Audrey Madison Interview| Author | Post |
|---|---|
| john lyons Senior Member  Co-founder of Vinegar Syndrome 1188 Posts 1/08 |  Posted - Aug 1 2009 : 10:14AMI wonder if this reporter or senator has ever heard of the concept of "free speech." Listening to them talk is really kinda scary. I'll say no more. Watch this clip and see: http://www.foxnews.com/search-results/m/25551964/perverts-put-out.htm  [Link] |
Gore Gore Girl  Doctor of the Erotic Arts 7238 Posts 1/09 | Posted - Aug 1 2009 : 10:24AM The sound on my computer isn't working, but I read the transcript (which was torturous - who transcribed these things? A computer?). Sounds like your garden variety conservative hysteria over what art should/shouldn't be. Still, this is further interesting evidence of how the media invoke the word "pornography" to create panic and outrage.  [Link] |
| JohnW Senior Member 1351 Posts 6/08 | Posted - Aug 2 2009 : 12:02PM But yet again, my problem with this kind of "news" is that that blonde tool obviously was fed several pages of talking points which made the whole segment feel like a propaganda film. Take away the goddamn teleprompter and let "journalists" try to figure out what to ask their guests themselves. It can't possibly be worse than this. Edited by - JohnW on 8/2/2009 12:04:32 PM [Link] |
| Flash Golden Age Classic 11018 Posts 5/01 | Posted - Aug 2 2009 : 10:54PM [Link] |
| skronker Notable Legendary Icon Scopophiliac 9780 Posts 9/02 | Posted - Aug 2 2009 : 11:34PM [Link] |
 | |
| john lyons Senior Member Co-founder of Vinegar Syndrome 1188 Posts 1/08 | Posted - Aug 3 2009 : 8:58AM This whole thing is B.S. propaganda. Generally speaking though, this "report" speaks to a greater issue in this country. The senator seems to have forgotten that Thundercrack! is a work of art that is protected by the first amendment, and thus is perfectly fine to fund. Whether he likes the film or not is irrelevant, for (and I argued this point a lot in high school history classes) his taste and sense of values is no more or less valid and worth adhering to than anyone else's . Essentially, he is arguing that federal money ought not to go to things he personally finds offensive. Just imagine if everyone's personal beliefs affected what was considered acceptable artistic expression... [Link] |
| Myload Senior Member A rose is what you are to me 2069 Posts 6/03 | Posted - Aug 23 2009 : 8:48PM [Link] |
| mharris127 Senior Member 1844 Posts 8/09 | Posted - Aug 23 2009 : 11:22PM [Link] |
| Gore Gore Girl Doctor of the Erotic Arts 7238 Posts 1/09 | Posted - Aug 25 2009 : 9:27AM You know, it's possible to fund both... [Link] |
| Myload Senior Member A rose is what you are to me 2069 Posts 6/03 | Posted - Aug 30 2009 : 8:11PM [Link] |
| mharris127 Senior Member 1844 Posts 8/09 | Posted - Aug 31 2009 : 4:57AM I don't want to pay taxes in that large of an amount. Health care is a necessity and is worth my tax money and is also cheaper if the government funds and administers it. Art is not a necessity and should be funded by those that want it, not funded and is not cheaper if administered by the government. I don't think the government should be in the porn industry much, either (sorry, I think child porn is uncalled for) -- so I am not a hypocrite. [Link] |
| john lyons Senior Member Co-founder of Vinegar Syndrome 1188 Posts 1/08 | Posted - Aug 31 2009 : 10:34AM The question at hand is what's wrong with federal arts money going to venues which which exhibit sexually explicit art, or federal arts money going to fun artists who create sexually explicit art. These are not corporations, but individuals. And if you feel that if something is sexually explicit it is "not art" or not worthy of being funded, I'd like to know how you reached this arbitrary conclusion. [Link] |
| mharris127 Senior Member 1844 Posts 8/09 | Posted - Aug 31 2009 : 11:16AM The question at hand is what's wrong with federal arts money going to venues which which exhibit sexually explicit art, or federal arts money going to fun artists who create sexually explicit art. These are not corporations, but individuals. And if you feel that if something is sexually explicit it is "not art" or not worthy of being funded, I'd like to know how you reached this arbitrary conclusion.) I was explaining that since porn is an art form that I felt the government should not be involved except to prevent child porn and that I even oppose government funding of things that I enjoy. I don't feel that government should be in the art funding business at all, sexually explicit or not! Government should only be in the necessity business (including support of disabled and education of the poor), not the lofty luxury business. [Link] |
| Use the code below to link to this topic or a specific post. |
| URL of this thread |
| Link to this post with HTML |
| Link to this post with Forum Code |