Nichlemn
Jr. Member
Posts: 1,920
|
|
« on: October 16, 2011, 10:02:55 PM » |
|
Well, I don't think that public sex in children's playgrounds should be legal. Don't get me wrong, I hate empty "for the children!" rhethoric, but that doesn't mean we need to go to the other extreme and completely ignore them.
Since that example reveals I'm not (and you're probably not) totally opposed to "censorship" in principle, it just becomes a question of where to draw the line. I don't think there's any universal answer to this - it depends on the circumstances. The fewer children or prudes likely to see it, the laxer the laws should be.
I don't think there's any inconsistency in supporting relatively strict public nudity/sexuality laws and very low censorship of media. If a book offends you, you don't have to read it, but it's a lot harder to avoid nude people walking around city streets.
I do think there's some inconsistency in opposing nudity/sexuality while not being as opposed to other potentially repugnant activities in public, though. Very ugly people probably impose more of a cost than nude people, but that can be rationalised by saying that ugly people can't help themselves and we shouldn't punish them for egalitarian reasons. But what about people who have proactively made themselves offensive to look at, for instance with clothing and/or makeup?
|