[SiempreViernes]

Look, just such a simple fact women who are raped by their husbands can actually call and expect to be defended is to me obviously much more important than the fact that the tits on some statues are censored when shown on tv.

[hueving]

Textbook false dichotomy. Freedom of expression is about as related to rape as it is to the right to a trial.

[truj]

No. A dichotomy is mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive. Since there is no suggestion of such a relationship between women's rights and nudity no dichotomy is presented. Which therefor can't be false.

[hueving]

Poster is implying it's a dichotomy by pretending that better women's rights is proof that sexual expression has improved. The implication is that you either admit expression is better because we have women's rights or you admit you were wrong. False dichotomy.

[truj2]

> Poster is implying it's a dichotomy by pretending that better women's rights is proof that sexual expression has improved.

No, they are specifically saying that expression has improved because the improvements in women's rights are more important than the restrictions or regression of nudity. There is simply no dichotomy there. In fact saying that it is "more important" suggests that restrictions in nudity is also a factor. Again, not a dichotomy.

> The implication is that you either admit expression is better because we have women's rights or you admit you were wrong.

No, you can acknowledge that we have women's rights and still think we have regressed. But for that to be true you would have to argue what is more important than the improvements in women's rights. Otherwise you would be the one making a false dichotomy by claiming that things can't have improved because one thing hasn't.

[BlackFly]

The problem is, the definition of obscenity is community based in the USA. It is totally allowable for the government to censor things which the public considers obscene and the government used to censor literature explaining how to get a divorce.

So, the views of the community have evolved since then and people no longer consider calls for divorce to be obscene. Therefore, the government is not allowed to censor them.

However, no changes have been made to the legal framework. You can easily fall back into Comstockery if the public overwhelmingly decides that such a thing is obscene. The Miller test is not something to be proud of as the safeguard of freedom of expression especially when you consider the current context: people finding discussions of safe prostitution to be obscene. Compare that to the protections offered to people calling for genocide (of Jews, of Muslims, of Atheists, of blacks, etc.) and it is rather perplexing.

[random4369]

`women are no longer being raped by their husbands` -> `state censorship is justified`

Amazing mental gymnastics.