Oh gosh, I can't believe I'm jumping back into this. But I am. People do have the right to make smut. ::waits for the screams and shouting to die down:: I don't like smut either. I don't like racism either. However, people have the right to hold those opinions, as long as they don't act on them in a way that makes others suffer. Who gets to decide what's smut? Is it the publisher of Playboy? Me? My best friend's very conservative mother? Who's opinion is more important? And who's opinion when? Shakespeare's plays were considered low base and vulgar in their time; they weren't socially acceptable. Shakespeare was writing his time's equivalent of prime time sitcoms; ideal entertainment for the masses, capitalizing on the sex and violence crowds tend to enjoy. Another thing to remember is that nudity is not always sexual. For millenia it's also been used as a symbol of innocence. After all, we are all born without clothes, and is there anything more innocent than a baby? In some cases its very obvious to most everyone how an image is intended, but not always. See the problems so many have had with pictures of faeries. Many times I've seen a piece of art that's meant to show how bad a problem is be misinterpreted as supporting that problem because it portrays it. Free speech does not mean someone can run into a crowded theatre and shout "Fire!" They can, however, sit in a crowded theatre and discuss starting a campfire and roasting marshmallows after the movie.