Since Lars hasn't bothered to respond to my earlier critique of his post, I have to comment on his latest statement.
1. We are approaching a dangerous time in this country. One where some people would have government legislate bans on obsenities, depiction of violence, porn, shock jocks, boobs exposed at the Super Bowl, magazines and books that are deemed not suitable to all of the consumer public.
A: No one has suggested a governmental ban -- that would be inconsistent with the liberties afforded under the First Amendment. Rather, we have discussed using our pocket books to postively affect our culture. In this case, citizen concern worked and the offensive graphics were pulled. Don't dramatize that which hasn't been suggested. Also, please remember that the First Amendment does not protect obscene speech and only offers marginal protection to indecent communication. So, JJ's breast exposure and other such acts receive limited, if any, protection under the Constitution. Our Framers drafted the protection to establish the freedom to discuss political issues without fear of governmental reprise.
2. There is a fine line between between our rights that are guaranteed in the Constitution of our great country, and what some think we should be reading, watching and doing.
A: Again, you confuse the issue by suggesting governmental action. We are discussing private citizens acting here with no implications as to rights conferred under the Constitution.
3. Sounds to me like most of you would gather up all the Scratch BC's and burn em like the Nazi's did with the books.
A: Again, an appeal to an extreme argument that is not supported by our discussion. This demonstrates a propensity to personally attack individuals rather than address their substantive issues. This is perhaps because the position you maintain is untenable.
4. Blown out of proportion people!
A: Simple catch phrases do little to persuade, Lars. Rather, substantive comment on the issues presented would be suggested. How can one reasonably favor the depicition of murdering women as a recreational sport like skiing? I have failed to see how this view is upheld.
In the end, Lars, your basic contention is refuted. Graphics and images do carry and express meaning. For example, most people would object to skis with pictures of child pornography or dead American soldiers on them. Under your view, these are "just graphics" and we have no right to judge them. But we do have a right to a shared moral consensus and we can value, for example, the dignity of women in our society, the value of life, etc. We throw ourselves, our morals, and our culture into a veritable trash can when we ignore these warning signs and fail to stand up for basic notions of decency and moral virtue. By failing to stand up to depictions that are objectively evil, we consent to the depiction and their acceptance in society.
In the end, consumers and decency won. Acting upon our morals proved effective.