Opinions on this poster.
- Thread starter Zen21Tao
- Start date
- Status
GoRon
Member
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.
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.
cambeul41
Member
That's the point. Playboy is not under assault.
I agree that the McCain-Feingold Bill is a serious threat to the 1st amendment. .
Playboy isn’t 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.
I agree that the McCain-Feingold Bill is a serious threat to the 1st amendment. .
Playboy isn’t 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
Moderator Emeritus
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
My reactions:
http://geekwitha45.blogspot.com/2005_02_27_geekwitha45_archive.html#110974286152506019
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
My reactions:
http://geekwitha45.blogspot.com/2005_02_27_geekwitha45_archive.html#110974286152506019
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
Member
hso said:
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
Member
I’ll second seeker two’s thoughts, but the initial effort isn’t bad. It works both ways.
~G. Fink
~G. Fink
thumbody
Member
I do believe playboy is very anti-gun also, that would make the poster even more relevant.
GoRon
Member
[homer voice] DOOOH [homer voice]
I must post after second cup of coffee and not before!
XLMiguel
Member
Hmmmm, wasn't the Pentagon banning it from domestic PX's a while ago?
Standing Wolf
Member in memoriam
The heavy black border with reversed type is visually unappealing.
Smokey Joe
Member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2003
- Messages
- 2,617
Treatment of the 1st as opposed to the 2nd
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.)
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.)
- Status