Skip to comments.
In flagrante in public ... inexcusable
Jewish World Review ^
| 3-16-04
| Leonard Pitts, Jr.
Posted on 03/16/2004 5:08:10 AM PST by SJackson
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 next last
To: hopespringseternal
Again, it has been pointed out that the only people who don't know how to define porn don't want to. Define it, then.
41
posted on
03/16/2004 9:07:41 AM PST
by
Modernman
(Chthulu for President! Why Vote for the Lesser Evil?)
To: philetus
If you set up a movie screen on your front lawn and start playing movies that cause the majority of your neighbors to come over and beat you to a pulp. I would define it as porn. Say you live in a neighborhood populated by many homosexuals. You put a movie screen up and start playing a video talking about the evils of homosexuality and your neighbors beat you up. Is the video porn?
Say you live in a very conservative neighborhood with many military veterans. You put up a movie screen and start playing a video that call soldiers baby-killers and your neighbors beat you up. Is the video porn?
Your definition doesn't work.
42
posted on
03/16/2004 9:11:25 AM PST
by
Modernman
(Chthulu for President! Why Vote for the Lesser Evil?)
To: hopespringseternal
"Try reading something in another car. "
I beg your pardon. I don't have a DVD in any of my cars, and do not view pornographic material anywhere. The point here is that pornography is difficult to define, despite your dictionary entry.
Some folks think that any depiction of nudity is pornography. Others believe that frank violence is just as pornographic.
In the US of A, we have this concept called "freedom of press," and our courts have decided that it's quite alright to publish sexually explicit material and for adults to purchase it, as long as it does not contain sexual exploitation of children.
Do I think folks should be watching porn in the back seats of their cars? I do not. That's just tacky and potentially offensive to other travelers on the roads.
On the other hand, I'm not so delicate that a glimpse of sexual activity on a tiny DVD screen in someone else's car will send me into a tizzy. Further, four year olds are generally not even aware of such activity and would not give that tiny DVD screen a second glance.
If it were in my car, you wouldn't even be able to see it, even if I had a DVD player and was running porn on it. The rear windows are tinted.
43
posted on
03/16/2004 9:13:29 AM PST
by
MineralMan
(godless atheist)
To: Agnes Heep
We got the same thing with homosexuality. It started with reasonable people granting people the indulgence of their rights, and ended with those same reasonable people being clubbed over the head with their original concession.So what should have been done differently?
44
posted on
03/16/2004 9:14:01 AM PST
by
Protagoras
(When they asked me what I thought of freedom in America,,, I said I thought it would be a good idea.)
To: Modernman
See 40. Merriam-Webster beat us to it. Shocking, I know, finding the definition of a word in a dictionary of all places.
To: biblewonk
OK, ban that too. If it is really porn and not just the mention of some sex act. What is the dividing line between the non-porn mention of a sex act and pornography? You mentioned CSI earlier. The show certainly mentions sex acts as part of the criminal investigation. However, they do so in a clinical way as part of a crime story, but you seem to consider that pornography, too.
46
posted on
03/16/2004 9:14:46 AM PST
by
Modernman
(Chthulu for President! Why Vote for the Lesser Evil?)
To: MineralMan
No, I don't ignore that at all. Pornography can be in written form, as well as visual. The problem is in defining what is and what is not pornography. I have not seen such a definition on this thread. Perhaps you'd like to take a crack at it. The people who manage video tape rental stores seem to have the ability to define porn that you lack. I suppose they should mix in their John Holmes tapes with Walt Disney because they are not being intellectually honest. Unless you pull out a jar of vaseline when you read the story of Lot (which would also make you a wierdo), you have no argument there using it as an example.
If you really can't even admit that watching porn movies in public is wrong, you shouldn't be on a conservative board. One of the trademarks of conservatism is responsibility. Watching porns in public where other people's children can see them is not responsible. I've noticed this disturbing habit of yours to disparage people who take stances - an example being your comments against people trying to protect their ranches against illegal aliens.
47
posted on
03/16/2004 9:16:16 AM PST
by
Hacksaw
(just a theocratic paleoconistic Confederate flag waving loyalty oath supporter)
To: biblewonk
All porn faith images should be illegal all the time.How's that work now?
48
posted on
03/16/2004 9:16:22 AM PST
by
Protagoras
(When they asked me what I thought of freedom in America,,, I said I thought it would be a good idea.)
To: Modernman
"What is the dividing line between the non-porn mention of a sex act and pornography? You mentioned CSI earlier. The show certainly mentions sex acts as part of the criminal investigation. However, they do so in a clinical way as part of a crime story, but you seem to consider that pornography, too."
Interesting question. Apparently, our mutual correspondent considers CSI's depiction of crime scene evidence such as semen to be pornographic. He even uses a word from the porn world to describe said semen.
What is or is not pornography appears to be defined in the eye of the viewer. For some, a classic nude statue is pornographic. For others it is art.
The bottom line is that here in America, adults get to decide for themselves what they view and read, with some limits, such as child pornography. Those with over-sensitive minds don't get to dictate to the rest of us. That's how it is here.
This is not a conservative vs. liberal issue. It's a matter of the First Amendment.
49
posted on
03/16/2004 9:20:12 AM PST
by
MineralMan
(godless atheist)
To: Modernman
However, they do so in a clinical way as part of a crime story, but you seem to consider that pornography, too. Yes they sure do that. You could write porn in clinical terms and it would still be porn. Imagine some written porn novel using such terminology. Very little would be lost, maybe nothing at all. Yes they use that clinical terminology dodge on TV now so that you can describe absolutely any disgusting act between man and man and or beast or whatever and you get a pass from the censors yet one nipple stops the presses. I consider this a twisted situation myself.
50
posted on
03/16/2004 9:21:01 AM PST
by
biblewonk
(I must try to answer all bible questions.)
To: Modernman; MineralMan; familyofman
What is the dividing line between the non-porn mention of a sex act and pornography? You mentioned CSI earlier. The show certainly mentions sex acts as part of the criminal investigation. However, they do so in a clinical way as part of a crime story, but you seem to consider that pornography, too. I think you can be honest enough to state that a film where graphic sex intended to arouse the viewer is pornographic, unless you want to make the silly argument that (for example) Ron Jeremy's movies really can't be defined as pornographic. I hope you aren't that dishonest.
As an aside, do all the moral liberals on this board add a "-man" to the end of their handles? You should just start calling yourselves "metroman1, metroman2, metroman3, etc...
51
posted on
03/16/2004 9:21:15 AM PST
by
Hacksaw
(just a theocratic paleoconistic Confederate flag waving loyalty oath supporter)
To: hopespringseternal
See definitions 1 and 2. Any laws banning pornography based on those definitions would encounter constitutional problems based on vagueness (a reasonable person could not be sure what activities were legal and which were illegal- would a picture of two lovers kissing equal pornography? What about the Mona Lisa, with her coy little smile?) and overbreadth (the law would ban things that are not constitutionally protected, such as child pornography, as well as speech that is protected by the 1st Amendment).
Let's be clear here- we are talking about trying to come up with a LEGAL definition of pornography for a hypothetical law banning same.
52
posted on
03/16/2004 9:22:07 AM PST
by
Modernman
(Chthulu for President! Why Vote for the Lesser Evil?)
To: mountaineer
Instance #3,428 of "however did those of us who grew up in the 1960s ever live without this?"Well, to be honest, on our long family road trips (NY to Northern Michigan) we piled into the family station wagon and had the back folded down and outfitted with mattresses and various toys and games.
Since today that is outlawed and the kids have to be strapped into carseats for the duration the DVD player is probably a welcome solution. (Unfortunately it turns the kids into even more TV addicted zombies than the earlier, albeit less safe, option.)
To: hopespringseternal
See 40. Merriam-Webster beat us to it. Shocking, I know, finding the definition of a word in a dictionary of all places. That definition would not pass constitutional muster for the reasons I described.
54
posted on
03/16/2004 9:24:39 AM PST
by
Modernman
(Chthulu for President! Why Vote for the Lesser Evil?)
To: MineralMan
The point here is that pornography is difficult to define, despite your dictionary entry. Now that has to be one of the funniest statements I have ever read.
Some folks think that any depiction of nudity is pornography. Others believe that frank violence is just as pornographic.
And some people believe they were abducted by aliens. So? Most every home in the land has a dictionary with a perfectly good working dictionary with a perfectly good working definition of pornography. If you have trouble defining pornography, maybe you should ask the next alien that abducts you.
In the US of A, we have this concept called "freedom of press," and our courts have decided that it's quite alright to publish sexually explicit material and for adults to purchase it, as long as it does not contain sexual exploitation of children.
The same courts that decided blacks weren't real people? If we can ban pedophilia, we can ban porn. Freedom of the press is not absolute. Every freedom has reasonable boundaries.
Further, four year olds are generally not even aware of such activity and would not give that tiny DVD screen a second glance.
Some of those DVD screens are not that tiny, and four year olds aren't the only people looking in car windows. For that matter, even 45 year olds don't need that kind of distraction when traveling 80 mph on a crowded freeway.
To: Hacksaw
"The people who manage video tape rental stores seem to have the ability to define porn that you lack. I suppose they should mix in their John Holmes tapes with Walt Disney because they are not being intellectually honest."
"If you really can't even admit that watching porn movies in public is wrong, you shouldn't be on a conservative board."
None of the video stores in my community offer any adult, sexually-oriented material of any kind, so I can't really get into that one with you.
On your second question, I refer you to Message 40. I do not believe that porn should be viewed in public. However, I do not see the instance of someone getting a fleeting glimpse of sexually-oriented material on a small DVD screen while passing some other car as any sort of big deal.
But thanks so much for deciding whether or not I should be on this forum. When you own it, you can make that decision.
56
posted on
03/16/2004 9:25:17 AM PST
by
MineralMan
(godless atheist)
To: SJackson
A perfect application of paint-ball technology.....
57
posted on
03/16/2004 9:29:10 AM PST
by
tracer
To: Modernman
That definition would not pass constitutional muster for the reasons I described. What a joke. If someone is wanking looking at a print of Mona Lisa, I think we can rule them out as a reasonable test case. None of the instances you bring up are reasonable. Any competent lawyer could use the dictionary definition of pornography can write a one paragraph law that would cover 99 percent of pornography.
To: hopespringseternal
"For that matter, even 45 year olds don't need that kind of distraction when traveling 80 mph on a crowded freeway."
I'd think not. I don't know of any stretch of crowded freeway where the speed limit is 80 mph, so your 45-year-old would be breaking the law.
The viewer of the video probably isn't breaking the law. So, which one gets the ticket?
59
posted on
03/16/2004 9:29:57 AM PST
by
MineralMan
(godless atheist)
To: MineralMan
I'd think not. I don't know of any stretch of crowded freeway where the speed limit is 80 mph, so your 45-year-old would be breaking the law. You are so right, it is so much safer to be flashed with porn at 70 mph. And the flow of traffic is never 80 mph where there are flow of traffic laws. /sarcasm
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson