No permit? No release form? No problem

The Dallas Morning News reports that this is clearly against the law but the DA cannot prosecute because they have no complaintant. They also state that the video is not sufficient evidence as there is no way of proving that this was not recreated in a studio.

Long story short. She got lucky and didn't get caught. Are you willing to take the risk?
 
Which brings up a good point -- one that probably needs its own thread. But we are getting VERY close to a world where you can no longer believe what you see. There's a video on YouTube that shows an airplane doing stunts when one of the wings falls off. The pilot manages to regain control of the plane and make a hard, but safe, landing. A miracle! But although it looks absolutely REAL, it's not. Digital effects are getting easier and cheaper every day. Soon you won't know for sure if the footage of an event on a news show is actually real, or something fabricated. That will be a scary world.
 
So she'll pay $500 and rake in tens of thousands of dollars worth of publicity.

I'd put that firmly in the WIN column.
 
But she also earned the scorn and anger of a LOT of people. And presented herself as completely amoral and oblivious to the concerns of others, particularly parents. All for the sake of shock, to get her name in the news. Sad way to get attention.
 
No offense, but have you been sitting out the 21st century so far? :P

PS - I haven't seen the video but my understanding is that it is not really sexual, it's just nudity. Nudity is not amoral.
 
using nudity as tool to shock or gain attention while acting out the assassination of a very respected man is kinda amoral.
 
Kinda depends on the intent. You guys are probably right. It's a cynical world.

But it's at least arguably in the name of art / expression. just sayin'.

I watched the video and I thought it was interesting though not profound or wholly original. It's not even very shocking.
She has a new version which is the same but plays backwards. So she starts shot then gets dressed.

Neither version is sexual in the least bit. It's about a desperation to step outside of convention and conventional thinking or at least unquestioned thinking. At least that's the meaning I take away from it. Whether that's just an excuse to be sensationalist and shocking is another story. But that's the surface attempt.
 
dougspice said:
No offense, but have you been sitting out the 21st century so far? :P

PS - I haven't seen the video but my understanding is that it is not really sexual, it's just nudity. Nudity is not amoral.
Click to expand...

Absolutely agree. Though I think the last thing the world needs is another video of rap cr*p, I'm also sick and tired of this "we have to protect the children" nonsense that is threatening to turn the entire public arena into a culture resembling a creation of the Disney back lot. I'm tired of the conservative sticky beaks and prudes who see sin under ever stone getting to make the rules governing the public lives of the rest of us. (Non-repentant coming-of-age-in-the-60's free-speech guy here.)
 
Steve House said:
Absolutely agree. Though I think the last thing the world needs is another video of rap cr*p, I'm also sick and tired of this "we have to protect the children" nonsense that is threatening to turn the entire public arena into a culture resembling a creation of the Disney back lot. I'm tired of the conservative sticky beaks and prudes who see sin under ever stone getting to make the rules governing the public lives of the rest of us. (Non-repentant coming-of-age-in-the-60's free-speech guy here.)
Click to expand...

How about the rights of parents to control whether or not their children are exposed to public nudity? Or is that too 'prudish' too?

Honestly, the 'public arena' is about as far away from a Disney anything as it's ever been.

And why should you "free-speech-guys" get to "make the rules governing the lives" of the rest of US? Since you're name-calling here, I'm more than a little tired of the liberal "do anything, anywhere, anytime and to hell with everybody else" crowd shoving their agenda down MY throat.
 
chapelgrovefilms said:
How about the rights of parents to control whether or not their children are exposed to public nudity? Or is that too 'prudish' too?

Honestly, the 'public arena' is about as far away from a Disney anything as it's ever been.

And why should you "free-speech-guys" get to "make the rules governing the lives" of the rest of US? Since you're name-calling here, I'm more than a little tired of the liberal "do anything, anywhere, anytime and to hell with everybody else" crowd shoving their agenda down MY throat.
Click to expand...

We're not making the rules to govern you. You are (or more accurately, should be) perfectly free to go about clothed or nude as you see fit. If you don't want your kids to read a certain book, don't allow them to. But you have no right to remove it from the public library shelves.
 
How do I stop my kids from seeing naked women if they're walking down a public street in broad daylight, completely unannounced? If you make it a rule that people CAN walk around freely in the nude in public, then you HAVE made rules to govern me. What gives you that right?

I can keep my kids from the library. I can keep them from the shelf where the imaginary offending book is. I can make sure they don't pick up that book and leaf through it. But what am I supposed to do here -- keep my kids off the streets, locked up in the house with the shades drawn, just so YOU folks can see all the naked women you want? How is it right that YOU get to impose YOUR morals and values on me and my family?
 
What's going to happen to those kids if they see a naked woman? Are they going to suffer psychological damage from that?

Perhaps we should outlaw breastfeeding, since that kid might remember what the breast looked like?
 
The point is it's up to the parents to decide whether they want their children exposed to nudity, and at what age. It brings up a lot of questions and confusions that younger kids may not be emotionally or intellectually prepared to deal with at that stage of their lives.

Some people think we should all live in one giant nudist colony, where anything goes. They think we'll be 'healthier' that way. But that's not the society we have, and I doubt if that's what most parents want.

To ridicule and insult people because they have an objection to an illegal public display of nudity is rude and condescending.
 
I will ridicule and insult anyone who believes in stuff that is ridiculous...especially if they have no answer for the simple, straightforward question I am asking. (to clarify: that a single display of public nudity will forever harm children or that it will cause the destruction of civilization)

There were parents who got all bent out of shape because a teacher took students to the Dallas Museum of Art in which there were paintings that had nudity (the teacher got fired). Is this also ridiculous or reasonable? Why or why not?
 
chapelgrovefilms said:
How do I stop my kids from seeing naked women if they're walking down a public street in broad daylight, completely unannounced? If you make it a rule that people CAN walk around freely in the nude in public, then you HAVE made rules to govern me. What gives you that right?

I can keep my kids from the library. I can keep them from the shelf where the imaginary offending book is. I can make sure they don't pick up that book and leaf through it. But what am I supposed to do here -- keep my kids off the streets, locked up in the house with the shades drawn, just so YOU folks can see all the naked women you want? How is it right that YOU get to impose YOUR morals and values on me and my family?
Click to expand...

Kids don't have any problem with nudity until we tell them to have a problem with it. It seems like you are confusing nudity with sexual content. Which I agree, parents have every right to decide when and how to introduce their kids to sex.

We have a hard time in this country separating the two because sex is force-fed to us at all hours of the day by the advertising industry. They do in fact push sex onto kids whether the like it or not.

This is like seseme street compared to some of the ads I've seen. Or Disney's own little girl Mylie Cyrus in her "****-me daddy" photo shoot. That literally made me queazy.

There's much bigger fish to fry on this front than just a straight up naked woman.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top