Personal responsibility thrown out - AGAIN

[Wombat]

Snake,
American Pie was not censored. It was edited to avoid an NC-17 rating (from the industry, not the gov't). Really two different things. I've seen the unedited version (calling it uncensored is just an attempt by the distributor to pique interest), and of two major changes, I think one actually made the movie better.

[paulcs]

I think the Federal Government will act as censor in three circumstances: child pornography, the depiction of beastiality, and the publication of classified materials.

Most governments are far more vigorous in their attempts to control media content or what American law considers speech.

When the federal government feebly attempts to act as censor, it invariably makes itself look foolish and fails miserably. The idea of the government censoring Stanley Kubrick, of all people, is crazy. Within the major studios, it is claimed only two directors genuinely have final cut: Steven Speilberg (for obvious reasons) and Stanley Kubrick.

It just wouldn't happen.

Paul
paulcs@flashcom.net

[Joel]

We were talking about the freedoms that are granted to us by the Constitution. Unfortunately we have some politicians who feel that we, the people, need to be protected from ourselves. And that is a load of BS.

Joel

[Wombat]

I don't think beastiality is federally covered. There was an article in the paper once how somehow it's still legal in MO, even though gay & oral sex are not.

[paulcs]

So you can depict unnatural acts on livestock in Missouri, but no human sexual activity outside the realm of heterosexual fornication? (I assume we're talking about depictions and not actions.)

I'm seeing an agricultural bias here.

Paul
paulcs@flashcom.net

[Himself]

paulcs,

Don't shoot the messenger, I could care less about the movie, I don't even like Tom Cruise's stuff. Of course I recall movies like "The Life of Brian" and "The last days of Christ" (or some title along those lines) that got banned altogether by a lot of countries. Every Jumbo video locally has a porn section, not sure how they get into the country or from where, but I don't see porn imports being an issue, I'm sure we don't make them all ourselves.

To bring the subject back from the abyss, the problem is with lobbyists on behalf of whackos and general ignorants who have too much influence, they make hypocrites out of politicians in one big game of points. We tend to have different kinds of lobbyists, it's more unions and independence movements up here. We did have an attempt at a national political party once called the "Natural Law Party" that was about meditation and jumping on your ass with your legs crossed, but that seems to have gone away. On that note, I think US politics would be a lot more interesting and perhaps healthy if they had more than 2 political parties to choose from.

[paulcs]

I'm not a big fan of Tom Cruise either. My point was that Stanley Kubrick was a film maker of great renown (Dr. Strangelove, A Clockwork Orange, 2001, etc.), and the US government, even if it was so inclined, would never get away with censoring a Kubrick film. It would be laughed out of the federal courts.

Porn might get into Canada, but Canada's censorship laws are far, far more extensive than the US's. US Customs couldn't get away with half the stuff Canadian Customs does, because our laws don't permit it.

Himself, I think I and others reacted the way we did, because we hear a lot of commentary about censorship in the US on the Internet from people from outside the country. It astounds us because most of us have never seen evidence of censorship by the state. After a while, it just gets on your nerves.

I once saw someone from Singapore complain about US censorship and almost fainted. (I'm smiling, but I'm not kidding.) It's a little gratuitous. There is plenty of other stuff to pick on us about. If you think acid rain is bad, scientists at Los Alamos Laboratories have recently developed "urine rain," and we're shippin' it north.

Paul
paulcs@flashcom.net

[Himself]

paulcs,

Well, you might hear a lot of it somewhere, but not from me, I could care less what you guys down there do unless it affects us here. The only gripe I have with the US is when I get tagged with UPS's stupid brokerage fees. You pay for something to be shipped, UPS sells the package at the border and you get to pay for shipping again. Other than that, I don't really think about the place much. I do find it a bit odd when people suddenly start advocating the US like it was a video card or something.

[paulcs]

Hey, we care about you guys. But we like the Australians better.

Paul
paulcs@flashcom.net

[Gurm]

Hey, SteveC:

Your government is the one that demanded that "Carmageddon" be rewritten entirely so that it would have "zombies" instead of people and "green ooze" instead of blood.

France pulled it from the shelves outright. Germany demanded the people be replaced with robots.

And that was your FEDERAL government. So just because some whack-job Indiana "I smoke from a corncob pipe" judge decides to try to "protect" children from themselves doesn't mean it's constitutional.

- Gurm

------------------
Listen up, you primitive screwheads! See this? This is my BOOMSTICK! Etc. etc.

[Buuri]

Why should any of us feel obligated to except personal responsibility when we live in a society where even our government feels that it has a right to tell how to live our personal lives?

Please. Your actions are restricted in many ways by your government, and you accept most of them already. Can I hear you object agains laws prohibiting children to buy booze or adults from driving when drunk? Maybe kids should be allowed to go to X-rated movies?

:
B

[Gurm]

Children should be allowed to drink if their parents let them. Period.

The only thing keeping a child out of an x-rated movie theater should be the people at the front door, or state laws.

The federal government has no business making laws about any of these things. Period.

- Gurm

------------------
Listen up, you primitive screwheads! See this? This is my BOOMSTICK! Etc. etc.

[ahartman]

Just read that the 7th Court of Appeals (Chicago) has temporarily suspended the law on the basis that it imposed unconstitutional content-based free speech restrictions.

One for the good guys. Hope it sticks.