Censorship

[franko]

Well, censorship continues. I know, I know . . . how can a conservative like me complain about censorship -- aren't I/we on the forefront of telling people how to think? Not at all. We are all censors in some way; some just have a greater (or lower) tolerance than others do.

Today's complaint? Super Bowl commercials. I always get a kick out of them. But this year it looks as if "the staid ones" have taken control, and laughter will be at a premium.

The problem: Janet Jackson's clothing malfunction last year has led to PC and family values concerns that go over the edge. No farting Clydesdales, no church leaders suffering from LusT . . . no laughter.

Even this godaddy-dot-com commercial (code entry necessary) is banned, although we will see commercials about erectile dysfunction.

To those in charge: get a life!

Ah . . . I feel better.

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

Another political Conservative social Liberal.
Next we'll have the Marlboro man speaking about the horrors of cancer and Aflack duck representing Greenpeace.
The worst censorship is meted out by Gary Bettman. NHL owners aren't allowed to talk to their wives.
Are we introducing the Burkas to North America. You are allowed to disagree, but you will be shot if you do.
Diversity is what makes life interesting.
Gretzky, Rocket, Beliveau, Howe, Ferguson, Harvey, Orr, Lemieux, Hull. All great and no two alike!

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

Lock the thread. Ban the posters. It's easy, like one two three.

[franko]

Habs_fan_in_LA said:

Another political Conservative social Liberal.
Next we'll have the Marlboro man speaking about the horrors of cancer and Aflack duck representing Greenpeace.
The worst censorship is meted out by Gary Bettman. NHL owners aren't allowed to talk to their wives.
Are we introducing the Burkas to North America. You are allowed to disagree, but you will be shot if you do.
Diversity is what makes life interesting.
Gretzky, Rocket, Beliveau, Howe, Ferguson, Harvey, Orr, Lemieux, Hull. All great and no two alike!

You post like I golf -- all over the place! ;D

I must defend my honour. a political conservative? Not on your life! I'm a middle-of-the-road namby-pamby. Fiscally I may be more conservative but that's about it. Ethically, it depends on the issue. Pro life. Traditional marriage. Feed the poor. Help the homeless get on their feet and find/keep a job (and not by cutting welfare or redefining what unemployment is). Save the whales, shoot the vegans (can I say that?)

I just happen to think that the PC movement has gone to far to defend everybody and everything . . . can't make anybody feel bad or lower their self-esteem or some other such rubbish. Every body is equal, which means everybody is the same. Bunk! We're different -- let's accept it -- so I agree with your take on diversity, which means I put up with Blaise, and Blaise puts up with you, and you put up with John Kerry, and . . .

I just thought it was stupid that some boob decided that the ad was out of line because it might evoke thoughts of Janet Jackson. Heavens to Murgatroid! The destruction of the nuclear family as we know it. Bah!

[IamCanadiens]

franko said:

Well, censorship continues. Today's complaint? Super Bowl commercials. I always get a kick out of them. But this year it looks as if "the staid ones" have taken control, and laughter will be at a premium.

.

I watched the American feed and saw one commercial that was pretty damn funny. It was for Ameriquest (or some name along those lines) and involved a cat and cooking. Everybody that I know didn't see it b/c it wasn't aired in Canada. Go figure. The one day a year where censorship is greater North of the border.

The one commercial that really made me laugh was the ED pill that lasted for 36 hours. Guys have enough trouble not thinking about sex as it is. Exactly how is a man supposed exist normally in society with a 36 hour hard on?

[franko]

IamCanadiens said:

I watched the American feed and saw one commercial that was pretty damn funny. It was for Ameriquest (or some name along those lines) and involved a cat and cooking. Everybody that I know didn't see it b/c it wasn't aired in Canada. Go figure. The one day a year where censorship is greater North of the border.

See all the ads here

The one commercial that really made me laugh was the ED pill that lasted for 36 hours. Guys have enough trouble not thinking about sex as it is. Exactly how is a man supposed exist normally in society with a 36 hour hard on?

The nature of the beast . . . err . . . pill is that you aren't always "on" but that it kicks in at the appropriate moment . . . its Cialis, not EverReady . . . and you don't keep going and going and going . . . ;D [there is a four-hour warning . . . ouch!]

And the full godaddy.com commerical is priceless!

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

IamCanadiens said:

I watched the American feed and saw one commercial that was pretty damn funny. It was for Ameriquest (or some name along those lines) and involved a cat and cooking. Everybody that I know didn't see it b/c it wasn't aired in Canada. Go figure. The one day a year where censorship is greater North of the border.

The one commercial that really made me laugh was the ED pill that lasted for 36 hours. Guys have enough trouble not thinking about sex as it is. Exactly how is a man supposed exist normally in society with a 36 hour hard on?

I liked the cat and the meat sauce, Budweiser and the American heros in the airport, Ford Mustang at Portage and Main, and the one strap girl in the dot.com t-shirt addressing the congress.

90% of all censorship is stupid and the other 15% is ineffective. (Yogi)

[Toronthab]

Ah... censorship; where purpose, meaning and reason meet passion.

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

Toronthab said:

Ah... censorship; where purpose, meaning and reason meet passion.

Censorship is bad. There I'm out on a limb.

The exceptions (and there are many);

Advocates of kiddy porn,
Mulah's that promise virgins to suicide bombers,
Torontonians.

feel free to add to the list, it's not censored, (yet).


I even allow Democrats to express their misplaced beliefs.

[HabbaDasher]

Every society has it's taboos, so censorship is inherent.
But there will always be those that challenge it.
And so it evolves as does culture.

[blaise]

Censorship, ah yes. How many non-belligerent Iraqi civilians have been killed? The US military doesn't admit to "collateral damage" or willful shooting unless journalists or camera crews are there to report it. Photographing or videotaping coffins of dead American soldiers is forbidden. The names of those responsible for the intelligence blunders/misinterpretation prior to 9/11 haven't been revealed despite the lengthy investigation that was completed months ago.

Besides censorship, there is stealth and dishonesty. The Bush budget doesn't even hint at the $5 billion per month that has to be spent in Iraq. Nor does it include any funding for the gap in Social Security revenue that would be created by the diversion of funds to private accounts. I could go on and on and on, but I'll spare you, gentle readers, of the sordid details.

[franko]

Censorship: ideals based on community mores and standards (therefore, ever in flux). A necessary evil, for the protection of the innocent and helpless.

However , whatever happened to self-censoring? Turn off the TV. Don't use binoculars to look into someone's front window to see him masturbating. Don't go to the art gallery where Malenthorpe is the featured artist. If it is offensive, turn away. Use your brain; don't wait for the government to make wise decisions -- it can't be done.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

franko said:

Don't use binoculars to look into someone's front window....

Binoculars, eh?

*

Main Entry: cen·sor
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin, from censEre to give as one's opinion, assess; perhaps akin to Sanskrit samsati he praises
3 : a hypothetical psychic agency that represses unacceptable notions before they reach consciousness

[franko]

M. said:

Binoculars, eh?

Wasn't me!

High court says masturbation at home not an offence if seen by neighbours
WENDY COX []

VANCOUVER (CP) - The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that masturbating at home is not an offence, even if the activity can be seen by peeking neighbours.

The case centred on whether a private space - Daryl Clark's living room - became public because others could view it. The high court said No in a unanimous ruling Thursday. "The living room of his private home was not a place 'to which the public (had) access as of right or by invitation, express or implied,' " Justice Morris Fish wrote, quoting the Criminal Code.

"I do not believe it (access) contemplates the ability of those who are neither entitled nor invited to enter a place to see or hear from the outside, through uncovered windows or open doors, what is transpiring within."

On Oct. 28, 2000, Clark's neighbours across his backyard in Nanaimo, B.C., noticed "some movement" in Clark's living room.

The woman had been watching television with her two young daughters in their family room, a room lit only by a television screen and light from the adjoining kitchen.

The woman moved to another room for a better view, then called her husband. The pair watched Clark for up to 15 minutes from the privacy of their darkened bedroom.

The court found they took care to avoid being seen by Clark, peering out from underneath their partially lowered blinds. Later, the woman's husband fetched a pair of binoculars and a telescope. He also tried, unsuccessfully, to videotape Clark in action, says the judgment. full article

[blaise]

franko said:

Censorship: ideals based on community mores and standards (therefore, ever in flux). A necessary evil, for the protection of the innocent and helpless.

However , whatever happened to self-censoring? Turn off the TV. Don't use binoculars to look into someone's front window to see him masturbating. Don't go to the art gallery where Malenthorpe is the featured artist. If it is offensive, turn away. Use your brain; don't wait for the government to make wise decisions -- it can't be done.

This is a propos of what? Is voyeurism one of the most popular hobbies in Ottawa? If someone has the opportunity to train his binoculars on someone masturbating, the solution is to close his eyes? How about a more appropriate action than turning away because the sight is revolting? How about not scanning people's windows with binoculars in the first place, because that would be descending to the level of a John Ashcroft or Rev. Sheldon or some other noxious pecksniff.

[Toronthab]

Habs_fan_in_LA said:

Censorship is bad. There I'm out on a limb.

The exceptions (and there are many);

Advocates of kiddy porn,
Mulah's that promise virgins to suicide bombers,
Torontonians.

feel free to add to the list, it's not censored, (yet).


I even allow Democrats to express their misplaced beliefs.

Ok, I'm going to have to give you the Torontonians thing. There is no possible defence available.

We all have to divest ourselves of our TV mentality (the big universal). Censorship is damned near absolute in the world and covers virtually every aspect of our lives and the choices we make. I can think of nothing offhand that isn't cesored. That we have reduced "censorship" to a media word is a fine indication of how effectively the big censor works. Got a ring in your navel? Is one pant leg noticably longer than the other? One sock green, one yellow? Dating a really fat, ugly woman? Got a logo on your expensive shirt?

Censorship is a fundamental duty of course, and the human community censors when individuals don't. We are inclined, goofily, to think that being "free" means we are free to do whatever we want to do. We are of course only free to do what is good. The rest is censored mostly internally with varying degrees of severity. Habs fans in LA want to censor censoring.
Censorship is of course not wrong any more than butter is. It's how and where and why you spread it.

[franko]

Blaise said:

Is voyeurism one of the most popular hobbies in Ottawa?

When it comes to looking into government windows, yes. Other than that, we are too straightlaced. Note that this incident took place on the left coast.

If someone has the opportunity to train his binoculars on someone masturbating, the solution is to close his eyes? How about a more appropriate action than turning away because the sight is revolting? How about not scanning people's windows with binoculars in the first place, because that would be descending to the level of a John Ashcroft or Rev. Sheldon or some other noxious pecksniff.

Whichi s what I said about self-censorship.

[blaise]

franko said:

When it comes to looking into government windows, yes. Other than that, we are too straightlaced. Note that this incident took place on the left coast.


Whichi s what I said about self-censorship.

But what you didn't say--and should have said--is that the government shouldn't be scanning private residences for evidence of immorality, and neither should Christian ayatollahs.

[franko]

Blaise said:

But what you didn't say--and should have said--is that the government shouldn't be scanning private residences for evidence of immorality

The government was called in by a private citizen; the government has a responsibility to respond to complaints to determine whether they are justified or not.

The issue that was raised by the courts is "how private is private?". Trudeau talked about the government staying out of the bedrooms of the nation, not the well-lit livingrooms of the nation

The courts have spoken: just as it is acceptable to have sex while 50,000 fans watch you at SkyDome, it is acceptable to do whatever you want in your living room. Personally . . . I'll close the curtains.

and neither should Christian ayatollahs.

Where is it noted that the complainants were Christian or even religious? It was merely a mother concerned that the neighbour was acting inappropriately in front of her children.

Should be an interesting street to live on now, though.

[Montrealer]

The protection isn't extended to someone who commits an indecent act on their own property with the intention of letting the neighbours see it.

But in this case, the evidence suggested Clark had no idea he was being watched, the court found.

What, does everyone here read half the articles they quote?

[franko]

Montrealer said:

What, does everyone here read half the articles they quote?

No, we just ignore the parts of articles that don't fit into our preconceived ideas or ideals

[Toronthab]

Blaise said:

But what you didn't say--and should have said--is that the government shouldn't be scanning private residences for evidence of immorality, and neither should Christian ayatollahs.

While I too have often seen some trully repulsive characters on tv, "preaching"and again, everybody preaches including me and you, Shirley you don't mean that religious leaders generally should prescind from the the important issues related to the generation of human life. Or do you resent all religous leaders from leading in this area? Say it ain't so, Shirley.