Page Summary
andrewducker - Reasoning
ciphergoth.livejournal.com - (no subject)
fub.livejournal.com - (no subject)
andrewducker - (no subject)
andrewducker - (no subject)
philmophlegm.livejournal.com - (no subject)
accordingly.livejournal.com - (no subject)
interactiveleaf.livejournal.com - (no subject)
andrewducker - (no subject)
interactiveleaf.livejournal.com - (no subject)
makyo.livejournal.com - (no subject)
major-clanger.livejournal.com - (no subject)
andrewducker - (no subject)
andrewducker - (no subject)
bart-calendar.livejournal.com - (no subject)
interactiveleaf.livejournal.com - (no subject)
andrewducker - (no subject)
bart-calendar.livejournal.com - (no subject)
interactiveleaf.livejournal.com - (no subject)
andrewducker - (no subject)
major-clanger.livejournal.com - (no subject)
major-clanger.livejournal.com - (no subject)
feorag.livejournal.com - (no subject)
interactiveleaf.livejournal.com - (no subject)
lizzie-and-ari.livejournal.com - (no subject)
Active Entries
- 1: Thoughts on the "Route for the third Edinburgh tram line"
- 2: Interesting Links for 31-01-2026
- 3: Photo cross-post
- 4: Interesting Links for 30-01-2026
- 5: Photo cross-post
- 6: Interesting Links for 24-01-2026
- 7: Interesting Links for 27-01-2026
- 8: Interesting Links for 28-01-2026
- 9: Interesting Links for 26-01-2026
- 10: Interesting Links for 25-01-2026
Style Credit
- Style: Neutral Good for Practicality by
Expand Cut Tags
No cut tags
Reasoning
Date: 2011-06-10 08:29 am (UTC)Advertising is in public spaces.
no subject
Date: 2011-06-10 08:30 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-06-10 08:31 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-06-10 08:33 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-06-10 08:35 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-06-10 08:48 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-06-10 09:02 am (UTC)I do accept that the BBCFC play an important role in film classification and I think that should stay. But I don't agree with banning things (the Human Centipede 2 will just end up on the Pirate Bay like everything else).
BASICALLY I disagree with censorship or banning of obscene/unpleasant material, but I do think it should be restricted. Such as is currently with the watershed on TV, or age ratings on films.
no subject
Date: 2011-06-10 09:05 am (UTC)It *is* far more difficult to watch, but if you're willing to make the effort, you're welcome to, and it's not illegal to own it.
no subject
Date: 2011-06-10 09:09 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-06-10 09:11 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-06-10 09:12 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-06-10 09:14 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-06-10 09:18 am (UTC)And I never, ever, ever want to see it. Or the first one.
no subject
Date: 2011-06-10 09:19 am (UTC)1. (of the portrayal or description of sexual matters) Offensive or disgusting by accepted standards of morality and decency.
2. Offensive to moral principles; repugnant
There seems to be a lot of crossover there between obscene and unpleasant.
no subject
Date: 2011-06-10 09:21 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-06-10 09:22 am (UTC)Are such things just not readily available where you are?
no subject
Date: 2011-06-10 09:23 am (UTC)It'll be on Pirate Bay as well - but I don't see how that stops it being banned.
no subject
Date: 2011-06-10 09:23 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-06-10 09:27 am (UTC)Marijuana's banned. I'm not arguing that it's not banned just because I can get it. But I don't see that this movie is banned any more than the series I wanted was; I just had to work a little harder to get it.
(In retrospect, I shouldn't have spent the money. It wasn't nearly as funny as I remembered it being.)
no subject
Date: 2011-06-10 09:31 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-06-10 09:32 am (UTC)What the two of you are arguing over is the difference between a de jure ban (item or activity X is proscribed by law) and a de facto ban (item or activity X is not itself proscribed but the means of obtaining or undertaking it are.)
As for DVDs, it's certainly not illegal in the UK to own a multi-region player (I've never bought one that wasn't!) and it's very easy to order out-of-region DVDs.
no subject
Date: 2011-06-10 09:33 am (UTC)Do carry on, I'm waiting for the punchline :-)
no subject
Date: 2011-06-10 09:35 am (UTC)The "legal, decent, honest, truthful" thing is reasonable and should be extended to cover religious ads which currently have an exception on the matter of "truth", but I suspect this is not what the question is about.
no subject
Date: 2011-06-10 09:37 am (UTC)That would be much closer to a definition of "banned" that I would understand, and if that's the case then I retract everything. Other than that it's just not available at your local theater or video store--much like the series I wanted, which was not banned, wasn't available without extra energy.
no subject
Date: 2011-06-10 09:37 am (UTC)And I took 'censor/ban' to not include classifying - I think things like 18 certificates are a good idea, but don't consider that censorship.
Lx