Is really good. A couple of friends and I went to see the independent feature “ShortBus” at the Pleasant Street Theater last Friday night. Chock full of cocks and balls, tits, ass and pussy, male on male, female on female, male and female two-somes, three-somes and more, fighting and fucking! One fellow is even shown blowing himself and swallowing his own come. I’ve certainly never seen that before!
So, why isn’t NPN sounding the alarm and whipping up the troops to banish Pleasant Street Theater out of town? Or are they again going to be intellectually dishonest and try to distinguish this instance of grossly graphic sexual expression as their non-gratuitous “erotica” or something?
Go ahead NPN, make my day.
Yours/AC
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
An interesting question.
For something to be "obscene" it must be shown that the average person, applying contemporary community standards and viewing the material as a whole, would find (1) that the work appeals predominantly to "prurient" interest; (2) that it depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way; and (3) that it lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.
(http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/o002.htm)
Did the film you saw have literary, artistic, political or scientific value?
Also, have you observed "secondary effects" around Pleasant Street Theater?
Nice try. Change the subject and deflect the reader from the real issue again, NPN, eh? In case readers do not understand. The issue is not obscenity; the real issue raised by this post is why should Pleasant Street Theater be able to communicate for a profit legally non-obscene sexually graphic expression downtown, but not Cap Video? The courts have repeatedly found what Cap Video sells and NPN deems pornographic to be legally non-obscene.
Shame on you, NPN. It strains credulity for you to imply that such materials would be deemed legally obscene where you are a Harvard educated lawyer. No, NPN, here again you have attempted to take advantage of the public’s relative ignorance, in this case of judicial opinions, to justify your hidden agenda to banish speech which you deem offensive. That is not upholding freedom of speech as you claim to do; that is advocating outright prior restraint censorship.
NPN, you would do better to be honest and just admit to the truth of your position that you would have us repeal the first amendment rather than uphold freedom of speech as a right enshrined in the constitutional, as I explained below in my post at http://talkbacknorthampton.blogspot.com/2006/12/npn-censorship-by-benign-neglect-im.html.
Finally, no I have not observed bad secondary effects about Pleasant Street Theater. I imagine, however, if we had pre-judged it as you are so quick to pre-judge a Cap Video store in Northampton, there would be no Pleasant Street Theater.
Post a Comment