[reply]
censorship DOES violate artistic freedom and expression. we dont need censorship, we need common sense.
making something kids can see? dont put an image of babies being raped on it. making something only people who are interested in it/attached to it/in a small community based on it are going to see? if you think that group will like the image, throw some raped babies on it. we dont need anyone setting up an organization to tell people what is and isnt ok to look at. we just need to think rationally.
I’m confused here. Do you support or oppose censorship?
You contradict yourself with your entire statement. At one point you label censorship as common sense, yet you oppose the idea of censorship. Elaborate more with the subject of flyers featuring adult content, and not child pornography.
Child pornography already is something that we know is censorship evolved into common sense, in the United States. This began as an individual, who formed a group. The group made it routine to where when they approached and even became government officials. By doing so, those government officials than than approached the US leader (Ronald Regan), at the time and made it illegal. Thus, you have local and national government sponsored censorship.
Other examples of government sponsored censorship? Copyright and trademarks. It’s one of the oldest. By law an individual can take ownership of creation and make it illegal for another individual to recreate that “piece of art” that is identical or closely resembles their piece of art. Hey maybe that’s why Peter Steele died of a heart attack, he finally saw Goatse! haha. No but seriously, Al Jourgensen can’t go out and release Christian Woman claiming its a Ministry song without giving credit to Peter Steele or the rest of Type O Negative. Censorship protects that from happening.
Which goes back to my earlier statement Censorship is necessary, but we need to know where we want it and how much we want of it. You’re argument is completely invalid. Find something else to argue about, like my gas station burrito, isn’t Taco Bell worthy.[/reply]
see, when i hear ‘censorship’ i think MPAA, i think the music ratings board, i think public indecency hearings, i think about bullshit police states, and most of all, i think of the stiffing of art.
censorship has always been (to me) being told something is inappropriate, out of place, uncomfortable, rude, stupid, mean, whatever. and if someone is telling you that, you dont have complete control of your art work. i dont beleive we should have film ratings, or that lenny bruce should have gotten in trouble, or that the Pete should have had to change that cover, or Void shouldnt be allowed to eat as much shit and make as many ‘weird’ videos as he wants. i just think that people should use their own common sense. should void go to a pre-school and pound down some poop? no. is that censorship? or is that just being levelheaded and looking out for the general safety of the kids?
i guess i just look at the word as coming from laws and requirements, where as you seem to want to use it as ANY limitations.
but on the playing other people’s music thing, fuck copyrights, fuck ‘ownership’. when you create something it becomes open for the world to hear, feel, experience, see, love, hate, whatever, and i just dont support ‘owning’ that. as a musician i am against copyright laws. im ok with creative commons, and i can get behind citation and respect, but straight up copyright? fuck that noise.
