[LINK] why calm, rational thought is required....

Craig Sanders cas at taz.net.au
Mon Feb 12 15:32:05 AEDT 2007


On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 12:56:17PM +1100, Stewart Fist wrote:
> Labels like pornography are not, and never have been applied by those
> who engage in it.

sure they are. lots of porn viewers use the term porn or pr0n. they know
what they're looking at, they know what it's called.


(in fact, given the tacky and often vile nature of most porn, it seems
self-evident that the nastiness - and the fact that it is called
'pornography' - is part of the appeal. makes me wonder if it's all
so tacky because that's what the market wants, or if the audience
just accepts what's on offer because there's little or nothing else
available).


> It is a label that is applied, quite rightly, by those who have
> sexually explicit photos, words, songs, or whatever deliberately or
> accidentally thrust upon them.

if it stopped there, i don't think anyone would have any problem with
the definition.

unfortunately, however, some people go out of their way to find stuff
that offends them in order to be able to complain about it.

worse, they aren't satisfied with just choosing not to look at it
themselves, they lobby hard to get whatever they don't like banned so
that nobody can choose to look at it, even if they want to.


> If it is between consenting adults, then it probably doesn't justify
> the label.
>
> But it is displayed for all to see, whether they want it or not, then
> it probably does.

there's lots of things that are displayed publicly that i'd rather not
see (cricket, football, big brother and other sur-reality TV, etc). i
find these things at least as offensive as some people find pornography
(and no, i'm not a fan of porn either) - but i don't seek to have it
banned, i exercise my own sense of agency and choose not to look.

it would be good if the wowsers of this world were so considerate.


> I think, little old ladies, sex-starved bishops, and all sorts of
> relatively normal people, have the right to brand stuff 'pornography'
> and seek to have it limited, if it is placed on any open network
> (television, radio, newsprint, internet) in any way that means they
> have difficulty avoiding it.

yes, they have a right not to have it forced on them against their will.

that does require some effort on their part, even if it's just the
minimal effort of choosing not to look.

they don't have a right to prevent other people from seeing it if they
so wish.


> Your right to swing your arm ceases where my nose begins.

and the right to censor ceases outside your own eyes.

craig

-- 
craig sanders <cas at taz.net.au>

Currently listening to: Entheogenic - Pagan Dream Machine (Vibrasphe

Taking drugs in the 60's, I tried to reach Nirvana, but all I ever got were
re-runs of The Mickey Mouse Club.
		-- Rev. Jim



More information about the Link mailing list