Thanks useful information: 
So, if I agree in the principle of free speech... are you telling me it is incongruous to believe it wrong to yell 'FIRE' in a crowded theatre? Or, just like the other, are they totally different?Originally Posted by WhoDo
Glad you got a kick out of it, Scotty! I just thought there was a great deal of incongruity in arguing FOR restrictions on one front (a tax) and AGAINST them on another (censoring art) even though both proclaim they are for the "common good".
The distinction should be self-evident to all but bean counters and 'greed is good' types?
And that distinction is important because ...? At a fundamental level both issues address freedom and the desire to restrict that freedom for the "common good". That's all.
And who decides what is offensive? Many Catholics found two gay men hugging on a billboard 'offensive'. Calling something offensive is usually code for, 'I personally don't like it.'
There is a great deal of difference between what is "confronting" - causing people to think about the issues addressed - and what is "offensive". The latter is more to do with attention-seeking sensationalism than any altruistic desire to open people's minds for whatever reason, and forces rather than causes attention to be focused on an issue, usually with negative consequences.
So don't buy un-funny comedy. But, don't try to restrict others - who gives you the right. Besides, this is moot. Most of this would be in licensed (18+) venues anyway.
In my view it is a bit like the "comedian" who feels that foul language is essential to their humour. I find their humour sadly lacking if it relies on foul language for its effect! The same can be said for "art" that seeks to be offensive in order to justify its classification as "art". It simply isn't.
So, the parent who sends their kid to a school where they get bullied, raises them a religion they come to regret, encourage their kids to play a sport where they get injured. Do they need protecting from their parents? Should we hand over all parental duties to the government?
No, not from their bodies. Those are indeed truly beautiful in all of their shapes and sizes. Children do need protecting but in my view the protection is from any adult, parent or otherwise, making decisions the child may later regret them making on their behalf. Adults in general, and parents in particular, have a responsibility to safeguard the future of their children against regrettable decisions. Ask any of the indigenous Australians of the stolen generation whether they feel any better that the adults who took them from their families believed they were doing so for their own good!
We ask 15 year olds to make life changing decisions - choose their senior subjects that will begin to determine their careers. MY GOD! They are not equipped for this most important decision. We should let the govt decide each student's subjects from now on, in case they make the wrong decision.
Decisions affecting us are very, very dangerous when made by us and for ourselves. They are potentially explosive when made by us for someone else, regardless of the underlying intention. After all, isn't that the point of the discussion on censorship too; people making decisions for other less mature people but with the best of intentions? For the record I think decisions that restrict, like censorship, are far less dangerous than those that abrogate choice by "opening up minds" that aren't yet equipped by experience to receive the input.
Duh! of course they were. Read up on the context of that play. Elizabethan England etc. Do you thin that Shakespeare's enduring (for centuries) themes were just a random fluke? wow!
No I don't think Romeo & Juliet is "inappropriate" but I do think your imputed reason for that is off the mark. Shakespeare's work may well address those issues in the context of today's society and its pressures, but I seriously doubt those issues were central to its themes when it was written!
Of course Shakespeare was commenting on the society he lived in; their attitudes to marriage, treatment of women etc. Otherwise, you seem to believe he was just writing a random.
It was a different age, and the distinction of their age was not so much an issue then. In those times 20 may well have been considered middle aged! People often died before they were 40. In THAT context the fact these lovers were also teenagers was probably less relevant than their emotional awakening.
Have you read the play? Have you read all the constant sexual imagery that starts on page one and continues to the very end? Your comment is rather like asking to teach about Hitler without mentioning the war... Crazy!
There is no need to sensationalise Romeo & Juliet in order to make it attractive to today's youth. What young people today still cannot relate to young lovers (in the purest sense) being torn apart by family and failing to recognise better alternatives for their future in the face of that? Why not focus on the issues that divided the two families? Why not focus on the alternatives that may have meant they were both able to avoid the tragedy of an early death by suicide and lost love? I guess sex still sells, eh, even in the classics?
D700 x 2 | Nikkor AF 50 f/1.8D | Nikkor AF 85 f/1.8D | Optex OPM2930 tripod/monopod | Enthusiasm ...
Books are published by corporations for profit! Your argument is seriously flawed! And FWIW IMHO there is never anything "obvious" (sic) about a government's views on anything!
