What is it with the bluenosed prudes in this country? Last year, they were all atwitter over an exposed nipple, then it was some silly football commercial that showed a woman's back, and it just keeps getting sillier:

US distributors of the film Merchant of Venice, which premiered in London this week, have asked the director to cut out a background fresco by a Venetian old master so it is fit for American television viewers…
According to [director Michael] Radford, there was “a very curious request which said ‘Could you please paint-box out the wallpaper?’. I said wallpaper, what wallpaper? This is the 16th century, people didn’t have wall-paper.”
When he examined the scenes, he realised the letter was referring to frescoes by Paolo Veronese, the acclaimed Venetian 16th-century artist, which, when examined closely, showed a naked cupid.
“A billion dollars worth of Veronese great master’s frescoes they want paint-boxed out because of this cupid’s willy. It is absolutely absurd,” he said.

Honestly, you can load up our movies with bobbling breasts, bare buttocks, close-ups of genitalia, whatever…it won't make any difference. I don't run off and rape people because I saw a nice thigh on a TV show. I don't even buy, rent, or attend movies because they are ripe with nudity. Mature, intelligent people simply don't get that worked up about a little exposed flesh—and by "mature", I mean the level of sophistication that most of us reach by the time we're four years old. Shouldn't this censor think a little bit? This wasn't "wallpaper" at a peep show. It's decorative art in a place where people of all ages can see it, and in 500 years of testing, it apparently hasn't caused anyone's head to explode yet.

It gets worse. Of course. It always does.

Here's another news story from the progressive state of Alabama.

An Alabama lawmaker who sought to ban gay marriages now wants to ban novels with gay characters from public libraries, including university libraries.
A bill by Rep. Gerald Allen, R-Cottondale, would prohibit the use of public funds for "the purchase of textbooks or library materials that recognize or promote homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle." Allen said he filed the bill to protect children from the "homosexual agenda."
…
Allen said that if his bill passes, novels with gay protagonists and college textbooks that suggest homosexuality is natural would have to be removed from library shelves and destroyed.
…
When asked about Tennessee Williams' southern classic "Cat On A Hot Tin Roof," Allen said the play probably couldn't be performed by university theater groups.

He then gasped something about "Brick…," the "manly sport of football," and some calculatin' bitch who came between him and his best friend. Bad collegiate flashback, apparently.

Allen said no state funds should be used to pay for materials that foster homosexuality. He said that would include nonfiction books that suggest homosexuality is acceptable and fiction novels with gay characters. While that would ban books like "Heather has Two Mommies," it could also include classic and popular novels with gay characters such as "The Color Purple," "The Picture of Dorian Gray" and "Brideshead Revisted."
The bill also would ban materials that recognize or promote a lifestyle or actions prohibited by the sodomy and sexual misconduct laws of Alabama. Allen said that meant books with heterosexual couples committing those acts likely would be banned, too.

Oh, let's not stop there. Let's also prohibit people from running for office if their sexuality is so fragile that they believe the sight of a penis could turn them into a ragin' 'mo. As long as we're hating on people's sexuality, I think the kind of guy who breaks into a fevered sweat at the sight of some plump Renaissance cherub painted on a wall needs some careful monitoring, and maybe shouldn't be trusted with judging the propriety of content of movies, books, and plays. The people who should be trusted with the public morality are the ones who trust their own morality, who can browse a coffee table book of Mapplethorpe photos without freaking, or can saunter laughing through an outrageous ball without worry that their integrity will disintegrate.

Speaking of prigs, Michael Powell has an op-ed in the NY Times on this kind of issue, and guess what side he's on?

It is no surprise that those who make a handsome living by selling saucy fare rant the loudest—it drives up the ratings.

"Why does it drive up ratings?", a reasonable person might ask. I also think it is a bit slimy to imply that the people who complain about government censorship are porn merchants.

As one deeply suspicious of government involvement in the regulation of content, I understand and often agree with those who stand up for the cherished value of free speech. But as a parent, I respect the desire of the American people for a minimum level of decency on the public airwaves - particularly where their children are concerned. The often unenviable task of striking a balance between these two competing values falls to the Federal Communications Commission.

Whoa, there. A "minimum level of decency"—but look at the issues that rile up the puritans. A bare back. A breast. A bare-breasted statue at the Justice Department. We aren't talking about pay-per-view orgy movies advertised with explicit clips on Teletubbies. This is trivial stuff. Get some perspective, man! The problem is that there is no balance and no discrimination and no grown-ups at the FCC.

If one slices through the rhetoric, you'll find that most opponents of the agency's strong enforcement efforts believe that the government simply should not impose any decency standard at all. Berating citizens who believe in values and reasonable limits is insulting and polarizing and distracts from the legitimate issues of this policy debate.

The "reasonable limits" are ridiculous and silly, and aren't reasonable at all. It is more slime to set this up as a battle between "citizens who believe in values" and what, us citizens with no values?