Prohibiting Pornography -- A Moral Imperative

Morality in Media ^ | 1984 | Paul J. McGeady

[Mockingbird For Short]

Yep, my first porn started landing in my inbox right after I joined a Yahoo! group several years ago. I think Yahoo! must've given its members' email addys at that time to a third party.

[asgardshill]

Prison sentences and fines can eventually put the pornographers out of business.

Hey, if it worked for drug dealers ...

[danteinferno]

Hmm, this is actually a big issue for some. I agree, porn is addictive, destructive, and dangerous, however it should be someone's choice. Listen, its not hurting someone, like abortion. Its not soliciting women in the worst sense, like prostitution. Porn is BAD, and I strongly urge anyone addicted do it to stop, before you become a slave to it, however "The best kind of government is the government that governs the least." Lets not waste our time and money on an issue that is so trivial compared to other pressing matters.

God Bless
Andrew

[tacticalogic]

The liberal interpretation of "commerce among the several states" originated with FDR, and is often referred to as the "New Deal Commerce Clause". It represents a radical departure from the original intent of the Commerce Clause, and amounts to an usurpation of state powers based on nothing more than sophistry and creative semantics.

If you're doing research, look at the case of Wickard v. Filburn for what is considered the landmark case, and look at the Court Packing Bill for some background on how it came to pass. You might also want to read some of the opinions of Clarence Thomas on the subject, as sell as the writings of the founders with regard to the commerce clause, and commerce "among the several states". I can provide links if you wish.

As far as the question of the similarity an resultant jurisdiction and authority, AFAIK there are no federal laws against indecent exposure, it is considered a matter of state jurisdiction.

[CSM]

"Anyone who thinks the Christian Right is anything like the Taliban displays a great ignorance of the severity of the terrorist threat we face."

I can think of many instances throughout history that the actions of the Christians were very smilar to the actions of today's Islamofascists. To deny history is to be doomed to repeat it.

I have a propposal for you Joe, how about we eliminate all tax shelters for all religeons and then make them compete for their governmental connections like any other element of society......Would you accept that?

[robertpaulsen]

"The liberal interpretation of "commerce among the several states" originated with FDR, and is often referred to as the "New Deal Commerce Clause"."

Oh baloney. You're just repeating what you've heard. Do some research for yourself, for once.

Congress was regulating commerce within the states as early as 1914, 20 years before FDR. I can provide you with a link to the Shreveport Rate Cases if you wish.

[tacticalogic]

Congress was regulating commerce within the states as early as 1914, 20 years before FDR. I can provide you with a link to the Shreveport Rate Cases if you wish.

We've been there and done that, RP. The Shreveport case was about Congress preventing what amounted to an unfair tariff on interstated commerce by manipulating the rail rates. They were regulating the railroads as "instruments of interstate commerce", not the commerce itself. Your assertion that Wickard doesn't cover any ground that Shreveport didn't doesn't hold up.

[tacticalogic]

Oh baloney. You're just repeating what you've heard. Do some research for yourself, for once.

Every time I start doing my own research, and find out what the founders had to say about the Commerce Clause, and "commerce among the several states", I find more and more evidence that you're wrong. Are you sure you want me doing any more?

[robertpaulsen]

"not the commerce itself."

What???

Paying money to ship goods is commerce. What do you think it is, barter?

Congress constitutionally regulated that intrastate commerce because it had a substantial effect on interstate commerce. 20 years before FDR.

[tacticalogic]

Paying money to ship goods is commerce. What do you think it is, barter?

It wasn't a matter of paying the rates or shipping the goods, but of the basis for the rate structure. They could have been in compliance by adjusting their interstate rates, and leaving the intrastate rates alone. The only reason they couldn't is that they were using higher interstate rates to subsidize their intrastate operations, and their status as an "instrument of interstate commerce" is what made this a valid exercise in regulation of interstate commerce.

[Paloma_55]

1) "Libertarian" is not a synonym for unbeliever

OK.. that was a very subtle attempt at humor.. While not all libertarians are unbelievers, I find quite a few are. I think it has to do with many libertarians' rejection of an authority above their own. Many libertarians believe that what they do is their own business and nobody else's. I agree with this basic point, but also believe that God has a say in what I do, and my neighbor has a say when my actions negatively impact his (or society's) ability to peacefully coexist.

You also seem to suppose that proving pornography is immoral means it should be prohibited. But this presupposes a great deal, that should be argued for rather than assumed, about the proper function of the government.

My argument shall be extended from "It is immoral because God says it is " to "It is immoral because it infringes upon the well being of society" and that is where government should step in.

Like I said earlier, what someone chooses to read, draw, photograph in their own bedroom, etc... Is none of my/our business. When they offer it for sale, they are now impacting others in our society and I believe government has just as much right/responsibility to limit that behavior as it does to stop you from pouring motor oil in a creek.

Pornography is pollution to the mind. If someone wants to pour motor oil in their drinking water, fine.. but not in everyone else's.

And while some people like the taste of motor oil in their drinking water, society as a whole has a responsibility to prevent general distribution of such into the supply. Let them taint their own supply.. boy that analogy is getting stinky.. but it is valid.

[tpaine]

States & communities are VERY capable of 'defending themselves from filth'. Ever seen any porn shops in Utah?
193 tpaine

The State is ringed by porn shops just across every adjoining state line. There are none in the State.
199

_____________________________________

Dinsdale wrote:
Sorry you are flat wrong about 'porn' in Utah.

______________________________________


Sorry, you are flat wrong.

Nothing in your post refutes what I wrote about 'porn' in Utah.

[Durus]

Punishment in general is the duty...I thought I was clear. "Society" doesn't and can't determine how the punishment is carried out. The government decides how it is carried out and yes by banning capital punishment I think that they are absolving themselves of their duty.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

The constitution recognizes that there is federal government, state government, and individuals. That's it.

Banning porn doesn't protect the rights of those that don't wish to be exposed to it. You don't have to see porn unless you want to see porn. (with some very rare exception that wouldn't stop even if porn were banned) It's not exactly like chemicals in a public waterway you see. If chemicals were dumped in a public waterway the effected citizens could start a class action lawsuit, or the municipality could start legal action but at no time could the "community" sue to stop such a thing because legally there is no such thing as "community". Funny how that works isn't it? Further if chemical dumping happened on private land (owned by the dumper) only federal law (federal law that didn't exist until the 1980's) would cover it in terms of prosecution. If the dumper dumped chemicals on an individual's land then only that individual would have standing for legal proceedings.

[tpaine]

Like I said earlier, what someone chooses to read, draw, photograph in their own bedroom, etc... Is none of my/our business. When they offer it for sale, they are now impacting others in our society and I believe government has just as much right/responsibility to limit that behavior as it does to stop you from pouring motor oil in a creek.

571 Paloma_55


______________________________________



States & communities are VERY capable of 'defending themselves from filth'. Ever seen any porn shops in Utah?
193 tpaine

[radicalamericannationalist]

1. Your legal analysis ignores organizational standing. Community groups can sue.

2. Read Robert George's work on the effects of porn on community. He is far more eloquent than I.

[Paloma_55]

So if your point is that local governments can deal with pornography on the local level, I agree with you.

When interstate distribution takes place, that is a federal issue.

I am not a "big brother" fan. I believe that there are issues that exceed local authority, and others that are explicitly within the scope of local authorities.

We, as citizens should always work to ensure our representatives are doing what they should, and not exceed their authority.

[Durus]

Individuals in groups can sue but a nebulous group only known as "community" can't sue. Once people realize that any community is only a group of individuals and can posses no rights as it isn't anything but a collection of individuals we will be all set.

I won't argue that porn harms people. That was never my intent. My only point(s) are that communities, as a descriptive term of grouped individuals, processes no rights of it's "own" as it isn't an entity.

People can legally harm themselves all day long as long as they don't harm another doing it. They can do it with porn, booze, cigarettes, bacon, fried food, and well almost anything can be harmful in excess. It is one individual harming another that our government was designed to protect.

[A.J.Armitage]

OK.. that was a very subtle attempt at humor..

The key word there is "attempt".

While not all libertarians are unbelievers, I find quite a few are.

Quite a few conservatives are unbelievers.

I think it has to do with many libertarians' rejection of an authority above their own.

You seem to be saying the unbelief of some libertarians derives from their political views. But this is backward. They're atheists first, then reject authority over them, then become political libertarians. (Even if they do start with the political view and work back, the atheism is logically prior.) Christian libertarians start by accepting God's authority, and then wishing to see all lesser, temporary authorities submit to (and thus not try to take the place of) the great Sovereign of the universe.

My argument shall be extended from "It is immoral because God says it is " to "It is immoral because it infringes upon the well being of society" and that is where government should step in.

Two issues. First, why is it immoral to infringe on the well-being of society? Either you resort back to "God says so", or else it's baseless.

Second, who gets to define the well being of society, and who gets to decide when it's been infringed? The courts? The President? The majority? But the courts still uphold Roe, the President was Bill Clinton for eight years, and the majority of the people, I fear, are unregenerate. So who, and how do you know you can trust them not to decide that the Bible, being homophobic and sexist, infringes on the good of society?

[Melas]

Never join a yahoo group unless the membership is hidden from the public. You can view that setting before you actually join the group.

[robertpaulsen]

"and their status as an "instrument of interstate commerce" is what made this a valid exercise in regulation of interstate commerce."

The court was making the point that Congress has the power not only to regulate commerce, but also the instumentalities of commerce. The court stated:

"It is for Congress to supply the needed correction where the relation between intrastate and interstate rates presents the evil to be corrected, and this it may do completely, by reason of its control over the interstate carrier in all matters having such a close and substantial relation to interstate commerce that it is necessary or appropriate to exercise the control for the effective government of that commerce."

Congress may reach into the states to regulate an intrastate activity if that activity has a close and substantial relation to the regulated interstate commerce.

Again, 20 years before FDR.