Forums | MacLife

Art is a vehicle of expression and you have no right to accuse the romans of being "horrible freaks" for their way of expression.

I'm guessing he was calling them "horrible freaks" due to their gladitorial matches, orgies, and the like, but I may be wrong.

It counts with nukes too Tallgeese.

I don't think being in Roman "art" legitimizes something... they were horrible freaks. Good riddance.

As for the story; kind of retarded. The prosecutor probably just wants to look good.

No doubt, the Romans did a lot of things which aren't "kosher" today, but you won't find an art teacher on the planet who would say that Roman sculpture isn't art.

Plus, as we ALL know due to social studies classes, in Roman times, teens were adults.  Hell, Napoleon got started in his teens by firing grapeshot into thousands of people.  And, what about all those naked baby calenders that show topless girls?  Isn't that child porn?

And, what about all those naked baby calenders that show topless girls?  Isn't that child porn?

Yes! And so are diaper commercials! !

Damn Straight!

And, what about all those naked baby calenders that show topless girls?  Isn't that child porn?

Well, there WAS a woman arrested when she went to pick up her pictures of her son in the bathtub from a photo lab back in the mid '90. So yeah, "Porn!" and/or "child abuse" is definitely in the eye of the beholder. And really, many parents have pics of their children in the altogether, it's part of most family photo albums.

But really it just comes down to excessive puritanism. Something Ashcroft and others needs to get through their head: Naked does not mean dirty!

I remember the story about the woman getting arested for pictures of her child in the bathtub.  How disturbing that was. 

Another one I remember that was possibly mnore so was the story of a man who video taped his Daughter and her cheerleading squad durring a football game (I think it was football)  Anyway...  He was later arrested because someone decided that he had taped it with the intent of getting sexual pleasure from watching it. 

Yep thats right folks.  He was arrested because someone decided they KNEW why he did something.  No proof, no real justification.  And lets ignore the fact that he taped it at the request of the girls so they could see thier own performance.

That's not exactly amazing.  It's not like he was convicted of anything, like the photographer in the subject.

the next article we're going to see is a guy having 200lbs of crack in his house and going scot-free because they don't have proof he was using it.

Actually, no Nokx.  Possessing crack is illegal.  You don't have to have been using it to be busted with it's possession.  In fact, "200lbs" of crack would probably get you charged with distribution.

I don't understand your point.

possessing child porn is illegal as well.  how did you miss my point?

there was a teacher that was recently fired from a local school system because he had child porn on his computer.  how do they know he was being aroused by it?  he lost his job.

another guy that was a 'nanny' around my home town was caught with tons of pictures.  how do they know he was aroused by it?  he's in jail.