The chief censor banned a T-Shirt with offensive language on it. It also put the boot into Jesus and depicts a near naked nun masturbating.
This is really a litmus test of the sentiment “with freedom comes responsibility”.
If some freedom loving individual thinks it’s their right to walk down the street with “Jesus is a c*nt” on their T-Shirt with aforementioned graphic picture of a nun, for all and sundry to see, including children, then they demonstrate they don’t actually possess the requisite responsibility and therefore the censor bans the T-Shirt as an instructive way of helping idiots find their limits.
People go on about the need to be free to say and do whatever you wish, but are those people also arguing that children should be exposed to any and all of this? I suspect they are too self-centred to even understand the concept.
If you are going to be given freedom, prove you can act responsibly. That's the deal. This particular T-Shirt crosses the line, because it wasn't just purchased and worn in the privacy of ones own home, but worn to a public event.
Whilst I'm generally not in favour of banning things, it's probably illegal to round up a posse and strip the T-Shirt off the culprit, tar and feather them and run them out of town. Surely, this was the secret desire of this particular idiot?
Related Link: Offensive T-Shirt can't even be worn inside out
Related Link: Cradle of Filth should know better (One of my better link titles)
Related Link: Where else but the Kapiti Coast?
Hatip: Kiwiblog - Hell freezes over
Actual T-Shirt (R16 please) on thread discussing democratic and theological implications of being a self-centred idiot: Adolescent muppets [link fixed - sorry!]
This is really a litmus test of the sentiment “with freedom comes responsibility”.
If some freedom loving individual thinks it’s their right to walk down the street with “Jesus is a c*nt” on their T-Shirt with aforementioned graphic picture of a nun, for all and sundry to see, including children, then they demonstrate they don’t actually possess the requisite responsibility and therefore the censor bans the T-Shirt as an instructive way of helping idiots find their limits.
People go on about the need to be free to say and do whatever you wish, but are those people also arguing that children should be exposed to any and all of this? I suspect they are too self-centred to even understand the concept.
If you are going to be given freedom, prove you can act responsibly. That's the deal. This particular T-Shirt crosses the line, because it wasn't just purchased and worn in the privacy of ones own home, but worn to a public event.
Whilst I'm generally not in favour of banning things, it's probably illegal to round up a posse and strip the T-Shirt off the culprit, tar and feather them and run them out of town. Surely, this was the secret desire of this particular idiot?
The shirt advertising an album by British band Cradle of Filth also apparently uses satanic images, and the chief censor says he can't remember seeing a stronger T-shirt.
In its decision, the censor's office said a fair interpretation of the t-shirt's message is Christians should be vilified and even chaste women can't say no to sex.
Related Link: Offensive T-Shirt can't even be worn inside out
Related Link: Cradle of Filth should know better (One of my better link titles)
Related Link: Where else but the Kapiti Coast?
Hatip: Kiwiblog - Hell freezes over
Actual T-Shirt (R16 please) on thread discussing democratic and theological implications of being a self-centred idiot: Adolescent muppets [link fixed - sorry!]
Banning the tee-shirt was a good call. I was all for the Jay-jays tee-shirts for children being pulled as well.
ReplyDeleteSo can you clarify Fugley that you see nothing wrong with putting this specific T-shirt in public in front of children?
ReplyDeletezen, do you have an image?
ReplyDeleteI haven't seen that shirt, but have always wondered about the taboos over some words but not others.
Why, for example, does the newspaer say "slept with" when if all they did was "sleep" there'd be no story? Why not be honest and say fucked?
There is a link to the image in my post Fugley - the one that starts Actual T-Shirt (R16 please)...
ReplyDeleteBTW, the text is on the back of the T-Shirt, which is why the text is shown in a side box. The image, obviously is on the front.
ReplyDeleteAh, I see the problem - link repaired. Sorry!
ReplyDeleteWell, I can't see what the nun is doing so cannot understand why anyone would find it offensive.
ReplyDeleteIt is, however, an interesting coalition - the hate the poofters xtians in alliance with a poofeter. Interesting that hastings chose the word "villification" when he could have quite easily used mocked, laughed at, made the butt of a joke, etc. I see him trying to further the poofter push for anti- villification laws and the xtians slavering over themselves to help him.
If an obscure metal band thinks jesus is/was a cunt, so what?
The man's been dead 200 years, get over it, move on.
So can you clarify Fugley that you see nothing wrong with putting this specific T-shirt in public in front of children?
ReplyDeletefrom waht i saw, I see nothing wrong with this t shirt. And keep in mind, it is from an obscure metal band that peoople like you have given far hreater exposure to than they could ever have hoped for.
ReplyDeleteIf you really want to get your knickers in knots, why not do it over important issues?
Who cares if anyone thinks jersus is/was a cunt? i don't.
And who cares if someone writes the word cunt on a tshirt? i don't.
I know you don't care about the T-shirt. That's clear.
ReplyDeleteNo-one has asked you if we care what people write on T-shirts.
Can you try a straight answer to the questions Fugley? The question is about putting material like this (and specifically this), in front of children - ie in public.
So can you clarify Fugley that you see nothing wrong with putting this specific T-shirt in public in front of children?
If you don't care what people write on t shirts, why are your nuts in a twist over this?
ReplyDeleteObviously you DO care, and I was interested in knowing why.
Anyway, is this clear enough for you?
I would not wear this shirt.
I would not be offended by seeing anyone else wearing this shirt.
If any one IS offended then that is their issue, not mine. There is no right not to be offended.
However, I do find it offensive (and acknowledge it is my issue) to see people wearing representations of torture in public places, and I especially object to children being subjected to these images of torture. in fact, I believe it is exposure to these images that desensitises children to torture.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I do find it offensive (and acknowledge it is my issue) to see people wearing representations of torture in public places, and I especially object to children being subjected to these images of torture. in fact, I believe it is exposure to these images that desensitises children to torture.
ReplyDeleteObviously you DO care, and I was interested in knowing why.
ReplyDeletePerhaps like you, I believe children are not adults, and should not be exposed to objectionable, overly offensive or illegal material in public.
It is a cop-out to suggest they can just "ignore it". Just because you, as an adult can handle it, doesn't mean we should expect children to.
And I totally disagree on your last point - everyone has a right to be offended. It's part and parcel of calling the right to have an opinion. Trying to suppress or deny that absolute right smacks of a weird disconnect with you supporting the polar opposite - everyone's supposed right to deliberately offend, provoke and upset.
It's how we handle our disagreements over differing opinions that is the mark of a civil society, not denying opinions.
..children are not adults, and should not be exposed to objectionable, overly offensive or illegal material in public.
ReplyDeleteHere is our first point of difference. I don't believe putting the word cunt on a tshirt should be illegal. And how does a child know the word cunt is objectionable or offensive unless someone tells them it is? Why the downer on cunt, but not vagina, pussy, twat, fanny, love tunnel, etc?
If you don't tell a child to be offended, then they WILL ignore it.
I'll partly agree with you on the being offended bit. I do accept that you have a right to feel offended. What I don't accept is that you should be able to take legal remedy for being offended as it is still your choice to be offended or not.
It is impossible to legislate to protect people from being offended as simply that act of legislation will be offensive to some.
.
It is impossible to legislate to protect people from being offended as simply that act of legislation will be offensive to some.
ReplyDeleteWho cares if those people are offended though?
They are the very ones that think no-one has a right to be offended, so therefore realise they have no right to take offense. Perfect :-)
The mantra is "with freedom comes responsibility". That's a fair deal, isn't it?
Let's be clear here, this ban isn't a ban on it being shown to children, it is a ban on even owning the tshirt, wearing it at home. THAT is outrageous.
ReplyDeleteYes people who wear this tshirt are being shocking and offensive, but frankly people are offensive daily in different ways - whether it is what they say, their lack of hygiene, ignoring you. Sorry - you do not have the right for the state to protect you from being offended.
You also don't have the right to have the state protect your kids from seeing things in public that offend your beliefs - after all, Muslims could demand the hijab on that basis.
Those offended by the tshirt can protest, they can express disgust at those wearing it, and wear their own tshirts, and of course ban them on private property they control - but the notion that you have a criminal conviction for owning a tshirt is absurd and disgusting.
My parallel is this. I oppose the law against smacking but I find it utterly vile to see any parents smacking their children in public or pulling down their pants to do so (I've SEEN that). I find it vile when they shout abusively at them saying they are "useless" or "stupid". I don't like kids seeing that.
Criminalising that would be going too far, but the tshirt is easy. Images of Christ on the cross are depicting the torturous murder of a man - since when is that good for children to be seeing, with dripping blood out of nail holes?
Step back from this and you may see that this shouldn't be the state's business (but respect is one reason why I didn't post the image on my blog post on this issue).
I agree in principle Liberty Scott. And this T-Shirt would never have been banned if the person concerned hadn't worn it at a public venue that was likely to be at its maximum impact for offensiveness.
ReplyDeleteIf they had worn it in the privacy of their own home, or at venues where such a T-Shirt would have earned admiration or simply been ignored, all would have been fine.
They mis-used their freedom and got jumped on by the Nanny State. As I said in my post, this seems to be an instructive way of idiots finding their limits. If they at least took the "responsibility" part to heart, it would never have been a problem.
Let's be clear here, this ban isn't a ban on it being shown to children, it is a ban on even owning the tshirt, wearing it at home. THAT is outrageous.
ReplyDeleteActually, I think it started out that way. The censor thought "This is an R18 T Shirt, not for wearing it but for who might see it walking down the street.
Then he said "I don't need to ban this if people acted responsibly."
Then he said "Ah, but this was brought to my attention because the Einstein wearing this wore it in a situation designed to generate complaints."
Then he said "Well that puts me in a rock and a hard place. Since it only affects a small number of muppet like idiots, I'll ban it.
Now, the T-Shirt will become exceedingly popular and Che Guevara shirts will be thrown out and exchanged for these, and we'll realise there are a lot more musically challenged anti-social muppets out loose in the community, and we'll be forced to return to the good old days of tarring and feathering or the use of stocks and old tomatoes. A terrible future for NZ.
Well this makes a curious change from the usual Bill Hastings = homosexual agenda / pornography god tone of the SPCS.
ReplyDeleteGood on ya Zen for persevering at cornering and extracting an answer to your question, no matter how much he weaseled and danced around the issue.
ReplyDeleteIt wasn't so much that he can't see your point, rather I think the term "xtians" was proof enough that he won't see it.
Coming back to the t-shirt and its owner and designer, ah yes, yet another POS desperately trying to stick it to Christianity, a moral pygmy. Anyone know if he's released a "mohammed is a c*nt" range as well or as i suspected, his bravery doesn't extend that far. Perhaps the retard feels like he's achieved something.
Zen, yes people could act responsibly - but to classify the tshirt on the same level as child pornography is obscene as well, as it sets the stage for the same to apply to ones with Islamic imagery et al.
ReplyDeleteDon't forget this, anyone defending this decision has effectively said the Police should now be able to get a search warrant to enter any home where they think one of these t-shirts could be. I can imagine trolling ebay to find NZ buyers and getting IP addresses for this (not impossible) and then doing raids.
The law says this is possible, it shouldn't, this t-shirt should not be banned. You should of course be able to tell the person wearing it what you think, and you should always be able to ban it from private property, of all kinds, but not criminalise the owner.
I hear you Liberty. And that's why criminalizing a smack and putting it in the same space as abuse, simply because legislators are too lazy to write laws to distinguish between the two is far worse than this, because that law has the potential to criminalize good parents.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure though that the police have strict instructions to apply common sense and merely interview errant T-Shirt owners, perhaps a strip search, empty their cupboards, confiscate the inevitable pornography and make notes on their file so that if any slight impropriety is registered in the future they can put 2+2 together and get 5.
You see this as a matter of deep principles about liberty where basic rights need to trump even in situations where they are abused. I sympathize and see the danger in not working this way.
However, the reality is we have a socialist, collectivist government hell bent on destroying core family and community values to reshape society in the way they think will work. But the more they fiddle, the worse it gets.
So I've decided to add a new angle to this "absolute freedom" principle. One that says if we DO NOT include measures of responsibility with providing freedom, then in this environment, it wont work anyway. And the collectivists use abused freedom as justification to encroach on rights even more. We play into their hands supporting these T-Shirt offending idiots.
So, with freedom comes responsibility. If it doesn't, there is no real freedom either, there is just an environment that caters to the selfish and promotes vices over virtue.
I know Objectivists see selfishness as a virtue, but this kind of selfishness is not the same. Don't confuse the type of selfishness that is so inward looking it fails to value our place in the family and community. Example? Some muppet turning up to a public gathering with a picture of nun masturbating on it.
Fugley, Our Lord on the Cross is most definitely tortuous. However, I can tell you as someone who grew up with the Crucifix, the image was never related to torture for me. And when you look at most crucifixes, you will see that they are very sanitised versions of what the real thing was like. Just watching The Passion of the Christ makes that clear.
ReplyDeleteHowever, exposing children to sex is different. The temptation to early sensualisation is far more insidious. You only have to read the stories of people who have been sexually abused as children to see that.
I think we're forgetting it is a few words on a bit of cotton. Words than can be explained by a rational parent and not banned by the hysterical book burning crowds.
ReplyDeleteWhy it has been linked to sex, children or anything else is beyond me. Who has the divine right to judge what is offensive and what isn't? What will happen when this distinction moves downwards where we will ban anyting that may offend others.
Yes people have responsibilities, but the real responsibility here is to stop people banning others from owning a silly t shirt.
Why it has been linked to sex, children or anything else is beyond me.
ReplyDeleteMaybe its the picture of the masturbating nun on the other side of the T-Shirt?
Maybe because children see the T-Shirt when the person in question wears it in public places.
Yes people have responsibilities, but the real responsibility here is to stop people banning others from owning a silly t shirt.
The real responsibility is to punish the person in question for his deliberately provocative insult s in the wrong public forum. As usual, the Nanny State comes in heavy handed and misses the point, and the idiot gets off far too lightly.