[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

DC you and I usually agree on the porn threads. All I'm saying is that a line has to be drawn. Unfortunately, porn is really a gray matter. I just disagree with the more radical elements that have infested porn, that's all.

Yeah yeah I know it's your right to view whatever you want in your house and I need to get a life. I'll just go back to watching Ozzie and Harriet now on my turn-knob television set with my 2.5 kids.

[Dead Corpse]

All I'm saying is that a line has to be drawn.

A line has been drawn. Under age actors are verbotten. Unwilling participants are verbotten. As are snuff flicks. I would add beastiality to that as an animal cannot be said to be able to give "consent" as it has no rational mind to do so with.

Acts of capitalism between CONSENTING ADULTS.

It might be icky to the vast majority of us, but that doesn't mean it should be illegal. And it certainly isn't the FedGovs job to be regulating it in any way.

[ellery]

The issue here is who draws the line. Obscenity standards belong with the local community, not the feds. If you give the feds the power to dictate what is obscene, then you also concede that they have the de facto power to dictate what is not.

In other words, if you object to the idea that the feds can force your locality to accept obscenity that exceeds your particular community standards, then you should fight against instances where the feds force a given locality to forgo gross things that are acceptable by its particular community standards.

I say all this with the caveat that the FBI does have Constitutional power to get involved in porn-related interstate commerce issues -- it's not clear whether that is the case here.