Not to mention weirdness. Are all the women in my country drag queens?
Issue: Vocal members of the Moral Minority have been complaining and petitioning the government about the new art gallery displaying several provocative nude portraits by several famous artists. Moral Minority members claim these pieces of work promote prostitution and indecent sexual acts.
Option 1: “Stop my children from looking at smut! These artists are only perverts pretending to be artists! Think of the children!” says Bill Clinton, proud parent and member of Mothers Promoting Purity. “These artists are only going to rouse our innocent children to commit grotesque acts of immorality! Get rid of it all!”
Response: Actually, I’m more concerned with gender benders. And irony. Very sick irony.
Option 2: “Well, I see that point, but we certainly don’t need to ban inoffensive art, still lifes of inanimate objects and such,” says your sister, Bill O’Bannon. “Perhaps we should set some guidelines for what is acceptable as art and what isn’t. Artistic renditions of people getting it on are one thing. A bunch of fruit in a decorative bowl is another entirely.”
Response: My sister’s name is BILL O’BANNON? Well that’s a wierd name for a girl.
Option 3: “That is censorship!” says noted art history teacher Lars Jong-Il. “You can’t ban art! It’s freedom of expression; it’s part of our culture. If anything, the government should be supporting these artists and their work, not listening to these prudish whackjobs who are scared of a little bare skin!”
Response: I choose you, Pi… uhhh never mind.
Right now my main nation has the Big Brother issue. For those of you who don’t know what it is…
The Police department is considering installing surveillance cameras in all major public areas, in an effort to crack down on crime.
“This is a blatant invasion of the right to privacy!” says libertarian web site operator Buffy Clinton. “Now I can’t even go out in public any more without being watched? And you know this is just the beginning. Today there are cameras in city streets. Tomorrow they’re peering through your bedroom window.”
This is the position your government is preparing to adopt.
“Hey, I’ve got news for you,” says Police media liaison May Dodinas. “When you’re out in public, PEOPLE CAN SEE YOU. These cameras will be extremely helpful in reducing the national crime rate. Frankly, I can’t see what the fuss is about.”
“This ‘slippery slope’ argument has got me thinking,” says Police Minister May Shiomi. “You know, it would be a lot easier to fight crime if we watched people all the time. Not with cameras, of course. That’s clearly an invasion of privacy. But how about a national database of our citizens, coupled with compulsory ID cards and barcoding? It would stop crime dead in its tracks.”
About the “Big Brother” thing: this has been done in some cities here in Brazil and criminality in the places under watch went down in a breakneck speed.
As for privacy: people should not frown on being watched in public places. Public means I can go there whenever I want and if I wish I may take a camera along and get everything I see into a tape, and nobody can do anything to stop me.
Even if it weren’t so, there are guards on the streets - remember that most times they’ll be watching the area to see if everything is ok. Having cameras in public places is just like having guards looking to the same place at all times instead of driving a car through a big area.
I am not judging the effectiveness of said rules, I am judging the morality. I believe it is my right to walk down the street and go to the store or something without someone peering at me. And why would someone survey someone like this? Only because they suspected someone of a crime. If the government suspects every one of its citizens as criminals, then it very well may treat them that way.
“I believe it is my right to walk down the street and go to the store or something without someone peering at me.”
By your standards, we should not have police officers on the streets since they would look at people and thus would be invading their privacy. Also, privacy is for private areas only. In public places, anyone can look at whoever they wish.
Originally posted by Ren
[b]About the “Big Brother” thing: this has been done in some cities here in Brazil and criminality in the places under watch went down in a breakneck speed.
As for privacy: people should not frown on being watched in public places.[/b]
Why not? There’s no basis for stating that people should or should not accept constant surveillance. In the United States, surveillance by cameras would probably be very unpopular, aside from what’s already done at streetlights. People here assume, when they go out, that no one will be secretly watching what they do. It’s comforting, because all people sometimes do things they wouldn’t want a camera to record. Like, if someone slipped and fell on his back outrageously in the winter, it’d be depressing to think that some distant observer was laughing and showing all his friends his stupidity. People don’t need to be criminals to want to avoid camera surveillance.
However, people in New York City in September and October of 2001 probably would have welcomed surveillance, at least temporarily. Sometimes it’s necessary to increase security at the price of people’s comfort. There’s nothing wrong with this sort of tradeoff, since the people ultimately responsible for it are the voting citizens who will have to deal with it.
Basically, the question of camera surveillance should be left to the citizens it will affect.