quote:1) Laws against having an entertainment screen within view of the vehicle's driver. I don't recall if this is a state or nation thing, but it is supposed to be illegal to have any kind of entertainment (TV) screen within view of the driver so as not to cause a dangerous distraction.
The screens in question were not necessarily in view of the driver. Usually these TV's are positioned so the back seat are the only seats which can see them.
quote: 2) Copyright laws against public broadcast of copywritten material. as camus pointed out, once it is easily accessible from anyone around you it is no longer a private viewing.
I seriously doubt this would apply. If I take a TV, face it so that people can see it through my windows, nobody could accuse me of infringing on copyright laws. Besides, this would apply for other things, such as displaying SpongeBob Squarepants.
quote: 3) Public indecency, the laws against public nudity should apply here as well through the same basis as the copywright argument.
This might apply, though I would think it varies by state. I think you would have trouble prosecuting anyone for it, however, when displaying it in your car. Maybe I am wrong though.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Mena Suvari topless in American Beauty is pornography. See, it wasn't really that hard.
Ah, so at least one person here appears to believe that you should be able to be arrested for watching the Best Picture of 1999 in your car.
I generally don't like slippery slope arguments, but I hope that others can now see why caution is required.
No I agree too. It's art if you choose to watch it as art, but you can't guarantee that it will be seen that way if you display it to strangers. In other words, if you want to watch things like that in your car, get tinted windows and roll them up.
There would most certainly be laws against this is Australia, as well as just about every other country in the world. But if there wasn't for Americans, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised.
Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
According to pH's description, I think these screens were pointed out the windows, so that nobody in the car would have been able to see them. This wasn't a case of someone viewing something and the public being able to see by accident. This person deliberately positioned the screens so that ONLY people outside of his car could see them.
That's what I got from the original post, anyway...
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: Take this a step further then, please. Would african tribal documentaries also qualify? Medical documentaries? Skimpy near-nudity in music videos and cheesy B movies? Sex scenes with no nudity? Brief nudity of a male rear-end, such as what Micheal Douglas is known for?
I can play the same game, X. If American Beauty is alright, how about Showgirls? A homemade video of a stripping contest? Are Playboy movies alright? Hustler (I assume they make movies)?
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I can play the same game, X. If American Beauty is alright, how about Showgirls? A homemade video of a stripping contest? Are Playboy movies alright? Hustler (I assume they make movies)?
You are missing my entire point. Nowhere did I argue anything about what should or should not be allowed.
In fact, my entire point quickly summed up is this: "Determining where to draw the line is difficult, and great caution should be used in doing so. Furthermore, I challenge anyone who claims that drawing the line is easy."
I attacked your statement:
quote:Mena Suvari topless in American Beauty is pornography. See, it wasn't really that hard.
Not because I disagreed with it, but because you appeared to say: "It's not hard to distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable. See, American Beauty is unacceptable, wasn't that easy?"
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
i think Xavier might be referring to the link camus posted two thirds down the first page of this thread. Either that, or he/she didn't read the original post.
Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
any picture or video that displays anyones genital or pubic areas qualifies as pornography. and Xavier, just because a movie won the "best picture" award does not mean that it is not pornography.
Rakeesh: i was merely asking you what delusion could make you think that pornography is a form of expression. viewing pornography is thinking of those pictured in it as sex objects, and victimizing them by doing so, in order to feed your fetishes. and just because the producers of porbnography say that it is a form of speech does not make that true.
Primal Curve:poeple who watch pornography (or who look at it) are perverts because, as i said, they victimize those who are featured in pornography just because they get sexual pleasure from doing so. this is what makes thaem a pervert.
Posts: 10 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
ok, so remove the first possible violation from my argument for this case if the driver couldn't see, but I'd stand by the other two as at least possible violations of law.
Xavier, I think 2+3 go hand-in-hand, because if you can argue the public indecency that means you were publicly displaying copywritten material. And yes, I think that showing a spongebob movie in this manner would also violate #2 according to the letter of the law (though note this is not coming from a legal authority figure or anything)
And keep in mind that thinking it violates laws doesn't necessarily mean that I agree the laws are right or wrong, just that I think they exist.
Peter, you make a good point here on the fuzzyness of trying to draw a line as to where nudity and sexuality is appropriate/acceptable and not.
the key example here as I see it: Showgirls vs American Beauty (keeping in mind that I know a lot of people that would consider Amercian Beauty trash anyway, but for a moment let's accept it as art). in principle they both may have been trying to use sex in an artful way and for an artful purpose, so what draws the line between them? was it the fact that showgirls was a bad movie? was it the amount of nudity/sex that one versus the other contained? was there something more subtle that allows American Beauty to be considered art and not porn?
Now I'm not saying that I necessarily think that it's appropriate to show American Beauty in a public setting... it's still rated R, and thus there is an age restriciton which could be violated, and some people are offended by the movie in general.
however, the line needs to be drawn somewhere, the problem is that there has been no type of universal agreement as to what is considered pornography and what isnt. The statue of David is almost universally accepted as art and not pornography (I only know of a very few particularly vehement puritans who would object) and Backdoor S***s 9 would certainly be viewed as pornography, but what are the criteria that all or most can agree on as the line to draw?
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:You are missing my entire point. Nowhere did I argue anything about what should or should not be allowed.
In fact, my entire point quickly summed up is this: "Determining where to draw the line is difficult, and great caution should be used in doing so. Furthermore, I challenge anyone who claims that drawing the line is easy."
The point of law isn't to tell people what they can and can't do, it's to protect others from having those actions/views/etc on them.
Individuals decide where to draw the line, not government. Laws (government) simply allows them to do so.
Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:any picture or video that displays anyones genital or pubic areas qualifies as pornography. and Xavier, just because a movie won the "best picture" award does not mean that it is not pornography.
I'm assuming here that you do not consider a woman's breasts to be "genitals or pubic areas", would that be correct?
If so, that's a pretty narrow definition actually, most of my examples would not apply.
In fact, no "soft-core" porn would apply either.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry, X, I guess I was dramatically misinterpreting your point. I admitted, in the same post you quoted, that it's not easy and that legal scholars struggle with the issue all the time. It's not easy to do, and if my flippancy about American Beauty was taken as evidence that it's easy to define reasonable limits, I'm sorry.
I guess in my view it's not all that hard to decide what is pornographic and what isn't, but much more difficult to determine whether a piece's other facets constitute sufficient reason to overlook the pornographic elements when making a decision about public decency. To nitpick, I would say the scene of Mena Suvari topless is pornographic; however I would not say that necessarily means American Beauty should be termed pornographic.
Look at it this way; if someone took that scene, cut it from its context, and looped it repeatedly, would it be appropriate for public display?
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
From a completely different viewpoint, I think no one driving a car should be able to watch movies (regardless of content) while they are driving. That's what, in my mind, should be outlawed.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kyvin, I can't help but further question your sentiments here...
what about clear works of art such as greek sculpture. or how about nude photography, much of which has no intention of being sexually stimulating (I'm primarily thinking of very respectful and artistic photography, which is generally intended to glorify the human body etc...)
what are your views on those topics?
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kyvin: I'll admit I don't get why pornography is so huge. (well, ok, it turns guys and some women on. I get it from that angle. But I don't get why it turns them on.)
But the thing is, the second you start limiting stuff that doesn't effect an unwilling victim YOU are the one who is doing something immoral.
It's hard enough to find happiness in this world without busy-bodies sticking their noses in where it doesn't belong. People have a right to pursue that happiness. It's one of the basic principles of our country. And before you step on your soapbox think about the things you might like, that harms no one, that SOMEONE things is evil.
Like eating meat. Like being christian. Like reading Science Fiction.
Anything you do is going to be evil to someone, so please, step off your high horse and learn that other people are different than you. What it takes to make them happy is different. Let them be happy and hope that they let you be happy.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: If you can't imagine it, JT, you're not trying very hard, I'd say. People try and determine what content other people can consume all the time. For instance, snuff films. Opposition to viewing such things could hardly be considered based on a 'narrow' preconception of what is 'right', no?
I was under the impression that it is illegal to make a (real) snuff film, because, y'know, there's murder involved. But is there a law against making or viewing a fake one?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, tell you what. I'll swap my right to view porn for your right to be Christian, or whatever theist cult you subscribe to.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Oddly enough, some people actually feel empowered because others view them in a sexual manner. "
I think that's sad.
I know it's entirely judgemental, yadda yadda, but such power is an illusion. It's not real power - it's a borrowing of real power. It's given as an indulgence, unless someone really does get so addled by sex they lose their minds, in which case power over such a loser isn't something to be proud of.
Did y'all read the beginning of Hart's Hope?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Xavier: by my definition, any gender-specific organ is a genital. that was what i meant when i said "any genitals or pubic areas". also any sexually stimulating image (at least one that was intended to be) qualifies as pornography.
TheGrimace: artistic photography of nude or partially nude poeple is just pornography under a different name. all that drivel about it "glorifying the human body" is just bulldung.
Posts: 10 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kyvin, what about countries where the women walk aroung topless? Should all the guys have to walk around with their eyes closed?
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kyvin: Xavier: by my definition, any gender-specific organ is a genital. that was what i meant when i said "any genitals or pubic areas". also any sexually stimulating image (at least one that was intended to be) qualifies as pornography.
TheGrimace: artistic photography of nude or partially nude poeple is just pornography under a different name. all that drivel about it "glorifying the human body" is just bulldung.
So what would you call a nude beach?
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think what Kyvin is trying to say is that anything which is intentionally sexually stimulating is pornographic, and furthermore that all pornography is bad.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I think what Kyvin is trying to say is that anything which is intentionally sexually stimulating is pornographic, and furthermore that all pornography is bad.
I find that way to broad. Under that definition all women should be dressed like they do in the conservative Muslim countries.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kyvin: any picture or video that displays anyones genital or pubic areas qualifies as pornography. and Xavier, just because a movie won the "best picture" award does not mean that it is not pornography.
Rakeesh: i was merely asking you what delusion could make you think that pornography is a form of expression. viewing pornography is thinking of those pictured in it as sex objects, and victimizing them by doing so, in order to feed your fetishes. and just because the producers of porbnography say that it is a form of speech does not make that true.
Primal Curve:poeple who watch pornography (or who look at it) are perverts because, as i said, they victimize those who are featured in pornography just because they get sexual pleasure from doing so. this is what makes thaem a pervert.
By this logic, a man is a pervert if he looks at his wife and gets sexual pleasure from doing so. He is therefore victimizing her, especially if he asks her to dress up in outfits, because that is clearly feeding his fetishes and turning her into an object.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
camus: of course medical diagrams and textbooks are not pornography, nor is a doctor who reads them a pervert. medical diagrams and textbooks are nessacary. however, are you saying that every pervert who looks at pornography is doing so for medical purposes?
Posts: 10 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kyvin: camus: of course medical diagrams and textbooks are not pornography, nor is a doctor who reads them a pervert. medical diagrams and textbooks are nessacary. however, are you saying that every pervert who looks at pornography is doing so for medical purposes?
Well.... They say what men do with it can reduce the likelihood of prostate cancer....
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:camus: of course medical diagrams and textbooks are not pornography, nor is a doctor who reads them a pervert. medical diagrams and textbooks are nessacary. however, are you saying that every pervert who looks at pornography is doing so for medical purposes?
Okay, you haven't made much sense yet, but this particular post is barely lucid.
You do your beliefs a disservice by having thought them through so poorly.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anna: Yeah, but I thought that would needlessly confuse poor Kyvin. The thought of women deriving sexual satisfaction from anything might be too much for him/her.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:of course medical diagrams and textbooks are not pornography, nor is a doctor who reads them a pervert.
I just wanted to make sure that you did understand that not all depictions of a person's genital area are for sexually arousing reasons. So it is entirely possible for a movie to win a best picture award and still not be considered pornography by normal people.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Regardless of whether or not it is illegal for PornMan to spread his Good News on the highway, I think it's in bad taste. Severely bad taste. I mean, I'm really careful about what kinds of movies I watch on my laptop on airplanes because I don't want little kids to see something that their parents wouldn't want them seeing. The fact that two of the screens were pointed directly out toward others and couldn't be seen from inside the car at all just quadruples his classiness. Because everyone loves a guy who watches hardcore porn in public. I mean, who knows how "distracted" he was while driving?
posted
Jim-me : or, you know, push them in an elevator and block it for a day or two. With a water and food provision.
Posts: 3526 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
FYI, and probably out of date, but it summarizes the legislation at that time.
There are a lot of jerks in this world. It is apparent to me that liking or disliking porn is far from a useful distinguisher of either jerkdom or ability to think through a coherent position on the matter.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kyvin, so you accept that there are cases where someone can view another's naked form (either in person or in artificial depiction) though medical purposes are the only ones you've identified so far as acceptable.
What if I could convince you that there are other forms of expression/viewing which did not involve any sort of intent to/actual sexual arousal? i.e. when I look at a statue of David or Venus etc that I am purely appreciating the art for art's sake?
But in any case, while I respect your right to hold those views personally, I can't help but feel that the attitude you've expressed so far on the topic is why America is often considered so puritan and prudish. It seems extreme to not allow for any appreciation of human sexuality, which is such a great gift we have.
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kyvin: Are you one of the people who supported John Ashcroft's needless spending of tax payer money on a tarp to cover the statue of lady justice? Apparently Ashcroft subscribes to your opinion that all nudity is thinly veiled pornogrophy. Even that of symbolic statues. Thanks to opinions like yours this country can continue to live in the dark ages. Next on the useless spending agenda: Cover up the David! Venus de milo! All Classial Greek and Roman Art! Don't look at the human body, it might make you unclean! Unclean! What a crock.
In response to the original topic of this post: pH you are totally right to be disgusted by PornMan's behavior. People who don't want to watch porn should not be forced to, unwittinigly, because they happen to be driving down the road. That guy obviously had some issues and doesn't understand that 'free country' means that I am free to not watch hardcore porn while driving.
Posts: 511 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Statue of Venus hardly makes for a good example. To my knowledge, no sculture has ever done female genetalia its true justice.
Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Are you one of the people who supported John Ashcroft's needless spending of tax payer money on a tarp to cover the statue of lady justice?
Are you one of the people who supported needless spending of money for a statue of lady justice?
In both cases, money was spent on artistic impression. Presumably, the person who installed the statue did so thinking the nudity was good. Ashcroft's adding of the tarp was based on his thinking the nudity bad. Why is the opinion of the original procurer of the statue (or yours, for that matter) more important than Ashcroft's?
I'm not agreeing with anyone's definition of pornography here, but your casual dismissal of other's opinions ("What a crock") is hardly on a different plane than some of the ones being complained about here.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
...i can't imagine what kind of perverted person would think it is a "right" to even look at pornography in private...
[waves at Kyvin]
Frankly, I don't really care what's playing. I don't want television screens visible by other drivers no matter what's playing on them. We don't need more distractions, and frankly seeing "Spider-Man" in another car would probably grab my attention as much as a porn movie.
As for the idiot displaying his junk - we get that here every year during Spring Break and Black College Reunion. Arrest them for public displays of lewdness, public nudity, creating a disturbance, and other rewordings of "You're being a jerk in public." The guy displaying porn to the world is just as annoying to me as the people telling me that my enjoyment of any representation of a naked person is eeeevil.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've got to take a picture of the front of my daughter's middle school. Way up near the top is what I think would be described as a classical frieze. The school was originally the high school, then a junior high (grades 7-9) and is now the second middle school (grades 7-8).
I'll try to get a photo and post a link later - at the risk of posting to material that might be considered inappropriate.
I mentioned earlier that I saw a full frontal female photo posted in the window of a car at our local mall. I was offended - I consider that porn. (typed that pron twice ) However, I don't take the frieze on the middle school in the same way. I guess it's a matter of perspective. For one thing, the building has four floors, IIRC, and the frieze is waaayyyy up at the top. It's difficult to see the details. Also, the details are not the same. I can't identify specific parts of genitalia from the frieze - it would have been possible with the picture I mentioned.
I think pH's post covered two issues - porn and driving while distracted. No driver should be watching movies while driving. Also, people who watch porn should watch it privately, without broadcasting.
Posts: 2034 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've now seen this "Lady Justice" with and without the Tarp change. I don't get how you could think she looks better without it.
Seems to me, by her being the very personification of the US legal system, that her being blindfolded should be more important, than that her breast(s?-- sorry there's multiple versions of the old one) being exposed.
I know which factor I would notice first if I walked by her... or does that just make me a pervert? Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Sure, this stance seems all reasonable and whatnot to your (probably teenage) ears, but let's see what you say after you get a few years and some kids under your belt.
posted
And when my drawing class paid to have a nude male model come in, we were obviously victimizing him by not averting our eyes and becoming aroused by learning to draw the shadow-and-light patterns on the human muscular architecture. Posts: 3636 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
) However, I don't take the frieze on the middle school in the same way. I guess it's a matter of perspective. For one thing, the building has four floors, IIRC, and the frieze is waaayyyy up at the top. It's difficult to see the details. Also, the details are not the same. I can't identify specific parts of genitalia from the frieze - it would have been possible with the picture I mentioned.
