Are we allow to use the word "c u n t h" on this Board? It is the name of a character in the movie "MacGruber". Full name is Dieter von Cunth (Val Kilmer).
C u n t h
- Thread starter Rockslinger
- Start date
I'm surprised the "C" word wasn't filtered out in your post. Gen would be impressed. Hee, hee, hee. Insert "C word" smilie here.
When I moved to Canada I was quite shocked that not only this world is governed by vagina, but that they even outlawed the word "cunt". How millions of men allowed this pussy-whipping to occur will always be a mystery to me.
On a some what related note, for those affected by the wet and gloomy weather, " feelin' small ",Are we allow to use the word "c u n t h" on this Board? It is the name of a character in the movie "MacGruber". Full name is Dieter von Cunth (Val Kilmer).
MacGruber will help:
http://www.wwtdd.com/2010/05/macgruber-was-a-good-naked-model/naked_macgruber_session2_0042/
I can restore the word if you think you have use for it.Are we allow to use the word "c u n t h" on this Board? It is the name of a character in the movie "MacGruber". Full name is Dieter von Cunth (Val Kilmer).
I stuck "cunt" into canlii and got 100+ hits but none from the Supreme Court.
http://www.canlii.org/en/
Do you have a cite for the case ?
<insert "dry British humour" smilie here>
Last edited:
bitch should have been flattered if anyone thought about her cunt twiceAndrea Dworkin
Fuck me, no need for any further reading, she was bat-shit crazy.
Why Wikipedia Sucks
Curiosity got the better of me so a google search on ANDREA Dworkin leads me to her Wikipedia entry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Dworkin
It mentions the Supreme Court of Canada decision in R v. Butler on pornography. It also gives the implication that Andrea Dworkin addressed the court.
"Andrea Dworkin opposed LEAF's position, arguing that feminists should not support or attempt to reform criminal obscenity law."
A click or two into Canlii and the Butler decision is found
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1992/1992canlii124/1992canlii124.html
A quick read and it is RONALD Dworkin not ANDREA that the Supreme Court used as a reference and Andrea Dworkin was certainly not listed as a party making submissions to the court.
Curiosity got the better of me so a google search on ANDREA Dworkin leads me to her Wikipedia entry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Dworkin
It mentions the Supreme Court of Canada decision in R v. Butler on pornography. It also gives the implication that Andrea Dworkin addressed the court.
"Andrea Dworkin opposed LEAF's position, arguing that feminists should not support or attempt to reform criminal obscenity law."
A click or two into Canlii and the Butler decision is found
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1992/1992canlii124/1992canlii124.html
A quick read and it is RONALD Dworkin not ANDREA that the Supreme Court used as a reference and Andrea Dworkin was certainly not listed as a party making submissions to the court.
It is an extremely complex decision.
[FONT="]
The actual decision was written by the late Justice Sopinka for the majority. [/FONT]
[FONT="](I have heavily redacted his decision for brevity)[/FONT]
[FONT="]"The case requires the Court to address one of the most difficult and controversial of contemporary issues, that of determining whether, and to what extent, Parliament may legitimately criminalize obscenity. [/FONT]
[FONT="]…[/FONT]
[FONT="]In order for the work or material to qualify as "obscene", the exploitation of sex must not only be its dominant characteristic, but such exploitation must be "undue". In determining when the exploitation of sex will be considered "undue", the courts have attempted to formulate workable tests. The most important of these is the "community standard of tolerance" test.[/FONT]
[FONT="]…[/FONT]
[FONT="]The community standards test has been the subject of extensive judicial analysis. It is the standards of the community as a whole which must be considered and not the standards of a small segment of that community such as the university community where a film was shown[/FONT]
[FONT="]…[/FONT]
[FONT="]Therefore, the community standards test is concerned not with what Canadians would not tolerate being exposed to themselves, but what they would not tolerate other Canadians being exposed to. [/FONT]
[FONT="]…[/FONT]
[FONT="]There has been a growing recognition in recent cases that material which may be said to exploit sex in a "degrading or dehumanizing" manner will necessarily fail the community standards test. [/FONT]
[FONT="]…[/FONT]
[FONT="]In the appreciation of whether material is degrading or dehumanizing, the appearance of consent is not necessarily determinative. Consent cannot save materials that otherwise contain degrading or dehumanizing scenes. Sometimes the very appearance of consent makes the depicted acts even more degrading or dehumanizing.[/FONT]
[FONT="]....[/FONT]
[FONT="]the artistic defence is the last step in the analysis of whether the exploitation of sex is undue. Even material which by itself offends community standards will not be considered "undue", if it is required for the serious treatment of a theme. [/FONT]
[FONT="] .....[/FONT]
[FONT="]Pornography can be usefully divided into three categories: (1) explicit sex with violence, (2) explicit sex without violence but which subjects people to treatment that is degrading or dehumanizing, and (3) explicit sex without violence that is neither degrading nor dehumanizing. Violence in this context includes both actual physical violence and threats of physical violence. Relating these three categories to the terms of s. 163(8) of the Code, the first, explicit sex coupled with violence, is expressly mentioned. Sex coupled with crime, horror or cruelty will sometimes involve violence. Cruelty, for instance, will usually do so. But, even in the absence of violence, sex coupled with crime, horror or cruelty may fall within the second category. As for category (3), subject to the exception referred to below, it is not covered.[/FONT]
[FONT="]…[/FONT]
[FONT="]In making this determination with respect to the three categories of pornography referred to above, the portrayal of sex coupled with violence will almost always constitute the undue exploitation of sex. Explicit sex which is degrading or dehumanizing may be undue if the risk of harm is substantial. Finally, explicit sex that is not violent and neither degrading nor dehumanizing is generally tolerated in our society and will not qualify as the undue exploitation of sex unless it employs children in its production.[/FONT]
[FONT="] ...[/FONT]
[FONT="]The court must determine whether the sexually explicit material when viewed in the context of the whole work would be tolerated by the community as a whole. Artistic expression rests at the heart of freedom of expression values and any doubt in this regard must be resolved in favour of freedom of expression."[/FONT]
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1992/1992canlii124/1992canlii124.html
One of the problems with cases like this is that the decision is very complex and it cannot be reduced to a simple sentence or two. It takes a fair degree of effort to read through the whole thing and then further effort to try to understand how these various principles are to be applied in reality.
meanwhile simple reality is: porn is a bone thrown to men to make them docile just as welfare (social assistance) is a bone thrown to poor people to make them docile and less dangerous. Even mild porn and even small welfare would suffice. Anything more than that is a favour and a gift from those who have political power.
What's in a word?
I have always been bemused, and sometimes amused, by the outrage words like "cunt" produce in some people, and the censorship around them. Talk about storm in a teacup! Being sensitive to public mores, however, we had a rule in our house when the kids were growing up that they were only allowed to swear while IN the house.
For those who are interested, there is a great article on "cunt" in Wikipedia. I think my favourite from that piece is:
Similarly, during the UK Oz trial for obscenity in 1971, prosecuting counsel asked writer George Melly "Would you call your 10-year-old daughter a cunt?" Melly replied "No, because I don't think she is."
For those really interested in the riduculousness of obstenity laws, the Oz trial piece, also in Wikipedia, is a must. Absolutely hilarious!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cunt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oz_trial#UK_obscenity_trials
I have always been bemused, and sometimes amused, by the outrage words like "cunt" produce in some people, and the censorship around them. Talk about storm in a teacup! Being sensitive to public mores, however, we had a rule in our house when the kids were growing up that they were only allowed to swear while IN the house.
For those who are interested, there is a great article on "cunt" in Wikipedia. I think my favourite from that piece is:
Similarly, during the UK Oz trial for obscenity in 1971, prosecuting counsel asked writer George Melly "Would you call your 10-year-old daughter a cunt?" Melly replied "No, because I don't think she is."
For those really interested in the riduculousness of obstenity laws, the Oz trial piece, also in Wikipedia, is a must. Absolutely hilarious!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cunt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oz_trial#UK_obscenity_trials
