OhMyBelldandy009 wrote:The point that they can show ultraviolence on television and not breasts is a little silly. First off, they've been airing American Pie uncensored as well as The Godfather all summer. They allow breasts to show on tv all the time.
Yes- on some cable channels. HBO, Showtime, Cinemax- any of the pay channels are pretty much exempt because you have to actively request them. I know you're not allowed to on OTA broadcast TV, and basic (non-premium) cable is also is limited in what they can show - though moreso for fear of potential repurcussions, not through direct laws addressing it, as you have to actively seek out and pay for cable. The only time I have ever seen nudity on broadcast network television was when NBC broadcast
Schindler's List uninterrupted and uncut (with frequent warnings about the content). I wouldn't consider it silly- current broadcast law in effect states that showing breasts even in a non-sexual situation is offensive or obscene (the litmus test for whether something can be shown/said) but that all but the goriest of violence is acceptable. Case in point: a particular episode of ER with an all-too-realistic depiction of an arm being severed by a helicopter tail rotor. It seems far sillier to me that violence is generally more accepted than nudity.
Anyway, if my children were weak enough to be influenced by anything on TV, they deserve whatever trouble they get into.
Everyone is to some extent influenced by television. That's why there are so many commercials. True, parental influence and impression of morals onto children should have a much stronger impact, but in a day and age where more often than not the television gets used as a cheap babysitter and people spend almost as much time in front of the TV as they do asleep, the influence begins to become less easy to ignore.
That doesn't mean I'd want my daughter baring it all in public. That's something a naive bunch of teenage girls might do if they started having too much free time.
Though we don't currently have any children, I can't say I imagine myself too thrilled at the thought of my daughter running around half naked in public these days. I wouldn't be the most pleased at my wife doing so either. But I would also assume that they would likely
choose not to do so- because they were not comfortable with it, not because they were prevented from doing so by a law.
Additionally, were we to emigrate to Europe (say, France or Spain), it would likely be far less of an issue because of the more relaxed attitudes towards nudity there.
If these women had normal lives, there shouldn't be enough time for them to raise a lawsuit like this.
Something tells you I don't know to know what you consider a 'normal life'. I'd have to assume that none of the women (or men, for that matter) here that have the time it takes to make AMVs have 'normal lives' either. Though I somehow doubt it was your intent- this statement comes off (at least to me) sounding like "If they were at home taking care of their kids and their husbands like they should be"... Of course, these days, people with the time or the conviction to take an active part in politics or the country's laws are definitely rare enough to not be considered 'normal'....
Men and women are not the same; they are not equal. I need to know the judge's political party (they're almost never entirely indifferent) to make a prediction on the outcome.
Nobody is going to argue that men and women are the same. But not too long ago it was illegal for women to bare their legs or thighs in public in the US. There tends to be lots of outcry towards women in fundamental Islamic nations being required by threat of severe harm and/or death to be completely concealed. In a number of European contries it is quite acceptable for women to be topless on beaches. I personally think it should be a matter of personal choice, not that of a law.
)