?

Log in

No account? Create an account
April 2017   01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
newdefault

news snippets

Posted on 2002.10.14 at 17:45
foobiwan will love this one.

bad taste under increasing legislative attack around the world.

LDS church apparently finds free speech "unprecedented and troubling".

Comments:


Vague as I wanna be
missloo12 at 2002-10-14 20:35 (UTC) (Link)
only for one block... i mean, come on, wouldn't it be nice to have just one block where people can't hassle you about wether you've accepted Jesus?
Generation Y's Howard Beale
dk at 2002-10-15 16:25 (UTC) (Link)
that's not the issue here- what's being stifled is "any view opposing that of the church". if the decision had gone the other way, you'd still get hassled about accepting jesus; but you could be sure you'd only hear about one version of said story.

they're attempting to make their morality set apply to the public in general; free speech is just one of the things they're looking to suppress.

for instance, the bit regarding spitting and smoking- some people find these acts distasteful. i can understand that, but one person/group's desire for an environment completely devoid of "things they don't like" infringes upon the rights of everyone else who might want to exist in "their space" as well.
Vague as I wanna be
missloo12 at 2002-10-16 16:44 (UTC) (Link)
just as much as i believe in free speech, i believe in being able to have space free from free speech. granted, most people try and make that space their back yard, not their front. but it's one block, they've been paying for it, i don't see anything wrong with that. I also don't see anything wrong with the law saying you can't own the sidewalk. or something :)
betternewthings at 2002-10-15 09:23 (UTC) (Link)
bad taste? hardly. while the nanny-state legislation that is behind that ruling is depressing, the fact is the baby in question does have civil rights, and if the baby didn't sign an employment contract and negotiate compensation, it should not be filmed.

oh, and it looks like Saddam's Ba'ath Socialist Party has been elected again!

http://news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,5294515%255E1702,00.html
Generation Y's Howard Beale
dk at 2002-10-15 16:40 (UTC) (Link)
bad taste? hardly. while the nanny-state legislation that is behind that ruling is depressing, the fact is the baby in question does have civil rights, and if the baby didn't sign an employment contract and negotiate compensation, it should not be filmed.

wait- child actors don't sign their own contracts, their parents do. how is this any different? were the babies born in those videos we watched in junior-high Sex Ed fairly compensated?

the issue i have with this is that these people didn't do anything that hasn't been done before- they filmed a live birth; what's bringing up the legal issue is how they're marketing their product.

should an otherwise innocuous act become illegal simply because somebody enjoys beating off to a video of it?
betternewthings at 2002-10-16 08:34 (UTC) (Link)

Re:

fair enough. given that videotaping of birth is allowed for one purpose, it should not be banned simply for another purpose.

i have some qualms about the extent some to diminish the civil rights of others, including the ability of parents to diminish the civil rights of children.
Previous Entry  Next Entry