Prohibiting Pornography -- A Moral Imperative

Morality in Media ^ | 1984 | Paul J. McGeady

[Antoninus]

No one is forcing anything on you. Indeed, it is you who are attempting to use force to prevent people from reading or viewing what they so desire. Us "libertines," as you so nastily put it, have a live-and-let-live attitude. You should be free to restrict what you and yours watch and read, but you shouldn't have that power over me.

Live and let live. I'm ok, you're ok. Let me be me.

Any other slogans from the 1960s you want to throw out there? Pornography has been considered outside the purview of the the 1st Amendment since it was written. This only changed with the "living constitution" introduced by the geniuses in the 1960s. You can argue that society was somehow improved when porn became a civil right. I find such an argument utterly delusional.

[Antoninus]

Saudi Arabia and the Taliban have one possible standard for display of the female image, what's yours?

I reckon you do too. Question: if you're so into freedom to view porn, why do you put up with the oppressive rules on FR that say absolutely no posting pornography. Shouldn't you be protesting the fact that JimRob is limiting your freedom to such a horrible extent? Strikes me you may want to quit FR and sign up for a more "porn friendly" site.

[tpaine]

Your claim that I've said all laws "against pornography and prostitution are unconstitutional" is ludicrous. States & localities can reasonably regulate the public aspects of such activities, while the criminal aspects of such behaviors have long been covered by our common law.

1. I said: So were our Founders who had laws against pornogrpahy and prostitution simply variants of Marxists?

Many of the original States at ratification had unconstitutional laws on their books, rad.
This was addressed in Article VI, which clearly said that regardless of State laws "to the Contrary notwithstanding", our Constitution was the "Law of the Land".

The clear implication from your comment was that the laws on the books at the time of the founding were unconstitutional.

Many were. Many State 'laws' on 'morals' still are.

2. SCOTUS has made it clear that you can regulate adult bookstores by zoning ordinances but you cannot ban them.

No permit, no shop. Utah has 'zoned' porn shops out of existence.

As I said, -- States & communities are VERY capable of 'defending themselves from filth'. Ever seen any porn shops in Utah?

[Antoninus]

Antonius, it sure sounds to me like you would love to hit us with "the *real* crackdown"...

No, I wouldn't love it. I'm a republican and I believe in freedom. I don't believe in license. Even a cursory study of history will tell you that when the mass of a society embraces extreme license and vice, it retains absolutely no strength to stand up to its enemies. Watch what happens in the Netherlands over the next 20-30 years as the decadent Dutch are replaced by Islamic types as the majority population in that country. It's a preview of coming attractions.

I do not welcome a crackdown. I dread it. Pity that so many of you are unable to separate true freedom of thought and conscience from the "freedom" to debase yourselves.

Are you a fellow American?

Absolutely. In the spirit of Jefferson, Madison, Jay and Hamilton. If you can find me one place where these fellows endorsed the proliferation of hard core pornography, you've got a shot at changing my mind.

[Durus]

It's Jim's forum and he can do what he wants with it. Ain't intellectual property rights grand? Oh wait...you might not think so.

This is actually a pretty simple issue for all the "nuance" going on. The government exists to protect the rights of it's citizens. Someone next door, down the street, or even ten states away is not infringing on your rights by watching porn.

By advocating the banning any media content that was created without duress, fraud, or force then you are infringing on rights.

[radicalamericannationalist]

Please post a link to the relevant zoning code.

[Antoninus]

Who's forcing anything on you? If you don't like Playboy, don't read it. Who's forcing you?

You should try downloading my email sometimes. I didn't request the 15 "Check out Amber's huge rack" messsages I received. Five minutes from my house in suburban New Jersey is a place that advertises "LIVE NUDE GIRLS--SEX TOYS, VIDEOS, LAP DANCES" on a sign 20 feet high along a major highway.

Nah, you're right. No forcing at all.

Tell me, were we a tyrannical and oppressive society when such things were not permitted? What do you tell your kids when they ask you what a "sex toy" is?

[radicalamericannationalist]

When has "advocating the banning any media content that was created without duress, fraud, or force" been seen as "infringing on rights." Certainly not before the 1960s, as since the Founding of America, there were laws regulating obscene materials. Do you honestly think that we were not a free people until we got the "right" to virtual kiddie porn?

[Antoninus]

You find a strange way to show your love for liberty joe.

Liberty has nothing to do with centerfolds and lap dances, pal. It's too bad that so many of you have been duped into thinking that those who favor the government restricting such things are the equivalent of the SS.

[Durus]

Just a quick correction to my statement. It's not the advocation of the ban but the ban itself that would infringe on rights.

[Antoninus]

Thank G-d our founding fathers recognized the dangers of the "tyranny of the majority" and passed the Bill of Rights to protect us. Regardless of what some may say it would be a different and poorer nation had we not the Bill Of Rights.

You mean the same Founding Fathers, some of whom wanted to make sodomy punishable by castration, right? Those guys? Can you cite for me any quote from a Founding Father endorsing the kind of free and easy access to pornography that we currently enjoy today?

[tpaine]

radicalamericannationalist wrote:

Please post a link to the relevant zoning code.

Silly demand. Every County & town in Utah has their own, no doubt. Look them up yourself if it's important to you.

[Antoninus]

It's hard to dignify a topic like this with a serious reply considering common sense tells us the Constitution and Bill of Rights protect us from exactly this kind of draconian law.

Ain't it amazing that it took us 180 years to figure out such laws were "draconian"?

[Durus]

There have always been unconstitutional laws. Being a conservative doesn't mean you have to conserve the good with the bad you know.

I'm going to ignore the kiddie porn red-herring as it doesn't apply to what I said at all.

[tpaine]

I'm not your 'pal'.

[radicalamericannationalist]

1. You are assuming these are bad laws. They are not. Or has society gotten better since SCOTUS decided that Debby Does Dallas ranks up there with the Federalist Papers?

2. the example that I cited is not irrelevant. Citing the same "freedom" that you claim, SCOTUS said that the government could not regulate computer generated child pornography.

[Antoninus]

Do you deliberately, or inadvertently, conflate the terms "child pornography" and "pornography?" You do realize there's a difference, don't you?

The only difference is an artificial one constructed by those who are utterly unable to debate the point without it. Child pornography is a type of pornography that society (i.e., the government) has deemed inappropriate for the citizen to view, make, or possess. And they will enforce this moral law at the point of a gun if necessary. As it should be.

[Durus]

1. If they are laws that aren't based on the precept of protecting rights then they are bad laws.

2. You are talking about media that was created without force or fraud. Whose rights were protected with that legislation?

[Antoninus]

Didn't you hear? They've already done that in Canada.

I notice they didn't bother with the necessary (I thought) step of banning porn first. In fact, porn is just as prevalant north of the border as here--if not more so.

[Antoninus]

It's almost as if the people who want to restrict our free speech and right to worship in public are the very same ones flooding our society with degenerate pollution.

Funny, ain't it? "You have the absolute Constitutional right and guarantee to view any sick, deviant perversion you want. But you do not have the right to use your money to buy political ads 60 days before an election."

Anyone know the tune to "The world turned upside down"?