inconsistant on obscenity?
A while ago the fabric of American society was destroyed. Something so bad happened that our children were scared for life and it became the number one issue that had to be tackled to ensure that such immoral occurrences could never happen again in the USA.
Of course the only thing I could be talking about is the Janet Jackson wardrobe malfunction. Never in the history of the world has one breast damaged a nation so badly. And never has there been such an overreaction (IMO) to something that was really nothing.
So new rules were put in place and huge fines were imposed on the TV station that carried the incident live to protect us from such a graphic immoral sighting in the future.
Then just this evening I was watching Hannity and Colmes and Sean Hannity (without any warning) tried to make a partisan point by gratuitously showing the picture of saddam Hussain just after his body was taken down with the open wound on his neck close up detailed then asking the guest "would this have happened if the democrats had their way?" That was the sole context and purpose for his showing the image.
So the question is what is more obscene: Janet Jacksons breast or a close up image of someone that has just been executed (even if it was a brutal dictator)
I ask as it seems that those that demand puritan standard for images of healthy living females are celebrating the public spectacle of images of dead people.
I appreciate context can make a difference but this was not a news report, it was a gratuitous showing of a mutilated dead body.
Re: inconsistant on obscenity?
Hannity was just making the point that if the Dems had their way, he wouldn't have been able to show Saddam's neck injury is all.
When people all over America saw Janet's breast, it prompted questions about sex, homosexuality, and prompted mass jerkings offs of millions of our boys (underage I might add) and girls for that matter.
Re: inconsistant on obscenity?
America has long been the laughing stock over it's puritanical bullshit.
A nipple raises questions in congress whilst almost every program on TV has people being killed, gang violence, mutilated bodies, etc..
If the US went around the world fucking everyone instead of killing them it would be a far better place to live ... apart from all the illegitimate Yanks that is!
Re: inconsistant on obscenity?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Busyman™
Hannity was just making the point that if the Dems had their way, he wouldn't have been able to show Saddam's neck injury is all.
When people all over America saw Janet's breast, it prompted questions about sex, homosexuality, and prompted mass jerkings offs of millions of our boys (underage I might add) and girls for that matter.
The FCC's approach is at the very least questionable, double speak is pretty much what FCC is, allowing one thing and not the other. Yes context is a huge factor, but I mean come on. They showed the pictures of Saddam's sons when they died on CNN, pretty mutilated bodies.
No this was not an attack on Busy, I like his candor. Just a re-iteration of vid's post.
Can't have your cake and eat it too.
Re: inconsistant on obscenity?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ava Estelle
America has long been the laughing stock over it's puritanical bullshit.
A nipple raises questions in congress whilst almost every program on TV has people being killed, gang violence, mutilated bodies, etc..
If the US went around the world fucking everyone instead of killing them it would be a far better place to live ... apart from all the illegitimate Yanks that is!
I thought they had already done that during World War II, Y'All.:rolleyes:
