Quote:

Yearbook Bans Photos with Flowers
A yearbook photo by any other name... Picture of teen with flowers rejected because of school's rule against props
AP Updated: 9:46 p.m. ET Sept 11, 2007
MERRIMACK, N.H. - Roses are red, violets are blue. If you’re holding one of these, the high school yearbook won’t picture you.

A New Hampshire teenager said her yearbook has rejected her senior photograph because she was holding a red flower, and props aren’t allowed.

In the photo, Melissa Morin, 17, who loves acting, is sitting on a costume trunk backstage at the Palace Theatre in Manchester. She wore a black and white sundress and clutched the flower.

The no-prop policy stemmed from a 2005 controversy in another school district where a student was upset because the yearbook wouldn’t print a photo of him posing with a gun. A judge ruled in favor of the school, but Merrimack High School officials said they didn’t want to face similar scuffles and got rid of props.

Morin’s mother says she wasn’t aware of the policy.

“I understand (the school’s) dilemma in trying to make it black and white ... and not blur the line,” Kathie Roy said. “On the other hand, if something is allowed in the classroom, something benign, then I think it’s perfectly acceptable.”

Ken Johnson, principal, said that students were told about the policy last year but that nothing was printed until this year. The school’s yearbook coordinator recently sent an e-mail to parents reminding them about the due date for photos, and it included a statement about no hats or other props.

"Ooh Flowers could symbolize something bad can't allow them in the yearbook. Should probably set up an appointment for that girl with the school psychiatrist as well." Seriously though how far can schools push these zero tolerance policies. It's getting ridiculous anymore.
And on a similar note...
'Wardrobe Malfunction' Heads to Court

Quote:

Meanwhile, in July, the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee approved the "Protecting Children from Indecent Programming Act," sponsored by Sens. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., and Mark Pryor, D-Ark. The act would require the FCC "to maintain a policy that a single word or image may be considered indecent."

Such a law would neatly encompass both lawsuits. But if it passed, it would not be retroactive. The American Civil Liberties Union said the bill "could have serious and damaging effects on the First Amendment." A companion bill is said to be in the works on the House side.

Hope that doesn't become law or else TV will become as Wholesome as it was in the 50's (shudder).

Censorship in and of itself goes to far.


Goodbye Callisto & Skaði, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.

Censorship is for the weak of mind. In a world of profanity, only the mundane is tolerated, what's with that sh*t?

Seriously, a flower versus a weapon? Remember the pictures from Kent University when students were putting flowers in the barrels of guns AIMED AT THEM? Print that, should go over well.




Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

I understand where Censorship comes from. It comes from

1) Politicians' never-ending need to solve complex issues with simple laws.
2) The fact that there are too many weak-minded people. A lot of people are sheep, let's face it. If that weren't true, we wouldn't have things like "fashion", fads, Starbucks...etc.

The problem is they never consider the potential damage to those of us who think critically, you know, the ones that make the economy move and innovate.

As for the gun thing, unless I read it wrong (and I might of, I'm extremely tired), the kid with the gun and the judge ruined it for everyone. The school had no choice to ban all the props. Kind of a ruined-it-for-everyone ordeal it seems to me.


---

Agustin: I think the Judge sided with the school and said no to guns, but the school went and said no props in order to avoid problems.

In this case, someone (the kid with the gun) thinking and not getting all ferclempt and butt-hurt about not getting into the year-book with his shootin' irons could have saved a heap of troubles.




Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

I think it goes deeper.

IMHO, the problem with humanity is when we went from nomadic to agrocultural society. Because we stayed put, we could then focus less on survival of the pack and more of suyrvival of everyone since there was no real "need" to weed out the infirm. As such, some people ended up as "leaders" with their take-charge ability, and many ended up as followers who couldn't take the pressure (and under nomadic society would had ended up dying out for dragging the pack down). Somehow, ability as the cornerstone of leadership was supplanted by priveledge of bloodline, where the spawn of great leaders, never having the ability to become creat, began dicking the populace to keep themselves powerful, despite not having the ability to be a good leader.

With that, came the Divine rights and deified status of leader we saw in the more ancient world.

Still to this day, these things happen. The glass ceiling is one example. Think about the leaders you deal with and those that run the things that affect you--how they seem to come from a "priveledged" background and how it seems that anyone with any common sense couldn't make it there.

Part of perpetuating that is controlling though, and we think in language--and moreso the media. People that are in charge and think censorship is a good idea tend to have a lot to lose if things were uncensored, so they attempt to censor to try to stamp out "rebellious" thoughts.

Consider this for a moment--most of the "non-traditional" religious practices didn't see the light of day until really recently--they had to be practiced in secret because despite the 1st amendment, we are a secular nation. The more-lax view of, say, Wicca nowadays couldn't have happened in, say, the 50's because of the extreme censorship laws back then that pretty much limited the TV viewrship to Christianity. Most people that couldn't see beyond the CRT screen really didn't know there was much more, and wouldn't hear a fair and balabced view. The only view they had was from their parents, and preachers. As such, since their preachers looks at "alternative" faiths as a threat to their livelyhood, it was in their best intrests to demonize them to stop loosing offerings from the tithing plates.

Same with Nudity and Sex. It's my belief that those who whish to stamp out nudity and sex are fearful that they will lose power and/or image. After all, you take a political leader who could only be described as "Needle-dick the bug-@!#$", and that tidbit gets out, he'll fear that up against, say, Peter North, he'll lose identity in manliness. Same with Women--how green some of them get when placed next to a "better looking" specimen. That's also the basis of my theories of why the magazines and media tout images of beauty that are hard-to-reach--keep the populace going after an attainable goal and keeping those that, if let loose in the wild would be an appetizer, in the position of beauty.

Censorship IMHO is just an attempt to control your thought. Then from there, anything "different" than the percieved norm of what censorship allows serves as a ridicule point, keeping "outsiders" with different views from swaying everyone to a more rational view.

Nothing more than social engineering.

If things would revert back to a more nomadic lifestyle--how many of those in power would really survive when there's a structure built up around them so that they don't have to work hard to make it?


Goodbye Callisto & Skaði, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.

Quote:

Sally Field's Emmy Speech Sets off Censors
Twenty-two years after her immortal Oscar speech, the Fox network really did NOT like Sally Field.

Accepting her Emmy on Sunday night for lead actress in a drama series ("Brothers and Sisters"), Field stumbled halfway through, lost her train of thought, screeched at the audience to stop applauding so she could finish talking and then was bleeped by Fox censors as she stammered through an anti-war rant.

"And, let's face it, if the mothers ruled the war, there would be no (expletive) wars in the first place," Field said, but Fox cut away for much of her comment.

Backstage, Field told reporters that she wanted to recognize mothers who wait for their sons to come home from war. She added, however, that she "didn't have a political agenda."

Told that she had been bleeped, Field responded: "Oh well. I've been there before. Well, good. I don't care. I have no comment other than, oh well. I said what I wanted to say. I wanted to pay homage to the mothers of the world, and let their work be seen and valued."

Pressed for more comment, she responded: "I think probably shouldn't have said the God in front of the ... I would have liked to have said more bleeped-out words."

Field, 60, had her first starring roles on television in the 1960s shows "Gidget" and "The Flying Nun." But she may be most remembered for her much-parodied 1985 speech accepting the best-actress Oscar for "Places in the Heart," which included the famous line: "I can't deny the fact that you like me. Right now, you really like me."

Before the show, about 300 people chanted Field's name as she walked the red carpet. She stopped and posed for pictures as the audience erupted in wild cheers.
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.


Ray Romano Keeps Emmy Censors Busy
Ray Romano gave the Emmy censors a run for their bleep buttons Sunday before making his own run for the exit.

Romano joked about his former "Everybody Loves Raymond" wife, Patricia Heaton, sleeping with her new "Back to You" co-star Kelsey Grammer. But he used a stronger word than "sleeping," which prompted Fox to black out the show for a few seconds.

"Shame on you. We have TV children!" Romano said to Heaton, who was sitting in the audience.

Immediately after delivering his routine early in the show, Romano, wearing dark glasses, headed out the back door.

The censors also got a workout with Katherine Heigl, who mouthed an expletive after winning for her role on "Grey's Anatomy."

By Chelsea J. Carter and Sandy Cohen
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Kind of funny if you think about it, Fox airs Family Guy which has numerous expletives in its episodes.

i have been in US for 7 years and have noticed that the new laws are getting stupider, and people are loosing more and more of their freedom, freedom of speech or expression don't exist no more, in some cities people can't even smoke in their homes, in GR strippers can't undress and cannot get within 5 feet of the customers. wtf
cant fart here don't jerk off there, what else do we need to be told

i think there is a quote that goes something like "anyone willing to give up a little liberty to gain a little security deserves neither, and will lose both"

a good majority of people think what they think or do is correct, and everyone else must conform or else. the only problem is when we get morons who have the invisible fist of power other morons seemingly grant them, they tend to create methods of control which appease themselves and other similar interest groups, such as censorship. oh no, a boob, i cant let my kid see that.. lets turn on some good ol' fashion killing movies/cartoons instead. i mean its only a part of the human body, totally natural, but i just cant expose them to it, they know killing is wrong ill put that on... hey sally, why are you pregnant at 14? hey billy, why are you having sex at 15? gee.. wonder why..

the lack of education about such activities quite possibly leads to the curiousity and experimentation of such. this arguement could take a number of paths, but i will focus back on censorship.

to be frank, everyone has rights, but if one person exercising their rights infringe on the rights of another, it is no longer a freedom or their right to do so. instead of having the common sense to look away, or turn off something that may be found offensive, it must be eliminated instead. censor it, it offends me.. please me, i dont care if anyone else enjoys this, i think its disgusting...

ahh yes, the human way... if you dont understand something, get rid of it.

just to clear it up, i think censorship has gone way to far. somebody elses intellectual property, such as a tv show or cartoon, should not be tampered with because someone else may find it offensive. if its offensive, dont watch.

sorry, i hope i made sense, im tired..



12.33 @ 111.67 mph [Oct 2009]
Dyno'd on 08/02/09 - Mustang Dyno:
327.6 WHP 333.6 WTQ [10.1 AFR]

My vote goes for too far.

If we just lived in a world where people could say or show whatever they want... and people really wheren't offended my anything... the world would be a better place.

My dad mentioned something about the younger generation (mainley us) not having any respect for watching our language in public.

Yea.. most people I know swear all the time... but we arn't offended by it either so if you think about it... this is a good thing... if no one is offended by something... then there isn't a problem. Thats progression any way you look at it. It's the people that are old fashioned enough to make a stink about it that are really causing the problem. No one really looks at it that way. It's not usually the fact people are doing something thats the problem... the fact that some people don't wan't us to is where the poblems occure... if no one cares... there is no controversy or fighting.

^^^

And it seems the me that there's really only 2 places that this is an issue: The U.S., and places that are gung-ho islamic (not saying all muslims are major prudes), or have fully adopted Sharia Law...

Kinda makes you think...


Goodbye Callisto & Skaði, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.

Censorship is stupid. If you're offended by something, don't watch it. If you aren't, then there's no problems.

Same thing goes with racial slurs. Nigger (let's see if it's filtered) is only powerful so long as people are offended by it.
I'm white, call me a cracker, honkey, whitey, whatever you want. I'm not offended by it, so it doesn't matter. People need to quit getting butt hurt over everything.


On Topic: The school needs to say this:

Being in the yearbook is a privilege, not a right. If you are doing something in your photo we don't like, you either change it or you don't go in. End of story. Instead, they have to make a one rule fits all, and @!#$ over people who aren't doing anything wrong. Stupidity.

Quote:

Instead, they have to make a one rule fits all, and @!#$ over people who aren't doing anything wrong. Stupidity.

Thats the American way.

Quote:

And it seems the me that there's really only 2 places that this is an issue: The U.S., and places that are gung-ho islamic (not saying all muslims are major prudes), or have fully adopted Sharia Law...

Kinda makes you think...

Yes it does....

Believe it or not.... I'm more of a conservitive than anything.... Most things in our country either need to stay the same.. or go back to the way they where...

But......... there are some things that do need to change (or more acuratley... STOP changing). Overgovernization being a big one.

to far , to many try to be PC now its taken over

yes there needs to be a line , but the grey area needs a better definition that is agreed on , and just like on XM radio , we should be able to select what comes through our tv and radio , i want the brief nudity , foul language , but id like to be able to switch it to censored or play a edited version when kids or conservitive company is over


but it needs to be MY CHOICE !!!!!!!!!!!! not some elses !!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm American, and sometimes I just feel like saying @!#$ America, I'm moving to England

^^^ in what reference, Weeble? Things have changed so much in our 232-year history that if things went back to the way they "were", we could be just a loose confederation--or the president thinking that political parties are stupid, and most of the legislature and executive branch thinking the dumbest thing would be to push Christianity into the law.

Or, we could go back to when Slavery, and Income tax, was illegal...

Or, we could go back to before "Under God" was in the pledge.

We could go back to when it was illegal to drink.

There's too many different "Good old days" that you need to be specific...


Goodbye Callisto & Skaði, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.