Censorship in arts 'healthy,' Pat Boone says

washington times ^ | 4 23 04 | Steve Miller

[freepatriot32]

A healthy society needs censorship to survive, 1950s musical icon Pat Boone said yesterday. He added that he would welcome strong content restrictions governing movies and other artistic works. "I don't think censorship is a bad word, but it has become a bad word because everybody associates it with some kind of restriction on liberty," said Mr. Boone, who is in Washington making the rounds as the national spokesman for the 60-Plus Association, a conservative senior citizen lobby.

[freepatriot32]

"I don't think censorship is a bad word, but it has become a bad word because everybody associates it with some kind of restriction on liberty,"

Has pat boone completely lost his freaking mind?

[JackRyanCIA]

Sorry, I agree with him to an extent. For sure!

[freepatriot32]

ping

[Blue Screen of Death]

Let's start with his songs.

[johnfrink]

I'm all up for censorship, and first on the choping block is Pat's absurd "heavy metal" album from a few years back.

[cookcounty]

O-o0-0o-o-O. Stirring up a hornet's nest!!!

But, just for argument's sake, name one culture that produced great art that did not also practice some form of censorship. Go ahead, I'm waiting.

[Bluntpoint]

Censor this:

[freepatriot32]

AHHHHHH i changed my mind i love censorship now lets start by outlawing that picture and putting everyone that posted it on theweb in federal prison :-D

[WhiteGuy]

What an anti-American tool this guy is.............................

[lizma]

The libs have equated censorship with not spending public money on offensive garbage. I say let the free market pay for this stuff and most of it would probably disappear.

[CardCarryingMember.VastRightWC]

Censorship in arts 'healthy,' Pat Boone says

You copy/pasted the article title wrong.

The quotes should instead have been around the word 'arts'.

[justanotherday]

Amen.

[Dan from Michigan]

Neal Boortz gets it. Pat Boone is wrong.

[CardCarryingMember.VastRightWC]

Has pat boone completely lost his freaking mind?

Nope. It's our pathetic excuse for American "culture" that has completely lost its freaking mind.

Right on, Pat!

[billorites]

I like Pat Boone.

He makes Jimmy Dean look smart.

[CardCarryingMember.VastRightWC]

Yeah, it's such a shame that freedom of speech is so violently oppressed in this country by the jackbooted thugs who censor the freedom of expression of the child pornographers. (Hey! Child pornographers are people too!!)

But I think our culture is moving in the right direction, don't you? We just got our first bared breast in the middle of family hour on national TV. So things are moving in the right direction, yes?

Every time I go into local grocery stores, I optimistically scan the magazines on the checkout shelves, hoping that at long last that glorious day has arrived when we can gaze longingly at photos of naked models getting it off with farm animals while waiting for our groceries to be scanned. But alas, that day has not yet arrived. Sigh!

Every time I visit the WalMart, I hopefully glance up to see if they are now allowing photos of child-adult sex on the magazine covers. But again, my hopes are always dashed! (And people claim we have a free country? HA!!)

Oh, what a wonderful day that will be when we finally have evolved so far upwards as a culture that we can see all these things and more right in front of our eyes, whichever direction we happen to turn our gaze in, 24 by 7!

Yes!! Let freedom ring! Only when kiddie porn and necrophilic porn and animal sex photos in full glossy poster size are surrounding us all day long, will we finally be able to say that for the very first time in American history the First Amendment's guarantee of Freedom Of Speech has come true!!!

(</sarcasm>)

[freepatriot32]

thats all well and good but if the goverment censors tv to the extent pat wants it to the only station we will have is pbs! have you ever watched pbs? its more boring then c span on a sunday afternoon

[squarebarb]

Here's the problem:

The culture itself used to censor it, with shaming and expressions of revulsion.

Once the government has to do it, something has been lost.

I advocate the return of shame in the culture (i.e. young people realize that such animalistic displays hurt them, hurt thier marriages, hurt thier futures and thier health and their future happiness) but I ain't holding my breath.

[familyofman]

Who cares what Pat Boone has to say about anything besides, maybe, love letters in the sand? This has to be a joke.

[AmishDude]

Censorship: Just do it (May 10, 2002).

[templar]

But, just for argument's sake, name one culture that produced great art that did not also practice some form of censorship.

Better yet, name one that survived for long without some form of it.

[cyborg]

So... Pat when can we expect your apology for covering all of Little Richard's songs waaaaay back when? Anytime soon?

[Stew Padasso]

HAHA! YEah, I was gonna say the same thing. His music is obscene!

[ShadowDancer]

Personally, I think I know where he's coming from. However, this statement is a serious contradiction of ideas:

"It must be majority approved ... voluntary ... and self-imposed," he said

It is either going to be majorally approved by law or self-imposed. It can't be both.

[Nowhere Man]

I don't have much of a problem with some censorship if it is well defined, I mean it is written down and well known what the boundaries are, what the "seven dirty words" are and so forth, none of the "if I saw it I know it" deal. I can see it in free radio and TV, less so for cable channels. As I see what's going on, I'm becoming more and more for some form of it in that arena, I think it is showing how far we are becoming. Other such events again less so because you can choose not to go to the exhibit, museum, and so on. I know I'll be 38 in July, and yes, I kind of like Pat Boone and he does have some good things to say. He was a "born again Christian" even before the term became popular (was it around in the 1950's, I remember hearing it in the 1970's). I do see the other side's point though where it could extend to politics so yeah, we do have to be careful here and make sure the metes and bounds of such censorship stays out of politics and able to criticize our politicians, the system and so on.

[Nowhere Man]

Once the government has to do it, something has been lost.

I advocate the return of shame in the culture (i.e. young people realize that such animalistic displays hurt them, hurt thier marriages, hurt thier futures and thier health and their future happiness) but I ain't holding my breath.

I think that's what we mainly need, we lost the concept of shame. You're right, you have a slam dunk. Like in my last message, I can see it if the metes and bounds (I work in real estate titles, IT is dead B-)) are specific like "you can't show naked boobs on TV or say the 'seven dirty words'" but when you go further, you can jeopardize free speech to the point where if you yell "The King is a Fink" you'll get tossed into the cell with Mr. Spook (I love the Wizard of Id).

[Biblebelter]

We have censorship. Tape and watch the three broadcast news shows one night. Then read the newspapers and the internet. What was put on the networks represents a form of censorship.

[Tom Bombadil]

Has pat boone completely lost his freaking mind?

Even a liberal like Pete Seeger once said that we do need censorship........ that there were things children shouldn't see or come into contact with.

The worst kind of censorship is being excercized by many public librarians with a liberal mind-set......They make "limited resource" decisions all of the time, and tilt things decidedly away from conservative or even what would be considered "wholesome" written material. Any attempt to hold them to account for thier decisions is labeled as censoship in itself.

And public librarians are GOVERNMENT employees.

[CardCarryingMember.VastRightWC]

Years back when the Web was very young, some staffer at Citizen Magazine (my favorite mag - put out by Focus on the Family - mostly about political issues that affect Christians) was searching around for references to their publication on the internet to see what others were saying about them. And lo and behold they found a very interesting reference on a bulletin board that was devoted to librarians.

This particular online conversation had started with one librarian pleading for help from fellow librarians. The dilemma they faced was that some library patron wanted to donate a multi-year subscription to Citizen Magazine to the library. This simply would not do! This librarian was determined that no scurrilous (i.e. conservative) magazine would ever be found desecrating the hallowed halls of THEIR sacred institution!

But of course the problem was that if s/he came right out and told the patron the true reason why their offer was being refused, it could potentially cause problems (if this person tried to press the issue). So the plea to the fellow librarians online was, "How do you handle situations like this?"

And there were a variety of helpful answers, all of them amounting to "Here are some nice, handy, believable sounding lies that we have found effective in preventing any rightwing trash from crossing our threshholds".

And yet these are always the first people to scream "censorship" when someone wants to install internet filters to keep out the child porn!.

[randog]

Excellent post.

I think you've reached the heart of the matter: censorship already exists, it's just a matter of what we as a society want censored and where we want it censored. Everybody has a line they don't want crossed, and it's up to us all to find that common line. Pat Boone's line is different from, say, Larry Flint's, but that doesn't mean we have to automatically accept Larry's threshold because it's the lowest common denominator. The middle of the bell curve is out there somewhere, and only robust, honest debate will find it.

[little jeremiah]

Since some of what is called "art" is cr*p like Jesus on a crucifix in a jar of urine, naked lesbians smearing chocolate on themselves or inviting the audience to look at their private parts with a speculum, a picture of the Virgin Mary decorated with elephant dung and pictures of female genitalia, I am in agreement with the concept of censorship.

Censorship has become a word meaning pure unadulterated evil. Censorship of ideas is wrong. Censorship of disgusting, mindless, foul violence depicted in such a way as to desensitise and attract the (immature) viewers, and explicit sex acts and obscene material is a societal good. We are seeing some results of the lack of such censorship, and it is not pretty.

[little jeremiah]

Yes!! Let freedom ring! Only when kiddie porn and necrophilic porn and animal sex photos in full glossy poster size are surrounding us all day long, will we finally be able to say that for the very first time in American history the First Amendment's guarantee of Freedom Of Speech has come true!!!

Don't despair, that day is coming soon!

Even as we discuss, the womens' mags at the local grocery store picture models and actresses with MOST of their breasts exposed, with articles the titles of which even a child could read, delineating the value of different sexual positions and methods to gratify numerous sexual partners!

[DLfromthedesert]

I saw him on Hannity and Colmes criticizing Howard Stern and was talking in detail about all the disgusting things Stern said about women, minorities, etc.

Why was he spending so much time listening to this show he wants banned?

[The Green Goblin]

Since some of what is called "art" is cr*p like Jesus on a crucifix in a jar of urine, naked lesbians smearing chocolate on themselves or inviting the audience to look at their private parts with a speculum, a picture of the Virgin Mary decorated with elephant dung and pictures of female genitalia, I am in agreement with the concept of censorship.

Let's go one step further and ban all images of Jesus on a crucifix. After all, I don't want my kids exposed to that kind of violent and barbaric imagery...

[KarlInOhio]

Since some of what is called "art" is cr*p like Jesus on a crucifix in a jar of urine, naked lesbians smearing chocolate on themselves or inviting the audience to look at their private parts with a speculum, a picture of the Virgin Mary decorated with elephant dung and pictures of female genitalia, I am in agreement with the concept of censorship.

How about taking the first step and not have the government subsidize this psuedo-art? I can't wait for the Republicans to get control of the House, Senate and White House so the NRA will be defunded.

[little jeremiah]

You mean the NEA - National Endowment for the "Arts"?

If the gov't reduced spending by at least 50%, it would be a good start.

Who in heck would spend personal money for any of this sick cr*p anyway? The so-called artists would then have to make stuff regular people like, or take up farming or car repair, or something else productive and useful.

[KarlInOhio]

You mean the NEA - National Endowment for the "Arts"?

Oops. I blame fat fingers and posting after midnight.

[little jeremiah]

Come on, wimp - the night is still young! (on the west coast at least...)

Then there's the NEA, N History something or other, HUD, AFDC, etcetcetc.

(once Mr. Little Jeremiah (was a contractor at that time) did a job for HUD. It was so horrible he vowed to starve rather than do another HUD job. They waste an incredible amount of money.)

[CardCarryingMember.VastRightWC]

thats all well and good but if the goverment censors tv to the extent pat wants it to the only station we will have is pbs! have you ever watched pbs? its more boring then c span on a sunday afternoon

Well now, that's rather odd. I have fond memories of spending hour upon hour with my family in the 60's and 70's watching all kinds of TV in the evenings. And there were a lot of very good, entertaining programs and a few boring ones. But I don't remember any of this X-rated dialog or other filth we have now.

And here's where my memories part ways with yours - For some strange reason, I don't remember there being just the one single PBS station on the airwaves. I coulda sworn there were 5 Denver stations. But from what you say, PBS must have been the only station on, because censorship was so much heavier back then.

Maybe I just dreamed up all of my childhood?

[RightWingAtheist]

The best I can say about Pat Boone is that he didn't ruin "Journey to the Centre of the Earth," and he shows a good sense of humor about himself. Unfortunately, he's to rock and roll what Kenny G is to jazz.

[nopardons]

Unlike you,no,his mind is clear and works.

[chance33_98]

Let's go one step further and ban all images of Jesus on a crucifix.

I think perhaps the discussion boils down to two things:

1. Do we draw a line

2. If so where?

Which leads to, if 1 is yes, what criteria do we use to decide 2?

[kms61]

The answers of many on this thread evidently are

1: Yes.

2: Wherever we want it drawn.

Not recognizing that THEY will almost assuredly not be the ones drawing the line, and whoever IS in charge of line drawing will most likely draw it in a place these posters won't be too happy about.

This issue is one of those "be careful what you wish for" deals.

[GSHastings]

1. Do we draw a line

2. If so where?

Which leads to, if 1 is yes, what criteria do we use to decide 2?

Simple. Always has been. Officials are elected who have the authority to enforce the wishes of the population and who share their views on what is, or is not acceptable. The population can change the equation easily by changing those who get elected. That formula works very well for a whole bunch of important things. Censorship is no more difficult, nor less important.

[kms61]

Except for that pesky First Amendment.

[GSHastings]

Not recognizing that THEY will almost assuredly not be the ones drawing the line, and whoever IS in charge of line drawing will most likely draw it in a place these posters won't be too happy about.

This issue is one of those "be careful what you wish for" deals.

Liberal claptrap. We elect people to perform all sorts of functions on our behalf, and who we expect to reflect our views and desires. It is no more difficult to achieve that goal with censorship, than it is for any other areas of civil law.

It is not necessary for me to give up any "freedom" in order to aviod having to live in the sewage of others. It was never my "right" to impose my sewage on others. So I am not relinquishing any rights in order to secure protection from theirs.

[chance33_98]

I suppose I could take the amish line. People with their own communities making their own decisions and not relying on the government to raise their kids, not engaging in watching television, or going to plays. Self censorship en masse for like minded people who mind their own business.

They aren't passing laws for everyone, or even setting up legal structures, they provide for one another in an environment where you are free to escape to the outside world and do the things those people do.

Take kids out of the schools, don't watch tv (unless it's fox news or foodtv), pour your money into land and your own culture where those who are like minded can exist together and grow. This way one could prove their way is better as there would be less crime, nicer people, and better educated people.

Of course, just hope and pray Janet reno does not get back in power!

[GSHastings]

Except for that pesky First Amendment.

The pesky First Amendment is no more about protecting pornography, than any other part of the Constitution is about protecting a mother's right to kill her unborn baby.

[nopardons]

Nope,your memories are just fine and factual.

Hey, freepatriot,besides being very young, you need to learn some American history.

Okay gang,here's the skinny on American censorship....

From colonial times, until the late '50s,when the damn broke, THERE WAS PERVASIVE,BLANTANT, AND A GIGANTIC AMOUNT OF CENSORSHIP IN AMERICA,RE BOOKS, SONGS,MOVIES,PLAYS,T.V.& RADIO PROGRAMING,AND MAGAZINES!

Rather than "harm" anyone,it actually was a good thing.It forced writers to be more clever,it kept pordnography and obsencities out of the public arena.Was there also ADULT fare? Of course there was.Could people get their hands on porn?Yep, they could,but it wasn't IN YOUR FACE,children were NOT exposed to it all of the time,and that really was a food thing.

BANNED IN BOSTON, IS NOT JUST THE NAME OF SOME OLD BAND! For those of you,who are completly uneducated about this subject,Boston used to be NOTORIOUS for it's " BLUE LAWS" and many movies,books,plays,andx paintings USED to be BANNED IN BOSTON!

Think that New York,often referred to as " SIN CITY", in times gone by,was removed from such behavior/having Blue Laws? WELL,THINK AGAIN!In 1927,during its run on Broadway,May West was pulled into court,her play,"SEX", shut down,and so were two others..."VIRGIN MAN" and ' THE CAPTIVE",whoich was about the seduction of a married woman, by a lesbian.

Books,such as "LADY CHATERLEY'S LOVER",were banned from being published,imported,and sold in the USA,until 1959/60 band that's a pretty "bland" book."NAKED LUNCH"? You couldn't openly buy that book,anywhere in America,until the end of the 1960s.Even Ben Franklin's lurid books,which WERE published in France, were FORBIDDEN on our soil!

Mario Savio,on the Berkley campus, started the " FREE SPEECH" movement in the mid 1960s.Free speech? Well, he and his compatriots wanted everyone to go around saying the F word and more.He won, which opened the floodgates and THAT didn't make this a better nation to live in.

Okay, it may be the height of silliness,that the word " pregnant" was NOT allowed to be used,especially NOT in connection with an unmarried woman,in the movies And it might make some of the younger people reading this thread shudder at the idea that Clark Gabel saying " FRANKLY MY DEAR,I DON'T GIVES A DAMN",in 1938's "GONE WITH THE WIND",was shocking beyond belief and almost caused people to boycot the movie because such horrible language was used;but,that's a fact.

Some censorship IS a good thing.

[GSHastings]

Take kids out of the schools, don't watch tv (unless it's fox news or foodtv), pour your money into land and your own culture where those who are like minded can exist together and grow. This way one could prove their way is better as there would be less crime, nicer people, and better educated people.

Or, how about a more rational, very "time-tested" and effective approach.

How about if I am able to live in a normal community, in which I have the right to expect that I, and my children are not exposed to things which are considered immoral or repugnant by me, and most of the other people in the communtity in which I have chosen to live (as have they). And the we, collectively, have the right to decide what is acceptable. And that we create laws to define that. And we elect people to enforce it with the authority of law.

It's really very simple.