Sex Blogs
|
Both original content and news automatically gathered from the best sex weblogs. |
-
Picture this
.... I do realize that a weblog is something that one should update once a day, ideally, and I seem...
-
Valentine?s Day Presents
Are your roses already starting to wilt and fade? Is that huge box of candy already half-gone, and down...
|
|
|
Tue 14 Aug 2007
Apparently in this Brave New Era of the nanny state, we parents can't be trusted to control cyberspace. So Big Brother will do it for us If the internet had existed a century ago, Norman Lindsay -- one of Australia's most celebrated artists and authors -- would have been in strife. In fact, the poor cove's paintings and words would probably have been filtered at the source by an internet service provider (ISP), his material deemed obscene and pornographic.
That is if legislation proposed by both sides of politics finds its way on to the statute books. We may laugh now at the puritanical mores of our forebears; those God-fearing men and women who viewed the likes of Lindsay, and later authors such as Aldous Huxley (Brave New World ) -- let alone D.H. Lawrence with his Lady Chatterley's Lover -- as purveyors of ghastly and prurient filth. ``French postcards'' from the turn of the century -- deemed so naughty as to merit a possible spell in the iron motel for their purveyors -- would now mostly be described as ``quaint'' . . . the models depicted wearing considerably more clothing than you'd see on many women strolling the Queen Street Mall today. Times change, but Australian legislators' draconian attitudes towards censorship never do, it seems. And it's all ostensibly done to protect our children, the young, vulnerable and impressionable.
Scroll back to a different era. If you thought Lindsay's paintings -- Pollice Verso for example -- or his writing (Redheap was a famous case) to be offensive, then you wouldn't have taken your children to the art gallery or bought an illegal copy of the (banned) book. And if you did manage to get your paws on the book you'd keep it out of the reach of said children. I have a wealth of material at Chateau Syvret that many people would deem ``offensive''. In fact when we were burgled late last year and the police came around to do the report, they were surprised the thieves hadn't taken any DVDs -- at least until closer inspection when one of the officers turned to me and said something along the lines of: ``Mate, they probably took one look at this lot and decided to vacate the premises.''
True story.
As a dedicated collector of horror, exploitation and cult films it comes with the territory, and I make no apologies for it. When my children are here, however, shelves of my DVD collection are emptied and the films locked away. The children don't even need to see the covers of DVDs such as Cannibal Ferox or I Spit on Your Grave and other titles I won't even mention in a family newspaper. Nor do they ever use the computer without supervision. As an adult, and a film buff, I believe I have a right to decide what I want to view, be that online or from the shelves of my collection. As a father, it is my duty to determine what my children (aged 8 and 10) should be exposed to. It's called parental responsibility. But apparently in this Brave New Era of the nanny state, we parents can't be trusted to control cyberspace. So Big Brother will do it for us. John Howard announced last week -- significantly in a webcast to some 700 churches -- that he would be cracking down on internet pornography. Every Australian family will receive a free internet filter and government will enter a ``partnership'' with ISPs to filter pornography at the source. At this stage the ``filter at the source'' proposal is on an ``opt-in'' basis. That is, you can contact your ISP and ask them to automatically filter out the naughty stuff. Who decides what constitutes offensive material, however, is another thing, bearing in mind that one man's pornography is another man's art. Some of us are quite comfortable viewing explicit non-violent erotica at home. Others are offended by topless sunbaking on the beach. Each to their own. If you don't like it, don't look. The problem arises when personal choice for discerning adults is removed from the equation. It is only a small step to shift ``opt in'' filtering of material to automatic or blanket filtering. With a small stroke of a legislative pen we may find ourselves all ``filtered'' -- for the sake of the children and, of course, the Christian vote. Remember that even on free-to-air television there is a wealth of material -- nudity, violence and profanity -- that many may find offensive and many would deem children should not be viewing. The solution there is simple. Set the viewing rules, turn the television off, or send the children to bed. Surely the same discipline can be applied to the internet.
Forget Brave New World, think George Orwell's 1984.
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
|
|
Sexy Girls Seeking...
|
Hello, I'm a hard working woman with goals and desires. Yep, I'm horney, but I keep it in good proportion and don't tolerate fools, flakes, asses, assheads, damfools, donkeys, doodles, idiots, imbeciles, jackasses, jerks, madmen, mooncalfs, nincoms, nitwits, pinheads, birdbrains, featherheads, pushovers, ho-hos, laughingstocks, dingdongs or of course any twinkees what so ever. Are you still with me? I like a good work out; hope you do too! |
|
Read more...
|
|
|
