[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]

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?

[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]

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

It's funny that it took us 180 years and the overturning of Supreme Court precedent to figure that out. Sorry, I disagree.