20 Feb 05
Originally posted by no1marauderShould the people who sell the film go to jail if the people
Yes. People see death on film all the time. The people who make such a film should be prosecuted for murder, but possession of such a film shouldn't be grounds for going to jail.
who make the film go to jail?
Nemesio
20 Feb 05
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioNo, assuming that they had no part in the actual murder. There's a famous piece of film from the Vietnam war showing the execution of a suspected Viet Cong by an ARVN intelligence officer who walks over and casually shoots the VC in the head. It has been included in many documentaries and some commercial films. Should those filmmakers go to jail because they are distributing film of a murder?
Should the people who sell the film go to jail if the people
who make the film go to jail?
Nemesio
20 Feb 05
Originally posted by no1marauderYeah. You are right. My aversion to these films is overwhelming
No, assuming that they had no part in the actual murder. There's a famous piece of film from the Vietnam war showing the execution of a suspected Viet Cong by an ARVN intelligence officer who walks over and casually shoots the VC in the head. It has been included in many documentaries and some commercial films. Should those filmmakers go to jail because they are distributing film of a murder?
the reason in my brain. Although repulsive, they cannot be censored
on the basis of the US Constitutional philosophy.
I am getting more conservative in my old age. 😛
I should think, then, that Gonzales doesn't have a legal leg to
stand on? What is his defense going to be?
Nemesio
20 Feb 05
Originally posted by NemesioI'll take a look and report back later. A guess would be the old claim that "obscenity" is not protected speech for some reason or another.
Yeah. You are right. My aversion to these films is overwhelming
the reason in my brain. Although repulsive, they cannot be censored
on the basis of the US Constitutional philosophy.
I am getting more conservative in my old age. 😛
I should think, then, that Gonzales doesn't have a legal leg to
stand on? What is his defense going to be?
Nemesio
20 Feb 05
This site sums up the case and the applicable law better than I could: http://www.livejournal.com/users/jwirenius/6447.html
If you have any further questions, I'll try to answer them but obscenity law is a tangled mess and I do not agree with the Supreme Court's decision in Miller (I also do not agree with the idea that mere possession of child pornography should be punishable as a crime but obviously my opinion is not the present state of the law).
20 Feb 05
2 edits
Isn't the original purpose of the introduction of "Freedom of Speech" to protect citizens against the authorities if they, the citizens, wanted to criticise and oppose the government and other authorities like the Church.
Now in our days it seems that the "Freedom of Speech" notion is being used as an excuse for insulting and slandering people and to exploit obscenities, including rape and murder. The protection of the citizin has changed into an idolatry of freedom as such. "Anything goes" because we have Freedom of Speech.
We have changed the protection of people, the original purpose of the "Freedom of Speech" notion into the protection and, in my view, the idolatrizing of the "Freedom of Speech" notion itself.
EDIT: I hope other people besides No1. will take the trouble to react to this post.
20 Feb 05
Originally posted by ivanhoe"Idolatry of Freedom" as you so quaintly put it, is the basis of the Lockean philosophy of individual natural rights and limited government which forms the core beliefs of the US. When you reject that, you embrace authoritarian control of the individual with all the horrors that entails. A government which refuses to recognize an individual's basic right to self-autonomy is a tyranny and history has shown us the horrors such governments can do. There is no greater protection of the people than the recognition of their basic freedoms, period.
Isn't the original purpose of the introduction of "Freedom of Speech" to protect citizens against the authorities if they, the citizens, wanted to criticise and oppose the government and other authorities like the Church.
Now in our days it seems that the "Freedom of Speech" notion is being used as an excuse for insulting and slandering people and ...[text shortened]... nged into an idolatry of freedom as such. "Anything goes" because we have Freedom of Speech.
20 Feb 05
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThis hits at the heart of the difference between what passes for "liberal" and what passes for "conservative" these days.
What if it were a real snuff film? Should people be able to watch these?
Because "libs" have had "relative morality" force fed them by our universities and schools for fifty years, they tend to lose the art of thought. They will inevitably choose the right -- not of the snuff film maker to "snuff' people, but of the watcher to be free to watch. It's all relative. Killing or "snuffing" is bad, but a piece of celulose or digital zero's and ones can't be bad.
The thing that is really amazing is that when faced with rather simple analogs, lib's fail to make the same leap of logic.
For example, the leap from a "killer with a gun" and a "righteous protector" with a gun. How can not the same linkage between the "snuff" maker and the "snuff watcher" be transferred to the "killer with gun" and the "owner of gun"?
This will always be the reason the average joe in the US will move away from the Dem's toward common sense. And the funny part is that the answer is so simple. Dem's and Lib's have made it into a religion so that they can all feel at ease at parties and gatherings, including the "class room". Chimps hate tension. We just develop a religion and all worship when we meet. The silent part of religion is resignation of argument. Thus a bland mind set develops.
In my opionion.
20 Feb 05
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderNo1: "Idolatry of Freedom" as you so quaintly put it, is the basis of the Lockean philosophy of individual natural rights and limited government which forms the core beliefs of the US."
"Idolatry of Freedom" as you so quaintly put it, is the basis of the Lockean philosophy of individual natural rights and limited government which forms the core beliefs of the US. When you reject that, you embrace authoritarian c ...[text shortened]... f the people than the recognition of their basic freedoms, period.
No1: " ..... period."
I thought I was the dogmatic one here, but as things turn out to be I can learn a lot from you in this field.
No1: "..... the core beliefs of the US"
This is one of the reasons, No1, why I do not look upon the United States as a Christian nation with Christian based policies.
Surely you don't believe that Bush wants to spread the Christian faith do you ? He wants to spread what you call "the Lockean philosophy of individual natural rights and limited government which forms the core beliefs of the US."
Please, reread my post when you've calmed down ..... it is not as bad and evil as you think it is .... and then you might be inclined to adress my post in a more substantial and less ideological and dogmatic manner.
20 Feb 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeBush is opposed to Lockean principles; he trods on individual rights and supports all kinds of restrictions on freedom and liberty. I'm quite calm and have calmly and strongly supported Freedom of Speech for many years. I addressed your post and you've avoided my point and fallen back to personalizing the issue yet again. Will you ever try to have an honest debate, Ivanhoe or will you forever play these games?
No1: "Idolatry of Freedom" as you so quaintly put it, is the basis of the Lockean philosophy of individual natural rights and limited government which forms the core beliefs of the US."
No1: " ..... period."
I thought I was the dogmatic one here, but as things turn out to be I can learn a lot from you in this field.
No1: "..... the core belief ...[text shortened]... be inclined to adress my post in a more substantial and less ideological and dogmatic manner.
20 Feb 05
Originally posted by no1marauder
Bush is opposed to Lockean principles; he trods on individual rights and supports all kinds of restrictions on freedom and liberty. I'm quite calm and have calmly and strongly supported Freedom of Speech for many years. I addressed your post and you've avoided my point and fallen back to personalizing the issue yet again. Will you ever try to have an honest debate, Ivanhoe or will you forever play these games?
You've adressed my post by stating a general "Credo". That's all.
No1: "Will you ever try to have an honest debate, Ivanhoe or will you forever play these games?
I told you before that you are my rolemodel in trying to develop my debating skills .... 😀
20 Feb 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeAnd what was your post but a "general credo"? I've addressed every question put my way in this thread.
You've adressed my post by stating a general "Credo". That's all.
No1: "Will you ever try to have an honest debate, Ivanhoe or will you forever play these games?
I told you before that you are my rolemodel in trying to develop my debating skills .... 😀
You're doing a VERY poor job in developing your debating skills but hope springs eternal, I suppose.
20 Feb 05
4 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderOk. Time out.
And what was your post but a "general credo"? I've addressed every question put my way in this thread.
You're doing a VERY poor job in developing your debating skills but hope springs eternal, I suppose.
I have read this entire thread and the marauder has not posted a single idea. Ivan is frustrated.
I say, go try to think up a subject for a thread, marauder. Let's see if anyone can pose a thought or two here. We know you are a powerful chimp. Go get a subject and -- good luck.
Hell. See his (raider-of-food-stuff-from-children, akd, marauders) disagreement that "the idea that mere possession of child pornography should be punishable as a crime"
Then see my post about what is wrong with this dim-witted notion and let's debate that.