Ban Girls Gone Wild Commercials?

That's not my point.

If this is an issue of free speech and censorship - shouldn't we allow anyone to advertise?

Cigarettes are a legal product.

0 Replies

CalamityJane wrote:

Smoking is harmful to your health, sex isn't - on the contrary!

Smoking makes people want to have sex with you. Because it's cool.

This is one of the first things I'm going to teach my kids. God I love cigarettes.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

squinney wrote:
Porn is regularly deleted from this site, a public forum.

Should it not be?

You continue to mix up what's legal for people to do and what's nice of people to do. If Jespah and friends don't want porn on their site, it's fair game for them to delete it. It's their site after all. I'm fine with that.

But when you started this thread, squinney, you referred to a bill that would legally prohibit TV channels from broadcasting Girls Gone Wild commercials. This is different from Jespah deciding, of her own free will, to ban porn from her own site. This is like passing a law that requires Jespah to ban porn from A2K even if she wishes to keep it on. It is this legal obligation to ban content that I have a problem with. I have no problem with the porn not being on in the first place.

I don't think I am confusing the two. If I post a picture of a rock hard penis on this public forum that is privately owned, that should be able to stay just as surely as you are arguing it should be allowed on a public airwave owned by a private cable company.

We already have laws that limit pornographic exposure on the web, in public places of business and on regular tv. We have laws that restrict cigerette companies and beer companies from advertising. Gun companies do not advertise weapons on tv or radio. Our freedoms, as you refer to them, are already limited for the express purpose of limiting exposure to such things by young, impressionable minds.

0 Replies

boomerang wrote:

If this is an issue of free speech and censorship - shouldn't we allow anyone to advertise?

Yes, you should.

0 Replies

squinney wrote:

I don't think I am confusing the two. If I post a picture of a rock hard penis on this public forum that is privately owned, that should be able to stay just as surely as you are arguing it should be allowed on a public airwave owned by a private cable company.

If the owners of this site want to keep it on, yes it should. If the owners of this site don't want to keep it on, it should go. After all, the site is their property. While I have a right to publish as many penises as I want to, I don't have a right to use other people's property for it, especially if they disapprove of that use.

Squinney wrote:

We already have laws that limit pornographic exposure on the web, in public places of business and on regular tv. We have laws that restrict cigerette companies and beer companies from advertising. Gun companies do not advertise weapons on tv or radio. Our freedoms, as you refer to them, are already limited for the express purpose of limiting exposure to such things by young, impressionable minds.

Yes. I disapprove of all those infringements, and don't think that one wrong justifies another.

0 Replies

squinney wrote:

Thomas wrote:
squinney wrote:
Porn is regularly deleted from this site, a public forum.

Should it not be?

You continue to mix up what's legal for people to do and what's nice of people to do. If Jespah and friends don't want porn on their site, it's fair game for them to delete it. It's their site after all. I'm fine with that.

But when you started this thread, squinney, you referred to a bill that would legally prohibit TV channels from broadcasting Girls Gone Wild commercials. This is different from Jespah deciding, of her own free will, to ban porn from her own site. This is like passing a law that requires Jespah to ban porn from A2K even if she wishes to keep it on. It is this legal obligation to ban content that I have a problem with. I have no problem with the porn not being on in the first place.

I don't think I am confusing the two. If I post a picture of a rock hard penis on this public forum that is privately owned, that should be able to stay just as surely as you are arguing it should be allowed on a public airwave owned by a private cable company.

We already have laws that limit pornographic exposure on the web, in public places of business and on regular tv. We have laws that restrict cigerette companies and beer companies from advertising. Gun companies do not advertise weapons on tv or radio. Our freedoms, as you refer to them, are already limited for the express purpose of limiting exposure to such things by young, impressionable minds.

folks I have to duck out for a minute. squinney has the camera out and is calling me for some damn thing....

0 Replies

boomerang wrote:

That's not my point.

If this is an issue of free speech and censorship - shouldn't we allow anyone to advertise?

Cigarettes are a legal product.

Actually yes, boomer, cigarette commercials should be allowed, as they
are legally available in any supermarket.

0 Replies

squinney wrote:

Thomas wrote:
squinney wrote:
Porn is regularly deleted from this site, a public forum.

Should it not be?

You continue to mix up what's legal for people to do and what's nice of people to do. If Jespah and friends don't want porn on their site, it's fair game for them to delete it. It's their site after all. I'm fine with that.

But when you started this thread, squinney, you referred to a bill that would legally prohibit TV channels from broadcasting Girls Gone Wild commercials. This is different from Jespah deciding, of her own free will, to ban porn from her own site. This is like passing a law that requires Jespah to ban porn from A2K even if she wishes to keep it on. It is this legal obligation to ban content that I have a problem with. I have no problem with the porn not being on in the first place.

I don't think I am confusing the two. If I post a picture of a rock hard penis on this public forum that is privately owned, that should be able to stay just as surely as you are arguing it should be allowed on a public airwave owned by a private cable company.

Huh? The owner of the site decides just as the owner of the TV station should. Surely you see the difference between Craven's will on his site and the government's will on same.

squinney wrote:

We already have laws that limit pornographic exposure on the web, in public places of business and on regular tv. We have laws that restrict cigerette companies and beer companies from advertising. Gun companies do not advertise weapons on tv or radio. Our freedoms, as you refer to them, are already limited for the express purpose of limiting exposure to such things by young, impressionable minds.

That the government already censors Television is hardly proof that they should. This is an example of Argumentum ad antiquitatem.

0 Replies

I think you, Bill and Thomas, missed the point that the tv airwaves and this site are public while at the same time being privately owned.

I own the airwaves, just as Craven owns this site, and should be able to decide what is acceptable.

Billboards are another example. They are open to the public, but privately owned and are commercial. How about a big billboard along the highway with a close up of actual penetration to advertise for KY Jelly. Is that okay?

0 Replies

squinney wrote:

I own the airwaves, just as Craven owns this site, and should be able to decide what is acceptable.

Please show me the certificate that documents your ownership of the airwaves.

Legally, the government owns the airwaves, and licenses TV stations to use them. That's why the government can prohibit naughty stuff to be broadcast over the airwaves.

And that, in turn, is why I specifically referred to cable in my first response. The government doesn't own the cable. The cable is owned by whoever laid the cable -- usually some private company. And they can license the use of their cable under any terms they want -- usually the highest bidder, I guess, with no strings attached about the permissible content.

Squinney wrote:

Billboards are another example. They are open to the public, but privately owned and are commercial. How about a big billboard along the highway with a close up of actual penetration to advertise for KY Jelly. Is that okay?

If "is that okay?" means "ought the owner put this stuff on billboards?", my answer is no. If "is that okay?" means "ought the owner have the right to put this stuff on billboards?", my answer is yes.

0 Replies

Actually, I make a distinction between various types of freedom of speech. Political commentary and news reporting should never be censored, regardless of who owns the airwaves. Nor should other news, though I might be able to fabricate some exceptions. Commerical free speech is fairly free game.

0 Replies

I agree with you Squinney.

I had written out a whole thingy but then my post didn't go through and I got one of those fricking 'error' messages.

Anyhow.

My point was basically that so much ridiculous permissiveness has taken over in the name of 'free speech' and 'freedom'.

My city is a perfect example of teens and kids with a large group of adults who fight for the 'right' for them to do anything they please and be exposed to anything they please.

I'll cut to the chase and say I think people are just lazy. With so many adults who want what they want when they want it - they then have to protect that stance and allow kids and teens the same exposure and 'rights'.
A certain degree of neglect is involved.
Later on, when these kids get into serious trouble, the adults rally to have 'teens trialed as adults'.

Kids and teens aren't adults. Yet we share a lot of the same space, the same tvs and stations, the same billboards, etc.

People don't want to give up the little shocks of pleasure they get when a GGW commercial comes on tv, so they have to defend it as 'a freedom issue'.

It isn't really. And it's not about censorship. It's about giving up that little shock of pleasure so that younger people are exposed to one less degrading advertisement.

0 Replies

squinney wrote:

sozobe wrote:
Seriously, squinney?

I'm not sure what I think yet about the issue as a whole, but the homosexuality/ bi-sexuality element is by far the least problematic, to me. Teenagers experiment, then settle down with someone they love -- doesn't matter one whit to me which gender my kid experiments with or who she falls in love with, so long as she's safe (in all senses -- protection + good judgement).

I'll be sure to check back with you in ten years.

I realize my college years are now 20 years behind me, but it never crossed my mind to experiment with females. I wasn't aware of anyone doing so with same sex just to check it out.

That it is now prevelant in our high schools is bothersome not because of a lack of tolerence, but because it is cavalier. There's no love. It's just thought of as fun, which is where the lack of self respect comes in.

IMO, Girls Gone Wild plays into that and makes it look like the norm.

I think you get this but to make it clear:

I'm all for sozlet, when she's older, making responsible choices.

It's just that the gender aspect of it is immaterial for me, and you seemed to be highlighting that specific aspect with this statementt:

Quote:

Tolerance of homosexuality and bi-sexuality is one thing. Encouraging it is another.

There are a lot of ways that could've been phrased. Like, "tolerance of sexual promiscuity is one thing. Encouraging it is another."

I'd agree.

Or "Tolerance of girls humilating themselves is one thing. Encouraging it is another."

I'd also agree.

But I don't know what "encouraging" homosexuality and bi-sexuality in this context means. Don't kids see a whole lot of heterosexual grappling? Does that encourage heterosexuality? Again, if the point is narrower -- about promiscuity, irresponsibility, etc., I'm right there. But I don't see anything inherently wrong with homosexuality or bi-sexuality, and don't think the fact that it's shown is any more "encouraging" than the fact that heterosexuality is shown.

Anyway, why I asked "really?" is because that one piece seemed kind of out of character, and I didn't get what you meant. Maybe I misunderstood.

For the larger question, I think it would make sense to have some sort of rating system for commercials, and not show a commercial that is rated "higher" than the TV show it accompanies. For example, if Scrubs is rated TV-14 (I don't know the actual rating), and the GGW commercial is rated R, it couldn't be shown during that time slot (but could be shown during another time slot that has a show rated R or "higher").

But I know ratings are their own kettle of fish -- abitrary, etc.

0 Replies

Sozobe - Ahh, I see the distinction you are making. Okay, I'll call it bi-sexual promescuity." It isn't that they are homosexual or bisexual, they are heterosexual. The bi-sexual promescuity is just part of the shock and awe, the search for something more "out there" than they have already experienced or seen. They date hetero, plan to marry hetero, have hetero pics of Brad or Orlando hung around their rooms like any of us might have done with Scott Bao or Andy Gibb in our younger days.

Unlike earlier generations, I find this behavior much more personally self-distructive than screaming at Elvis' gyrating hips. They are playing with their lives.

0 Replies

squinney wrote:

I think you, Bill and Thomas, missed the point that the tv airwaves and this site are public while at the same time being privately owned.

I own the airwaves, just as Craven owns this site, and should be able to decide what is acceptable.

Billboards are another example. They are open to the public, but privately owned and are commercial. How about a big billboard along the highway with a close up of actual penetration to advertise for KY Jelly. Is that okay?

My reaction mirrors Thomas's in your ownership of the Air Waves, and frankly, I think those too should be privatized to remove the government intrusion. Where my views separate from Thomas's is at the billboards and newsstands, etc. Since no reasonable step can be taken by parents to safeguard their kids from seeing these, the content should indeed be kid friendly.

0 Replies

Here's an article about the guy who produces these videos that's pretty interesting: http://www.latimes.com/features/magazine/west/la-tm-gonewild32aug06,0,2664370.story

I hope some of you read that; I wish more people were aware of just how predatory and misogynistic Joe Francis is. He assaulted the reporter (female) writing this article. He offers $1,000 rewards to guys for finding girls who're just turning eighteen-- not that they only use girls of legal age anyway: He's been sued for using 16- and 17-year-olds in videos too:

Quote:

a 16-year-old and four 17-year-olds

(from the article I linked to)

They buy these girls as much booze as they can get them to drink; lots of people who've been in bars when this is going on, including his employees, say they often give the girls Ecstasy too.

The people commenting on this thread who know nothing about the girls gone wild franchise should read about him, because it adds an entirely different facet to it. Yeah, yeah, yeah, no censorship, I know; and I'm sure the response will still be that it doesn't matter what kind of a bastard this guy is, it's still freedom of speech...that's fine. I just think more people should be aware of what they do to these girls, especially when the issue of "they chose to do it" comes up.

0 Replies

<<totally off topic>>

Flushd-- I just wanted to tell you that when you lose a whole big post like that, it's usually still there if you hit your "back" button... I always go back and retrieve it, and then copy it to a word file so I can come back and post it later when the site revives again!

<<okay, back to topic now!>>

0 Replies

flushd wrote:

It isn't really. And it's not about censorship. It's about giving up that little shock of pleasure so that younger people are exposed to one less degrading advertisement.

This is utter nonsense. I've never purchased Hustler Magazine, but defend it's right to be in print. I've never ordered a GGW product, but wouldn't presume to tell the Bear he can't. I avoid Horror movies like the plague, but would never agree to censor them. I absolutely despise rape scenes and the senseless violence contained in same, but have no business attempting to regulate it. I despise the KKK, but defend their right to march. I think Flag burning is despicable, but strenuously object to any proposed law against it. It has everything to do with censorship and your contention to the contrary is as false as it is insulting.

0 Replies

Gotcha, squinney.

I dunno though, so long as it's safe (and girl-girl promiscuity is one of the safer possible combinations), the fact that the girls are hetero in and of itself doesn't bother me much. I think it's a far better overall for actual (as in biologically/ genetically/ whatever) bi and lesbian girls to have this kind of an atmosphere as opposed to a "strictly hetero and that's that" atmosphere. Not saying that you prefer the latter, but the latter has been the rule for a long time. On the balance, in terms of what's healthier for bi and lesbian girls and women, I prefer that some same-gender experimentation is seen by young adults as no big deal, than vice versa.

Again, that's in terms of the same-gender part as a separate factor.

Risky heterosexual experimentation, no. (With "risky" here connoting not only lack of protection against sexually transmitted diseases but degree of emotional vulnerability, maturity level, etc., etc.)

Risky homosexual experimentation, no.

Responsible heterosexual experimentation, OK.

Responsible homosexual experimentation, OK.

0 Replies

cyphercat wrote:

The people commenting on this thread who know nothing about the girls gone wild franchise should read about him, because it adds an entirely different facet to it. Yeah, yeah, yeah, no censorship, I know; and I'm sure the response will still be that it doesn't matter what kind of a bastard this guy is, it's still freedom of speech...that's fine. I just think more people should be aware of what they do to these girls, especially when the issue of "they chose to do it" comes up.

Not true. If he is committing crimes to create his videos, they should be confiscated and he should be charged accordingly. At the point he is committing a crime, it ceases to be about freedom of expression. As a juror, I would enthusiastically push for the severest of punishments and as a human I'd like to crack him upside the head.

0 Replies

Ban Girls Gone Wild Commercials?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know