Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Tailgunner Joe

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.


388 posted on 07/14/2004 1:09:17 PM PDT by horatio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 351 | View Replies ]


To: horatio
Porn is obscene and therefore has no "aesthetic" value. Making, distributing and possessing it is not a right.
397 posted on 07/14/2004 1:15:30 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe (You CAN legislate morality.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 388 | View Replies ]

To: horatio
No government, or just no federal government?

As a citizen, I sure would like to have a say-so in my state, or my city, or my community whether or not to allow porn, bookstores, etc.

Unless you're saying that porn should be a protected right, like free speech or freedom from illegal searches and seizures. That wherever I go, I have to accept it? Freedom for thee but not for me?

426 posted on 07/14/2004 1:31:55 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 388 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson