Posted on 09/30/2004 1:56:48 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
And how does your comment apply to what I wrote at #40?
That is a historical fact of the prohibitionist movement in the USA. It was fueled by the anti-constitutional idea that the all powerful State can dictate individual behaviors, without using due process of law.
I answer that, in fact, prohibition would help restore family values and thus help repel the waves of socialaism that are sweeping over western society.
We see all about us the folly of that prohibitionist/socialist view. Booze prohibition was beyond any doubt the cause of massive lawlessness in America. The 'war on drugs' has compounded the scofflaw mentality.
You want MORE prohibitions to 'save the children?'
Unbelievably naive position.
I don't know. Common sense (mine, anyway!) says Yes. But legalities often don't follow my ideas of common-sense.
What do you think about your question?
This sounds really paranoid. It reminds me of the proverb about the wicked man who flees though no one pursues.
But it is also false if you are referring to those of us who would like to see pornography laws (already in existence) enforced, or amended to further protect an unwilling society. (And there are statistics that show that the majority of our country's citizens are unwilling.)
That is a historical fact of the prohibitionist movement in the USA. It was fueled by the anti-constitutional idea that the all powerful State can dictate individual behaviors, without using due process of law.
I answer that, in fact, prohibition would help restore family values and thus help repel the waves of socialaism that are sweeping over western society.
We see all about us the folly of that prohibitionist/socialist view. Booze prohibition was beyond any doubt the cause of massive lawlessness in America. The 'war on drugs' has compounded the scofflaw mentality.
Yes, alcohol prohibition was, but we are not talking about alcohol.
We are talking about socialistic prohibitions of ANY type. They do not solve behavior problems, they make them worse by breeding contempt for our system of law.
You want MORE prohibitions to 'save the children?'
Unbelievably naive position.
We are talking about what is essentially an addictive drug that can be purchased free on the net by anyone, even children.
Bull. Children can be monitored by their parents to prevent them from visiting such sites. You want the government to do your job.
Surely you believe that children should be protected from it. Please, tell me what YOU think, rather than what the founding fathers may, or may not, believe if they were alive now.
Weird plea, because I am telling you what I think. -- I believe that insisting that our Constitution be obeyed by our lawmakers is our best protection from socialistic schemes to prohibit our liberties, -- those that lead to lawlessness.
Do you see any reason a federal ban on pornography cannot be accomplished without adopting and reinforcing the liberal interpretation of "commerce among the several states"?
I need to think about your question some more... Will try to have an answer tonight. Gotta' go visit the folks. CUlater.
From my vile intrusions? No, it protects you from the federal government's vile intrusions. Your RKBA is protected by your state constitution.
"Prepare to meet my "2nd Amendment"."
Ooh. Is that a threat? And if I were to press criminal charges against you for that threat?
Alabama Code § 13A-11-72 provides that, subject to certain limited exceptions, no person shall possess or own a handgun if he or she:
Has been convicted of committing, or attempting to commit, a crime of violence;
Oh my, RockAgainsttheLeft04, you just lost your guns. I guess you can't do anything you damn well like to, huh?
Did you know that drug addicts are not allowed to possess handguns in Alabama?
But to what purpose? What is the objective of government? The twisted knicker team always loses sight of the fact that we have a government for a reason, and when it comes to certain things, e.g., pornography they quickly abandon that purpose.
Out of curiosity, are you in favor of government banning birth control as your brethren of just a few decades back were?
So what are we doing differently? We're very active on the 'net and don't hide - it's a recipe for getting spammed to death.
Didn't sound like a threat to me. Perhaps he was going to give you a paper copy of the 2nd amendment?
Alabama Code § 13A-11-72 provides that, subject to certain limited exceptions, no person shall possess or own a handgun if he or she: Has been convicted of committing, or attempting to commit, a crime of violence;
Oh my, RockAgainsttheLeft04, you just lost your guns. I guess you can't do anything you damn well like to, huh?
Even it it was a threat, it wasn't an attempt at anything. Give it up. Is s(he) in Alabama? If not your cite means nothing.
It has to be who we give our email addresses to. It's probably innocent. The good people here who complain of pornogrpahic spam, have obviously given their email addresses to some entity that then gave it (more likely sold it) to spammers.
Sorry you are flat wrong about 'porn' in Utah.
In fact the defense of the case of a Utah county video store involved searching the porn viewing records of america zip code by zip code. Utah has one of the highest (along with the bible belt) porn viewing rates on DirecTV. Of course that's just a reflection of how embarased they are, in LA they just buy it, in Georgia/Utah they order it on the dish so no one knows.
References:
http://www.mormonstoday.com/001027/B4CorpPorn01.shtml
Many more available by Googling 'Utah county pornography Movie Buffs'. Take your pick of viewpoints.
I will have to defer to you on this. What is the liberal interpretation of the commerce clause? I'm not as well-versed in the Constitution as you are, although I'm enjoying the bit of research I'm doing on it as I think about this thread.
___________________
But what about this subject? We didn't finish it, and I am interested in your opinion of the similarity between unwanted pornography on the web and indecent exposure. To refresh your memory:
I wrote: ...spam pornography on the internet is pretty much the same as indecent exposure, in that both are unasked-for.
And then you wrote: Are they similar enough that the govenrment's authority to ban one would also cover the other?
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.