Posted on 07/14/2004 7:46:19 AM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
Not in North Carolina. We have an alienation of affection law that provides the spouse that was cheated on legal recourse against the person their spouse cheated with, including suing for financial damages.
Age of consent for sex is not the same as the age that someone can star in porn.
Interesting fact: 18 is the age of consent for porn not because that is the age of consent for sex (most states have lower ages of consent) but because it's an age that works better in terms of prosecutions. It's a lot easier to tell the difference between an 18 year old and a 15 year old than it is to tell the difference between a 16 year old and a 14 year old.
So, though it might be legal in a lot of places to have sex with a 16 year-old, it would be illegal to film the sex.
Is it your contention that, had Jeffrey Dahmer never seen pornography, he would not have been a mass-murdering nutcase?
And quit attaching Christian to everything. You are such a little victim bitch, just like Jessie Jackson, or your hero, "Mrs. Hillary It Takes a Village Clinton. This has nothing to do with Christians and everything to do with control freaks who think everyone needs to live their way.
Whether or not they film their crimes is irrelevant.
And you claimed to be for "family values."
I still am. I don't patronize prostitutes. I don't view pornography. Unlike you, I practice self-restraint instead of demanding the nanny state practice it for me.
What a liar and a fraud you are.
Which one of us actually lives out family values unassisted, as opposed to needing to be forced to do so at gunpoint?
Actually, Larry Flynt has a pretty good record in court on obscenity charges.
With all due respect, Joe, you're ducking the question. You're the one who's advocating governmental action.
As a conservative, I believe in as small a government as possible. I'm no anarchist, though - don't get me wrong. I do believe that a government is itself necessary and very proper. I just don't want that government involved where is doesn't belong.
We are talking about the government taking a assertive action - banning porn. You indicated that to do so was the "will of the people." My response is that the people want to do lots of crazy things that we shouldn't get the government involved with.
Porn might not be to your taste, it might not be to mine, but I see no reason why aesthetics should lead to us giving the government more power over what types of books and magazines adults read, or what types of movies they watch.
Boy, you really do believe everything politicians tell you , don't you?
The DOJ has always had an obscenity/child born division. However, during the Reno years, their resources were used, rightfully, to go after child pornographers. DOJ lawyers know that getting an obscenity conviction is next to impossible and they would rather use scarce resources to go after kiddie porn.
I suppose Ashcroft would rather waste prosecutors' time on adult porn while letting kiddie pornographers go unpunished.
Junior, Junior, Junior.
Have you not been listening. I never advocated taking away your freedom to make your own decisions, I advocated putting a lock on the door so that children cannot get to it. I don't care if you want to have a key, that's your prerogative.
If you can't support that, if cannot see the value in protecting the innocent, than I suspect your a lost cause and there was never a dialog to begin with.
Your position says "leave the door wide open, and if the child does not want to look, don't look. or better yet, parents, put earplugs and blindfolds on your children and watch them like Big Brother 24/7/365."
Good Day Sir!
The "control freaks" you bitch and moan have made you into a victim are in the White House, not in Kabul.
Many states have legal ages of consent for sex below 18. There is a difference between legal sex between boyfriend and girlfriend because of age and producing, starring in, and purchasing porn. Those doing that are engaging in legal, contractual obligations. Jim and Joan down the street banging in the back of a car are doing no such thing.
He proudly admitted on a thread yesterday that he is a "statist".
And I keep telling you, porn is not a crime.
If it was, do you really think Vivid Video would be listed on the NYSE? (here's a hint- the SEC, as part of the IPO process, will ban any company engaged in illegal activities from going public)
The President and his Christian Taliban want to rewrite bigotry into the Constitution! Our only hope is to vote the jackbooted Family Values nazis out of office!</Pimp-bah the porn-patriot
Make note of it TJ, I will exercise my firing skills on anyone that comes to my door to find out what I have in my DVD collection or on my bookshelf. I don't care what party they are from or what religion.
I must've got mixed up to whom I was responding earlier in the thread.
I have seen and read a lot of President Bush's speeches and try to follow very closely legislation that he proposes.
I do not remember him ever giving an anti-porn speech, called for its banning, or sent any type of legislation to congress to do that. If he has, could you please link me to it? If he has not, retract your statement and apologize for lying about the President.
Perhaps the problem isn't pornography, but its mainstreaming. Do you remember how Larry Flint elected himself as Clinton's Pornographer of State? This was more frightening to me than a thousand "adult book stores."
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.