Marriott victimizes young girl and boy

pstokely

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Aug-30-03 07:52 PM
Original message

Marriott victimizes young girl and boy

http://www.onemilliondads.com/CurrentIssue.asp

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

sujan

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Aug-30-03 07:55 PM
Response to Original message

1. wtf

didn't make any sense to me...is this real?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Democat

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Aug-30-03 07:57 PM
Response to Original message

2. That reads like some right wing fanatic article

These kids were "victimized" when the TV messed up and changed to porn while they were watching TV. That sounds like a technology problem that could happen anywhere. This organization appears to be exlpoiting these kids to try to push their anti-free speech agenda.

These people are trying to stop adults from seeing adult material for some reason.

Being against free speech is bad.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

ProudGerman

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Aug-30-03 08:24 PM
Response to Reply #2

5. Yeah, that's how I see it too

Though I must say, that is a little wrong that the kids saw a brief glimpse of a couple bumping uglies, its definitely not as horrible as they make it out. Hell, you don't even get to see penetration at the Marriot, so its not "hardcore". So the kids didn't see any "money shots".

But the banning of porn, that adults might want to see, is what they are really after. These kinds of idiots need to realize that there is a difference between family friendly, and completely kid safe.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

tah

(14 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Aug-30-03 08:27 PM
Response to Reply #2

6. free speech?

What has pornography got to do with free speech. Isn't most of it made up of visual depictions? Protecting political speech I can understand, protecting the smut traders is harder to support. I would be delighted if the pornographic spam that reaches my e-mail account was censored out of existence.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

mitchum

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Aug-30-03 08:32 PM
Response to Reply #6

9. but porn is political speech...

as Dershowitz so accurately argues

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

CanuckAmok

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Aug-30-03 08:33 PM
Response to Reply #6

10. Here:

"Free speech isn't conditional... Goebbels and Stalin were in favor of freedom of speech for the ideas they believed in, right? Either you're in favor of freedom of speech for everybody, or you're not in favor of freedom of speech."--Noam Chomsky.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

tah

(14 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Aug-30-03 09:48 PM
Response to Reply #10

12. free speech

My point was that pornographic pictures or videos are not "speech" as I understand it. Speech would involve the spoken word or written text. When was it expanded to include visuals? Do you think it was the intent of the framers of your constitution to protect pornographic pictures?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

CanuckAmok

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Aug-30-03 09:50 PM
Response to Reply #12

13. Well, it's not "my" Constitution, but...

...I believe the spirit is to protect the expression of ideas.

And, pornographic images are an expression of someone's ideas.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

ProudGerman

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Aug-30-03 08:34 PM
Response to Reply #6

11. You're missing the whole point on free speech

It's an all or nothing kind of thing. As soon as you bring in the approved and disapproved thing, no speech is free. You'll just have approved speech. Sorry, I don't want to live in a country that has approved speech.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Red_Viking

(903 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Aug-30-03 08:19 PM
Response to Original message

3. Uh...

Is this for real? Because, well, it's not just Marriott profiting from porn.

I really liked the Examples of Offensive Programming. Like, the Victoria's Secret Underwear Expo during the Super Bowl. Now, I did not watch it, but obviously the author of the article did, and regurgitated every sordid detail. I have a suggestion: IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, TURN THE CHANNEL.

Sounds easy enough.

RV

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

CanuckAmok

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Aug-30-03 08:22 PM
Response to Reply #3

4. Isn't Marriott owned by the Church of Latter Day Saints? n/t

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

sujan

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Aug-30-03 08:28 PM
Response to Reply #4

7. no

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

pstokely

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Aug-30-03 10:02 PM
Response to Reply #4

14. the moonies own a hotel in Manhattan

the Ramada New Yorker, does it have PPV porn?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Fridays Child

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Aug-30-03 08:28 PM
Response to Original message

8. That's the work of Don Wildmon, RW fundie, homophobe, and...

...First Amendment enemy.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Mon Apr 29th 2024, 07:45 PM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.