PatsFanInVa

Here are the facts:

DC congressional candidate Missy Smith has an ad in the DC Metro area. It airs on the local FOX affiliates. FOX runs a disclaimer saying although the images are graphic and may not be suitable for all viewers, federal law says they have to run it.

Next, you see a barrage of images at least purporting to be of aborted fetuses. If they are, they are of very late-term ones. Blood, gore, etc.; we've all seen Randall Terry's work before.

Now, what I want to avoid is the discussion of how since abortions really happen, and some are late terms, and late term abortions are in fact of very developed fetuses, these images are chock full of truthiness.

For the purposes of this conversation, we will stipulate that the images shown are late-term abortions w/no extra photoshopping for extra truthiness. We will also stipulate that it is okay to show the very rare late-term abortion case to talk about the general case of abortion law (which, as you may imagine, is an area tea-partier Missy Smith would like the government to have a very big role in.)

Evidently this tea partier also believes that the federal government should have a very big role in forcing TV stations to run this ad.

We'll take all this as a given.

Now, my question is whether images that will give most children far fewer nightmares are protected by that same ruling.

For example, if my sole political point is that the human body is beautiful and should not be abusively disfigured by tattoos, shouldn't I be able to show porn? For that matter, shouldn't I be able to show graphic sex acts between two people of the same gender in order to shock people into confronting the truthiness of the fact that people have sex with people of the same gender? Should I be able to show them in a campaign ad being all lovey-dovey and caring, then having gay sex, if I am pro gay marriage?

That's all truthiness too. So is that protected if I am using it in a campaign ad?

Anybody know just how far the federal law goes that insists we show such graphically gorey images, regardless of the time slot? Does it in fact extend to showing far more common images? Just sticking to the kind of sex you personally like, does this law in fact extend to showing far more pleasant images? Take it as a given that these images are part of a paid political ad.

I'm interested to know whether there's any difference under the law, and if not, where Larry Flint is when ya need him.

PFnV

Harry Boy

Larry Flynt------------

I am not a "pro life maniac" I can understand certain circumstances for an 'early abortion'

I do not believe in late term abortions unless there is a very extreme and urgent reason.

A women who doesn't want the baby and waits for the late term and then aborts the baby should be sterilized so ahe can never do it again.

A late term fetus is a little human being, but of course we know it will go on forever, in America if you want an illegal drug you simply go down to the school yard and buy it, if abortions are illegal you simply go down to the school yard and make an appointment for your abortion.
Thats Life.

Larry Flynt......................

__________________
Harry Boy (Genius)

In The Absence Of Law And Order Society Will Surely Destroy Itself

patsfan13

If the images are not of a small human being and just a lump of tissue why are the images gory and revolting?

If the image is a package of hamburger no on is offended and grossed out. IF people believe that aborted fetus's are not human the images should have no meaning and not be gory.

The question about the sexual images in ads is interesting I suppose the concern is exposing young children to overtly sexual images. So there is a balance involving speech and protecting young children. I will avoid the practical issue of whether showing a loving gay couple in other situations is more or less effective than showing sexual images.

__________________
"Some guys play in all-star games, some guys don't. I don't know who picks all those all-star teams. In all honesty, I don't know who picks the combine, for that matter," Belichick said. "How does (Miami-Ohio offensive lineman Brandon) Brooks not get invited to the combine? How did Vollmer not get invited to the combine? I don't know. We can't really worry about that. We just have to try to evaluate them the best we can."

Mrs.PatsFanInVa

So, since you believe that the images are of a human being then it follows that you believe the images shown are those of a murder, correct? Would you have them show commercials or videos of beheadings, also? Or of a death penalty execution?

We all (I think) agree that movie scenes depicting gruesome deaths are not real, don't we? That they are made-up scenes of violence done with make-up and falsified images? Why, then, are some movies rated "R" or "X" for nothing more than violent depictions of death or destruction and children are forbidden to attend them in a movie theater or, if the movie makes it to television, those scenes are removed before the film can be viewed by the general public?

Doesn't the fact that we screen and remove mere Hollywood depictions of blood and gore from the view of children mean that we should also have the right to screen and remove commericals/infomercials which contain actual scenes of blood and gore?

PatsFanInVa

Regardless of "lump of cells" vs. "small human" analysis, the question is whether any graphic depiction under a political rubric is therefore justified. I offer the example of depictions of sexuality - and to make the fine point for the "decency" crowd, who tend toward homophobia, specifically gay sexualilty - as an equivalent.

I would also have qualms about someone displaying a breast augmentation surgery as a paid political ad with kids around. I think we would agree that a breast is not an independent human life, and certainly that a saline implant is not a human being. However the gory nature of the ad would similarly pertain.

Whether or not you think the "small human" analysis is what makes this okay, does this same analysis extend to larger humans?

In other words, if I want to display that gay marriage is good in my campaign ad, can I display two gays getting married, kissing at the altar, and then having sex on their wedding night, to raise your children's awareness that gay marriage is okay -- and insist on airing that ad in prime time?

If not, what is the difference?

patsfan13

Since you ask. I would compare it to people opposing the holocaust showing people murdered in the camps. It is legitimate since the goal is prevent slaughter of the innocent.

I see babies in the womb as innocent of any wrongdoing. In the case of the execution of a convicted criminal you are dealing with a person who have killed innocent so there is no legitimate comparison to a baby who hasn't harmed anyone.



Again why is it gore to those who don't believe babies in the womb are human, no different than showing a package of hamburger from the POV of the pro abortion crowd.

We all realize that the reason the pro abortion crowd doesn't like these images is that they give lie to the notion that killing babies is somehow a legitimate 'choice' and that the baby isn't human prior to leaving the womb.

This is what makes these images so powerful. I think these ads are very helpful in protecting children which is the point of course. Hopefully it will influence a person who is considering killing their child.

__________________
"Some guys play in all-star games, some guys don't. I don't know who picks all those all-star teams. In all honesty, I don't know who picks the combine, for that matter," Belichick said. "How does (Miami-Ohio offensive lineman Brandon) Brooks not get invited to the combine? How did Vollmer not get invited to the combine? I don't know. We can't really worry about that. We just have to try to evaluate them the best we can."

patsfan13

Is the image of people having sex central to the issue of gay marriage?

Many people have sex when it has nothing to do with a permanent relationship? So is depicting gay sex central to the notion of gay marriage since gays have sex without marriage all the time? Is anyone preventing people from having sex because they are not married?

The only instances when I hear of people being prohibited from having sex is when it is in a public place.

__________________
"Some guys play in all-star games, some guys don't. I don't know who picks all those all-star teams. In all honesty, I don't know who picks the combine, for that matter," Belichick said. "How does (Miami-Ohio offensive lineman Brandon) Brooks not get invited to the combine? How did Vollmer not get invited to the combine? I don't know. We can't really worry about that. We just have to try to evaluate them the best we can."

Mrs.PatsFanInVa

I didn't ask if it was "legitimate," 13, I asked if you wanted your small children to see it while they were watching some Saturday afternoon comedy.

Again, you are avoiding my question. Should someone who objects to the death penalty on the premise that all man-caused deaths are murder be able to air a commercial showing an execution in close-up detail? Would you want your child to be able to view, close up, the exact details of a man shot in the stomach or of the final 15 minute death throes of a man in the gas chamber while he seizes and vomits and eventually chokes to death?

Is the fact that certain things happen enough of a reason to film and air it? Should Daniel Perl's beheading have been shown over and over again on television or should he (like the babies in Missy's little campaign ad) have been given at least a little dignity, privacy and respect?

There is a reason that the media does not do "close ups" of deaths and murders on the news shows. Why does it not apply in this case, as well?

A package of hamburger is not a video of a cow being slaughtered, complete with blood, *****, urine and gore, is it?

And we all realize that the pro-life people do believe that a baby is human prior to leaving the womb....so my question is this: How do you justify exploiting the human babies being shown in death on prime-time television? The end justifies the means, perhaps? Is not Missy depersonalizing these fetuses? Did she get their permission to film them and use them to her own benefit? Does she have the right to promote her candidacy by using their pictures or is she admitting thatshe can dowhatever she wants with their image and that because they are somehow not human she does not have to respect them in life or in death?

In that case, unless I hear differently from you in the next hour or so, I am going to post all of the pictures shown on Missy's web site here on Pats Fans, ok?

patsfan13

The reasona these are are objectionable to abortion supporters is that they are effective. They show the reality of 'choice' without the flowery rhetoric.

__________________
"Some guys play in all-star games, some guys don't. I don't know who picks all those all-star teams. In all honesty, I don't know who picks the combine, for that matter," Belichick said. "How does (Miami-Ohio offensive lineman Brandon) Brooks not get invited to the combine? How did Vollmer not get invited to the combine? I don't know. We can't really worry about that. We just have to try to evaluate them the best we can."

PatsFanInVa

Gay sex absolutely is mentioned frequently in rank-and-file oppostion to gay marriage. I have seen it mentioned here by right-wingers obsessed with "what those people must do."

I understand that you would cheapen the memory of the holocaust with your spurious comparison.

Yet, you do not mean it, or you do not have an understanding of what the Holocaust was.

I say this because like others here, you claim some sort of peacenik/Ghandian rhetoric about why it's wrong to kill abortion doctors.

Well, I wouldn't say that about Mengele. Neither would you, were you a Jew in the camps. Abortion is not the Holocaust. Abortion is abortion, and you know it.

But this is merely a matter of your mendacity. What is more problematic is the problem of your logic.

You state that it is okay to be vulgar in an ad,

1) because you, personally, believe that its propaganda purpose is true
2) because it is so important, and
3) because you believe, contra to U.S. jurisprudence, that an abortion kills a "little person."

In other words, you believe that there is a whole battery of tests determining whether an add that violates generally accepted standards of decency should be forced on Americans in prime time, based on federal election guidelines.

Now then, were I, as a candidate, to advocate in favor of gay marriage, and to depict a loving gay couple having wedding night sex:

1) I could say that I personally believe the imagery to be true;
2) I could say that to me the imagery is very important; and
3) I could say, also contra to U.S. jurisprudence, that to deny me these rights - a born, recognized person under the constitution - is to kill me a little bit at a time, by removing the things precious to me in life.

Of course, (3) is as subjective in this example as is (3) in your own analysis about "killing a little person."

But the basic idea is the same: Americans don't know that gay marriage won't hurt them, because they don't see images of non-threatening gay sex - so they should, and that's central to my campaign.

Therefore does anybody know whether I could buy prime time airtime, and air 30 or 60 seconds of sex - gay or straight - under the rubric of speech during an electoral campaign?

I don't care about your subjective view of why it's good to show this ad that violates standards of decency - to the point where even FOX runs a disclaimer.

The operative issue is whether it violates those standards, and it does.

Now, should other ads that violate those standards be foisted on the public, with a "free speech on steroids" excuse, based on the campaign season?

PFnV