Home
  • About us
  • Calendar
  • THE PUBLIC SQUARE
  • Links
  • Search

Navigation

  • Track sex-related legislation (Safari-only right now)
  • Recent activity
  • Add Something New!

User login

  • Create new account
  • Request new password

SPEAK OUT!!

Contact the Media

Be heard on the issues that matter most to you!

Our Feeds...

 Whole Site Feed

 Calendar Feed

 Comments Feed

Who's online

There are currently 1 user and 4 guests online.

Online users

  • Chris
Home » "Kentuckiana" Anti-Porn Campaign

Gotta have big pictures becaus no one reads anymore

Submitted by CelticWarrior (not verified) on 25 August 2008 - 6:13pm.

They put their mixed messages up with big pictures because they assume no one reads anymore.  I don't have a billboard to post because I can't see them anymore.  But I can still have my computer read to me and still remember what I have read.  I wonder if any of the ROCKbrains and their ilk ever consdered this:

A recent decision of the Supreme Court leaves to each com­munity the right to decide what is pornography. Speaking for the majority of the Court, Chief Justice Warren Burger ad­mitted that although no link has yet been found between the consumption of pornography and anti-social behavior, any community may assume that such a connection exists if it wants to -- in other words, an outraged community may burn a witch even though, properly speaking, witches do not exist.
The Court's decision has of course alarmed and confused the peddlers of smut, who claim, disingenuously, that guide­lines are now lacking. They complain that the elders of Drake, North Dakota, may object to the word "damn" in a novel while the swingers of L.A. may want to read even worse words. Must the publisher, they ask, bring out two editions, one for permissive L.A. with the word "damn" and another for high­toned Drake with the word "darn"? Or settle the matter by publishing only for Drake?
This is a deep problem which I have solved. Wanting in every way to conform with the letter as well as the spirit of the Court's decision, I have carefully eliminated from this book those words that might cause distress to any one. Since books are nothing but words, a book is pornographic if it contains "bad" or "dirty" words. Eliminate those "bad" or "dirty" words and you have made' the work "clean."
In this novel I have replaced the missing bad words with some very good words indeed: the names of the justices who concurred in the Court's majority decision. Burger, Rehnquist, Powell, Whizzer White and Blackmun fill, ,as it were, the breach; their names replace the "bad" or "dirty" words. I have also appropriated the names of Father Morton Hill S. J. and Mr. Edward Keating, two well-known warriors in the battle against smut. I believe that these substitutions are not only socially edifying and redemptive but tend to revitalize a language gone stale and inexact from too much burgering around with meaning.

Gore Vidal, Myron (opening comment to the book) 

Reply

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <blockquote> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <p> <br /> <img>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

This site powered by Drupal!


Unless otherwise marked, work on SexInThePublicSquare.org work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 License. Permission required for commercial uses.

Header image created by Jolene Collins using works that are public domain or licensed under Creative Commons Attribution, Noncommercial, Share-alike licenses. From left to right, images are credited to: Will Van Dorp, unknown origin found on Pawel Wojcik's "Grandfather's Girls", Richard Eriksson, Kaitlyn Tikkun. Background image by Robert Gourley