Question for our American friends?

[corydoras]

How do you react to reports like this when you guys are supposed to live in the Land of the Free and the bastion of Free Speach?

 

[ 18. November 2004, 02:20 PM: Message edited by: corydoras ]

[awaaar]

""I think the mood of the nation has been read more distinctly by Hollywood - certainly the mood of Hollywood has changed," said Ted Baehr, Chairman of the Christian Film and Television Commission."

 

the Cristian film and Television commission?

 

Christ on a bike!...are the yanks allowed to show anything on T.V........

 

What has Jesus got to do with T.V.?

[corydoras]

I don't know who they are mate, but if you take a peek here I am sure that you will agree that they need to find a decent web site designer... like fast man!

[awaaar]

"Warner Bros. is about to release the first in a series of movies based on the popular HARRY POTTER books. This movie will have an occult, New Age worldview that subtly encourages children to dabble in witchcraft and sorcery.

 

Although the Bible condemns such concepts in no uncertain terms, many parents will still allow their children to see this movie or read the book on which it's based, if they haven't done so already."

 

onnnvvvv the bible condems it.....no way Amelia is watching the next one then....no way! :mad:

 

god damn wizard!

[corydoras]

My 9 year old hates Harry Potter. He has no interest at all. I can just hear him now. "mais papa c'est nul, pas d'action" I am sure that he would rather watch the Private Ryan movie. Plien d'action!, baby!

[Jeff S]

I'll take a stab at your question Cory. I think what they meant by freedom of speech in our first amendment was that it applied when making a statement or in protest. You can say anything you want as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. F*** is a word I use occasionally but I wouldn't want my children to hear it (although she has). I'm just not sure it is a first amendment issue... possibly though now that I am looking, the commissioners are appointed by the president. I doubt it will become a supreme court issue but it clearly needs to be changed/updated.

 

My reaction? Tell'em to find something creative to do. Bunch of busy-bodies anyway.

 

[ 18. November 2004, 07:32 PM: Message edited by: Jeff S ]

[corydoras]

So how come porn sites and spammers use the first amendment?

[Jeff S]

You can start by looking at court cases and why it has progressed the way it has. Roth v. United States (1957), and Miller v. California (1973). Basically stated that the material must have serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. The internet being too broad an area. My meaning.. A city in Mississippi might find content of a website extremely objectionable while the same website in New York might not. Then look at Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002), where they found that pictures of adults, digitally altered to look like children, cannot be banned on that basis alone. It came down to the Communications Decency Act (1996) that made it a crime to transmit obscene material to anyone under 18 or to post it in a way that made it available to minors.

 

I have seen posts here that some find objectional and others don't. You can't please everyone. I've done it myself..