Opinions on this poster.


PDA






Zen21Tao
April 28, 2006, 04:55 AM
http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/2327/motivationhypocrisy1gf.jpg

If you enjoyed reading about "Opinions on this poster." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
GoRon
April 28, 2006, 09:29 AM
I am less interested in porn than the regulation of political speech.

You should have a blank TV that says add pulled due to it being 60 days before an election (McCain-Feingold Bill).

I wasn't aware that Playboy was under government assault.:rolleyes:

cambeul41
April 28, 2006, 09:45 AM
I agree that the McCain-Feingold Bill is a serious threat to the 1st amendment. .

Playboy isnít under government assault, nor is it under assault by MSM. It is protected by the 1st amendment. However, the second amendment itself is being attacked by both MSM and several big city governments.

geekWithA.45
April 28, 2006, 09:58 AM
I like it.

It's a two edge sword, that cuts both ways.

"Porn" is periodically under attack from the dark authoritarians of right. Guns are consistently under attack from the dark collectivists of the left.

Another variant might be the legal trade of sex toys in the state of Alabama, a law both enacted and upheld. (I'll have to see if I can dig out the Alabama supreme court majority opinion. It was amusingly preposterous, holding that sex toys were a threat to public morals and decency.)

Update!

Here's more on that:

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_307613.html


Alabama argued its sex-toy ban " ... and related orgasm stimulating paraphernalia is rationally related to a legitimate legislative interest in discouraging prurient interests in autonomous sex." And that "it is enough for a legislature to reasonably believe that commerce in the pursuit of orgasms by artificial means for their own sake is detrimental to the health and morality of the State."

The court agreed.


My reactions:
http://geekwitha45.blogspot.com/2005_02_27_geekwitha45_archive.html#110974286152506019

hso
April 28, 2006, 10:00 AM
I don't think you want to associate the two if you're trying to reach the American public in general instead of the more narrow adolescent to 30-something males.

seeker_two
April 28, 2006, 11:40 AM
I don't think you want to associate the two if you're trying to reach the American public in general instead of the more narrow adolescent to 30-something males.

Agreed. Maybe (suppressing a shudder) you could use a magazine cover with someone like Cindy Sheehan, Pat Robertson, or others who express unpopular views, yet are protected by the 1st...

Gordon Fink
April 28, 2006, 11:56 AM
Iíll second seeker twoís thoughts, but the initial effort isnít bad. It works both ways.

~G. Fink

thumbody
April 28, 2006, 12:06 PM
I do believe playboy is very anti-gun also, that would make the poster even more relevant.

GoRon
April 28, 2006, 09:32 PM
I wasn't aware that Playboy was under government assault.

That's the point. Playboy is not under assault.

[homer voice] DOOOH [homer voice]

I must post after second cup of coffee and not before! :D

XLMiguel
April 28, 2006, 09:43 PM
That's the point. Playboy is not under assault.

Hmmmm, wasn't the Pentagon banning it from domestic PX's a while ago?

Standing Wolf
April 28, 2006, 09:46 PM
The heavy black border with reversed type is visually unappealing.

Smokey Joe
April 28, 2006, 10:58 PM
For starters, this is art work, and the only person to whom it must appeal is the artist.

But you asked for opinions. So: I'd rather see a representation of the news media, with their so-called right to intrude on families who have just suffered a grave personal tragedy and ask, on national television, questions that my grandmother would have said are nobody's business, and their leaping to the defense of their salacious presentations ("if it bleeds, it leads!" The only thing better than a hurt puppy is a bleeding kid!) and standing on a vigorously defended 1st amendment right. But they ignore relatively boring items, like congressional hearings on laws that will affect us all.

These same news "media people" hit on firearms whenever they can, as inherently dangerous and something that should be left to the "experts," i.e. the military and police. They often make it clear with their biased and uninformed statements that they know little about the subject, and didn't bother to check the accuracy of what they say.

Now, THAT'S hypocrisy!! (Do you get the general idea that I have a quite low opinion of TV news? The print people aren't much better, as a rule.)

If you enjoyed reading about "Opinions on this poster." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!