Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 2 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

celebs and censorship

Author Message
RESPONSIBLE ADULT Offline
Banned

Posts: 898
Joined: Jun 2010
Post: #1
celebs and censorship
This Wikileaks story that as hit the headlines in the last week seems to have got one or two celebs wanting to jump on the bandwagon of free speech and censorship, namely Jemima Goldsmith who amongst others seems to be ready to throw her financial weight behind the cause. Censorship in anything is not healthy, and I can understand anyones concerns when it happens.But where are the celebs with their backing when our very own Ofcom fine t.v. companys for giving me a glimpse of a professional models lady bits, albeit with my permission.

The answer is they are not interested, because it's not really savvy
11-12-2010 01:07
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DanniPandemos Offline
Master Poster
****

Posts: 791
Joined: Jan 2009
Reputation: 14
Post: #2
RE: celebs and censorship
The answer is that they're not interested, full stop Wink

Danni Pandemos
http://pandemos.net/webcams/
Live femdom and fetish webcams with free text chat
11-12-2010 09:38
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
mr williams Offline
Still Missing Roxy :(
*****

Posts: 8,070
Joined: Sep 2010
Reputation: 150
Post: #3
RE: celebs and censorship
When she was a student at Bristol University Jemima Goldsmith used to drink in my local and once asked me out (and that's true!).

follow me on twitter @mrwilliamsforum

11-12-2010 22:31
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
eccles Offline
custodes qui custodiet
*****

Posts: 3,032
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 69
Post: #4
RE: celebs and censorship
Just because shes a celeb with rich parents it doesnt mean shes particularly bright.

Revealing lies and illegal activity by governments and big companies is one thing, and protected by law in several countries including the UK. Revealing that dipolmats sometimes lie or play one side off against another is not surprising and no more than mildly embarrasing. But publishing a list of strategic facilities - many owned by private businesses in other countries, little firms that produce useful widgets is just plain irresponsible. Does the list of strategic facilities reveal wrongdoing? No. Will some of these facilities be bombed as a result? Yes.

When people sent donations were they supporting publishing secret but reputable and legal lists, or revealing wrong doing?

They are celebs and jumping on the latest fashionable anti-establishment bandwagon. American government bashing is easy. Even Americans do it - how many big budget hollywood films have an agenda that says CIA bad, FBI untrustworthy, Army/Police good? (A-Team, Mission Impossible ...)

What does this have to do with Ofcom? Well I suppose its about censorship. In a free society things should be capable of being published unless the harm of doing so is clear. Sex on late night TV on clearly labelled channels is not a big risk and should be allowed. How to make a nuclear bomb out of fairy liquid and pipecleaners is a big risk and should be censored.

Gone fishing
13-12-2010 16:34
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply