DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**vSzsgifP** · 07-18-2008, 12:05 AM

Another fence-sitting response.

And still another.

Why don't you just take a position.

I specifically cited the Motion Picture Code because it was NOT mandated by government law. The studios had the right to continue making films without restriction; they formulated the code themselves because they feared public opinion that deemed some of their work in poor taste and irresponsible.

I think my position is very clear. This cover was irresponsible and in poor taste, despite that it was targeted as an attack on his detractors. I do not understand your confusion or your accusation.

Any ambivalence you may sense is the direct result of your attempts to portray my response as condoning censorship as indicated here:

If you're going to make the leap from an already-rascist-nutjob being prodded into action by a cartoon, then I can make a very looooong list of similar situations that should also require..what's the word I'm looking for
(bold added)

If censorship was not the word "you were looking for" than please tell me what was.
As I posted from the very beginning, just because you have the right to do something, doesn't mean you are acting responsibly when you do it.

As to the motion picture rating system, the parallel doesn't work for me, because frankly this hits too close to home. This man has been under the protection of the Secret Service for over 18 months now. He and his family receive death threats on a regular basis. Is it your position that anything they print is acceptable?? If not, how far is too far?? What if anything would they need to do to be over the top??

07-18-2008, 12:05 AM	#47
vSzsgifP Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 437 Senior Member	Another fence-sitting response. And still another. Why don't you just take a position. I specifically cited the Motion Picture Code because it was NOT mandated by government law. The studios had the right to continue making films without restriction; they formulated the code themselves because they feared public opinion that deemed some of their work in poor taste and irresponsible. I think my position is very clear. This cover was irresponsible and in poor taste, despite that it was targeted as an attack on his detractors. I do not understand your confusion or your accusation. Any ambivalence you may sense is the direct result of your attempts to portray my response as condoning censorship as indicated here: If you're going to make the leap from an already-rascist-nutjob being prodded into action by a cartoon, then I can make a very looooong list of similar situations that should also require..what's the word I'm looking for (bold added) If censorship was not the word "you were looking for" than please tell me what was. As I posted from the very beginning, just because you have the right to do something, doesn't mean you are acting responsibly when you do it. As to the motion picture rating system, the parallel doesn't work for me, because frankly this hits too close to home. This man has been under the protection of the Secret Service for over 18 months now. He and his family receive death threats on a regular basis. Is it your position that anything they print is acceptable?? If not, how far is too far?? What if anything would they need to do to be over the top??
	Quote