Hi all,
On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 11:01:54 -0400 Carol Moore DC carolmooredc@verizon.net wrote:
May she kick a little censorship butt all over the planet - in fact most or all of it!
If she can, then it sounds good. All the power to her, and good luck on her future endeavours. I noticed that people who have the right attitude, can start from being "awesome" and become more and more "awesome" in time (despite popular belief that your mind must deteriorate with age).
Censorship deserves its ass to be kicked, and I think that trying to block or filter the Internet in the name of "think of the children" or "preventing copyright infringement" is stupid and will likely be futile (as the recent revolution in Egypt proved).
(Kiddie porn and Network/Cable and internet porn depicting torturers and cannibals at play, especially on female bodies, really has to be eliminated but do we really want the violent state to do it?? Boycott NBC's new HANNIBAL show for starters. UGH!!)
I personally don't think that any content, however deemed inappropriate is a sufficient reason, for enacting censorships, or using Artificial Ultra-Stupidity (UAS) to try to filter it. While Alice Cooper ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Cooper ) is pretty mainstream and respected today, back when he started he was considered very bad culture - see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNYI3iINXrQ ("Sam the Eagle vs. Alice Cooper"). Similarly, the early http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Python work was considered very bad form, profane, and rebellious, and now http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Cleese is a British Knight ("Sir John Cleese").
Thing is - provocative art pushes the limit of what we consider "moral" or even "ethical", and I hope it's for the best - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfection :
<<<< The parallel existence of two concepts of perfection, one strict ("perfection," as such) and the other loose ("excellence"), has given rise — perhaps since antiquity but certainly since the Renaissance — to a singular paradox: that the greatest perfection is imperfection. This was formulated by Lucilio Vanini (1585–1619), who had a precursor in the 16th-century writer Joseph Juste Scaliger, and they in turn referred to the ancient philosopher Empedocles. Their argument, as given by the first two, was that if the world were perfect, it could not improve and so would lack "true perfection," which depends on progress.
Regards,
Shlomi Fish