Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Use my Amazon Portal
I see the depiction of a penis.
A modern version of the sculptures would have hockey sticks and a net to give it some point.
Nothing pithy, just wanted to say that these are beautiful. Thanks!
Now you see Ann, that is an image of a penis. Certainly we wouldn't want to see "these things" in Madison.Think of the law students, and the impressionable professors!
I wanted everyone to enjoy the depiction of a penis. That's why I put these month-old pictures up today. If you think I accidentally contradicted myself, you are wrong. I am challenging you to analyze why it is coherent. (This is what my exam questions are like, by the way.)
Beautiful! Is that really Roman, or is it new in a Roman style? It's quite elaborate, like nothing I'd seen before, though I claim no experience or expertise in the matter.
It's Roman. A container for a corpse, by the way.
A container for a corpse, by the way.This sarcophagus would give me the hives, if I were in it for eternity. Even the lion looks half-irked.Clicked on a photo by mistake, and it took me to your Flickr page. I like this warrior!Great Kirk Douglas chin!Cheers,Victoria
If you think I accidentally contradicted myself, you are wrong.I am challenging you to analyze why it is coherent.You deliberately contradicted yourself? You think sex toys are gross and this isn't? And since you know what is good and what is bad you should be able to decide what everyone else sees. Apparently you think the standard for obscenity is "whatever makes Ann Althouse uncomfortable". Of course, as we discussed yesterday "those things" that grossed you out so much weren't depictions or images of penises, they were images of sex toys. In an age where four hour erections are regularly discussed in television commercials, pictures of sex toys in an area where children are unlikely to frequent is hardly outside shocking.Considering that UW is a public university, it seems to me that both the poster you found so objectionable and this "art" you so shockingly display on your website (where children may see it!) both don't come anywhere near failing the Miller test and are therefore both protected speech.
If you think I accidentally contradicted myself, you are wrong.I am challenging you to analyze why it is coherent.It's coherent because you didn't decide anything.If a rule emerges, it's not decisive ; it may submerge again under further evidence.Putting Pants on Philip Laurel and Hardy for example.
I see the depiction of a penis.(madisonman)If you think I accidentally contradicted myself, you are wrong. I am challenging you to analyze why it is coherent. (This is what my exam questions are like, by the way.)(Ann Althouse)Don't get confused between rhetoric required to answer an exam question in a law course and actual rational thought or reason.Your previous claim wasn't that a depiction of a penis was bad, it was that showing such a depiction in the halls of law school was bad.So, although it appeared to the casual reader that your complaint was about a penis, it was really about how bad it is to expose law school students to depictions of objects. Law school students should only be required to look at the real object, not depictions. Otherwise they'd get confused.
Post a Comment