 |
|
mrmitchell
|
|
quote:
Yea, this wouldn't fly in the US. We have a much more 'liberal' interpretation of free speech here than Europe. |
...unless it's about boobies or pot.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
 |
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DanS
Obviously, you didn't account for the fact that the US has by far the largest porn industry in the world. |
And in which country was there a huge fuss over a woman's nearly naked breast?
Just one, not even a full serve of a whole nekkid as a jaybird bosom.
Germany has a thriving porn industry, therefore it must have great free speech too.
Thailand as well. And Japan. Except they don't show pubic hair.
Banned in the U. S. A. :
'In America, the leading enforcer of this "deprave and corrupt" standard was Anthony Comstock, a grocery clerk-turned social activist who persuaded Congress in 1873 to expand the federal obscenity law. The new "Comstock Law" barred sending through the mails not only "any obscene, lewd, or lascivious book, pamphlet, picture, print, or other publication of vulgar and indecent character," but "any article or thing designed or intended for the prevention of contraception or procuring of abortion." '
'The Supreme Court finally confronted the obscenity issue in 1957. In Roth v. United States, Justice William Brennan wrote for the Court that even though sex is "a great and mysterious motive force in human life," and "a subject of absorbing interest to mankind through the ages," sexual materials that have a predominantly "prurient" appeal to the average adult, and that utterly lack "redeeming social importance," are not protected by the First Amendment. '
'The Supreme Court's use of "contemporary community standards" in Miller v. California to define criminally punishable obscenity means that the law evolves along with social mores. Thus, in the decades since Miller, pornography has become a highly profitable industry in the U.S.; sexually explicit material is produced and distributed outside the commercial pornography industry by amateurs and publishers of personal Web sites; sex talk is pervasive on nonprofit listserves; and obscenity prosecutions have been sporadic and unpredictable.
This does not mean that pornographers have nothing to fear from obscenity law today; but, as a practical matter, legal controls on sexual expression now tend to take more indirect, primarily non-criminal forms. '
'Yet artists who address sexuality or even simple nudity in their work are often denied public display space. The problem frequently arises after a town official chooses an art exhibit or delegates the job to a local curator, but then someone complains that one or more works in the show are offensive, "pornographic," inappropriate for children, or a form of "sexual harassment." The offending works are removed; official "no nudity" policies sometimes follow.'
http://www.fepproject.org/factsheet...censorship.html
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
|
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DinoDoc
Do you really want to compare anti-terror laws in the US and UK? You wouldn't like the answer you'd get. |
No, but then the United States hasn't had the problem of British citizens and politicians aiding and lending credence to terrorist campaigns on United States' soil and against its citizens abroad since 1969.
Put the war on terror in the United Kingdom into an American perspective:
if the deaths and casualties from 1969-1980 in Northern Ireland alone were translated into American deaths and damages, then given that at the start of the Troubles the American population was roughly 130-140 times that of Northern Ireland's, the death toll would be:
276 000 dead, and 1 and one half million injured.
In one decade.
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/index.html
In the same ten year period, over 200 million pounds was paid out for compensation in damages to property in the province, and in 1979 the British taxpayer's bill for subsidizing the economy of an already depressed area was 860 million pounds.
American ambassadors would have been assassinated in London, American senators and members of congress murdered where they worked, American state governors killed, Americans gathered in bars assassinated en masse, in year after year of bombing campaigns, to say nothing of the routine deaths of soldiers and police by sniper fire, land mines, rocket attacks and death by handguns and torture.
Consider the amount of manpower and materiel fom the British Army diverted to the Province, at a time when the Cold War was at its most frigid.
In point of fact, the Republic of Ireland's laws relating to terrorism and terrorists were harsher than those of the United Kingdom, but then its security services and banks had suffered at the hands of the I.R.A. and Loyalist terror groups too.
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/events/dublin/chron.htm
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:35.
Apolyton Time is 00:35. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
28-07-2004 03:07
I don't think you comprehend, Europeans don't see you as being particularly 'free'.
|