"Hate Speech" In America v. The Western World

wordsmythe wrote:

I think that, ultimately, the problem goes back to the National Endowment for the Arts not being very carefully set up.

We're going to diverge greatly here. I think that, ultimately, the problem goes back to the National Endowment for the Arts being set up. Period.

Folks used to sponsor "the arts" that they liked. Worked for centuries. The NEA just takes that money and distributes it without their input.

To borrow a line:

KipEsquire[/url]]The reason there are so many starving artists is because most artists suck. Those who don't don't need taxpayer subsidies; those who do don't deserve them.

LilCodger wrote:

What we have is what is needed. Anything more is asking for trouble. Anything more is forcing speech upon an audience, willing or otherwise, and that is an abomination.

LilCodger wrote:

Should Wal Mart be legally obligated to carry poster size prints of Mapplethorpe's work?

I'm not advocating the forcing of anyone. I think your arguing a point I'm not making. I'll try again but put the notion out of your head that I'm trying to push for more legislation.

When a Polish developer makes a games it had to be clipped to be released in the US. Wal Marts equals in Europe stock games without a problem. The US is also the major games developer in the world and this is where my concern really begins. When even a modest game is being developed what exactly is off the table? Is it just nipples or is there anything else? The fact is we don't know. Unanswerable bodies are deciding what exactly the type of content is even allowed in games in the first place.

I will concede that there is only so far that a console audience can brought so some topics just have to be left to the PC but lets draw similes with the film industry. You will have your block busters that have massive budgets and that, hopefully, do huge business. These tend to be fairly ordinary and they aren't going to challenge you in anyway. Then there are the smaller budget movies that do present far more challenging ideas from youth pregnancy to middle east politics and never mind just old good old violence, bad language and nudity. Now I'm not saying there is a huge market for challenging titles in the community but this and many other forums are evidence that there is one.

I'm delighted to see the rise of the Eastern European developers as this might be where we see the smashing of the concept that games have to be stuck in a teenage mindset. However in the context of this discussion, if the US is the bastion of free speech and is the leader of the world in games development why is it left to other countries and people in their bedrooms to push the envelope. Hollywood certainly doesn't have that model with its creation of independent film companies so why not the games companies? The only answer we get is "Wal Mart won't stock it". I find that answer a little hard to swallow and frankly think its just a tad more complicated than that.

LilCodger wrote:

That is the beauty of capitalism, and the reason free speech and free markets tend to go hand in hand.

Don't want to derail the discussion but capitalism doesn't give a hoot about free speech and free markets. Until we joined the EU we were bullied for decades by the "free market". Even better example is both the EU and the US operate protectionist tariffs for the simple reason that they can. I don't hear the banks screaming for a free market either. Capitalism is about making money and that's great. However, that is all I'd rely on it to do.

If you don't want to legislatively force Wal Mart to carry The Witcher, then it isn't a free speech issue at all. It is a "cultural acceptance" issue. Wal Mart will carry explicit material when their prudish customers threatening a boycott diminish in numbers. How do you convince Americans to stop being prudes? Good luck with that ... time perhaps?

As to your last point, capitalism very much cares about free speech and free markets. True capitalism needs both. Capitalism theoretically will assign resources to where society most values them, with the value decided by price, not by a bureaucrat. Do not confuse these quasi-socialist governments as "capitalist". I can't think of anywhere in the world right now (or for the last few decades) that I would call a free market on a national scale.

The banks scream for a free market when they're not failing. When they're failing, they want a bailout, just like everyone else. The problem is that we bail them out. Free markets require risk and failures. Our current system does not allow politically favored entities to fail. If you take the U.S. Constitution at face value, the framers never intended for the federal government to have the influence, authority or capital to do such a thing. As you said, really into "whole 'nother topic" here.

LilCodger wrote:

The banks scream for a free market when they're not failing. When they're failing, they want a bailout, just like everyone else. The problem is that we bail them out. Free markets require risk and failures. Our current system does not allow politically favored entities to fail. If you take the U.S. Constitution at face value, the framers never intended for the federal government to have the influence, authority or capital to do such a thing. As you said, really into "whole 'nother topic" here.

QFT. Unless people are allowed (forced) to pay up when their risky gambles fail, there really isn't a free market. We've gotten so far from the concept of actions have consequences that the Law of Cause and Effect is practically laughable.

LilCodger wrote:
wordsmythe wrote:

I think that, ultimately, the problem goes back to the National Endowment for the Arts not being very carefully set up.

We're going to diverge greatly here. I think that, ultimately, the problem goes back to the National Endowment for the Arts being set up. Period.

Folks used to sponsor "the arts" that they liked. Worked for centuries. The NEA just takes that money and distributes it without their input.

To borrow a line:

KipEsquire[/url]]The reason there are so many starving artists is because most artists suck. Those who don't don't need taxpayer subsidies; those who do don't deserve them.

"Folks" were actually royalty and the Church, so pretty much the modern equivalent of the government. Patronage had kinda died out since the Middle Ages.

Besides, your personal tax bill for the NEA was about a buck last year vs. about $3,500 for Iraq.

OG_slinger wrote:
LilCodger wrote:
wordsmythe wrote:

I think that, ultimately, the problem goes back to the National Endowment for the Arts not being very carefully set up.

We're going to diverge greatly here. I think that, ultimately, the problem goes back to the National Endowment for the Arts being set up. Period.

Folks used to sponsor "the arts" that they liked. Worked for centuries. The NEA just takes that money and distributes it without their input.

To borrow a line:

KipEsquire[/url]]The reason there are so many starving artists is because most artists suck. Those who don't don't need taxpayer subsidies; those who do don't deserve them.

"Folks" were actually royalty and the Church, so pretty much the modern equivalent of the government. Patronage had kinda died out since the Middle Ages.

Besides, your personal tax bill for the NEA was about a buck last year vs. about $3,500 for Iraq.

Instead of government, you could also think of them as the rich. Who's going to support an artist who doesn't have a pile of disposable income? Since the Middle ages? The Renaissance perhaps refutes that statement a bit? Patronage really died in the 19th century with the introduction of the "publicly funded" museums, art galleries, etc. Of course, public funding meant "money taxed mostly from the rich people", much as it does now. As I said, we just don't let them pick which art they want to subsidize anymore.

Doesn't really matter how much it costs. If my community wants to build a beautiful new glass exhibit at the art museum (which they did), why should a taxpayer in, say, Texas, help build it? Can I make up 40,000 more entitlement programs, each of which will only cost you one dollar?

BTW, the art museum was built in the first place with a crap ton of money, and artwork, donated by the Libbey family, a full sixty four years before the NEA. Patronage was obviously dead, eh?

LilCodger wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:
LilCodger wrote:
wordsmythe wrote:

I think that, ultimately, the problem goes back to the National Endowment for the Arts not being very carefully set up.

We're going to diverge greatly here. I think that, ultimately, the problem goes back to the National Endowment for the Arts being set up. Period.

Folks used to sponsor "the arts" that they liked. Worked for centuries. The NEA just takes that money and distributes it without their input.

To borrow a line:

KipEsquire[/url]]The reason there are so many starving artists is because most artists suck. Those who don't don't need taxpayer subsidies; those who do don't deserve them.

"Folks" were actually royalty and the Church, so pretty much the modern equivalent of the government. Patronage had kinda died out since the Middle Ages.

Besides, your personal tax bill for the NEA was about a buck last year vs. about $3,500 for Iraq.

Instead of government, you could also think of them as the rich. Who's going to support an artist who doesn't have a pile of disposable income? Since the Middle ages? The Renaissance perhaps refutes that statement a bit? Patronage really died in the 19th century with the introduction of the "publicly funded" museums, art galleries, etc.

Publicly funded art programs sprang out of the growth of support for raising the average cultural exposure to the arts, which is an idea that tends to suffer under private patronage.

Again, I think the NEA could do a lot better in simply making art supplies and performance spaces uniformly cheaper across the board. Starving artists aren't just starving because they're not successful, but also because art supplies are really expensive. For example, decent oil paints run about $1 per 10ml when you get them directly from the producer. You can easily pay double that if you make the mistake of walking into a strip mall "art supply" store. If you want more art being produced and more people being exposed both to art and creation of art, why not lower the cost of entry?

wordsmythe wrote:
LilCodger wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:
LilCodger wrote:
wordsmythe wrote:

I think that, ultimately, the problem goes back to the National Endowment for the Arts not being very carefully set up.

We're going to diverge greatly here. I think that, ultimately, the problem goes back to the National Endowment for the Arts being set up. Period.

Folks used to sponsor "the arts" that they liked. Worked for centuries. The NEA just takes that money and distributes it without their input.

To borrow a line:

KipEsquire[/url]]The reason there are so many starving artists is because most artists suck. Those who don't don't need taxpayer subsidies; those who do don't deserve them.

"Folks" were actually royalty and the Church, so pretty much the modern equivalent of the government. Patronage had kinda died out since the Middle Ages.

Besides, your personal tax bill for the NEA was about a buck last year vs. about $3,500 for Iraq.

Instead of government, you could also think of them as the rich. Who's going to support an artist who doesn't have a pile of disposable income? Since the Middle ages? The Renaissance perhaps refutes that statement a bit? Patronage really died in the 19th century with the introduction of the "publicly funded" museums, art galleries, etc.

Publicly funded art programs sprang out of the growth of support for raising the average cultural exposure to the arts, which is an idea that tends to suffer under private patronage.

Again, I think the NEA could do a lot better in simply making art supplies and performance spaces uniformly cheaper across the board. Starving artists aren't just starving because they're not successful, but also because art supplies are really expensive. For example, decent oil paints run about $1 per 10ml when you get them directly from the producer. You can easily pay double that if you make the mistake of walking into a strip mall "art supply" store. If you want more art being produced and more people being exposed both to art and creation of art, why not lower the cost of entry?

True, but it also creates all the "prude" problems. Also, publicly funded does not necessarily mandate federally funded. If your goal is public exposure, would not a better use of resources be a museum or art gallery?

I'm not saying your idea is without merit, as I find it interesting. I'm saying this as someone who has multiple artists in the family (one in Chicago actually). Subsidizing art supplies just means that you get more art. It has no bearing on the quality of the art. Do we really want to publicly subsidize the creation of art, even if it sucks, simply for the knowledge that we created more? Pencils and paper are not expensive. Charcoal isn't terribly expensive either. I find pieces in those mediums are frequently of much higher quality than more expensive ones. The Bob Ross pupils don't dabble in charcoal.

The problem with federally subsidizing art is that tastes are subjective. The thought that money which could have gone to something truly a public good (like a school), instead funded something like Duchamp's Fountain or a Jackson Pollock piece make my skin crawl. Seeing the guys using jet engines to throw buckets of paint on a huge canvas makes me physically ill.

Another thought. Wanting to raise exposure to the arts by creating more art by throwing money at it does not necessarily create exposure to the arts. How many blue collar workers really visit an art museum or a theater? Around here, the numbers are not impressive.

I am reminded of the recent FCC decision to require us to put our "public file" online. Their decision acknowledges that all the information is publicly accessible, and yet no one ever asks for it because they don't care that much. The logic is that by making access even easier, some folks might suddenly and miraculously care. I remain skeptical, to be polite.

Synthetically creating supply does not automatically increase demand.

LilCodger wrote:

Do we really want to publicly subsidize the creation of art, even if it sucks, simply for the knowledge that we created more?

I think so.

I think that the lower the cost of entry, the easier it is for people to try their hand at art. More people with at least some experience with art means more people with some basic understanding of art, which means more people can better appreciate more art, even if they're not the next Degas.

The problem with federally subsidizing art is that tastes are subjective. The thought that money which could have gone to something truly a public good (like a school), instead funded something like Duchamp's Fountain or a Jackson Pollock piece make my skin crawl. Seeing the guys using jet engines to throw buckets of paint on a huge canvas makes me physically ill.

Are you asking for an objective standard to apply to funding things which are judged subjectively? I think that answer is likely to be "fund anything that's not obscene, and just cap the overall funding". I happen to enjoy Pollack and I'd *love* to see someone fire up a jet engine and paint with it. Sounds like fun.

So I think the way to keep both of us happy is to spend the dollar, but not an outrageously large percentage of government funds. This is not a slippery slope, since Congress controls the funding.

Another thought. Wanting to raise exposure to the arts by creating more art by throwing money at it does not necessarily create exposure to the arts. How many blue collar workers really visit an art museum or a theater? Around here, the numbers are not impressive.

Even so, the fact that there are at least some museums easily available to the public in many areas creates the *opportunity*. I mean, you are essentially arguing that if *you* can't see the good of it, it should not be funded. Jefferson and other of the Founders countered this view by calling on the concept of the public good, whereby projects in one area might be funded by all taxpayers, because the potential for an increase in knowledge and culture benefits all, not just those in the area. I think the same argument applies here.

The idea that we as citizens should decide how our taxes are committed is, well, anti-American. If we really want change, we need to do it through our elected representatives. And if you don't trust them, then explain to me how American Democracy is the best political system in the world? If it's screwed up, it's *our* fault, and we need to fix it through careful choices in elections.

wordsmythe wrote:
LilCodger wrote:

Do we really want to publicly subsidize the creation of art, even if it sucks, simply for the knowledge that we created more?

I think so.

I think that the lower the cost of entry, the easier it is for people to try their hand at art. More people with at least some experience with art means more people with some basic understanding of art, which means more people can better appreciate more art, even if they're not the next Degas.

Wouldn't an art education class be more effective at that? Knowing that I suck at painting does not explain Picasso's style to me.

Robear wrote:
The problem with federally subsidizing art is that tastes are subjective. The thought that money which could have gone to something truly a public good (like a school), instead funded something like Duchamp's Fountain or a Jackson Pollock piece make my skin crawl. Seeing the guys using jet engines to throw buckets of paint on a huge canvas makes me physically ill.

Are you asking for an objective standard to apply to funding things which are judged subjectively? I think that answer is likely to be "fund anything that's not obscene, and just cap the overall funding". I happen to enjoy Pollack and I'd *love* to see someone fire up a jet engine and paint with it. Sounds like fun.

So I think the way to keep both of us happy is to spend the dollar, but not an outrageously large percentage of government funds. This is not a slippery slope, since Congress controls the funding.

No, I'm actually asking that it all be funded subjectively. Maybe I like obscene art (by the way, define "obscene" :)). You want jet engine art? You pay for it. You want to make me happy? Move that tax dollar from Congress to my city council, or maybe my state government.

Congress controlling the funding is exactly the problem. For one, is there a dollar that hasn't burned a hole in the Congressional pocketbook? Furthermore, federal funding provides that politically favored art receives funds, not just any artist.

Robear wrote:
Another thought. Wanting to raise exposure to the arts by creating more art by throwing money at it does not necessarily create exposure to the arts. How many blue collar workers really visit an art museum or a theater? Around here, the numbers are not impressive.

Even so, the fact that there are at least some museums easily available to the public in many areas creates the *opportunity*. I mean, you are essentially arguing that if *you* can't see the good of it, it should not be funded. Jefferson and other of the Founders countered this view by calling on the concept of the public good, whereby projects in one area might be funded by all taxpayers, because the potential for an increase in knowledge and culture benefits all, not just those in the area. I think the same argument applies here.

The idea that we as citizens should decide how our taxes are committed is, well, anti-American. If we really want change, we need to do it through our elected representatives. And if you don't trust them, then explain to me how American Democracy is the best political system in the world? If it's screwed up, it's *our* fault, and we need to fix it through careful choices in elections.

You shifted your argument from art to museums. I am willing to consider a museum or art gallery a public good, but that does not mandate that it is a federal issue. We're not talking about a place to hang art, we're talking about a West Virginian farmer's money paying for a New York teenager to take photographs of his wang and call it "art".

Bringing up Jefferson does not strengthen your case, as Jefferson and his followers were rather against concentrated federal power. Putting most of the eggs in the Congressional basket was precisely the sort of thing Jefferson found abhorrent. In fact, Jefferson would say the federal government shouldn't have a lot of tax money to commit in the first place. He would also prioritize education first (of the public goods), something that the federal government actually contributes only a small percentage to.

Actually, American democracy is incredibly well designed, it has just been increasingly poorly implemented. Seriously, when was the last election that wasn't about "change"? The essence of the US Constitution is that political parties shouldn't be warring over control of the federal government, as they aren't supposed to have that much to do. I think the Constitution is a marvelous document, that we've been pissing on heavily since the New Deal.

And I think the New Deal greatly improved it. Look, the idea that we all have veto power over how we spend our tax dollars is just an extension of the idea that government should run exactly the way we personally want it to. Or else. This is where Goldwater went seriously wrong. American democracy even at the start was all about compromise; I contribute money, you contribute money, and government does stuff. Some of it I won't like; some you won't like; but in general, needs are met.

Focussing on things like the NEA is just silly. The portion of the budget they get is miniscule, and art is an easy target for anyone in any part of the political spectrum. It's a proxy issue for the social conservatives (whether or not you agree), a way for them to label government as not just wasteful but (gasp!) immoral. It also stands in for the Goldwater ideal of Small Government, because what in the *world* does art have to do with the common good? So runs the complaint.

And yet the NEA has done a lot of good, and sponsored a lot of public art that's admirable and that people encounter every day. Is this really a worthwhile target?

And in the bigger picture, what is the deal with Goldwater and his successors? Do conservatives really believe that American democracy is better off starved, or as Norquist put it "drowned in the bathtub"? I think the dichotomy he brought to the debate - America is the greatest country in the world, and we should hate it's government and the people we elect - has finally brought us the results of that idea. We have a government of people who hate and distrust government AND the people, and as a result, they run roughshod over the rule of law while legions of the duped hoot and holler their approval, while at the same time talking trash about the corruption of government. Modern conservatives have been taught to hate the government, unbelievably for someone who remembers when they were patriots. It's serious congnitive dissonance.

I think we are far better off leaving things we don't like in place, unless they are actively harmful. Some guy photographing his wang in NYC is not harmful, no matter what the Bible-bangers say. That's part of the price of democracy. What's more impactful is getting funding to put a Calder in downtown Chicago, or funding an art program at a school that can't otherwise afford one, or even a Robert Mapplethorpe retrospective touring the country. The NEA is not actively harmful.

Government *should* do things we disagree with personally. It *should* aggravate us, make us think, make us question, make us active in our political life. Otherwise, if no one is offended (or happy), it's probably too weak to have any useful effects.

LilCodger wrote:

We're not talking about a place to hang art, we're talking about a West Virginian farmer's money paying for a New York teenager to take photographs of his wang and call it "art".

So by that logic, you'd also be against the New Yorker's money paying for the West Virginian do not absolutely nothing and call it "farming"?

LilCodger wrote:
wordsmythe wrote:
LilCodger wrote:

Do we really want to publicly subsidize the creation of art, even if it sucks, simply for the knowledge that we created more?

I think so.

I think that the lower the cost of entry, the easier it is for people to try their hand at art. More people with at least some experience with art means more people with some basic understanding of art, which means more people can better appreciate more art, even if they're not the next Degas.

Wouldn't an art education class be more effective at that? Knowing that I suck at painting does not explain Picasso's style to me.

Picasso's mostly worthwhile in terms of the theory behind his work. You're not going to get artistic theory from most art classes either. Instead, art classes tend to focus (well, most don't tend to focus) on the formal elements of art (line, shape, space, texture, etc.). One of the best ways to get familiar with the formal elements is to work with them.

Robear wrote:

And I think the New Deal greatly improved it. Look, the idea that we all have veto power over how we spend our tax dollars is just an extension of the idea that government should run exactly the way we personally want it to. Or else. This is where Goldwater went seriously wrong. American democracy even at the start was all about compromise; I contribute money, you contribute money, and government does stuff. Some of it I won't like; some you won't like; but in general, needs are met.

You are seriously mischaracterizing both libertarianism and early American democracy. It's all about personal rights and freedoms. Jefferson believed in inalienable rights, intrinsic in all humans. The government's job is to protect those rights, not decide where all the money is spent. Compromises are to be made when personal rights collide. When you concentrate power in the federal government, you decide that you have 300 million+ compromises to make, instead of a more reasonable number. This whole "we won so the rest of you can suck it" attitude has gotten stale.

You use the word "needs". Are we ready to declare access to art a "need"? I ask you, is your vision of government really about meeting needs, or meeting "wants"? I am all for forms of government that meet needs, not ones that cater to politically favored wants.

Robear wrote:

The NEA is not actively harmful.

Then you are unwilling to consider opportunity costs. Or is anything short of genocide ready to be nationalized?

Really, I don't hate America or it's people. I just wish we cared more about education and rights than single-issue politicians. Jefferson's flaw was assuming that we would strive for excellence and remain well educated and open minded as a people. He failed to realize that power-drunk voters might just want to give themselves a handout.

OG_slinger wrote:
LilCodger wrote:

We're not talking about a place to hang art, we're talking about a West Virginian farmer's money paying for a New York teenager to take photographs of his wang and call it "art".

So by that logic, you'd also be against the New Yorker's money paying for the West Virginian do not absolutely nothing and call it "farming"?

Or subsidize a successful farm while crop prices are skyrocketing? The "farm bill" really is a travesty.

I'm wondering how much NEA money goes to West Virginia, Kentucky, and such. Not the most "artsy" states, so in theory they would stand to benefit the most from a capital infusion.

wordsmythe wrote:
LilCodger wrote:
wordsmythe wrote:
LilCodger wrote:

Do we really want to publicly subsidize the creation of art, even if it sucks, simply for the knowledge that we created more?

I think so.

I think that the lower the cost of entry, the easier it is for people to try their hand at art. More people with at least some experience with art means more people with some basic understanding of art, which means more people can better appreciate more art, even if they're not the next Degas.

Wouldn't an art education class be more effective at that? Knowing that I suck at painting does not explain Picasso's style to me.

Picasso's mostly worthwhile in terms of the theory behind his work. You're not going to get artistic theory from most art classes either. Instead, art classes tend to focus (well, most don't tend to focus) on the formal elements of art (line, shape, space, texture, etc.). One of the best ways to get familiar with the formal elements is to work with them.

So to continue the line of thought, would not the most effective route be to subsidize "hands on" education, rather than direct materials? On another note, do you also subsidize musical instruments, voice lessons, ballet classes, metalworking, etc.? Or are painters your politically favored class?

Just thinking out loud.

EDIT: To clarify I suppose ... do you believe that "better" art will come from the randomness of more non-trained neophytes, or are you mainly angling that most "starving artists" just need more practice?

LilCodger wrote:

So to continue the line of thought, would not the most effective route be to subsidize "hands on" education, rather than direct materials? On another note, do you also subsidize musical instruments, voice lessons, ballet classes, metalworking, etc.? Or are painters your politically favored class?

Just thinking out loud.

EDIT: To clarify I suppose ... do you believe that "better" art will come from the randomness of more non-trained neophytes, or are you mainly angling that most "starving artists" just need more practice?

1) Yes, lower prices on materials and spaces across the board. I know that'll make non-standard materials less common, but most artsy types get that stuff from dumpster diving anyway, unless they've got a grant from someone.

2) I think making art cheaper widens the talent pool from which a genius may rise, but it also expands the semi-educated audience for art.

wordsmythe wrote:
LilCodger wrote:

So to continue the line of thought, would not the most effective route be to subsidize "hands on" education, rather than direct materials? On another note, do you also subsidize musical instruments, voice lessons, ballet classes, metalworking, etc.? Or are painters your politically favored class?

Just thinking out loud.

EDIT: To clarify I suppose ... do you believe that "better" art will come from the randomness of more non-trained neophytes, or are you mainly angling that most "starving artists" just need more practice?

1) Yes, lower prices on materials and spaces across the board. I know that'll make non-standard materials less common, but most artsy types get that stuff from dumpster diving anyway, unless they've got a grant from someone.

2) I think making art cheaper widens the talent pool from which a genius may rise, but it also expands the semi-educated audience for art.

Interesting idea. Would be interesting to see if it bore more fruit than the direct grant system.

I personally love seeing the middle school kids around here carting viola and flute cases to school. It's nice to know that my (local, property) tax money is going to something that isn't a standardized test.

Returning to the original topic, there is no First Amendment in.... Australia.

Teen arrested for an extremely tasteless t-shirt while walking down the street.

Local lawyer says:

"One of the great problems with our country is that we talk about rights such as privacy and freedom of speech and the like but they are not enshrined or protected in any way as they are in America," he said.

I was kinda hoping it would veer back

Britain, Israel as well I think, doesn't have a constitution and most of its former colonies have only brought in their constitutions their independence, like mine, or in a hap-hazard fashion, like Australia. Its worth pointing out though that most countries in Europe do have speech protected in their constitution. Some put provisos on it like Germany, France and Austria but most don't.

My only point earlier, however, wasn't aimed at how free speech is legislated for in each country. I personally believe that having speech constitutionally protected in only half the battle. The other half is what the citizen does with that right. If we get lazy and allow vocal minorities shout down ideas that is where the problem begins. As I've said, I've seen it here in my country and its pretty nasty.

Couple of small points as well. Check out this site (banshirts.com) for plenty examples of US kids getting in hot water for their attire. Also your comment earlier about Americans being prudish, I found this news very interesting. I equally enjoyed Eurogamer's stance:

"Am I disappointed? Sure," said Seth R. Lesser, lawyer for the people who filed the suit. "We can't guess as to why now, several years later, people care or don't care. The merits of the case were clear." As is the fact no one cares.