Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Censorship

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Censorship

    Looks like Colorado is trying to crush the 1st admendment.
    Talbott: Protect us from nude punk rockers
    NuTex

    Talbott: Protect us from nude punk rockers
    March 17, 2004
    In its attempt to ban "sexually explicit" displays, the Colorado Legislature might protect us all from homely, naked punk rockers. Those who would applaud should muse on the meaning of the marketplace of ideas.

    Under House Bill 1078, which has already cleared the House, it would be a crime for a bookstore or library to "display" salacious photographs or other material deemed "harmful to minors." As it happens, "harmful" includes any depiction of nudity (including images of buttocks) and any representation of "sexual activity" (which could include a picture of someone touching the breast a fully clothed partner).

    At a local bookstore, a magazine cover has an image of four nude men, members of the punk band NOFX. The magazine is Alternative Press, and the guys have covered their strategic parts. Nonetheless, two of them expose much of their posteriors.

    Would this violate the provision banning the display of nude buttocks? Or would it be protected by the exemption for material that shows "serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value for minors"?

    Who knows? Just how much artistic value does something have before it becomes "serious," anyway? And can something have "serious artistic value" for adults but not "for minors"?

    Maybe the NOFX question is moot, because material would be deemed "harmful" only when it appeals to the sexual interests of minors. But who's to say that nude NOFX is of sexual interest to minors?

    Elsewhere on the stands this month, there is Esquire, with a cover illustration of a nude woman whose body is only minimally obscured by a large snake. The cover story is "The Naked Truth About Women."

    Nearby, there's American Photo magazine, this time headlined "The Goddess Issue." Inside, there are photographs of women in various stages of undress. Would displaying this magazine be a crime? If it were, bookstores could be slapped with a $500 fine or six months in jail ? for each day the magazine were on the racks.

    The bill would impose a three-part definition of material that is harmful to minors: 1) A reasonable adult would find that the material has a predominant tendency to appeal to the prurient interest of minors. 2) A reasonable adult would find the depiction patently offensive to prevailing standards about what is suitable for minors. 3) A reasonable adult would find the material without "serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value for minors."

    House Bill 1078 is sponsored by Republican Rep. Ted Harvey of Highlands Ranch and Republican Sen. Doug Lamborn of Colorado Springs. In the House, Democrats and moderate Republicans stripped the bill of its restrictions on "sexually explicit" displays. But in the Senate Monday, Lamborn reinserted that provision.

    This is stupefying. Some magazines surely offend some people. But the magazines (and a great deal of other books, films and art) are not obscene. The material in question is legal.

    "What's at stake in the fight over the Colorado bill ? and in lawsuits challenging Arkansas and Michigan display laws ? is the right of adults to browse freely in bookstores for books and magazines that are protected by the First Amendment," said Chris Finan, president of the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression.

    Even if the bill were stripped of the provisions against "sexually explicit" displays, however, it would remain deeply flawed. The bill would also outlaw the dissemination of "sexually explicit" material to minors.

    That's why librarians and booksellers opposed this measure even in the watered-down form passed by the House. James Joyce's "Ulysses" could probably be sold or loaned to a minor without penalty. Maybe the same would be true of D.H. Lawrence's "Lady Chatterly's Lover." On the other hand, Lawrence does romanticizes adultery, and a reasonable adult might dispute that Lawrence produced "serious" art. And Anais Nin? Forget it. She was artless.

    Freedom has costs and benefits. The First Amendment protects high art and soaring, political rhetoric. It also protects a lot of garbage. Enjoying the former requires tolerating the latter.
    Sure, a kid might be attracted to rubbish. But protecting and instructing minors is the responsibility of parents. And in this case, neither the parent nor society needs the censorial intrusions of the Legislature.
    Reach Clint Talbott at (303) 473-1367 or [email protected].

  • #2
    Looks like Colorado is trying to crush the 1st admendment.
    Talbott: Protect us from nude punk rockers
    NuTex

    Talbott: Protect us from nude punk rockers
    March 17, 2004
    In its attempt to ban "sexually explicit" displays, the Colorado Legislature might protect us all from homely, naked punk rockers. Those who would applaud should muse on the meaning of the marketplace of ideas.

    Under House Bill 1078, which has already cleared the House, it would be a crime for a bookstore or library to "display" salacious photographs or other material deemed "harmful to minors." As it happens, "harmful" includes any depiction of nudity (including images of buttocks) and any representation of "sexual activity" (which could include a picture of someone touching the breast a fully clothed partner).

    At a local bookstore, a magazine cover has an image of four nude men, members of the punk band NOFX. The magazine is Alternative Press, and the guys have covered their strategic parts. Nonetheless, two of them expose much of their posteriors.

    Would this violate the provision banning the display of nude buttocks? Or would it be protected by the exemption for material that shows "serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value for minors"?

    Who knows? Just how much artistic value does something have before it becomes "serious," anyway? And can something have "serious artistic value" for adults but not "for minors"?

    Maybe the NOFX question is moot, because material would be deemed "harmful" only when it appeals to the sexual interests of minors. But who's to say that nude NOFX is of sexual interest to minors?

    Elsewhere on the stands this month, there is Esquire, with a cover illustration of a nude woman whose body is only minimally obscured by a large snake. The cover story is "The Naked Truth About Women."

    Nearby, there's American Photo magazine, this time headlined "The Goddess Issue." Inside, there are photographs of women in various stages of undress. Would displaying this magazine be a crime? If it were, bookstores could be slapped with a $500 fine or six months in jail ? for each day the magazine were on the racks.

    The bill would impose a three-part definition of material that is harmful to minors: 1) A reasonable adult would find that the material has a predominant tendency to appeal to the prurient interest of minors. 2) A reasonable adult would find the depiction patently offensive to prevailing standards about what is suitable for minors. 3) A reasonable adult would find the material without "serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value for minors."

    House Bill 1078 is sponsored by Republican Rep. Ted Harvey of Highlands Ranch and Republican Sen. Doug Lamborn of Colorado Springs. In the House, Democrats and moderate Republicans stripped the bill of its restrictions on "sexually explicit" displays. But in the Senate Monday, Lamborn reinserted that provision.

    This is stupefying. Some magazines surely offend some people. But the magazines (and a great deal of other books, films and art) are not obscene. The material in question is legal.

    "What's at stake in the fight over the Colorado bill ? and in lawsuits challenging Arkansas and Michigan display laws ? is the right of adults to browse freely in bookstores for books and magazines that are protected by the First Amendment," said Chris Finan, president of the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression.

    Even if the bill were stripped of the provisions against "sexually explicit" displays, however, it would remain deeply flawed. The bill would also outlaw the dissemination of "sexually explicit" material to minors.

    That's why librarians and booksellers opposed this measure even in the watered-down form passed by the House. James Joyce's "Ulysses" could probably be sold or loaned to a minor without penalty. Maybe the same would be true of D.H. Lawrence's "Lady Chatterly's Lover." On the other hand, Lawrence does romanticizes adultery, and a reasonable adult might dispute that Lawrence produced "serious" art. And Anais Nin? Forget it. She was artless.

    Freedom has costs and benefits. The First Amendment protects high art and soaring, political rhetoric. It also protects a lot of garbage. Enjoying the former requires tolerating the latter.
    Sure, a kid might be attracted to rubbish. But protecting and instructing minors is the responsibility of parents. And in this case, neither the parent nor society needs the censorial intrusions of the Legislature.
    Reach Clint Talbott at (303) 473-1367 or [email protected].

    Comment


    • #3
      Children shouldn't know anything about sex untill they are in the back seat of a car.
      That way there will always be plenty of unwanted teen pregnancy for everyone to complain about.
      Everyone knows that even just one glimpse of a nude picture or statue will turn any well behaved, properly raised child into a sex fiend.

      Pretty much all of your child molesters and rapists were well adjusted pillars of the community too , untill they happened accross an issue of cosmo that was showing too much breast or bellybutton on the cover.

      Will someone remind me again,, Why were we fighting the Taliban????

      Geesh!!!!

      Steve

      Comment


      • #4
        I think this is a rather silly thing to have a debate over in the legislature. Dont these yahoos have anything better to do? I mean talk about wasting time and money. Its bad enough people go overboard with security from terrorists.

        Comment


        • #5
          In the unlikely event that the Western Australian Sunday Times newspaper is available in Colorado, the newsagents had better put last Sunday's edition under the counter.

          It includes a nude photo of a former WA police sergeant, who now works as a catwalk model, and is a record-holding sportsman.

          So far as I am aware, even the local branch of the Australian Family Assn, who often find plenty to complain about, in today's "immoral" society, won't be putting in an official complaint about that!

          Comment


          • #6
            Nu Tex,

            I think it is time to call in the fanatical ACLU on this one. I may not agree with them in everything but they are useful in cases like this. It seems to me that the Colorado Legislature is putting out the "Baby with the Bathwater."

            Comment


            • #7
              The Government is slowly taking away all our rights. Next thing it will be illegal to be naked taking a shower. I have heard of people showering with their clothes on because they didn't want to be NAKED and these people are the ones that screw it up for the rest.

              quote:
              Everyone knows that even just one glimpse of a nude picture or statue will turn any well behaved, properly raised child into a sex fiend.

              Along with that something I have to say also is..It is a good thing that Bill Clinton isn't a nudist. He must have seen one to many NAKED pictures. Wonder what backseat he learned about sex on?..NoodJuggler

              P.S. I email Mr. Talbott about his article and will give an update if and when I receive a reply.

              Comment


              • #8
                Does anyone have any thought's on our illustrious Attorney General Ashcroft's covering of the nude statue at the Justice building when he took office. Talk about a cover-up in goverment!High marks for the moral majority!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Yes..It was Stupid as Hell for him to do that.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I think the covering of the statue shows who truly has a dirty mind.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I agree Shay. Anyone who sees something offensive in a nude statue has a very dirty mind. Of course, anyone who is offended by the human body in my opinion has a very dirty mind.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        NuTex,
                        While I would have some agreement with what you say, remember, the "Bill of Rights" was intended only to limit the Federal Government, not any state. Indeed, the first word in the first amendment is "Congress".
                        Want to quick review of history of the Bill of Rights? How many of the states that ratified the Bill of Rights had established state religions? Just to save you some time, the correct answer is seven. Of course, over 200 years ago, people could understand what they were reading and everyone knew the amendments applied only the Federal Government. It is been less than 75 years since radical Supreme Court justices decided any of the Bill of Rights applied to a state or local government.
                        Many state constitutions contain a limitation on the power of the state government (the Texas Constitution certainly does) so a better case could probably be made that this bill would violate the Colorado Constitution.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Jon-Marc

                          "Of course, anyone who is offended by the human body in my opinion has a very dirty mind."

                          I bet you can't substantiate that opinion, Jon-Marc. I find nudity offensive but - and you can believe me or not - I don't have a dirty mind. When I see nudity I don't automatically associate it with sex - unless it is presented in an overtly sexual way. I just find it gross and sickening.

                          Stu

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Stu,

                            I've been to a few european cites and the thing I really remember and appreciate is that they have all these beautiful statues all over the place. Many of which are done in the classical style of the Greeks or Romans showing a nude form or two.

                            I wonder, when you happen to encounter one of these wonderful works of art what is your reaction? I would be filled with a sense of pride that I lived in a country that had produced this art for the publics enjoyment. Or are you offended by their mere presence? I know many non-nudists (some here would call them textiles,)who really do enjoy this kind of art.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Stu, in another posting, you mentioned you were 'revulsed' by nudity and that you had no hangups and that I had also 'twisted' what you had meant by my stating that you found me unacceptable as being nude. You seemed to bring to light that you do not believe in a supreme being (your right, of course). Now you make a statement that nudity is gross and sickening.
                              Question#1: Do you bathe regularly?
                              Question#2: Do you do it in the dark?
                              Question#3: Do you have a spouse?
                              Question#4: If you do, do you have children?
                              I am not trying to be trite, but understanding as if you have children, there had to have been some exposure of genitalia in order to reprocreate, although you could have done it in the dark. We come into the world nude. If you have children, have you not bathed them or do you find them also gross and sickening? If you have a spouse, have you not seen that person nude and do you find them to be gross & sickening if so?
                              As I said before and I know you didn't like the term 'hang-ups', but I find something seriously wrong to have such an extreme point of view and yes, you do have ownership of that view and I am not condeming you for it, but it seems there has been something traumatic in your life to point you in such a direction. Just my two cents.
                              Jon-Marc, I don't think of it as a 'dirty mind', but a closed one...............

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X