I guess you don't keep up with current events, but actually the people in Germany doing this have also been trying to get asylum for Snowden. It's not like they woke up one day and decided the best thing they could do is a statue, it's part of an ongoing effort to bring attention to the cause and put pressure on the government.

Note to submitters: People don't RTFA, so you can't expect them to be knowledgeable about our Google the subject either. It's worth including useful info like this in the (short) summary because otherwise half the comments will be like this.

Keep in mind that many Europeans consider themselves more free than US citizens. Laws against certain very specific things like holocaust denial in Germany are seen as necessary and for protecting freedom. It seems like Americans believe that as long as you have the right to freedom you will always be free, but in Europe we recognise that sometimes society has to say "no".

For example, religious icons are banned in French schools. In American schools children have to recite a pledge to l of allegiance to the state that includes the infamous " under God " bit. Some would argue that the French way is oppressive, but I see it as keeping religion and the state separate to a degree that the US would not tolerate.

Practically speaking, Europeans have a lot more individual power in their democracies, simply because they are not ruled by corporations to the degree that the US is. There is lobbying and corruption, but if you look at EU consumer laws it's clear who is winning.

You went to an unusual school. At mine we got a new scanner for our computer room. One of the first suggestions was that one of the girls should scan her tits.

Seems like it was one moronic head at one school, and some bullshit hype from the Daily Mail. Pigs are not being banned in children's books, the publishers have confirmed it.

I doubt many people would agree with your logic, since the obviously conclusion must be that any kind of pornography or images are acceptable in a classroom. In a civilized society there are limits in certain situations, and institutions respond to the views of their customers.

You seem to be confusing Playboy for classical art. It's not the nudity, it's the source and the nature of the image.

Allow me to explain what the issue is, because all the modded up replies don't seem to know.

It's not that nudity is offensive per-se, it's that Playboy and it's use of the female body as a sex object to sell copies and provide an unrealistic fantasy for men/lesbians is problematic in the setting of a classroom. Wiipedia has a long article on Playboy that discusses the issues so I won't repeat them here, but what it boils down to is that it isn't some kind of conservatism that is offended by the naked body, it's genuine criticism of the use of an image from Playboy.

Conservatives want to keep the status quo. The argument here is that society is changing and some parts of it that lag behind should keep up. Sounds like the opposite of conservatism to me.

I'd have thought the fact that it is copyright Playboy would have dissuaded academics from using it by now, but I suppose as long as no lawsuits are filed...

It's the bizarre MRA logic. Any attempt to do anything that "infringes" their right to be an asshole by criticising it is censorship and must be condemned in the strongest possible terms. On the other hand, shouting down the critic is fine, because they are wrong.

This doesn't seem to have anything at all to do with rights. Notice how she hasn't filed a lawsuit, or demanded new laws, or otherwise tried to force the discontinuation of use of the image. She wrote an article stating her thoughts. If anything, the MRA outrage appears to be trying to censor her right to state her opinion because it happens to offend them. Ironic, that.

This person is just pointing out that using a pornographic image of an airbrushed, idealized woman in an academic setting that is supposed to be inclusive probably isn't a good idea. If it were not for historical context, it probably wouldn't be selected today. It's not even a very good test image, having a fairly limited colour palette.

If that's your belief about 50% or the world's population is have even less understanding of women than I assumed.

Lots of "weak" and "emotional" (or as I prefer to say, non-retarded) men are married. If anything, their relationships seem to last longer.

Feminists do criticise the kind of advert you describe. As someone who wants more men's liberation I criticise it too. Just because it didn't reach your ears or every single article about some other issue doesn't mention it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, as Google will confirm for you.

It's true that we need more men's liberation. Like women threw off the old ideas of what the ideal woman was in the 60s, men need to do the same today. Forget all that macho crap about not backing down, not showing emotion or weakness, having to take care of women to feel valued. Don't blame women or get upset because they seem to have freed themselves and you haven't. They are showing you the way to liberation, embrace it.

It's not a competition to see who has it worst overall. It's about fixing specific problems for both genders. Don't try to turn it into a gender war, that doesn't help anyone.

You are just projecting US thinking onto the Chinese government. They have little interest in turning AV software into a trojan, because they don't want or need to spy on their citizens that way. They have more direct means, and prefer censorship over mass spying because it's cheaper and easier.

Unlike the US, China does have an interest in keeping its citizens safe so doesn't break their security software.