can be helpful in
maintaining a healthy society.
One might say "But gee Steve, nobody's ever proven that watching those
missing scenes in Calligula causes any harm whatsoever!" But I am certain
that NOT seeing them has caused no dammage AT ALL.
Send in the flames...I'm a-waiting.
Steve
--
##############################################################################
# Charter Member - T.O.A.S.T.E.R.S. - The Terrorist Organization Against #
# Syndicated Toys Esecially Rubber #
# st...@mikejag.wimsey.bc.ca Smurfs #
scott weaver 9209 U
> Wow! Right on! I CAN NOT wait for the day when what I watch on TV
> is banned because it offended somebody's little sensitive ears.
> SENSORSHIP SUCKS! So much for freedom of speech. It should all be like
> the internet. You have the freedom of speech, but you also have the
> freedom not to listen.
One problem (out of many) that arises from this is Public Television, and
what they display. The last thing I want is my tax dollars supporting a
station that shows things which I am against morally, and would never
watch.
--
Scott B. Weaver Internet: swea...@mach1.wlu.ca
"Dream Weaver" UUCP: ...!torn!watserv2.uwaterloo.ca!mach1!sweaver3
Patience comes to Snail: 19 Guest Street
those who wait... Brampton, Ontario, Canada L6W 1T7
Bill Day
music program that features different artists all the time. They said
talked of a bunch of artists that I know are Canadian. But there was one
I didn't think (still don't think) is a Canadian. He was Roger Waters
(Pink Floyd). Is he Canadian???
--
Why, man, he doth bestride the narrow world| Shakespear-Julias Caesar.
Like a Colossus, and we petty men | Bill Day:bd...@random.ucs.mun.ca
Walk under his huge legs and peep about | "Chicken little has only to be
To find ourselves dishonourable graves. | right once!"
Mark Biegler
> I was just listening to the radio and I heard an add for some
>music program that features different artists all the time. They said
>talked of a bunch of artists that I know are Canadian. But there was one
>I didn't think (still don't think) is a Canadian. He was Roger Waters
>(Pink Floyd). Is he Canadian???
Not by a long shot. Very much English. Unless he was born here and
moved to England at a very young age. He has the accent and his
schooling was in England. That's how he met the other guys who
later went on to form Pink Floyd.
Can anyone correct me if I'm wrong?
- Mark
Mark Biegler bie...@cs.uregina.ca
Department of Computer Science W: (306) 585-5227
University of Regina H: (306) 522-1770
Regina, Saskatchewan Canada S4S 0A2 Office: CW 308.15
Jos Stam
>We're almost to the point now where computer generated images are virtually
>indistinguishable from real life. So soon we will be able to produce
>kiddie porn, violent rape depictions, and whatever else our deranged minds
>can come up with, with no eithical worries about anyone being vicitmized in
>the production of the flick. Does this make it OK to sell? After all, there's
>no law against making it, right?
Yes in this case I have no problem with the making of that kind of material.
>Clearly, unless we as a society feel that the viewing of this material is OK,
>then we must either a) make a law against the production of such material or
>b) make a law against the distribution of such material. Regardless of what
>we do, it is censorship. So let's ask the question again...
>With this eventuality in mind, are you for or against censorship?
I'm still against censorship.
>Personally, I'm for it. I don't like the idea of faceless masses in back
>rooms making the desicions, but I feel it's better than having kiddie-porn
>gracing the shelves of my local video store with my kids elementary school
>a few blocks away. If we are to protect our children from the baser
>elements of society, then we should do all we can not to promote an
>environment where their abuse or exploitation is commonplace, even if it
>is entirely computer generated.
See in your case you assume that showing these videos will harm these kids.
Maybe if a lot of people see these movies they'll be so revolted that they
will push their politicians to actually do something about the real causes
of child abuse. At least it will make people aware which is better than the
prevailing attitude of denial in this society. So in this case actually
allowing this kind of material is beneficial. You might not know this but
child abuse is already *commonplace* here in North America despite all the
censorship.
>Here in Canada censorship has been in place for YEARS. I have noticed no ill
>effects on our society because of it.
But has it helped society? Does Canada have a lower crime rate than more
"liberal" countries? Is there less "sexual" abuse? Actually it is amazing how
many cases of sexual abuse are reported in the news lately, most of them
happened years ago. Most victims only report them now, years later. Censorship
gives the false illusion that those things don't happen. In that sense I think
it has an ill effect on a society.
Also I could counter your argument with. Denmark relaxed their censorship laws
and I have noticed no ill effects on that society because of it.
[stuff about the movie "Caligula" deleted]
>Send in the flames...I'm a-waiting.
There won't be a lot of flames Steve. You have the attitude of most people in
this country (continent). Instead of dealing rationaly with problems facing
this society you are wasting your time trying to justify irrational policies
set up in less enlighted times. A good example is the "war on drugs" and
more specifically the "drugs" that whoever decided were "bad": marijuana,
heroin, crack (thats really really bad stuff) and opium. Instead of dealing
with the fact that drugs are a part of our society, they are everywhere:
coffee, cigarettes, alcohol, prescription drugs, aspirin, ... Why should we
treat a junkie as a criminal and not the judge who smokes a pack a day?
Also prescription drugs kill more people each year than all the illegal
drugs put together. The policies of just say no and sending the army to
Columbia just don't work in practice, it is just that people *believe*
that they work. Exactly the same with censorship...
>Steve
--- Jos
Bill Palenske
>{much Victorian views on sex deleted}
>
>> Do you have "damn strong proof" that showing sex videos in x
>x>the middle of Saturday morning cartoons will ultimately hurt
> x
>x>kids who watch them?
>
>Actually, I'd bet that showing Saturday morning cartoons to kids is
>"ultimately more harmful" than sex videos. Which is more detrimental,
>watching two people engaging in a natural act, or watching GI Joe fire a
>hand-held rocket launcher at people?
what makes you think that violence et al. is not just as natural for humans
as the sex act? from a moral standpoint, violence is lamentable;
from a _human nature_ standpoint, natural. indeed, some plausibly might
consider the sex act itself an act of violence. so your argument is
ultimately specious. as you may, or may not, know, history is rife
with sex and violence. in your own way, you seem just as foolish.
if you want to philosophize, take it to talk.philosophy.misc and like.
[i beg the pardon of the rest of the net for encouraging and / adding
to such silly prattle.]
--
Bill Palenske Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
m1w...@fed.frb.gov Washington, D.C. 20551
uunet!fed!wrp DISCLAIMER: MY OPINIONS ARE MY OWN.
Mark Anderson
>effects on our society because of it.
Perhaps because *your* words haven't been censored (...yet).
>I'm not all that broken up about it.
How nice for you.
--
mark
Michael Winston Woodring
xas the sex act? from a moral standpoint, violence is lamentable;
x
xfrom a _human nature_ standpoint, natural. indeed, some plausibly
might x
xconsider the sex act itself an act of violence.
While your observations of human beings as violent is quite astute and
novel, I don't think it corresponds to the crux of my argument.
Previous to my post the thread of viewing sex/violence was that
viewing sex --> unacceptable violence against soceity
viewing violence (e.g., slasher film) --> same thing as above
What I was questioning was the idea of the viewing of sex and its
ramifications in a contemporary, social environment. Looking back, I
probably should not have called sex a "natural act," as the
conditions/terms under which people engage in it is as much of a
construct as are morals. Also, I agree with you that the act of sex
itself can be considered violent. While an entire debate can rage over
what specifically defines "acceptable" and "non-acceptable" violence, I
think I stated in my previous post that, in my opinion, an acceptable
act of sex is when it is consensual. People engaging in a rape
*fantasy* would not consider themselves in an act of terrible violence,
as both parties are in control of the situation. Most easily available
porn involves sex which is consensual, which, to me, does not pose a
problem of leading to acts of non-acceptable violence (non-acceptable,
once again, coming from a contemporary social/moral construction).
>as you may, or may not, know, history is rife with sex and violence
Thanks for the tip, I'll keep my eyes open . . .
[i beg the pardon of the rest of the net for encouraging and / adding x
xto such silly prattle.]
Hear, hear! What we really need on this bboard is a discussion about
whether or not Deckard is a replicant.
mike
tmdb...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca
>One problem (out of many) that arises from this is Public Television, and
>what they display. The last thing I want is my tax dollars supporting a
>station that shows things which I am against morally, and would never
>watch.
Okay, Scott, you've got me hooked. What are they showing on
CBC and TVO that you're against morally?
Matthew Butcher
tmdb...@descartes.uwaterloo.ca
Steve (PrettyBoy) Barclay
>st...@mikejag.wimsey.bc.ca (Steve (PrettyBoy) Barclay) writes:
>
>>We're almost to the point now where computer generated images are virtually
>>indistinguishable from real life. So soon we will be able to produce
>>kiddie porn, violent rape depictions, and whatever else our deranged minds
>>can come up with, with no eithical worries about anyone being vicitmized in
>>the production of the flick. Does this make it OK to sell? After all, there's
>>no law against making it, right?
>
>Yes in this case I have no problem with the making of that kind of material.
>
Well then I'm going to make damn good and sure that you don't teach my kids
kindergarten classes.
>>Clearly, unless we as a society feel that the viewing of this material is OK,
>>then we must either a) make a law against the production of such material or
>>b) make a law against the distribution of such material. Regardless of what
>>we do, it is censorship. So let's ask the question again...
>
>>With this eventuality in mind, are you for or against censorship?
>
>I'm still against censorship.
>
OK, I don't want you teaching the elementary school either.
>>Personally, I'm for it. I don't like the idea of faceless masses in back
>>rooms making the desicions, but I feel it's better than having kiddie-porn
>>gracing the shelves of my local video store with my kids elementary school
>>a few blocks away. If we are to protect our children from the baser
>>elements of society, then we should do all we can not to promote an
>>environment where their abuse or exploitation is commonplace, even if it
>>is entirely computer generated.
>
>See in your case you assume that showing these videos will harm these kids.
Actually, I'm working off the assumption that NOT showing them will definately
NOT harm them. There's no clinical evidence at this point to support either
that showing the videos will or will not hurt them, but I think that my way
is definately the safer approach until data is available to support one side
or the other. If you can show me a clinical study that shows conclusively
that watching violent sex acts and graphic death dosn't distrub my kids minds,
then I'll buy them the uncut version of Calligula for their third birthday.
Until then, I'd rather that they not see it.
>Maybe if a lot of people see these movies they'll be so revolted that they
>will push their politicians to actually do something about the real causes
>of child abuse. At least it will make people aware which is better than the
>prevailing attitude of denial in this society.
Oh here's a brilliant argument. Let's show people scenes that they'll find
repulsive, so that they'll stop them from happening.
Think about it. Better yet, shake your head - something's stuck.
>So in this case actually
>allowing this kind of material is beneficial.
Yup, indeed, in this FICTIONAL ACCOUNT that might actually be true. But
we're not dealing with fiction. Better shake your head again - something's
rattling now.
You might not know this but
>child abuse is already *commonplace* here in North America despite all the
>censorship.
>
RIGHT, so let's make it legal to show videos depicting it as ENTERTAINMENT.
Shake it again for good measure.
I lived with a victim of child abuse for about three years. Her
father liked porno movies alot, and his justification for molesting his
eleven year old daughter was "I was horny."
1>>Here in Canada censorship has been in place for YEARS. I have noticed no ill
>>effects on our society because of it.
>
>But has it helped society? Does Canada have a lower crime rate than more
>"liberal" countries? Is there less "sexual" abuse? Actually it is amazing how
>many cases of sexual abuse are reported in the news lately, most of them
>happened years ago. Most victims only report them now, years later. Censorship
>gives the false illusion that those things don't happen. In that sense I think
>it has an ill effect on a society.
I think that it definately helps us to define as a society what we deem to be
acceptable behaviour within our communities. If you allow scenes of graphic
rape, child molestation, murder and dismemberment to be shown within the realm
of entertainment, simply because "It's fictional and nobody got hurt making it"
you're allowing your general populus to assume that such acts are that much
more acceptable.
>
>Also I could counter your argument with. Denmark relaxed their censorship laws
>and I have noticed no ill effects on that society because of it.
You haven't huh? When were you last in Denmark? When did you last talk to law
enforcement officials in Denmark? When did you last see a statistical
breakdown of the numbers of violent crimes before and after in Denmark?
Give me facts, not speculation.
>
>There won't be a lot of flames Steve. You have the attitude of most people in
>this country (continent). Instead of dealing rationaly with problems facing
>this society you are wasting your time trying to justify irrational policies
>set up in less enlighted times.
While you're merely trying to hack them down based on your own irrational
arguments set up in a less enlightened mind.
A good example is the "war on drugs" and
>more specifically the "drugs" that whoever decided were "bad": marijuana,
>heroin, crack (thats really really bad stuff) and opium. Instead of dealing
>with the fact that drugs are a part of our society, they are everywhere:
>coffee, cigarettes, alcohol, prescription drugs, aspirin, ... Why should we
>treat a junkie as a criminal and not the judge who smokes a pack a day?
>Also prescription drugs kill more people each year than all the illegal
>drugs put together. The policies of just say no and sending the army to
>Columbia just don't work in practice, it is just that people *believe*
>that they work. Exactly the same with censorship...
Actually, I'm in favor of the legalization an REGULATION of narcotics, just
as I am in favor of the regulation of what is shown on film. Even in coutries
where they have legalized addictive drugs, they have still been carefull to
keep certain controls on the drugs, such as monitoring the ammounts a person
can recieve, ensuring the quality of the drugs.
You're suggesting that we simply throw our hands in the air and say "OK, as
far as film goes, everything is legal so long as nobody gets hurt making it"
without due consideration of who gets hurt as a result of it.
I can't prove that banning depictions of rape will reduce rapes any more
than you can prove that showing depicitons of rape will have no effects on
potential rapists. I however, feel it is better to be safe than sorry.
Neal and Mara Priestly
US it would be labled 'prior restraint' and struck down.
You keep mentioning 'my [sic] kids,' so I have this question for you: Whom
do you hold responsible for the parenting of those children, you the parent
or your society at large? I hold the opinion that it is your responsibility
to control what access to 'controversial' subjects your children are allowed
and at what point it is allowed to them.
I would also ask the following open question to anyone who hasn't added this
thread to their kill file: Is society more violent as a result of violent
movies, or are movies more violent as a result of violence in society. I
feel that it is much more likely to be art imitating life....Western man has
become so jaded that movies have to be taken to extreme lengths to get a
rise out of the average person. *User shakes head in disgust*
As someone who runs a commercial theatre I would argue strongly against any
prior restraint, any censorship. At the same time I reserve the right not
to show the same films whos making I support. Primarily because it is not
the product desired by those who keep my theatre in business.
My $.02
-Neal
No, I don't speak for my employer or the university (which censors most of
the alt.* hirearchy.)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies,can.general,soc.culture.canada,bc.general
Subject: Re: Banishment/Morals, etc (was Re: Movies banned in BC, Canada)
Summary:
Expires:
References: <1993Apr1.0...@ee.ubc.ca> <1993Apr5.2...@mikejag.wimsey.bc.ca> <1993Apr6.1...@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> <1993Apr7....@mikejag.wimsey.bc.ca>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Keywords:
Jos Stam
>In article <1993Apr6.1...@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> st...@dgp.toronto.edu (Jos Stam) writes:
>>st...@mikejag.wimsey.bc.ca (Steve (PrettyBoy) Barclay) writes:
>>
> [I said it was OK to make kiddie porn if it was with virtual actors]
>Well then I'm going to make damn good and sure that you don't teach my kids
>kindergarten classes.
don't worry.
>>>If we are to protect our children from the baser
>>>elements of society, then we should do all we can not to promote an
>>>environment where their abuse or exploitation is commonplace, even if it
>>>is entirely computer generated.
>>
>>See in your case you assume that showing these videos will harm these kids.
>Actually, I'm working off the assumption that NOT showing them will definately
>NOT harm them. There's no clinical evidence at this point to support either
>that showing the videos will or will not hurt them, but I think that my way
>is definately the safer approach until data is available to support one side
>or the other. If you can show me a clinical study that shows conclusively
>that watching violent sex acts and graphic death dosn't distrub my kids minds,
>then I'll buy them the uncut version of Calligula for their third birthday.
>Until then, I'd rather that they not see it.
Actually I didn't say your kids *have* to watch these movies, until they are
adults (whatever the age is here in Canada), you the legal guardian will
decide what they can watch. As a parent I'll probably not show them hard
core at the age of three, I'll first make sure they know what sex is and
that it is perfectly natural and can be enjoyed. Once that is understood then
they can basically see whatever they want. This was basically the approach
taken by my parents (we are from the Netherlands) and many other families
I know. So because you are afraid your kids will see the uncut version of
Caligula, all adults cannot see it?
[bit of flaming deleted, see original post]
> You might not know this but
>>child abuse is already *commonplace* here in North America despite all the
>>censorship.
>>
>RIGHT, so let's make it legal to show videos depicting it as ENTERTAINMENT.
>Shake it again for good measure.
What about a movie that actually tries to deal with this problem. To make it
more convincing (shocking) there is a necessity for some graphical scenes.
Ok there will be some sick minds who will actually masturbate looking
at it. But most people will be shocked and moved and might feel what
the abused person went through. What am I suppose to shake :-)
>I lived with a victim of child abuse for about three years. Her
>father liked porno movies alot, and his justification for molesting his
>eleven year old daughter was "I was horny."
So? You think he wouldn't be horny if he didn't have porn movies.
>I think that it definately helps us to define as a society what we deem to be
>acceptable behaviour within our communities. If you allow scenes of graphic
>rape, child molestation, murder and dismemberment to be shown within the realm
>of entertainment, simply because "It's fictional and nobody got hurt making it"
>you're allowing your general populus to assume that such acts are that much
>more acceptable.
It will only be entertainment for some sick minds.
[...]
>You haven't huh? When were you last in Denmark? When did you last talk to law
>enforcement officials in Denmark? When did you last see a statistical
>breakdown of the numbers of violent crimes before and after in Denmark?
>Give me facts, not speculation.
Well I'm from the Netherlands, whose laws regarding censorship are less
liberal than in Denmark but way more relaxed than here in Canada. I cannot
give you numbers, I wish I had them.
>Steve
--- Jos
Mark Anderson
>then I'll buy them the uncut version of Calligula for their third birthday.
With your censorship in place, they couldn't buy it even on their *thirtieth*
birthday. Don't you think they're probably old enough by then to determine
what they want to see?
>Until then, I'd rather that they not see it.
Fine. Then don't let them see it. You're their parent. However, as an adult
I don't want you or the government telling me what I should or shouldn't
see/say/think, thank you very much.
>If you allow scenes of graphic rape, child molestation, murder and
>dismemberment to be shown within the realm of entertainment, simply because
>"It's fictional and nobody got hurt making it" you're allowing your general
>populus to assume that such acts are that much more acceptable.
So where do you stop? Following this reasoning, no illegal act should ever
be portrayed for fear of condoning it in the eyes of the public. Let's
all just watch sanitized (for our protection) episodes of "Little House on
the Prairie" and live our safe, secure lives in blissful ignorance.
--
mark
Steve (PrettyBoy) Barclay
>>>
>
>>Actually, I'm working off the assumption that NOT showing them will definately
>>NOT harm them. There's no clinical evidence at this point to support either
>>that showing the videos will or will not hurt them, but I think that my way
>>is definately the safer approach until data is available to support one side
>>or the other. If you can show me a clinical study that shows conclusively
>>that watching violent sex acts and graphic death dosn't distrub my kids minds,
>>then I'll buy them the uncut version of Calligula for their third birthday.
>>Until then, I'd rather that they not see it.
>
>Actually I didn't say your kids *have* to watch these movies, until they are
>adults (whatever the age is here in Canada), you the legal guardian will
>decide what they can watch.
So what is that if not censorship?
As a parent I'll probably not show them hard
>core at the age of three, I'll first make sure they know what sex is and
>that it is perfectly natural and can be enjoyed.
So will I, so why is kiddie porn necessary?
Once that is understood then
>they can basically see whatever they want. This was basically the approach
>taken by my parents (we are from the Netherlands) and many other families
>I know. So because you are afraid your kids will see the uncut version of
>Caligula, all adults cannot see it?
No, I just don't see the *value* of it, and so far you have failed miserably
in demonstrating that there is any.
>
>[bit of flaming deleted, see original post]
>
>> You might not know this but
>>>child abuse is already *commonplace* here in North America despite all the
>>>censorship.
>>>
>
>>RIGHT, so let's make it legal to show videos depicting it as ENTERTAINMENT.
>>Shake it again for good measure.
>
>What about a movie that actually tries to deal with this problem. To make it
>more convincing (shocking) there is a necessity for some graphical scenes.
>Ok there will be some sick minds who will actually masturbate looking
>at it.
Bingo! Heck, I think you might be catching on!! If we had a *healthy
society* censorship would not be necessary.
But most people will be shocked and moved and might feel what
>the abused person went through.
The people most likely to be shocked or moved would have long since grown
disgusted and changed the channel. I have a friend who becomes violently
ill when watching shows like Total Recall. God love him. If we had a few
more like him there would be a hell of a lot less violence in our society,
and again *No* need for censorship.
>What am I suppose to shake :-)
Your head, it's screwed on wrong.
>
>>I lived with a victim of child abuse for about three years. Her
>>father liked porno movies alot, and his justification for molesting his
>>eleven year old daughter was "I was horny."
>
>So? You think he wouldn't be horny if he didn't have porn movies.
No, I think the child might not have been raped if he didn't have porn movies.
>
>>I think that it definately helps us to define as a society what we deem to be
>>acceptable behaviour within our communities. If you allow scenes of graphic
>>rape, child molestation, murder and dismemberment to be shown within the realm
>>of entertainment, simply because "It's fictional and nobody got hurt making it"
>>you're allowing your general populus to assume that such acts are that much
>>more acceptable.
>
>It will only be entertainment for some sick minds.
Bingo! My my, you DO learn quick. Look around you dude, sick minds abound!
>
>[...]
>>You haven't huh? When were you last in Denmark? When did you last talk to law
>>enforcement officials in Denmark? When did you last see a statistical
>>breakdown of the numbers of violent crimes before and after in Denmark?
>>Give me facts, not speculation.
>
>Well I'm from the Netherlands, whose laws regarding censorship are less
>liberal than in Denmark but way more relaxed than here in Canada. I cannot
>give you numbers, I wish I had them.
Yeah, so do I. But you don't. Do you?
>
Steve
--
##############################################################################
# Charter Member - T.O.A.S.T.E.R.S. - The Terrorist Organization Against #
# Syndicated Toys Especially Rubber #
# st...@mikejag.wimsey.bc.ca Smurfs #
Steve (PrettyBoy) Barclay
>st...@mikejag.wimsey.bc.ca (Steve (PrettyBoy) Barclay) writes:
>>Here in Canada censorship has been in place for YEARS. I have noticed no ill
>>effects on our society because of it.
>
>Perhaps because *your* words haven't been censored (...yet).
>
needed to be censored yet. When I start making that suggestion, I hope
somebody will censor my words.
Why not keep this in the context it was written. I was talking about the
censorship of acts of child rape and graphic depictions of child rape.
You seem to be another one of those morons who simply says:
"Oooh! Cen-sore-ship! Baaad word." without paying attention to the context.
>>I'm not all that broken up about it.
>
>How nice for you.
Better yet for my children.
Steve
--
##############################################################################
# Charter Member - T.O.A.S.T.E.R.S. - The Terrorist Organization Against #
# Syndicated Toys Especially Rubber #
# st...@mikejag.wimsey.bc.ca Smurfs #
Steve (PrettyBoy) Barclay
>more gibberish about allowing all forms of violent sex acts to be rented at
>your local video store.
So lets see, so far we have three males all expressing that it should be just
fine and dandy to produce, direct, and distribute kiddie-porn to the mass
market because *censorship* is wrong.
Anybody else want to lend an opinion?
Steve
--
##############################################################################
# Charter Member - T.O.A.S.T.E.R.S. - The Terrorist Organization Against #
# Syndicated Toys Especially Rubber #
# st...@mikejag.wimsey.bc.ca Smurfs #
Bill Day
living in a democracy we have to go with what the majority wants. If the
majority votes for censorship, then it will be in place for a LONG time.
Once law's are made they usually stick around for quite some time. Here
in Newfoundland a few years ago a big issue was banning certain books in
the high schools because they had material that was consider unfit for
teen-agers to be reading. I could argue against this for ever and a day,
but there are also those who could agrue the other way. I think that TV
should be ruled by it's ratings. Not forced to do things by law. If
enough people don't want to watch something(or pay for it) then it won't
be put on the air. Also, there is a new satellite hook up that is comming
(or already here) that allows you to choose what you want to watch on a
pay per view basis. If this takes off the there won't be a need for
censorship because people can just choose what they want and only pay for
that. But still, I firmly believe that it shouldn't be up to other people
what I am allowed to buy, watch, or own.(as long as it is not harming
somebody else)
Jos Stam
>In article <1993Apr7.1...@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> st...@dgp.toronto.edu (Jos Stam) writes:
>>>>
>>
>>>If you can show me a clinical study that shows conclusively
>>>that watching violent sex acts and graphic death dosn't distrub my kids minds,
>>>then I'll buy them the uncut version of Calligula for their third birthday.
>>>Until then, I'd rather that they not see it.
>>
>>Actually I didn't say your kids *have* to watch these movies, until they are
>>adults (whatever the age is here in Canada), you the legal guardian will
>>decide what they can watch.
>So what is that if not censorship?
I thought we were discussing censorship laws imposed on adults by the
government.
> As a parent I'll probably not show them hard
>>core at the age of three, I'll first make sure they know what sex is and
>>that it is perfectly natural and can be enjoyed.
>So will I, so why is kiddie porn necessary?
So that adults can watch it if they want, that is my version of a free
society. I think you assumed right away that I was a sick mind who wanted
kiddie porn to be legal so I could watch it and then go over to the
kindergarten and rape your kids. Was that what you meant by your cynical
remarks about me not getting too close to your kids in your previous post?
> Once that is understood then
>>they can basically see whatever they want. This was basically the approach
>>taken by my parents (we are from the Netherlands) and many other families
>>I know. So because you are afraid your kids will see the uncut version of
>>Caligula, all adults cannot see it?
>No, I just don't see the *value* of it, and so far you have failed miserably
>in demonstrating that there is any.
The question is not if I see any value in Caligula. Personnaly I don't like
porn movies in general as their content is usually stupid, but I don't believe
in banning them because I don't like them. So you want to base censorship
on values, which ones? yours? That's dictatorship.
>>>RIGHT, so let's make it legal to show videos depicting it as ENTERTAINMENT.
>>>Shake it again for good measure.
>>
>>What about a movie that actually tries to deal with this problem. To make it
>>more convincing (shocking) there is a necessity for some graphical scenes.
>>Ok there will be some sick minds who will actually masturbate looking
>>at it.
>Bingo! Heck, I think you might be catching on!! If we had a *healthy
>society* censorship would not be necessary.
No censorship is never necessary. There will always be sick people around
with or without censorship.
>>What am I suppose to shake :-)
>Your head, it's screwed on wrong.
I don't understand why you have to insult me because I don't agree with you.
What kind of attitude is that? Its a free society, I respect your views, I
just don't agree with them. Did I ever insult you?
[...]
> I think the child might not have been raped if he didn't have porn movies.
Should we then ban all porn movies? I thought that we were discussing kiddie
porn where virtual actors are involved.
>>
>>>I think that it definately helps us to define as a society what we deem to be
>>>acceptable behaviour within our communities. If you allow scenes of graphic
>>>rape, child molestation, murder and dismemberment to be shown within the realm
>>>of entertainment, simply because "It's fictional and nobody got hurt making it"
>>>you're allowing your general populus to assume that such acts are that much
>>>more acceptable.
>>
>>It will only be entertainment for some sick minds.
>Bingo! My my, you DO learn quick. Look around you dude, sick minds abound!
Thanks for the compliment. I know there are a lot of sick minds around, I never
claimed otherwise. The fact that they are here even with censorship proves
that censorship can't do anything about it. I find your tone condescending and
I don't really like that, please respect someone elses opinion.
>>Well I'm from the Netherlands, whose laws regarding censorship are less
>>liberal than in Denmark but way more relaxed than here in Canada. I cannot
>>give you numbers, I wish I had them.
>Yeah, so do I. But you don't. Do you?
Ok so I don't have numbers but I have lived in both the Netherlands and in
Canada and from what I read in the newspapers and from what I hear from
people around me it seems that the cases of child abuse and crimes against
women is not higher in the Netherlands. But I do like the liberal attitudes
a lot more in the Netherlands you have less the feeling that the government
is deciding what you are allowed to watch or not.
>>
>Steve
--- Jos
Listen, I am getting tired of discussing this over the net. If you want to
discuss it further lets have a coffee and discuss it over at the Grasshopper
in Amsterdam.
Carl M Kadie
> You may find what is on TV morally wrong. But seeing we are
>living in a democracy we have to go with what the majority wants. If the
>majority votes for censorship, then it will be in place for a LONG time.
[...]
Democracy requires citizens with freedom of expression and the freedom
to read. Without these freedoms the government will control the people
instead of the people controlling the government.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
= ka...@cs.uiuc.edu =
Jackie (Jiggles) Wilson
>
>>We're almost to the point now where computer generated images are virtually
>>indistinguishable from real life. So soon we will be able to produce
>>kiddie porn, violent rape depictions, and whatever else our deranged minds
>>can come up with, with no eithical worries about anyone being vicitmized in
>>the production of the flick. Does this make it OK to sell? After all, there's
>>no law against making it, right?
>
>Yes in this case I have no problem with the making of that kind of material.
EXCUSE ME??!! Are you saying that just because no one is physically hurt
or abused kiddie porn, violent rapes, violent sex is acceptable? Virtual
reality/computer generated graphics are becoming so sophisticated, so perfect
that soon (if not already now) the average man on the street will not be
able to tell the difference. What he sees he will believe to be real. And
what he will be seeing is that having sex with a child is okay. That rape
is okay. That brutalizing a woman into submission is okay.
>
>Maybe if a lot of people see these movies they'll be so revolted that they
>will push their politicians to actually do something about the real causes
>of child abuse. At least it will make people aware which is better than the
>prevailing attitude of denial in this society. So in this case actually
>allowing this kind of material is beneficial. You might not know this but
>child abuse is already *commonplace* here in North America despite all the
>censorship
.
There is one basic flaw to your logic. You are assuming that the world is
a well balanced, educated place. I hate to break the news to you but Elvis
is dead and the world is full of sick indivduals who will not be repulsed
by the videos but excited. The videos will only reinforce the idea that
kiddie porn or sex with children is acceptable. Hell, it has to be or
they wouldn't be showing it, right? So, why can't I do it.
Showing vidoes will only desensitize it and make it commonplace. Ask any
smoker if they notice the warning signs on cigarette packages anymore or
think about it. For people to know that its wrong you must first EDUCATE
them.
>Actually it is amazing how
>many cases of sexual abuse are reported in the news lately, most of them
>happened years ago. Most victims only report them now, years later.
Actually, it's not amazing how many cases of abuse are now being reported.
It's only now with education and awareness it is acceptable to talk about it.
>
>Also I could counter your argument with. Denmark relaxed their censorship laws
>and I have noticed no ill effects on that society because of it.
Please note that the Denmark and European communities have been around alot
longer than North America. They've had alot more time to study/solve/educate
/learn/understand and more importantly grow up.
>
>
>>Send in the flames...I'm a-waiting.
>
No flames here. More power to the sensible thinker.
jackie
Jackie (Jiggles) Wilson
>
>>So soon we will be able to produce
>>kiddie porn, violent rape depictions, and whatever else our deranged minds
>>can come up with, with no eithical worries about anyone being vicitmized in
>
>Yes in this case I have no problem with the making of that kind of material.
whatever means. Are you a pedofile? Do your local police know about you?
Better yet does your mother know and can I have her phone number?
jackie
Jackie (Jiggles) Wilson
>>Here in Canada censorship has been in place for YEARS. I have noticed no ill
>>effects on our society because of it.
>
>Perhaps because *your* words haven't been censored (...yet).
>
Excuse me Mark, please get with the program we are not talking about the
censorship of words but the censorship of kiddie porn/rape/etc. be it
video or virtual reality.
Would you care to change your opinion on censorship or should be counted
as one who believes the viewing of kiddie porn is their God given right?
jackie
Jackie (Jiggles) Wilson
>>then I'll buy them the uncut version of Calligula for their third birthday.
>
>With your censorship in place, they couldn't buy it even on their *thirtieth*
>birthday. Don't you think they're probably old enough by then to determine
>what they want to see?
are they old enough to understand it?
Do they have enough experience to enterpret it, know what's right and what's
wrong and to know the difference? To know what sex is? To know what love
is? Or to know the difference again? To understand what "no" means?
There are alot of thirty year olds who can't answer the above questions!
>
>>If you allow scenes of graphic rape, child molestation, murder and
>>dismemberment to be shown within the realm of entertainment, simply because
>>"It's fictional and nobody got hurt making it" you're allowing your general
>>populus to assume that such acts are that much more acceptable.
As I said before the world the world will believe what it sees.
>
>So where do you stop? Following this reasoning, no illegal act should ever
>be portrayed for fear of condoning it in the eyes of the public. Let's
>all just watch sanitized (for our protection) episodes of "Little House on
>the Prairie" and live our safe, secure lives in blissful ignorance.
Ithink you should go back and watch those episodes of "Little House on the
Prairie" again. If I recall, they have talked about the brutality of rape.
TV to a great extent is trying to educate. There are many shows that talk
about rape, child abuse, incest, spouse abuse. They are trying to educate
the populus. Bring it out into the open whereas the the shows you are
talking about only glorify it.
jackie
Jackie (Jiggles) Wilson
>In article <1993Apr7.1...@mprgate.mpr.ca> mand...@mprgate.mpr.ca (Mark Anderson) writes:
>
>
>So lets see, so far we have three males all expressing that it should be just
>fine and dandy to produce, direct, and distribute kiddie-porn to the mass
>market because *censorship* is wrong.
>
>Anybody else want to lend an opinion?
>
and I'm sorry to see that so far I am the only woman posting it but I
think that's because the Censorship posting has been up so long people
are unaware of the new direction it is taking.
What disturbs me the most is how only one man against three believes that
kiddie porn/rape/violence is wrong. You other three would rather cut your
nose off to spite your face. God forbid we censor a video. It is much
better we depict degrading acts against women and children. God protect
me from fools. It is because of you I don't feel safe walking the streets
at night. You would believe that a uncut/uncensored video can teach a
man that harming a woman/child is wrong. I'm sorry but you are wrong.
What it is most likely to do is give them ideas, a sense of acceptance.
Maybe in time such a thing is possible but right now it is not. Why?
Because there is no foundation/no education. That comes in time.
Ask yourself these questions. Would you want your 12 year old daughter
spread eagle in a movie? Or a depiciton of your mother being raped in
the kitchen with her own butcher knife? Or yourself being bent over
a desk being sodomized repeatedly for the sake of art? No? Well I'm
sure somebody in your city would. And he'll watch it. And it will
get him thinking. About the repulsiveness of the act. Maybe? More likely
he'll go to the neighbourhood park....
Think about it gentlemen.
jackie
Brad Templeton
>So lets see, so far we have three males all expressing that it should be just
>fine and dandy to produce, direct, and distribute kiddie-porn to the mass
>market because *censorship* is wrong.
>
>Anybody else want to lend an opinion?
Yes. Censorship, which is the use of violence or the threat thereof
to suppress ideas, images and expression, should be banned because as
a violent act it desensatizes people to violence.
What are we teaching our kids if we show them that it's OK to have
armed police haul defiant publishers of books away from their printing
presses and throw them in jail in the name of the public good?
--
Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Sunnyvale, CA 408/296-0366
Brad Templeton
> You may find what is on TV morally wrong. But seeing we are
>living in a democracy we have to go with what the majority wants. If the
>majority votes for censorship, then it will be in place for a LONG time.
Fortunately, our country is not a democracy. The charter limits the
power of the majority to vote for certain things. Limits must be
demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society.
Unfortunately, there is a clause that says that a special vote can
override this. The clause is an abomination that almost led to the
ruin of the country, but at least it requires the special vote, and
the laws have to be renewed.
The yanks were smarter than us on this point. Of course, the U.S. supreme
court often takes leeways as great. "The constitution may not be perfect,
but it's better than what we have now" is often said down here.
Miron Cuperman
>In article <1993Apr6....@mprgate.mpr.ca> mand...@mprgate.mpr.ca (Mark Anderson) writes:
>>Perhaps because *your* words haven't been censored (...yet).
>Excuse me Mark, please get with the program we are not talking about the
>censorship of words but the censorship of kiddie porn/rape/etc. be it
>video or virtual reality.
Video and words are two ways of conveying information. There is no
one directly victimized by the production of consumption of such videos,
if they are constructed by a computer. The responsibility rests entirely
with the actual perpetrators of violent acts. Any item or information
can be abused. In a civilized society one cannot allow the responsibility
to rest with the creator of the item, because of the chilling effect it
would have on commerce and discourse. If a drunk driver hits a pedestrian,
will you advocate that the manufacturer of the car be responsible?
(This is *not* a rethorical question. Please demonstrate the difference
between the cases.)
All information has beneficial uses. Even videos depicting rape and
child abuse. Do you advocate banning films like "The Accused" or
"Silence of the Lambs"? They have their uses, not the least is informing
the public about the nature of such crimes. They also present an
opportunity for some individuals to deal with psychological problems
related to such acts.
>Would you care to change your opinion on censorship or should be counted
>as one who believes the viewing of kiddie porn is their God given right?
Although I am not the target of your question, I will answer it.
Yes, it is my right to view "kiddie porn" if it was produced in a
way which does not victimize anyone. I have a right to do anything
which does not violate another person's right.
--
Miron Cuperman <mi...@extropia.wimsey.com> | NeXTmail/Mime ok
| Public key avail
AMIX: MCuperman | PSM 18Mar93 0/0
Laissez faire, laissez passer. Le monde va de lui meme.
Miron Cuperman
>What disturbs me the most is how only one man against three believes that
>kiddie porn/rape/violence is wrong. You other three would rather cut your
Please don't put words in our mouths. I think none of the people
posting here will contradict me when I say that we all *know* that
the use of force to victimize is wrong.
The issue here is where the responsibility for a crime lies. It lies
completely with the perpetrator. You would have the courts and legislators
look at tenuous and subjective causal links. This is a serious mistake,
because such judgements will be completely without objective basis.
This will lead to abuse of power to repress dissident views.
Kenny Fung
>As you can no doubt tell from my past 5 or so posting I do have an opinion
>and I'm sorry to see that so far I am the only woman posting it but I
>think that's because the Censorship posting has been up so long people
>are unaware of the new direction it is taking.
>
>What disturbs me the most is how only one man against three believes that
>kiddie porn/rape/violence is wrong. You other three would rather cut your
>nose off to spite your face. God forbid we censor a video. It is much
>better we depict degrading acts against women and children. God protect
>me from fools. It is because of you I don't feel safe walking the streets
>at night. You would believe that a uncut/uncensored video can teach a
>man that harming a woman/child is wrong. I'm sorry but you are wrong.
>What it is most likely to do is give them ideas, a sense of acceptance.
>Maybe in time such a thing is possible but right now it is not. Why?
>Because there is no foundation/no education. That comes in time.
>
>Ask yourself these questions. Would you want your 12 year old daughter
>spread eagle in a movie? Or a depiciton of your mother being raped in
>the kitchen with her own butcher knife? Or yourself being bent over
>a desk being sodomized repeatedly for the sake of art? No? Well I'm
>sure somebody in your city would. And he'll watch it. And it will
>get him thinking. About the repulsiveness of the act. Maybe? More likely
>he'll go to the neighbourhood park....
>
>Think about it gentlemen.
>
>jackie
>
>
(aside)
I find it amazing how one subject progresses to the point that it
turns into something else completely.....
(back to the discussion at hand)
In my original post, I listed movies which were banned. Reasons
on why on why some of those movies were banned (in my opinion)
(Please note that I have not seen all of the listed movies, as
they were not available for rental in BC):
(Devil in the Flesh, 1987) Lead actress performs oral sex on lead
actor. I did not know that a female initiating sex on a male
was considered to be degrading to women or constituted harassment.
If this were the case, if the male and female roles were reversed,
would the male be degraded? Is there any sex act which did not
degrade both men and women? There is no violence against women
nor children involved in this film. Adult movies which depict
oral sex (in much poorer taste and definitely more degrading to
women) are commonplace and is widely available to the public. Not
so with this movie which contains about 30 seconds worth.
(Taxi Zum Klo, 1981) No children involved in this one either.
Homosexuality does not degrade women nor men, in this case but
this film was banned due to its depictions of homosexual acts.
Again, adult homosexual videos are widely available but not
so with this movie.
(Salo, 1975) This film is banned but the novel by the Marquis de
Sade is not. Review on this film was done by another poster
on rec.arts.movies. Since children are being raped, beaten,
mutilated, and others, wouldn't it make sense to ban the book
as well?
(Sweet Movie, 1975) Again, sexually explicit scenes. Degrading
only if you feel that sex between two people degrade women (or men).
This movie has children in it but I don't think they are used
sexually in any way.
Some of the others are banned due to extreme violence but there
are movies out there that are just as violent. Remember "I Spit
On Your Grave"? (Maybe some of you didn't see this one.) Gang
rape and then a series of extremely brutal murders. But it is
not banned. Movies with decapitations are not banned. However,
Caligula is.
A local video store in Vancouver recently added a series of horror
movies to their collection. Judging by the box covers, these movies
are along the lines the Texas Chainsaw Massacre. I would guess that
these videos are extremely violent, but these videos are not banned.
One of the reasons I think the movies I listed are banned is because
they are released as "Unrated." Certainly X, XXX, or NC-17 movies
are allowed but if the distributors release them without a rating
which contains graphic sex scenes then automatically they are banned.
(Keep in mind that this is in my opinion only!)
By the way, I thought the classifications board's job was to classify
movies, ie rate them, so what are they doing banning these movies?
Kenny Fung
Jos Stam
No I am not for kiddie porn, rape, violence, etc. I am against banning the
depiction of these acts in movies. I am not against issuing warnings that
the movies contain such material, so that anyone can make a decision in
its own will. Also I was only for kiddie porn if the actors were virtual
(something I think will never happen anyways, but that's not the point
here) because kids don't have the age of consent and hence legally cannot
have sex with an adult (this is a law I agree with). What I don't like is
censorship. You seem to be absolutely convinced that showing violent/
degrading material will result in a violent/degrading society. I don't
think so, if you give people an education and allow free thinking this
won't happen. Of course there will always be a couple of sick minds
(with or without censorship) which will need psychiatric treatment and
maybe most importantly love... I hope I don't have to answer your other
questions. You still want my the phone number of my mom? She'll probably
tell you exactly what I just said
--- Jos
Jos Stam
>What disturbs me the most is how only one man against three believes that
>kiddie porn/rape/violence is wrong. You other three would rather cut your
>nose off to spite your face. God forbid we censor a video. It is much
>better we depict degrading acts against women and children. God protect
>me from fools. It is because of you I don't feel safe walking the streets
>at night. You would believe that a uncut/uncensored video can teach a
>man that harming a woman/child is wrong. I'm sorry but you are wrong.
I think you are mixing up fiction and reality yourself. The three men on
the net were not for porn/rape in society, we were against censorship of
porn/rape in movies (fiction). The fact that most women are not at ease
with most pornographic material is because the making of these movies
is male dominated and more importantly because more female oriented
porn is the first to be censored. There was a case here lately where
lesbian pornography was banned because it was degrading to women! Ridiculous
no? How come you are so sure that we are wrong?
>What it is most likely to do is give them ideas, a sense of acceptance.
>Maybe in time such a thing is possible but right now it is not. Why?
>Because there is no foundation/no education. That comes in time.
Most people I know around me, and these people are not only academics know
the difference between reality and fiction and have a sense of what is
wrong or right. I don't think that when they will see a rape movie they
will go out on the street and do it.
>Think about it gentlemen.
I did actually a lot. The more I think about it the more I think censorship
isn't the answer to our problems.
>jackie
--- Jos
Gerald Olchowy
>In article <C557F...@news.ucs.mun.ca> bd...@random.ucs.mun.ca (Bill Day) writes:
>> You may find what is on TV morally wrong. But seeing we are
>>living in a democracy we have to go with what the majority wants. If the
>>majority votes for censorship, then it will be in place for a LONG time.
>
>Fortunately, our country is not a democracy. The charter limits the
>power of the majority to vote for certain things. Limits must be
>demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society.
>
Both of you are in some sense wrong...democracy does not means the
majority can do whatever it wants, and the fact that individual rights
are recognized is an indication that we have at least the possibility
of democracy or that our society has at least a measure of democracy.
Democracy and majoritarianism are not identical...democracy is based on
the principle of popular sovereignty, where individuals have inherent
rights, such as freedom of speech and expression, which limit what
the government or the majority can legitimately do. In a democracy,
the majority CANNOT do whatever it wants...a democracy does not exist
where the majority rules without respect for the legitimate rights of
a minority or the individual. A democracy does not exist where there
are no provisions for mechanisms to dissent from the dictates of the
majority...a democracy must have provisions to protect society from
the tyranny of the majority, or democracy does not exist.
>Unfortunately, there is a clause that says that a special vote can
>override this. The clause is an abomination that almost led to the
>ruin of the country, but at least it requires the special vote, and
>the laws have to be renewed.
>
The notwithstanding clause allows for a healthy tension between the
courts and the legislature...a democracy needs protection against the
tyranny of the courts also. The more dangerous clause in the
constitution is the reasonableness clause, rather than the
notwithstanding clause. Many restrictions on freedom of expression
such as the MacKinnon-esque pornography ruling and the hate propaganda
ruling have been allowed under the reasonableness clause and they
have attracted little attention because of it...and there is no public
outrage or continued democratic debate....whereas with the Quebec sign
law, the fact that the notwithstanding clause was required, the issue
about what is proper in a democratic society is kept alive and debated
and forced to be revisited in public debate, in the legislatures, and
in the courts...until a concensus is reached. The notwithstanding
clause when invoked will set democracy into action...the reasonableness
clause allows the courts to potentially chip away at our rights.
>The yanks were smarter than us on this point. Of course, the U.S. supreme
>court often takes leeways as great. "The constitution may not be perfect,
>but it's better than what we have now" is often said down here.
Gerald
James Cyr
>st...@dgp.toronto.edu (Jos Stam) writes:
>>st...@mikejag.wimsey.bc.ca (Steve (PrettyBoy) Barclay) writes:
>>
>>>We're almost to the point now where computer generated images are virtually
>>>indistinguishable from real life. So soon we will be able to produce
>>>kiddie porn, violent rape depictions, and whatever else our deranged minds
>>>can come up with, with no eithical worries about anyone being vicitmized in
>>>the production of the flick. Does this make it OK to sell? After all, there's
>>>no law against making it, right?
>>
>>Yes in this case I have no problem with the making of that kind of material.
>>
>
>Well then I'm going to make damn good and sure that you don't teach my kids
>kindergarten classes.
Please explain how being against censorship makes a person unqualified as
a kindergarten instructor. Nowhere in this thread has anyone advocated showing
these films to children.
>>>Clearly, unless we as a society feel that the viewing of this material is OK,
>>>then we must either a) make a law against the production of such material or
>>>b) make a law against the distribution of such material. Regardless of what
>>>we do, it is censorship. So let's ask the question again...
>>
>>>With this eventuality in mind, are you for or against censorship?
>>
>>I'm still against censorship.
>>
>OK, I don't want you teaching the elementary school either.
While your at it, please explain how this disqualifies a person from being an
elementary school teacher.
>>>Personally, I'm for it. I don't like the idea of faceless masses in back
>>>rooms making the desicions, but I feel it's better than having kiddie-porn
>>>gracing the shelves of my local video store with my kids elementary school
>>>a few blocks away. If we are to protect our children from the baser
>>>elements of society, then we should do all we can not to promote an
>>>environment where their abuse or exploitation is commonplace, even if it
>>>is entirely computer generated.
>>
>>See in your case you assume that showing these videos will harm these kids.
>
>Actually, I'm working off the assumption that NOT showing them will definately
>NOT harm them. There's no clinical evidence at this point to support either
>that showing the videos will or will not hurt them, but I think that my way
>is definately the safer approach until data is available to support one side
>or the other. If you can show me a clinical study that shows conclusively
>that watching violent sex acts and graphic death dosn't distrub my kids minds,
>then I'll buy them the uncut version of Calligula for their third birthday.
>Until then, I'd rather that they not see it.
First, rating movies by content is perfectly acceptable IMO. These ratings
exist for two reasons, 1) so people who do not wish to view violent or porno-
graphic material will not be unpleasantly surprised, and more importantly
2) to restrict minors from seeing them.
From the VR example given above, no child was exploited to make it, and
under the present laws, no child will ever see it (and if they do, the adult
responsible for allowing it too happen is being criminally negligent). Under
these conditions, whats the problem? No one is holding a gun to your head to
force _you_ to watch it.
>>Maybe if a lot of people see these movies they'll be so revolted that they
>>will push their politicians to actually do something about the real causes
>>of child abuse. At least it will make people aware which is better than the
>>prevailing attitude of denial in this society.
>
>Oh here's a brilliant argument. Let's show people scenes that they'll find
>repulsive, so that they'll stop them from happening.
> [pointless flame removed]
It's just as valid as your argument, if you think it's wrong then point out why
don't just try to shout the person down.
>>So in this case actually
>>allowing this kind of material is beneficial.
>
>Yup, indeed, in this FICTIONAL ACCOUNT that might actually be true. But
>we're not dealing with fiction. [more pointless flaming removed]
As opposed to your fictional virtual reality argument at the beginning of this
article. No we are not dealing with fiction, if we were then everyone would
grow up happy and well adjusted, and all of these arguments would be moot.
>> You might not know this but
>>child abuse is already *commonplace* here in North America despite all the
>>censorship.
>>
>
>RIGHT, so let's make it legal to show videos depicting it as ENTERTAINMENT.
Why not, as long as nobody was exploited to create it? If you don't like it
you can turn the channel.
>I lived with a victim of child abuse for about three years. Her
>father liked porno movies alot, and his justification for molesting his
>eleven year old daughter was "I was horny."
I am sorry for your friend, but her father was the problem, not porno movies.
I can come up with plenty of examples of people who watch them, and don't
molest their children.
>1>>Here in Canada censorship has been in place for YEARS. I have noticed no ill
>>>effects on our society because of it.
>>
>>But has it helped society? Does Canada have a lower crime rate than more
>>"liberal" countries? Is there less "sexual" abuse? Actually it is amazing how
>>many cases of sexual abuse are reported in the news lately, most of them
>>happened years ago. Most victims only report them now, years later. Censorship
>>gives the false illusion that those things don't happen. In that sense I think
>>it has an ill effect on a society.
>
>I think that it definately helps us to define as a society what we deem to be
>acceptable behaviour within our communities.
But what you deem acceptable behavior may not be what I think is acceptable
behavior. For example, you think that censorship is a viable alternative to
the wealth of sex and violence in the media, and I feel that adults should be
able to decide for themselves what they see and read.
> If you allow scenes of graphic
>rape, child molestation, murder and dismemberment to be shown within the realm
>of entertainment, simply because "It's fictional and nobody got hurt making it"
>you're allowing your general populus to assume that such acts are that much
>more acceptable.
And by showing them saturday morning cartoons your allowing your general
populous to assume that coyotes hunt roadrunners with mail order equipment from
the ACME company. The vast majority of adults that I have met are able to make
distinctions between fantasy and reality. If they cannot, then they should be
helped, but it shouldn't affect what I view in the privacy of my own home.
>>Also I could counter your argument with. Denmark relaxed their censorship laws
>>and I have noticed no ill effects on that society because of it.
>
>You haven't huh? When were you last in Denmark? When did you last talk to law
>enforcement officials in Denmark? When did you last see a statistical
>breakdown of the numbers of violent crimes before and after in Denmark?
>Give me facts, not speculation.
When was the last time _you_ were in Denmark? If you want to justify censorship
to me, then you had better get some facts of your own.
>>There won't be a lot of flames Steve. You have the attitude of most people in
>>this country (continent). Instead of dealing rationaly with problems facing
>>this society you are wasting your time trying to justify irrational policies
>>set up in less enlighted times.
>
>While you're merely trying to hack them down based on your own irrational
>arguments set up in a less enlightened mind.
>
> ["war on drugs" digression deleted]
>
>You're suggesting that we simply throw our hands in the air and say "OK, as
>far as film goes, everything is legal so long as nobody gets hurt making it"
Right
>without due consideration of who gets hurt as a result of it.
Wrong.
Nobody is suggesting we ignore people who are getting hurt. But there are a
lot of things that could be banned if all we have to go on is "someone might
get hurt". For example, we have rules about how people should operate their
vehicles, but we do not ban them. This is because a possibility exists that
people will get hurt. For movies, we have a rating system which insures that
people do not take their 7 year old to an NC-17 movie. These rules work, and
they do not require that the movie be made illegal to protect the minds of
minors.
>I can't prove that banning depictions of rape will reduce rapes any more
>than you can prove that showing depicitons of rape will have no effects on
>potential rapists.
Fair enough, I'm not a psychologist.
> I however, feel it is better to be safe than sorry.
>
>Steve
But isn't it safer to allow adults to decide for themselves then to have
censorship? It's easy to agree that child pornography be banned, but where
do you stop, and who gets to decide?
And that is where I think the real argument lies. The people who are opposing
you in this argument are not doing so because they want to drool over pictures
of naked 5 year olds. They are doing it because censorship is a dangerous
tool. Why stop at movies, some people say pretty dangerous things too, maybe
we should censor them while we're at it. :-(
James
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
James G. Cyr c...@cpsc.ucalgary.ca | "You can never have too much
Jame...@f157.n134.z1.fidonet.org | money or too little spam."
Greg Bole
> Excuse me Mark, please get with the program we are not talking about the
> censorship of words but the censorship of kiddie porn/rape/etc. be it
> video or virtual reality.
>
> Would you care to change your opinion on censorship or should be counted
> as one who believes the viewing of kiddie porn is their God given right?
This topic has gotten a bit far afield...please remove rec.arts.movies
from the follow-up list!
Greg Bole "Ryan, be careful what you shoot at. Most things
bo...@hmivax.humgen.upenn.edu in here don't react too well to bullets."
Sean Connery in _The Hunt for Red October_
Michael Collingridge
(Carl M Kadie) writes:
Yes, Carl, but another element that is required in a democratic
society (which some seem to ignore or forget) is "public virtue"--
in other words, a standard of morals or mode of conduct accepted and
enforced by the public. And, I would say this element of a democratic
society is just as important as our so-called "freedom of expression."
Now, this does not in no way mean the public virtue of a society
should be in line with the morals that religious fanatics would
have imposed on us. On the other hand, as a society we have to be
careful to not succumb to the desires of the freedom fanatics---
don't impose any morals on anyone which restrict the freedom of the
individual (i.e, no public virtue).
I am not a history buff, but I seem to recall that one component
that led to the downfall of a society was the sharp decline in the
public virtue of that society. No public virtue--> no society.
- Mike -- These are my views; I do not represent my company in this post
James Davis Nicoll
implicated in violent outbreaks, the place to start is obviously
with religious materials like the Christian bible (Explicitely cited
as justification for atrocities like the Inquisition and Holy Wars),
anp political materials likeMarx's works (Also used to justify killing
tens of millions of people). Why are dangerous books like these, which
we *know* make people commit horrific actions by the testimony of the
savages involved, allowed when material not proven to be causitive factors
in an admittedly tragic, but ultimately less lethal form of inter-human abuse
causes such fuss?
James Nicoll
Darren Stone
:
: EXCUSE ME??!! Are you saying that just because no one is physically hurt
: reality/computer generated graphics are becoming so sophisticated, so perfect
: that soon (if not already now) the average man on the street will not be
: able to tell the difference. What he sees he will believe to be real. And
: what he will be seeing is that having sex with a child is okay. That rape
: is okay. That brutalizing a woman into submission is okay.
This question was not directed at me, but I feel I must comment. First of
all, what does technology have to do with this? VR and computer graphics
are not at the level of _real_ actors and actresses yet. For decades (if
not longer), good actors and simple special effects have been capable of
depicting brutal murders, love scenes, deep space combat, car chases,
shoot-outs, and rapes perfectly realistically. The "average man on the
street" has not been able to tell the difference by your standards between
reality and a movie since the turn of the century at least.
I think your logic has a big gap in it when you claim: A) "What he sees he
will believe to be real", then conclude B) "What he will be seeing is that
[having sex..., rape..., and brutalizing...] is okay."
Do you really think that someone watching a movie will believe it's real?
That anything someone sees on a TV or movie screen is real without
investigating it? That everything one sees on TV is a camera on reality?
Anyways, let's assume that the viewer believes it's real for your benefit.
Now, tell me how seeing something real condones doing it yourself? What
you're telling me is that if I watch the news and see or hear about spousal
abuse, for example, I will that that it's okay to do because it's real.
Or that if I am walking down the street and see a knife fight, I'll think
that it's okay to do because it's real. If this is true, you must _really_
have a problem with the TV news and newspapers. They portray things that
are closer to reality than any movie, and many times uglier. They must
be saying that because all those things are really happening, they must
be okay to do. Do you also condone living a life sheltered from reality
so we don't starting thinking everything everyone else does is okay to do
ourselves? If a child finds out about a terrible crime that really
happened, is it better to explain to them that in real life, bad stuff
happens but that doesn't make it okay? Or is it better to tell them that
what they heard about wasn't real. That the world isn't really like that.
(Just in case they think it really is, and use that as permission to do
likewise.)
You claim that the average person on the street will feel compelled to
repeat whatever atrosities he/she has seen and believes to be real.
Come on. Give human beings of all ages some credit. (Or at least stay
consistent and try to keep all of us sheltered from the "real" world.)
- Darren Stone
sto...@wimsey.bc.ca
Darren Stone
:
: Yes, Carl, but another element that is required in a democratic
: society (which some seem to ignore or forget) is "public virtue"--
: in other words, a standard of morals or mode of conduct accepted and
: enforced by the public. And, I would say this element of a democratic
: society is just as important as our so-called "freedom of expression."
:
: Now, this does not in no way mean the public virtue of a society
: should be in line with the morals that religious fanatics would
: have imposed on us. On the other hand, as a society we have to be
: careful to not succumb to the desires of the freedom fanatics---
: don't impose any morals on anyone which restrict the freedom of the
: individual (i.e, no public virtue).
Your last point will not work in a democracy. At least not in a true
democracy. Democracy is a system of unlimited majority rule. One's
property, rights, and even life are all at the mercy of any group of
people that can muster up the vote of a majority for any purpose.
Democracy is a form of collectivism; the majority can do whatever it
pleases and may enforce its virtue on all individuals. Individuals
have no freedoms beyond what the majority wants them to in a "democracy"
by its very definition.
Remember what "public virtue" did to Socrates in a democracy.
- Darren Stone
sto...@wimsey.bc.ca
Mark Anderson
>
>>more gibberish about allowing all forms of violent sex acts to be rented at
>>your local video store.
No, I did not. The words you're quoting here were not written by me.
>So lets see, so far we have three males all expressing that it should be just
>fine and dandy to produce, direct, and distribute kiddie-porn to the mass
>market because *censorship* is wrong.
I said no such thing. Please try reading what I wrote. The nearest I said
to this was that the government shouldn't decide what I should and should not
be able to watch on my TV.
--
mark
Mark Anderson
>kiddie porn/rape/violence is wrong.
What disturbs me is that you cannot read. None of us said any such thing.
--
mark
Mark Anderson
>or abused kiddie porn, violent rapes, violent sex is acceptable?
Get real. No one here is saying that.
--
mark
Gerald Olchowy
>
>Your last point will not work in a democracy. At least not in a true
>democracy. Democracy is a system of unlimited majority rule. One's
>property, rights, and even life are all at the mercy of any group of
>people that can muster up the vote of a majority for any purpose.
>
Democracy is not majoritarianism...
>Democracy is a form of collectivism; the majority can do whatever it
>pleases and may enforce its virtue on all individuals. Individuals
>have no freedoms beyond what the majority wants them to in a "democracy"
>by its very definition.
>
The majority cannot do whatever it wants in a democracy...democracy
is based on the notion of popular sovereignty, that individuals have
rights, that legitimate government by the majority is LIMITED
government.
The majority can legitimately rule in a democracy only insofar as
the majority respects individual and minority rights.
Gerald
Mark Anderson
>needed to be censored yet. When I start making that suggestion, I hope
>somebody will censor my words.
So do I. However, that's not what we're talking about.
>Why not keep this in the context it was written.
Excellent advice. I suggest you re-read the first article of this thread.
>I was talking about the censorship of acts of child rape and graphic
>depictions of child rape.
Censorship of acts? What does that mean? We have plenty of laws to regulate
peoples' acts that cause others harm. I am not talking about acts, I am
talking about ideas.
--
mark
Mark Anderson
>>st...@mikejag.wimsey.bc.ca (Steve (PrettyBoy) Barclay) writes:
>>>Here in Canada censorship has been in place for YEARS. I have noticed no ill
>>>effects on our society because of it.
>>
>>Perhaps because *your* words haven't been censored (...yet).
>>
>Excuse me Mark, please get with the program we are not talking about the
>censorship of words but the censorship of kiddie porn/rape/etc. be it
>video or virtual reality.
No, excuse me, Jiggles. Words and video are merely different forms of
expression of ideas.
>Would you care to change your opinion on censorship or should be counted
>as one who believes the viewing of kiddie porn is their God given right?
God has nothing to do with it.
--
mark
Dan Day
>
>I lived with a victim of child abuse for about three years. Her
>father liked porno movies alot, and his justification for molesting his
>eleven year old daughter was "I was horny."
He probably liked porno movies because he was already a horny goat, not
the other way around.
Steve (PrettyBoy) Barclay
Are you suggesting that it has some wonderful impact on society that the
rest of us don't know about?
Steve
--
##############################################################################
# Charter Member - T.O.A.S.T.E.R.S. - The Terrorist Organization Against #
# Syndicated Toys Especially Rubber #
# st...@mikejag.wimsey.bc.ca Smurfs #
Steve (PrettyBoy) Barclay
>
>I thought we were discussing censorship laws imposed on adults by the
>government.
Actually, we were discussing kiddie porn, and I'm guilty for letting it
slide way too far off topic.
>
>So that adults can watch it if they want, that is my version of a free
>society. I think you assumed right away that I was a sick mind who wanted
>kiddie porn to be legal so I could watch it and then go over to the
>kindergarten and rape your kids. Was that what you meant by your cynical
>remarks about me not getting too close to your kids in your previous post?
It was a joke pal. But let's face it, anyone who gets off watching the rape
of children, IS SICK!
>
>>Bingo! Heck, I think you might be catching on!! If we had a *healthy
>>society* censorship would not be necessary.
>
>No censorship is never necessary. There will always be sick people around
>with or without censorship.
Right, so let's not get them excited by letting them watch the sickest acts
the human mind can come up with.
>
>
>I don't understand why you have to insult me because I don't agree with you.
>What kind of attitude is that? Its a free society, I respect your views, I
>just don't agree with them. Did I ever insult you?
You're defending kiddie porn. To me that means you have to be some kind
of idiot.
>
>
>Should we then ban all porn movies? I thought that we were discussing kiddie
>porn where virtual actors are involved.
You're right, we we're. No I am definately not saying that porn movies should
be banned. I have no problem whatsoever with flicks portraying acts of
consensual sex between adults.
>
>>Bingo! My my, you DO learn quick. Look around you dude, sick minds abound!
>
>Thanks for the compliment. I know there are a lot of sick minds around, I never
>claimed otherwise. The fact that they are here even with censorship proves
>that censorship can't do anything about it. I find your tone condescending and
>I don't really like that, please respect someone elses opinion.
Well, maybe, but as long as you're defending the distribution of kiddie porn
I have no respect at all for you or your views.
>
>
>>Yeah, so do I. But you don't. Do you?
>
>
>Listen, I am getting tired of discussing this over the net. If you want to
>discuss it further lets have a coffee and discuss it over at the Grasshopper
>in Amsterdam.
Do they have hash there?!
Steve (PrettyBoy) Barclay
>
>>Would you care to change your opinion on censorship or should be counted
>>as one who believes the viewing of kiddie porn is their God given right?
>
>Although I am not the target of your question, I will answer it.
>Yes, it is my right to view "kiddie porn" if it was produced in a
>way which does not victimize anyone. I have a right to do anything
>which does not violate another person's right.
>
do not have the right to view kiddie porn. It is banned here.
And the portrayal of kiddie porn wether it was virtually produced or made
by real life children, is imoral, disgusting, perverse, and should be banned.
Steve (PrettyBoy) Barclay
>
>posting here will contradict me when I say that we all *know* that
>the use of force to victimize is wrong.
>
>The issue here is where the responsibility for a crime lies. It lies
>completely with the perpetrator. You would have the courts and legislators
>look at tenuous and subjective causal links. This is a serious mistake,
>because such judgements will be completely without objective basis.
>This will lead to abuse of power to repress dissident views.
>
>--
> Miron Cuperman <mi...@extropia.wimsey.com> | NeXTmail/Mime ok
> | Public key avail
> AMIX: MCuperman | PSM 18Mar93 0/0
This is the most rational argument I've heard through this entire debate.
But we're still talking about kiddie porn.
Can you give me one single use for kiddie porn which makes it a benefit to
any society?
STeve
Jackie (Jiggles) Wilson
>
>Yes. Censorship, which is the use of violence or the threat thereof
>to suppress ideas, images and expression, should be banned because as
>a violent act it desensatizes people to violence.
And I thought my grammar was bad?? Are you saying that we should not
censor an item because people who view it will only become desensatize.
Therefore, censorship is a waste of time? Tell me how much time should
we give them and won't making them desensatized also lessen the impact
of the harm of child abuse.
>
>What are we teaching our kids if we show them that it's OK to have
>armed police haul defiant publishers of books away from their printing
>presses and throw them in jail in the name of the public good?
Is it better to teach them a lesson on how to have sex with a six year old?
jackie
Jackie (Jiggles) Wilson
>
>>In article <1993Apr6....@mprgate.mpr.ca> mand...@mprgate.mpr.ca (Mark Anderson) writes:
>>>Perhaps because *your* words haven't been censored (...yet).
>
>
>one directly victimized by the production of consumption of such videos,
>if they are constructed by a computer.
so sophistacted that soon (if not not already) it will take an expert
to tell the difference. The average person on the street will not know ww
if its real or not.
> If a drunk driver hits a pedestrian,
>will you advocate that the manufacturer of the car be responsible?
No, but the law already states that the person who got him intoxicated
is responsible. So back at ya babe, if society permits kiddi porn and
a child is harmed shouldn't society be held accountable. I think so.
> Do you advocate banning films like "The Accused" or
>"Silence of the Lambs"? They have their uses, not the least is informing
>the public about the nature of such crimes. They also present an
>opportunity for some individuals to deal with psychological problems
>related to such acts.
And I have not arguements against The Accused because of the very fact
that it does teach and educate. But I am still opposed to the filming
of a REAL rape and its distribution for money. Where is the education
in that?
>
>>Would you care to change your opinion on censorship or should be counted
>>as one who believes the viewing of kiddie porn is their God given right?
>
>Although I am not the target of your question, I will answer it.
>Yes, it is my right to view "kiddie porn" if it was produced in a
>way which does not victimize anyone. I have a right to do anything
>which does not violate another person's right.
Thank you for answering the question straight out. Your are the first
to do so. But please be aware, that as long as you believe its
your right to view artifically produced kiddi porn I'll be there
fighting for the rights of the child who cannot fight. They may
not be hurt but there image is tarnished, lessened, destroyed and
belittled.
jackie
though that they way you chose to cast you vote. But as they say.
suffer unto >
Jackie (Jiggles) Wilson
>
>>What disturbs me the most is how only one man against three believes that
>>kiddie porn/rape/violence is wrong. You other three would rather cut your
>
>Please don't put words in our mouths. I think none of the people
>posting here will contradict me when I say that we all *know* that
>the use of force to victimize is wrong.
Nice to finally hear someone say so.
>
>The issue here is where the responsibility for a crime lies. It lies
>completely with the perpetrator.
How is the perpetrator every going to know that it's wrong unless
we are willing to stand forth and say that it's wrong.
Showing it, making money off it does not seem to be working.
k>
>--