censorship

Cancer Update  /  Current Issues  /  Morning Update  /  News & Comment  /  Personal  /  Social Commentary
Morning Update: 05/30/24
May 30, 2024

Elegant Rest [2004]

No worries, I’m fine. No severe sugar drop. The doctor has revised the prescription a little bit so that hopefully those wild ups and downs won’t occur. Even last night’s after-dinner measurement was a reasonable 135, which is still high but only by about 15 points. We’ll get there and get things back to normal soon enough, I’m sure.

I’m still pissed about all the censorship going on around town. You’ll find my latest opinion in last night’s post. I seriously fail to understand why anyone would think that it’s their job, their responsibility, or even any of their fucking business to police what consenting adults do, anywhere, any time, for any reason. They don’t seem to mind ruining people’s lives, jeopardizing their jobs, threatening relationships, and denying basic human dignity. Then, they want to run and hide behind some form of religious mythology that, by any reasonable account, is a piece of trash.

Oh, that reminds me, those bastions of ministerial abuse, the Southern Baptist Convention, has their annual convention in Indy again, June 9-12. This is at least the third time in the past 20 years that they’ve brought their special brand of bigotry, hate-filled love, self-righteousness, pretentiousness, and really bad tipping to the Circle City. There is no upside to them being here. Businesses don’t profit because these tightwads don’t buy much and complain about it when they do. And you want to know what’s high on their agenda? Whether or not they want to acknowledge all the fucking abuse committed by Southern Baptist ministers. Just yesterday, Nashville’s paper of record, The Tennessean, published a second article on their attempt to deny what’s happening, “Second SBC pastor implicated in ‘conspiracy’ to destroy evidence in federal abuse inquiry.” That’s how hard these fools are trying to cover their tracks. Dear Indianapolis Convention & Tourism: Please do not invite these religious terrorists back to our city ever again. We don’t need to be assaulted by people who apparently believe that spreading their seed is sharing love. Gag. We have enough trouble downtown without inviting a bunch of serial rapists.

We’re still getting unseasonably cool weather and, for the moment, it appears that there’s no rain coming at us until Saturday. I’m watching a slow-moving system coming across the plains, but there doesn’t seem to be enough activity in the jet stream for it to show up here with a lot of power. Maybe we can get the lawn mowed tomorrow.

I slept like crap last night, though. There’s a lot of pain in my wrists and arms, presumably from the fall earlier this week. So, there is definitely a need for naps today.

And, uhm, Google? No, I don’t need any help writing, thank you. It’s one of the few things I do well. STOP ASKING.

Continue Reading

Current Issues  /  News & Comment  /  pop culture  /  Social Commentary  /  video
Censorship Violates Human Dignity
May 29, 2024

You already know this is going to be NSFW.

Everything is Censored

Candace Ownes, the token GOP black female, wants pornography to be banned. Never mind that the Supreme Court has said it can’t be banned, only limited. Ms. Owens isn’t that bright and probably can’t even name the late Hustler publisher who damn near died fighting against censorship (Larry Flynt, for those of you under 50). Don’t worry, Cardi B. is calling her out.

Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry signed a bill potentially making it illegal for legitimate news outlets to cover instances of police brutality. The American Civil Liberties Union is already planning to file suit by the end of the week.

And in Texas, a judge finally dismissed charges against a so-called “journalist” who was allegedly “arrested, strip-searched, and jailed for filming police.” Why was he held? Because there’s no real publication behind him. He’s only a journalist on his own YouTube channel.

These are all examples of censorship. And no, they’re not even close to being at the top of the list. Consider these headlines:

The list of censorship in the media is neverending. Why? Because it’s titillating. Everyone clocks to see what’s going on, who wore what, who did what, who went where, and just how much can be seen. These so-called “news” outlets have us pretending to care about the lives of people just because their names show up in the media on occasion. Is it any of our business what they wear? No. Do we have any right to judge them for what they do? Only if it’s illegal and even then, we may want to take a step back first.

Religious fanatics have convinced us that we have to judge our fellow human in order to avoid being “sinfully influenced” by them. After all, if we see that someone else enjoys having a butt plug shoved up their ass, then you might want to give it a try as well.

And where are all these better-than-you media outlets coming from? Losers that can’t get jobs as real journalists at real news outlets. It’s rather easy, actually. I can toss up a web page or a YouTube profile, call myself a reporter, print my own press pass (because I know how), and walk around getting myself into trouble pretending to be something I’m not. If my website has the word “news” in it, then a lot of people think that I can hide behind the First Amendment and say anything about anyone that I damn well please.

Censorship has become such a large part of our lives, that many people have started referring to it simply as “editing.”

This time is past due for censorship of our lives to stop. And to make my point, please enjoy this totally 18+ NSFW 20-second video that definitely includes nudity and you shouldn’t watch if it’s illegal in your state. That’s on you.

And if you want to judge me for making a video like this, fuck you. I refuse to be censored by anyone other than myself (and I even have arguments with myself about that).

Continue Reading

Art  /  Current Issues  /  News & Comment  /  Politics  /  Social Commentary
Can They See This In Texas?
March 24, 2024

In June of last year (2023), the Texas State Legislature, one of the most brain-dead in the union, passed a law requiring adult-oriented websites to use “reasonable” age verification to make sure that only people 18+ are accessing their websites. You know, they’re so obsessed with “protecting the children.” Lawsuits were immediately filed and the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals applied a temporary stay, but at the same time required adult websites to comply with the law. As a result, Aylo, who owns sites such as PornHub, had a choice to make. Aylo said no, thank you, and pulled its websites from Texas. The revenue they receive from Texas isn’t worth the trouble it would take to add the necessary age verification. Insert giant middle finger here.

Some people in Texas took Aylo’s departure as good news. They got rid of the big porn monster, right? Hardly. In fact, what it did was create a fun challenge for teenagers to get around the law. I’m guessing none of the people involved in creating the law know a damn thing about VPNs, IP masking, or anything of the other dozen or so technologies that can be used to hide the location of someone attempting to access a website. People who want access to the material have plenty of options. And should the courts finally decide, incorrectly, that the law is constitutional (let’s face it, no one has actually read the Constitution in 50 years), it’s unenforceable.

For now, though, we decided to check and see if anyone in Texas can see what we post here. We grabbed a handful of images from 2009-10 and we’ll see if anyone can see them. Let us know in the comments if you can, and we’re guessing you can.

Hidden on the Beach [2010 with AI background]
Morning Coffee [2010 with AI background]
Taco Seasoning [2010 with AI background]
Flour Mill [2010 with AI background]
Texas Welfare Program [ 2010]
Conspiracy Theory [2009]
As The Day Dies [2010 with AI background]
The Top Religion In Texas [2010]
Continue Reading

Current Issues  /  Long Read  /  News & Comment  /  science
Going Rogue
January 28, 2017
charles i. letbetter - going rogue

Alt, Rogue, and Ungagged Twitter accounts may change more than social media

 

charles i. letbetter - going rogue

Side-stepping censorship

[dropcap]Amidst all the tension and worries regarding the actions of the 45th president this week, someone, somewhere, brilliantly side-stepped the new government’s apparent ban on climate science by creating an alternate Twitter account for Badlands National Park and tweeting climate facts. The tweets have since been removed, but the act of defiance struck a nerve and people allegedly, somehow, related to other government agencies started doing the same.[/dropcap]
Here are some samples:

There may be more, and if so, please let me know, but these are the ones we’ve located so far. Follow them. All of them. This movement is pretty damn important.

Why the sudden resistance?

The new president doesn’t believe in climate change. Since the fateful day of his inauguration, a number of different memos and email have gone out to the heads of various federal agencies, specifically those who deal in some way with climate change, curtailing their publishing activities. Everyone from the Department of Agriculture to the Department of Health and Human Services was included.

Public furor immediately rose up and social media exploded over the censorship, especially that regarding science. What the new administration has yet to figure out is that they work in a glass bubble. They don’t get to do things in secret and sneak up on us. They don’t like that situation, which is one of the reasons they’ve taken to calling the press the opposition party. However, given that the uproar against those memos and emails was so severe, they backtracked quickly, at least on the public front.

Still, once their intentions were made public, people began to respond. We already knew we would have to fight this administration tooth and nail, every step of the way. The hashtag #Resist was already procured and ready to go; it’s even been hung on a large banner from a tall crane thanks to the folks at Greenpeace. Americans have never been too keen on government censorship and we’re certainly not going to start supporting it now.

No #AlternativeFacts here

As the number of alternative social media accounts continues to grow (we’re following @Alt_FAA, @Alt_DeptofEd, @ALT_USCIS [immigration], and @AltStateDpt), so does the battle against misinformation, or what the administration has referred to as #AlternativeFacts. Other people call them lies, which is more accurate but carries an inflammatory inference that seems to upset those who are part of the current regime. Real facts do exist and in the presence of a concerted effort to mute those facts, someone has to stand up and make sure they are sufficiently unmuzzled, even if doing so draws no small amount of criticism.

There is no question that the new White House wants to control all the information it has so that they are presenting a unified voice. They want to make sure that no matter which agency one contacts, no matter who one talks to on the phone or through email, the information all spews the same lies, recites the same canon, pours the same kool-aid. If they’re going to take over the nation, that has to happen. Official sources of information must all be consistent in the lies they are telling.

What the dear folks inhabiting the White House seem to have forgotten is that the press, and subsequently the free flow of factual information, is protected under the first amendment of the constitution. The administration can only control information up to a point. Our founding fathers were very suspicious of each other and especially of other governments. They had seen what corruption had done across Europe. Hell, they were rebelling against King George III, who is largely considered to have been completely insane (new details about him have just been released, by the way) and was known to have “secret” agents. They wanted to make sure that there was always someone, namely the press, watching every move the government made so that there could be no secret acts of treason undermining the country.

While the White House can try to manipulate the mainstream press and even intersperse false reporters from fake news sites among those sitting in the White House briefing room, it has absolute zero control over what is put on social media. In fact, as we’ve seen to sometimes disgusting proportions, no one really has much control over what is put on social media. For better or worse, it is an absolute bastion of free speech. While the president has used it to circumvent the press, the same tools can also be used to circumvent and repudiate the president and his staff.

We see in all these new rogue accounts exactly what should happen in a free and open society. Where one person tries to hide and quiet information they don’t like, someone else stands up and shouts it. The more the administration tries to put a stranglehold on science and studies that are in opposition to their agenda, the more those involved with those studies are likely to find ways to make sure that information finds its way to the public. We need these new social media accounts to maintain a balance in the flow of information.

There is a dark side

If there is a negative aspect to all these new #Alt accounts, it is the fact that they are, perhaps necessarily, anonymous. We can certainly understand why. While most claim to not be associated with the actual federal agencies, there’s every possibility that those claims are a smoke screen. At the most, we would be surprised if the sources are more than one step removed from someone who is employed by the federal government. Revealing the persons behind these accounts could subject them to danger and possibly even prosecution. The need to be anonymous is real.

However, with anonymity comes certain risks, especially considering the fact that social media is full of security holes. It is difficult to verify an anonymous account without giving away personal information that might be used against the originator of the account. We don’t really know who these people are, what their connection to the various agencies might be, or their ultimate intentions. For the moment, they all look good and are saying things that are verifiable, but what happens if that changes?

Forbes magazine has an article on this same topic that made for some very uncomfortable reading. They bring up things like how easy it might be for someone to attach a virus or piece of malware to an otherwise legitimate PDF document. The social media account links to the document and everyone who opens it is unknowingly infected. One of the fears we’ve seen this week is the possibility that client scientists might be forced to delete large amounts of information. Imagine the security risks if hackers were to get ahold of that information, which is certainly not out of the bounds of possibility, and presented it through an #Alt account. Very little effort would be required to turn those legitimate documents into a stream of digital infection.

The system is far from fool-proof.

Resistance is not futile

Still, these new accounts are present for good reason and are doing a good thing. Our government, every government, needs to be held accountable. Through all his business dealings, our president has never had anyone standing above him telling him “no, you can’t do that.” He is now in a system where checks and balances are written into the constitution. Those checks and balances are required of a democracy and without them, we slip all too easily into fascism or communism.

The threat to our country, our way of life, and even our very existence is real. Climate change is real. Science is real. Diseases that defy immunization are real. We have an urgent need to not only know about the world’s problems but what we can do to mitigate them. We need to understand that our carbon footprint is a very serious matter and that there are simple and practical things we can do to reduce our carbon emissions. We need to know how to eat more safely as some foods to which we’ve grown accustomed may no longer be safely edible. There are mountain ranges full of information we need and if we cannot rely on official government agencies to provide that information then we desperately need sources that fill that gap.

We must, on every level possible, #Resist. We must resist the misinformation and lies. We must resist the attempts at censorship. We must resist the attempts to hide, delete, and obfuscate information. Not only is this our country, this is our planet. We live here. We have an inalienable right to keep it inhabitable and no government has a right to stand in our way, no matter how they think they were elected.

#Resist

#Dissent

#BeActive

 

Continue Reading

Advertising  /  Art
The Obscenity of Art
April 21, 2016
charles i. letbetter - obscenity of art

Obscenity is a moral concept in the verbal arsenal of the establishment, which abuses the term by applying it, not to expressions of its own morality but to those of another. —Herbert Marcuse

 

charles i. letbetter - the obscenity of art

To the extent that the purpose of art is to connect us with an emotion, can anything produced ever be considered truly obscene unless it generates no emotion at all?

Yes, it has happened again. Once more, some prurient patrol of public prejudice has assumed the mantel of moral responsibility for the planet and attempted to stamp out the obscenity that is art. Apparently my articles are not getting in front of enough eyes because I know damn good and well we wrote about this at least three times last year. Yet, for those who weren’t paying attention, here we go again.

This time, the offense takes place in Englewood, New Jersey where there is apparently a city ordinance prohibiting public display of nude images in certain spaces. Specifically, according to the Associated Press, “nude images have to be kept in interior rooms not visible from public areas.” This 1992 ordinance created a problem for Laura Borghi of Borghi Fine Art Gallery when it came time to hang a work by painter Tom Dash this past January. Due to the size of the canvas, Ms. Borghi claims that she had limited options as to where to display the piece. So, she chose the front window of her gallery. [We’ll just assume that there is ultra-violet protection on the glass to prevent the sun’s rays from destroying the pigment in the paint. Otherwise, she would be a very bad gallery owner.]

Dash’s artwork, by the way, is, “an ink jet collage of photos of two women painted over in acrylic paint.” One of the women happens to be showing her bare buttock.

Englewood city code enforcement officer Walter Deptuch, who apparently takes his job very seriously, issued Borghi a violation requesting that the artwork be removed. I’m guessing that “request” failed to use the magic word “please,” as Borghi refused to move the painting. She was then threatened with “fines of $1,250 per day and the threat of up to 90 days in jail.” Rather severe consequences for showing someone’s bare bum.

Ms. Borghi has, of course, filed suit as she should, and, of course, that immediately causes any elected official, or city employee, to clam up, so there has been no statement from the city attempting to justify what would seem to be a rather over-the-top reaction to something that likely  offends fewer than five percent of the town’s populace. I’m just guessing at that statistic, but given the number of bare butts one sees on prime time television these days I hardly see how Dash’s artwork can be considered obscene on those grounds.

As we’ve stated before, though, obscenity and art rather go hand and hand. Getting the attention of image-weary humans requires an increasing shock value and whether the art form is visual or verbal or musical, artists across all genres find themselves crossing that might, to some, be considered a line of good taste in order to express themselves in ways that communicate stronger emotions. A little obscenity here and there is necessary for some art to stand out and, quite honestly, whose definition of obscenity are we using in the first place?

As I was reading about this situation yesterday, another email dropped into my inbox (yes, I still use email) showing off a new print ad for an exhibition at Sweden’s Sven-Harrys art museum called Swedish Art: Now! I’m sure they argued over that title for hours. The exhibition includes the Tomas Hämén fossilised dinosaur faeces sculpture, Asstral Traveler. The print ad includes a picture of that piece of sculpture with lead copy that states: “You’d better sit down for this.” Body copy later encourages, “Admire it above, then take in the real thing…” At that point, my inner 15-year-old can no longer hide and burst out giggling. Here’s the ad:

obscenity in art

Yes, you are seeing that correctly. Hämén carved a butt plug from fossilized dinosaur shit and the museum thinks you might want to sit and take it in. I sincerely apologize for the adolescent giggles continuing on this side of the Internet. I don’t’ know whether the folks who created the ad, M&C Saatchi, Stockholm, intended the slightly erotic inferences, but I certainly hope they did. Certainly, no one in Sweden seems to be claiming there to be any obscenity here, but I can’t help but wonder how well the same ad would play in Englewood. If Ms. Burghi cannot display the bare butt, can she display a fossilized butt plug?

The degree to which our world is off its moral rocker is evident in the fact that I am offended that someone else took offense at something I don’t see as offensive. Screams of obscenity get thrown around all over the place and one might reasonably argue that creating such a dustup over a relatively insignificant display of a woman’s bare bum is a pretty good way to generate some free marketing. Although, with attorney’s fees and court filing costs, I’m not sure “free” is exactly the appropriate term.

Speaking of attorney’s, the one representing Ms. Borghi in all this, Brian Bernstein, is confident they will win because both the U.S. and New Jersey constitutions prohibit censoring art in any way. There’s no special obscenity exception clause. He states:

“There’s nothing new about government efforts to suppress artistic expression, especially if it might be viewed by some as controversial. Art that challenges convention makes an attractive target for the government.”

With most municipal budgets being as tight as they are and city resources in most places being so slim, I’m rather surprised that the city of Englewood would want to suffer the expense of such a lawsuit in the first place. Don’t be surprised when they settle out of court and the whole matter gets dropped.

I’ve seen the AP wire story in no fewer than seven publications over the past 24 hours. That should be sufficient attention that Ms. Borghi isn’t likely to have much trouble actually selling the artwork, which, I assume, was her goal in the first place. Doubtless, the price may have increased a little bit. I’m fairly certain Tom Dash doesn’t mind a little extra publicity coming his direction, either.

Obscenity is a tag that often carries some value in the art world. If a work is strong enough to offend the prudish, the artist must be saying something important, no? And if that message is so elevated that the artistically naïve and ignorant don’t “get it,” then the artwork must be especially valuable. Such is art world logic.

Personally, I don’t find artwork obscene and would be just fine if this whole argument would go away. What’s obscene is the way a handful of galleries and curators control the art market, driving up prices for a handful of artists, while preventing other artists from being shown in major galleries at all. That’s where the real obscenity in art lies.

Oh, but I’m not supposed to talk about that. Damn, I’m likely to get into trouble now.

Oh well.

Continue Reading

Advertising  /  Art  /  Studio News
Uncensored Selling
April 5, 2016
charles i. letbetter - uncensored selling

That’s what I love about the Internet. Even if it’s small-scale and you’re just posting on a forum, that’s an uncensored expression. That’s what I love. —Felicia Day

charles i. letbetter - uncensored selling

When you want to sell something, but don’t want to deal with the hassles of playing by someone else’s rules, you have a new option

Anyone who has tried earning any online income knows the challenge of finding an uncensored platform. Many online selling venues don’t allow any form of nudity at all. Most of those that are willing to provide for material considered Not Safe For Work (NSFW) still limit exactly that kind of content can be displayed. Finding a genuinely uncensored site from which to sell has been practically impossible.

Even if one finds a way to sell NSFW material, there is still a problem with actually getting paid. Visa, MasterCard, American Express, and PayPal all have rules against using their systems to pay for certain objects they deem dangerous, illegal, or inappropriate. PayPal is the most restrictive of that group and anyone with experience in any form of figure art knows the danger of using PayPal as a purchasing method. They will happily take the money from the buyer and keep it. Banks, too, such as JP Morgan Chase, refuse to provide banking services to any entity they consider adult or immoral, and their definitions for both are wide and arbitrary. Money is far from being uncensored.

All that began to change, however, with the introduction of Bitcoin. In case you’ve not been paying attention the past couple of years, Bitcoin is a digital currency that is not controlled by a central government. Bitcoin purchases are anonymous and can be used to make purchases internationally without having to worry about the local exchange rate. The concept is brilliant in that it takes both governments and banks out of the equation, allowing for a more pure market system. The biggest problem to date has been finding online stores that actually accept Bitcoin currency.

Yesterday, a solution to that problem became available with a new peer-to-peer retail system called OpenBazaar. OpenBazaar allows users to sell absolutely anything to anyone, anywhere, at any time. There are no content restrictions, making the system truly uncensored. Rather like an online bartering system, OpenBazaar connects people who have something to sell with people who are looking to buy. While the seller can set a given price, the buyer is free to negotiate with the seller so that a discount might be applied if multiples are ordered or if the buyer lives close enough to pick up the item themselves. For added security, a third-party moderator agrees that the deal is fair before Bitcoin is exchanged.

The opportunities of an uncensored marketplace are endless. As a photographer, I can sell figure work (theoretically) without having to worry about the product or the money being censored by a third party. I could also sell my services as a photographer, or a writer, or as an annoying neighbor if there happened to be an actual market for that service. The only limits are my imagination.

Of course, any system so wide open is also susceptible to dangers. Looking over the system that has only been operational a little over 24 hours, I see one person selling honey from Greece, which sounds enticing, but wouldn’t necessarily contain the contamination preventions required of domestic honey sellers. There’s also a person selling wizardry spells. I suppose it’s up to one’s own belief system as to whether or not one wishes to take that kind of risk.

OpenBazaar’s founders know that an uncensored system means that sooner or later people are going to use it for no good. Since everything is sold peer-to-peer, there is no way  for anyone to tell whether what is sold is legal, moral, or even in existence. So yes, illegal drugs could be bought and sold through this market. One could sell a kidney as easily as they could sell puppies, or whale blubber, or the head of a presidential candidate. The folks at OpenMarket would have no way to stop those types of transactions.

There is a modest safeguard against illegal activity in that the open source code does not support Tor, which is an encryption language that hides IP addresses among other things. So, should one choose to engage in illegal activity, law enforcement still has the ability to track down both the buyer and the seller. However, law enforcement would not be able to confiscate funds because only the wallet holder can access and/or move Bitcoins.

Being the curious bug that I am, I downloaded the P2P software and set up an account, listing only one photograph for sale. We’ll see if that is enough to even get anyone’s attention. Setting up the site took me about 30 minutes, and that included creating a Bitcoin account so that I can actually accept payment should someone show interest in the photograph. If you want to try OpenBazaar for yourself and see what I’m selling, you’ll need to enter either my handle: 991803b5e7d0989bd6c7f829ccf39da329df6381, or search for my handle, which might be some version of @charlesiletbetter, but I’m not sure since I apparently can’t search for myself.

I’m not yet ready to put a significant amount of time into OpenBazaar. Law enforcement hasn’t taken kindly to uncensored online marketplaces because of the difficulty in stopping and tracking illegal activity. If I see a black SUV pull up in front of the house, I’ll know something’s up. Still, the world needs places where we can sell legitimate, legal products without the interference of governments, banks, or numerous middlemen. If this works,  it could have a global economic impact that could change the way goods and services are bought and sold everywhere.

Are the opportunities worth the risk? We’ll find out, won’t we?

 

Continue Reading

Advertising
Censoring The Super Bowl
January 28, 2016
charles i. letbetter - censoring the super bowl

You know, the Super Bowl is so fresh that every single commercial is even on, you know, some next-level entertainment.—will.i.am

 

charles i. letbetter - censoring the super bowl

Censoring ads in the midst of a program built upon violence seems a little more than hypocritical

I’ll admit to enjoying a bit of football, but, like millions of other people across the US, the primary reason I watch the Super Bowl is for the ads. Rarely do I care at all about the outcome of the game, though I generally hope that it isn’t a complete blowout. What is much more entertaining for me are the increadinly creative commercials that show especially during the first half and at half-time. I watch those ads with rapt fascination and, unless the game is unusually good, fall asleep somewhere in the third quarter.

Teasers for this year’s ads are looking especially promising. Already, we’ve gotten hints from Christopher Walken, Alec Baldwin, Dan Marino, Jeff Goldblum, and Lil Wayne, among others, that have me absolutely salivating to see the delightful pitches coming forth. There are also a fair number of first time Super Bowl advertisers putting up the $5 million-plus for a 30-second spot. Amazon, Bai, Shock Top, Pokemon, and SoFi are among the rookies who are putting it all on the line during this game.

Who we won’t be seeing during a two-minute timeout is People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA). Their ad, titled Last Longer, focuses on the health benefits of not eating meat and how that, in turn, allows one the stamina to be more effective in bed. Sounds like the perfectly targeted ad for a Super Bowl crowd, doesn’t it?

Apparently not. CBS network censors, working under guildelines from the NFL, deemed the ad too explicit for television.

We’ve seen Super Bowl ads censored before; that part is definitely not new. The NFL takes a very prudish view toward any overt sexualization that might distract from the bone-crushing, concussion-inducing, permanently-disabling activities taking place on the field. Furthermore, we have seen just how terribly upset half-drunken moms can get at the mere 0.001-second slip of a nipple. They’re all so terribly worried about having to explain procreation to their precious little children, but don’t seem to have any issues with open acts of violence being referred to as sport.

Let’s be clear: I’m not a fan of PeTA. I’m very much a carnivore and while my personal sexual exploits are best left unmentioned, I assure you that it is arthritis, not my diet, most likely to limit the duration of my activity. PeTA is well known for their over-sensationalism and this ad is yet another example of that tactic.

Still, I cannot help but fnd it extremely hypocritical that this ad is banned from the Super Bowl of all places. Football is nothing but overt violence disguised as sport. Each year, the devestating effects of concussions and other injuries are demonstrated as debilitating in the lives of those who once played in the Super Bowl. Rumors are swirling that this may well be the final game for Denver quarterback Petyon Manning because of the life-threatening injuries he received and the punishment his body continues to endure. So, we’re okay with all the violence going on for the better part of three hours, but we’re not good with 30 seconds of simulated sex?

Please, tell me I’m not the only one who has difficulty making any sense of this decision. Don’t give me any BS about the children, either. If they’re old enough to watch grown men attempting to kill each other, they can handle a little fake nookie.

There is a time and a place for everything, and I sure wouldn’t run the PeTA commercial during the first two hours of weeknight prime time family comedies. But to censor implied sex while endorsing blatant violence, whether in a game or a scripted police drama, is not just hypocritical but about as immoral as television can possibly get. So, since CBS and the NFL won’t show you the ad, I will. Here you go:

Continue Reading