Slashdot Mirror
Cutting out the Naughty Bits Ruled Illegal
An anonymous reader writes "Some of you may recall the lawsuit brought by several Hollywood directors against companies which edit movies for sex, language, and violence. The companies would trade consumers an off-the-shelf DVD for an edited one. Well, the CBC is reporting that Judge Richard P. Matsch has found that this practice violates U.S. copyright law, and 'decreed on Thursday in Denver, Colo., that sanitizing movies to delete content that may offend some people is an "illegitimate business." [...] The judge also praised the motives of the Hollywood studios and directors behind the suit, ordering the companies that provide the service to hand over their inventories.'''
- Children
- Mentally challenged people (see children)
- Bible-thumping ultra-religious types (see mentally challenged people)
your original got truncated somehow.This space available.
Well, since it seems to be a "bash the mormon" kind of comment, and I'm a glutton for punishment, I'll go ahead and step in here. I'm a libertarian, live in Utah, and I've used cleanflicks.
As for the buying alcohol on Sunday, it's always seemed kind of silly. If you shouldn't be buying alcohol on Sunday, you shouldn't be buying it any day. Personally, as long as you keep out of situations which present unacceptable risk to me (i.e. driving a car), I don't really care if you go get completly plastered. Not my problem. On the other hand, if you get behind the wheel of a vehicle, you are a risk to me and it is my problem.
With regards to abortion, I would interfere with it for the same reason I would interfere with murder. You are ending the life of a person who is unable to defend himself. Sure, miscarriages happen, and we aren't certain he's going to live to birth. Nature's cruel - it happens. The point is that you are potentially (probably?) preventing the life of someone who would otherwise be born, and society has a certain interest in protecting the innocent from harm. Surely, you aren't trying to argue that a society shouldn't outlaw and prevent murder? The question then is simply a matter of when does a mass of cells become a person, worthy of protection?
Sex before marriage seems stupid to me (I've seen the problems it can cause), but I don't recall Mormons making a big push to put adulterers in jail. If I see you about to put your hand on a hot stove, I'll tell you you're being stupid, but I'm not about to seek legislation making it illegal to put your hand on a hot stove. What would be the point?
Finally, the same-sex marriage. Moral issues aside, willfully engaging in behavior contrary to basic biological drives (reproduction) indicates something seriously wrong with an individual. It's a trait which, if present in all members of a species, would result in the death of said species very quickly. There are obviously benefits to marriage - if there weren't, homosexuals (presumably) wouldn't seek it. Given that marriage is an artificial construct created by society, why should society provide such advantages to behavior which it finds to be detrimental to it? There's a reason that organizations lose tax-exempt when their views are deemed detrimental to society (hate speech, etc).
If I want to beat my father to death with a shovel, how does that affect you? If Mormon's aren't logical, how does that affect you?
Yeah. It is really stupid for a blue-law wielding busybody to invoke a nonsense defense. But, he really liked his copyright infringing material!
It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
Mormons? Are those the man evolved from clams people, the Native Americans are really Israelis folks, the stars are angels group, or man was made by alien guys? Or do you guys worship chakras or potatos or something?
It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
Answer to your question: here.
How does that activity hurt you?
(yup, at last a relevant way to link that site.)
Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
he fact is, most people, when it comes right down to it, aren't really ready to accept underdeveloped embryos as fellow citizens.
5 minutes before a child is born, it's a human being but it's still legal to abort it. Even, if everything except the child's head has emerged from the mother, it's legal to abort it. No one is getting worked up over the deaths of zygotes. Those of us who oppose abortion on demand want to see the deaths of viable human beings come to an end.
Which isn't to say that abortion isn't a tough decision. It's a tough one that a lot of women have to make.
If it isn't something that they know is wrong, then why is it tough? Very few woman have to abort their babies. A lot of women do it anyway.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
That's a pretty wierd jurisdiction you live in. Would you care to quote the act under which these things are legal exactly?
It's not an act, it's a court decision. Roe v Wade.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
This is as close to complete and utter bullshit as you can get without actually deliberately lying.
Yes, your response certainly is.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Wow, that is an interesting interpretation. You are pretty much ignoring everything Jesus said about rich and poor.
For your reference, the Jesus quote was in response to a young rich man asking Jesus how to get to heaven. Jesus told him to give ALL of his possession to the poor and follow Jesus. If we were to follow YOUR twisted interpretation, Jesus would have skipped the giving the money to the poor part and just told him to follow him.
There are NUMEROUS Jesus teachings where he wails against greed and rich folks in general. Com'on, one of his most FAMOUS act is the overturning of the money lenders' tables.
Jesus point was SPECIFICALLY to equate greed (aka wealth) is not compatible with enternal life.
The scociety at EVERY PERIOD in HISTORY tries to interpret wealth as evidence of God's favor, because the history is written by the rich and the powerful and the same support the church hierarchy. Of COURSE, rich are going to endose that view. However, Jesus did everything in his power to preach against that.
Which is what makes him such a great man. But I guess you failed to observe that point...
Name me ONE example where Jesus said he was fond of rich, just ONE!
So, tell me. If wealth is not so bad, why did Jesus ask the rich young man to give up ALL of his possessions to the poor? He certainly could have just asked him to be faithful, help the poor, and follow his teachings. But he SPECIFICALLY told him to give up his wealth, citing the "eye of the needle" remark when he refused to do so. If wealth is not so bad, then why would he insist AND make the remark?
It also tells you how great Jesus is compared to the shrills that "say" they represent the way to the lord. Every TV evangelist and even the pope would have said give the money to the church (and implay that church would then in turn give to the poor). But Jesus does not say "give me your wealth so that I can give to the poor" he says to "GIVE to the poor" directly, with no church/organization involved, leaving himself free from the burdens of wealth. More shrills today should follow that example.
Jesus made it clear. To be his disciple and follow his ways, you have to give your wealth to the poor and follow his teachings. If you do not, you are not.
I am not saying to you cannot be a Christian and be rich. I am just saying that you cannot be a "good" Christian being rich. Jesus already said how hard it is for a rich man to enter his kingdom, if you have problems with that, you should talk to him about it, not me.