Archive for April, 2006

Who screwed up here?

April 25, 2006

It doesn't seem to have been a bad thing that the number of children involved in child pornography or the amount of money made by the child porn business was blown way out of proportion by activists.  It would be a bad thing if the opposite happened, if everyone was hiding and ignoring what was going on.  The law made it so child porn was illegal, and the swiftness of that could be thanks to the incorrect numbers put out there by activists.  So, thank you.

Also, I was wondering something.  Back in the 70's when child porn was somewhat legal and people were purchasing it and, quite possibly, acting on it, did they think it was ok.  I mean, did they think that morally it was ok and that it was just a wierd fedish because it was legal to buy?  And now that the laws have changed, do they now realize what they may have done immorally and regret every second of it?  Or do they hold no regrets and feel that they have done absolutely nothing wrong?

It's a very sad thing to me that a human instinct, a human need for sex can go so wrong in some people.  It is so distrurbing that some people turn this loving healthy desire for sex into a twisted, horrible need for sex with a child.  And that this drive is so strong in these people that they would go to such lengths as to break the law and even damage a youngster for life, or even kill them.  Where did mother nature go wrong?  Or is it society?  Who went wrong and where?


Main street on the web

April 17, 2006

I felt that Senetor Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas spoke very well and convincingly about her bill to protect children from purchasing and stumbling onto pornography on the internet.  She was dead on when she said that parents should be the front line of defense, but can not always be there to provide the supervision that is necessary.  Unfortunately, some parents also just don't care, or are totally naive to the idea that their child would ever even try to find porn on the internet.  That is why Sen. Blanch Lincoln's bill sounds like the perfect solution.  The technology is already available to do age verification.  The pornography industry makes so much money that to pay for this software wouldn't even hurt their profit. 

I can see why some pornography industries wouldn't want to do this.  One reason being that they don't want to pay for it, and another reason being that they wouldn't want to lose business from the people who are minors.  But, even considering both of these things, the pornography industry is so huge as it is that they'd still make billions of dollars.  It should be a law that the porn industries provide age verification software.

Kill who?

April 14, 2006

I don't know if any of you have actually seen the movie "Kill Bill", I am sure some of you have, and you know that it is not exactly the least violent movie you'll ever see.  In fact it's just the oppisite, it is a very violent movie.  I think there are much worse scenes in that movie than the scene at the beginning of the lecture where everyone is swearing.  I was surprised to hear that that clip was banned from the introduction of the movie Kill Bill.  That's considerred indecent compared to that movie?  Not in my book.

I was talking about this class and that lecture with my dad and he has seen the movie.  And, to my surprise, he felt the exact opposite than what I felt.  He suggested, and I now sort of agree, that the movie had indecent scenes, yes, but it told a story.  It had substance, and the vulgarity of some of the scenes illustrated the story very well.  On the other hand, showing a clip of famous people, not acting in roles, swearing is tasteless and pointless.  It does not tell a story, it does not serve a point, it is classless and tactless and it should not be aired before a movie. 

The point is, everyone has a different idea about what exactly is "too far", but when something that might otherwise be seen as indecent is used for entertainment, it is not so indecent. 

porn shops and what not

April 12, 2006

I think that some of the zoning laws talked about in this weeks lectures are a bit much.  I can totally understand the secondary effects of having an adult business (theatre, bookstore, etc…) near a school could be really bad.  Children should not be exposed to drunk people or to images that they could be exposed to if there was an adult business near the school.  But, having an adult business near a church is going a bit too far.  There are mostly adults at church, and if there are children they are with adults in a car.  The kids do not have to be exposed to anything because the parents can drive a different route home.  I can understand not wanting the adult business to be right next door, but within 500 feet or so?  Come on. 

I do feel that the three part test is good because it helps to keep people's rights to do business.  Without this three part test some communities would bar these businesses altogether.

models acting obscene

April 5, 2006

While watching the lectures on obscenity, and learning about how the definition is fuzzy and therefore there is often self sensorship in order to avoid trouble, I can't help but think back to a program I watched last night.  "America's Next Top Model" is a reality show designed to find a model.  A bunch of girls compete by doing photo shoots and what not, and each week one girl is eliminated until one girl is left standing.  I have seen this show a few times and while watching these beautiful women, wearing small clothes I am wondering where the line is drawn.  One girl is told to pose as a sexy nurse with a male patient, and she does.  But, halfway through her shoot the photographer tells her to bring it down a notch because her poses are getting to "men's magazine" for the shoot.  Now, I had thought that all the poses were racey, and seductive.  So who's to say at what point her poses had become too obscene?  This is a very fuzzy area.  The model thought that none of her poses were obscene.  And because of her lack of self sensorship she may be the next girl to go home.  So, it is tough to decide where that line is drawn, and when you are not sure where that line is, it's best to stay as far away from it as possible because it could cost you.


April 4, 2006

It seems to me that to have an entire book (containing many many authors) of innapropriate readings for an entire religion is just rediculous.  The "Index Librorum Prohibitorum" was just that, rediculous.  I did a bit of research and was able to pull up a list of books that was in the "Index Librorum Prohibitorum".  And though I could not read a lot of what it said because it was not written in English, I could recognize that the list was immense.  This index was just full of names of innapropriate readings.  Also, I tried to find what it was exactly that qualified a book to be censored and therefore put into the "Index Librorum Prohibitorum" and the best I could find was this:  The grounds of censorship are "to prevent the contamination of the faith or the corruption of morals of Roman Catholics according to cannon law, through the reading of theologic erroneous or immoral books"  (translation by Betty Cutolo So I am wondering what exactly these books say, or what kind of pictures they have that banned them from libraries.  It doesn't seem like it took much according to that quote.  The reign of Pope Pius V (1566-72)  was known as one of the most strict periods of history known by the Roman Catholic Church.  I imagine this has something to do with the long life lived by the "Index Librorum Prohibitorum"