following the reaper wrote:
FrigidSymphony wrote:
following the reaper wrote:
FrigidSymphony wrote:
following the reaper wrote:
FrigidSymphony wrote:
following the reaper wrote:
FrigidSymphony wrote:
Banning it just for the sake of banning something? What about freedom of speech?
With every freedom comes a responsibility. here there is a responsibility to balance freedom of expression with the responsibility to protect the public from images a lot of them would find offensive.
As long as it represents something morally correct, there shouldn't be any outcries.
Are goat-titties morally correct?
Why shouldn't they be? I'm fine with it.
But is your mom, or your local priest?
Is my mom or my local priest going to buy the new Dimmu Burger cd?
They may see it in a record store. Or your mother may not approve of you seeing those goat tits. Democractic society has to weigh up that kind of stuff. Not really easy. (although a lot of it is entagled in beauracracy)
Bullshit! That's not freedom of speech, that's censorship, plain and simple. If something offends you, you have the amazing power to
not look at it. If a soccer mom in the suburbs feels offended by the idea of goat titties and eyeless Medieval church officials, she doesn't have to look at the album cover. If she feels it's inappropriate for her kid, she can refuse to have it in her house. However, she has absolutely no right to demand that others can't look at it. She has the responsibility to respect the rights of others. Dimmu isn't coming to her house, strapping her down Clockwork Orange-style and forcing her to stare at the cover art, and she has no right to demand that I can't see it.
This is, of course, a more academic argument, as in this case, I think it's retailers anticipating an outcry and simply trying to preserve their income. It's a sad comment that something as silly as this is banned because of the inevitable soccer mom shock at seeing a representation of naked flesh.
