|
Grex > Agora35 > #72: Can you ever have too much skank? | |
|
| Author |
Message |
bdh3
|
|
Can you ever have too much skank?
| 
Oct 8 09:10 UTC 2000 |
Paula Jones is apparently fully disclosing in the next issue of
_Penthouse_. The 'article' for those of you that actually read that rag
instead of merely slobber over the pictures is titled "Paula Jones
Uncovered! She shows all, she tells all: How the Far Right used and
abused her to destroy Clinton". Hmmm. No, I'm gonna wait for a
monica,hillary, and paula threesome issue...Now That would be Skank.
|
| 47 responses total. |
jerryr
|
|
response 1 of 47:
|
Oct 8 11:24 UTC 2000 |
i'll wait for her apprearance on "the rosie o'donnel" show
|
happyboy
|
|
response 2 of 47:
|
Oct 8 16:36 UTC 2000 |
its 2 bad about the nose job
|
mikep
|
|
response 3 of 47:
|
Oct 9 00:24 UTC 2000 |
Funny that Flynt should be publishing an article bashing the opponents of an
administration that poses a grave threat to his business. Once Tipper Gore
and Prince Albert get done with rap music lyrics and violent Hollywood movies,
who does he think's going to be next in line?
|
scg
|
|
response 4 of 47:
|
Oct 9 01:53 UTC 2000 |
Given that the courts aren't going to let them censor movies, I'm not terribly
concerned. From what I've seen, that's not what Gore or Leiberman has tried
to do anyway. There's a big difference between saying they don't like what's
currently in the movies, and actual censorship.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 5 of 47:
|
Oct 9 02:20 UTC 2000 |
When did Flynt buy Penthouse from Guccione?
|
mary
|
|
response 6 of 47:
|
Oct 9 03:16 UTC 2000 |
I believe Leiberman has gone a bit further than stating his
dislike for some of entertainment's content to suggesting
it's time for Hollywood to have some limits imposed.
Yuck.
|
brighn
|
|
response 7 of 47:
|
Oct 9 03:22 UTC 2000 |
He didn't. Mike was obviously confusing Penthouse and Hustler.=}
|
senna
|
|
response 8 of 47:
|
Oct 9 05:24 UTC 2000 |
But... byut... that's waht the right was saying! He can't do that.
|
mdw
|
|
response 9 of 47:
|
Oct 9 05:59 UTC 2000 |
It may surprise scg to learn that "they" have been censoring movies
since the 1930's. Also, Tipper Gore, not too many years ago, was
arguing pretty strongly for a very similar system for the audio
industry.
|
scg
|
|
response 10 of 47:
|
Oct 9 06:14 UTC 2000 |
"They" is the Motion Picture Association of America, not the Government. I
suppose you could look at the right of the movie companies to submit their
movies to MPAA review, and the right of theater owners to base decisions about
what to show on that review process, is an important part of free speech.
There certainly are movies released periodically that don't go through that
process, and there are theaters that show them.
|
mdw
|
|
response 11 of 47:
|
Oct 9 08:27 UTC 2000 |
*Ah* - but is that really so big a difference? MPAA has a de facto
monopoly; the number of movies, theaters, & audience share that are an
exception to this monopoly is vanishingly small. MPAA is largely
controlled by big business interests - the very same people who have a
decided advantage in their say over what the gov't does. Their idea of
"free" speech may not match our notions here. McCarthy in the 50's was
dealing with a movie industry that was much more fragmented and
independent than is the case today, and a lot of those changes are
recent.
|
jp2
|
|
response 12 of 47:
|
Oct 9 14:30 UTC 2000 |
This response has been erased.
|
brighn
|
|
response 13 of 47:
|
Oct 9 16:27 UTC 2000 |
Yes and no. When the gov't perceives that "voluntary" rating systems aren't
being inforced, they call committees and threaten to MAKE it binding.
I actually support the THEORY of product labelling and rating so that parents
can make informed decisions. While I think that it's ultimately the parents'
responsibility, no parent can be aware of every entertainment product on the
market.
What I *don't* support is government intervention in the form of dictating
that *NO* child be exposed to materials the government deems harmful. If the
parent is aware of the content of material and still chooses to allow their
child to be exposed to it, that's their choice. Only in EXTREME cases should
the government step in, and then it should be to strip the parent of custody
because it's crossed over into abuse.
|
tod
|
|
response 14 of 47:
|
Oct 9 19:21 UTC 2000 |
I wouldn't want my child to be a pilot viewer for Saving Private Ryan either.
To me, it IS an extreme case worth stepping in on. Have any of you actually
read what they're talking about doing?
|
scg
|
|
response 15 of 47:
|
Oct 10 02:12 UTC 2000 |
The MPAA has a defacto monopoly becaues movie companies and movie theater
companies allow it to. That's a very different issue than an enforced
government monopoly. Movies do come out periodically that are not rated, and
theaters, generally small independant theaters, do show them. For the
government to censor movie content would be a blatant first ammendment
violation. Lieberman is a smart man. He's also a lawyer. He's not going
to try that, no matter how he feels about the issue. In the interviews I've
seen of him on the subject, he's said that he hopes the movie industry will
produce more of the kind of movies he approves of, but that it's not
goverment's place to force them to do that.
|
mdw
|
|
response 16 of 47:
|
Oct 10 02:50 UTC 2000 |
Different to you, maybe, not to me. One of the big points of a
democracy is that it's the numbers that matter. Something that allows a
small number of persons to control information sent to a lot of people
undermines the foundation of democracy. I'm not sure why I should feel
comforted they're a private organization. The Boy Scouts are a private
organization too. Seems pretty clear to me that if the MPAA should
suddenly get it into its head that nobody should be looking at belly
buttons, there won't be very many belly buttons in the theater.
Perhaps belly buttons don't matter, but how about the portrayal of
people who report on corporate crimes? The fact there's a small
audience of independent film makers seems to me even more of a moot
point. So what? It's a numbers game, and these numbers count even
less than a vote for Nader.
Regarding Leiberman's promises, um, did you see his lips move?
Seriously, though, he's only a very small part of the problem, and I'm
really a lot more worried about Gore. If a proposal came through
congress that said all web sites must be content rated, I'm not sure
that I would trust Gore to do the right thing and veto such a bill.
I'm not sure I would trust Bush to do so either. This bothers me.
|
md
|
|
response 17 of 47:
|
Oct 10 11:59 UTC 2000 |
It's disgusting to see party-line Democrats lock-stepping away from the
First Amendment. They're stuck with a couple of lemons, so they're
making lemonade. The arguments are so contorted and labored. Same way
they all turned into bomb-the-shit-out-of-'em military hawks during
Clinton's various bombing raids. "The best lack all conviction, while
the worst are full of passionate intensity."
|
brighn
|
|
response 18 of 47:
|
Oct 10 15:38 UTC 2000 |
I'm also disgusted to see so-called Democrats turning on the First Amendment
when PC demands it. The major niggle I have about Gore is, has been, and will
continue to be the "tipper Sticker."
|
tod
|
|
response 19 of 47:
|
Oct 10 15:47 UTC 2000 |
She wanted an inch, and went for a mile. She got the sticker. Is that rating
system such a harmful thing?
No one has been banned from consuming music as a result.
The big issue regarding MPAA is the same we're seeing with the
tobacco industry. Very little difference when you look
at it.
|
johnnie
|
|
response 20 of 47:
|
Oct 10 16:50 UTC 2000 |
Ah, but many places will not carry stickered music (WalMart comes to
mind), and if those places are the only ones in town that carry music...
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 21 of 47:
|
Oct 10 16:54 UTC 2000 |
Then you order from the Internet.
|
tod
|
|
response 22 of 47:
|
Oct 10 17:03 UTC 2000 |
WalMart had David Lee Roth change the cover of his "Best Of" CD. They
do that with many of their music sales. People don't have to buy
their msuic selections at Walmart...heheh..I would hope NOT. *chuckle*
As for the MPAA stuff, they're looking at regulating studio audience
profiles..like keeping kids out of gory bloodbath movies as a test
audience. I don't see anything wrong with that. Hey, as long as I can
escort my kid to any movie I deem suitable, what's the problem?
|
scott
|
|
response 23 of 47:
|
Oct 10 17:07 UTC 2000 |
Small towns quite don't have a record store besides the one at Wal-Mart or
other huge store. So if Wal-Mart decides not to carry something, it's at
least partially censored. Also, record companies will try to make releases
more "tipper friendly" to avoid losing sales from chain bans.
Can we say "chilling effect"?
|
tod
|
|
response 24 of 47:
|
Oct 10 17:14 UTC 2000 |
They already do that..that is, folks like Rob Zombie and Marilyn Manson.
But hey, if you want to chew bubble gum, you can have any flavor.
Personally, I go for the less palatable of main stream.
|