House Approves Stiffer Indecency Fines

That makes you a communist in my book.

I'm not interested in your book. More interested in why people insist on living in a sewer, until just now realizing that younger people haven't known anything but that.

"This does not really address the issue of what should be regulated. There is most certainly a market for child pornography. Would you let the market decide for that?"

This really is a nice soundbite. But as a principle, it has no limits. You can use it to justify gun control, bad environmental regulations, affirmative action, and so on. Once you go down this road it never stops.

Child porn is disgusting. But the reason why it should be outlawed is that actual children are harmed in making it. Same with murder for hire (for which there is a small niche market). The law does not target the weirdo, the law protects the child. Big difference.

---- WARNING ! GRAPHIC CONTENT ! ------

---- If anyone is offended over graphic sexual descriptions, please skip this post. ------

"But as a principle, it has no limits. "

Sure it has limits. It is limited by your vote. Your representatives pass laws in respect to what society deems obscene or indecent. If they do not, you can vote them out.

This can be frustrating when the values of society do not match your own. That works both ways.

"You can use it to justify gun control, bad environmental regulations, affirmative action"

The principle I cited of community standards can indeed be used for all of these issues. Of course a simple majority should not be enough to change something like gun rights which have constitutional protection.

But obscenity and indecency have never (legitimately) been protected as free speech. To do so is an abuse of the Constitution. Free speech includes the expression and dissemination of ideas, opinions and information. It does not, for example, include things like insurrection, theft of trade or government secrets, or slander and libel. It should not be applied to erotica either (in my opinion). By this I mean that erotica can be regulated by a simple majority, nationally or locally, rather than needing a Constitutional amendment to do so.

"But the reason why [child pornography] should be outlawed is that actual children are harmed in making it."

That is not the only reason. It also leads to the harm of children and society by the viewing of it. If a child (involved in this) is no longer alive, they can no longer be harmed by the possession and viewing of it. But society can be harmed.

And further, weren't some children harmed by the Janet Jackson episode? Some people say not. But then again, some people also say children are not harmed by child pornography. Thus community standards take on a more important role.

The scary thing to me is that community standards have devolved to an all time low. People think it is hilarious that a man masturbates and ejaculates in a movie, and his semen gets mistaken for hair gel by a woman. They even let their children watch this. They let their children see movies where a fully naked woman has sex with a man with his hands tied to bed posts, and the woman pulls out an ice pick and stabs him to death. Little children watch things today that just a hundred years ago would not have been tolerated to even be possessed by adults for private viewing.

"The law does not target the weirdo, the law protects the child. Big difference."

Child pornography is not the only example of obscenity. For example, by TODAY'S laws, the distribution of pornography that depicts fisting (defined as penetration of female genitalia by two or more fingers I think) is a felony. However, it has not been enforced as far as I know for over twelve years.

We have been bombarded with ideas of false personal freedom for so long that even people who have high personal morals think the Constitution protects obscenity. It does not. This is no different than the judicial abuse of the Constitution to legalize abortion or sodomy.

We, as a society have become far too tolerant of evil. The debate over Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" is merely symptomatic.

"Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not, however it may seem, determined by the external world." Albert Einstien - 1938. Thus, why are you right-handed or right and left instead of hot and cold? or why is up up? and down down? instead of right is up and left is down? The reason is, that we all agree that they are what they are. It is a "free creation" of the human mind. Therefore "indecency" is much the same, do we all agree? or is "one man's cieling another man's floor"? Despite this confusion, a simple fact of decency is that, in my opinion, if we show a lot of sex and violence to our children, then they are more likely to engage in the behavior than if we do not expose them to it. (And that goes for adults, as well) Therefore, with the diversity of the levels of intelligence in a society, (the lower levels of intelligence will likely be more susceptible to behaving through suggestive acts, or through what they experience) some sort of agreement could be reached that would be more civilized, which is why we make laws, for example. So this agreement that we have in society that we will not permit one person from physically abusing another, beating them up, etc... or stealing from another, or engaging in risky behavior that might cause injury to another, such as DUI. A level of "decency" therefore, it could be argued, would be beneficial to all. My point is that even though I may not agree that we should be restricted from stealing from another, (as I believe survival of the fittest should be the rule), a "civilized" society will not allow me to steal, as the majority in this society disagrees. I believe that the majority of the society agrees that there should be some level of "decency" in public air waves television, and therefore, much like my disagreement that I should be able to steal from another, these individuals that disagree with a level of decency will have to endure the rules until the majority believes we should be able to behave in ways that were previously considered "indecent".

President Bush recently said something I'm sure you've heard before... turn off your TV. That being said, I agree a society must agree on what is "descent". However, it's how the decision is made and by whom... not that there be no limits. Have you nominated yourself or Albert Einstein for that task. Well in either case, I don't concur without my own consent.

Nobody consulted me when they made the law that I can't steal (or any other law for that matter), so why is it that you feel you should be (or will be) consulted about decency laws?

Did you even read that before you sent it?

you're joking right?

So yer saying it's ok for Janet(I'm a frucked up wanna be michael) Jackson to whip out her tit on bational tv during the super bowl of all things?

Or for that matter - you are saying it's of if during the sponge bob show they whip out the "oyster" to "teach our children about their sexuality"?

Conservatism is not a blind recognition of certain behavior - it's a recognition of what is acceptable and what is not and there is a thin line but you crossed it.

you are a bald-faced liar if you say you could have predicted the Jackson tit exposure and protected your kids from it.

Hope you got off on your little vanity - did not impress me.

What do you let your kids watch?

My baby is over 30 years old, she watches whatever she wants...<(•¿•)>

Good news bump

"Sure it has limits. It is limited by your vote. Your representatives pass laws in respect to what society deems obscene or indecent."

Great. So if socialists get elected then private property should be repealed, right? If the majority wnats to take my land to protect an endangered salamander, then that is ok in your book? Elected reps should not be interfering with the market.

"But obscenity and indecency have never (legitimately) been protected as free speech."

Whatever is "obscene" is really a matter of opinion and personal preference. Let the damn market decide what is obscene or not. Are you so afraid that your preference will lose in the market that you are willing to invoke government to select for you're preference? That is essentially viewpoint socialism. I'll take small government that stays out of my business, thank you.

I've read through this, and while you're screaming the market decides, consider that there is a booming trade in child prostitution. You could make a lot of money at that, and people do. The fact that somebody wants to buy something doesn't mean it should be legal.

I lived in New Orleans, and apparently staggering down the road and peeing in your pants is marketable there, too. That's one of the reasons I don't live there.

"So if socialists get elected then private property should be repealed, right? If the majority wnats to take my land to protect an endangered salamander, then that is ok in your book? Elected reps should not be interfering with the market."

Socialists already are being elected. Private property is already under assault. If socialists take over completely, we must decide whether to engage in revolution. For now reform is still possible.

"Whatever is 'obscene' is really a matter of opinion and personal preference. Let the damn market decide what is obscene or not. Are you so afraid that your preference will lose in the market that you are willing to invoke government to select for you're preference? That is essentially viewpoint socialism. I'll take small government that stays out of my business, thank you."

Both obscenity and indecency must be defined one of three ways - elected officials, appointed officials, or referendum. Referendum is impractical. Elected officials pose the least threat of tyranny.

Otherwise there is no indecency or obscenity; it is nonexistent.

The ideal is not "small government" but limited government. If smaller is better, why not no government at all? Why not anarchy?

Apart from legal concepts of indecency and obscenity all pornography would be permitted: rape, child molestation, snuff films, anything.

Not only that, but it would be permitted on prime time commercial TV. Children could be targeted by shows that depict this.

Is this what you are advocating?