[wagglebee]

"If kids are looking at hardcore pornography online and learning that this is what's normal and that this is what is supposed to be exciting and this is what they're supposed to aspire to, they're learning a very scary lesson," Paul says. And her own research indicates that the damage caused by youngsters' exposure to porn could be both extensive and long term.

After writing this, it wouldn't surprise me if she was fired from Time magazine.

[wagglebee]

Moral absolutes ping.

[Antoninus]

Before the porn hounds get here, please allow me to post this:

Chaplinsky vs. New Hampshire (1942):

"There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or 'fighting' words....It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality."

Roth vs. The United States (1957)

"Obscenity is not within the area of constitutionally protected freedom of speech or press--either (1) under the First Amendment, as to the Federal Government, or (2) under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as to the States.... In the light of history, it is apparent that the unconditional phrasing of the First Amendment was not intended to protect every utterance.... The protection given speech and press was fashioned to assure unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people.... All ideas having even the slightest redeeming social importance--unorthodox ideas, controversial ideas, even ideas hateful to the prevailing climate of opinion--have the full protection of the guaranties, unless excludable because they encroach upon the limited area of more important interests; but implicit in the history of the First Amendment is the rejection of obscenity as utterly without redeeming social importance.

The Current Communist Goals read into the Congressional Record in 1963 by A. S. Herlong, Jr., Democrat representative from Florida:

24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.

25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.

[Ostlandr]

Interesting. Two problems, though:

1. Minors aren't supposed to be accessing porn, are they?
Enforce the law = end of problem.

2. Last I knew, Japanese men consumed way more porn than Americans, including a lot of violent porn and porn featuring "schoolgirls." (Sailor Moon, anyone?)
One would thus expect Japan to be a moral sewer where women aren't safe on the streets. Not the case.

If you don't like porn, don't buy it.
Computers, TV sets and radios come with off switches and channel selectors, too.

[FreedomFarmer]

Nice modest top there, Pammy.

[thoughtomator]

If they're worried about porn served to kids, then they need look no further than MTV, the pioneer in both the mainstreaming of pornography and the introduction thereof to children.

[Clemenza]

For every person who blamed "porn" for making them a sexually deprave murderer (Ted Bundy) there are thousands of men who live normal, functional lives.

Porn is harmful to those who have obsessive personalities to begin with. Even most of those people are usually nonviolent.

Don't get me started on "men of the cloth" who are forbidden to own pornography, but can't seem to keep their hands off of each other or the teens they associate with.

[Moral Hazard]

"Author Hopes Book Will Dispel 'Harmless Fun' Myths About Porn"

Yes, it turns out porn is actually harmless work!

[Moral Hazard]

"The Time magazine feature writer says it is "very disturbing" that researchers are not exactly sure how exposure to porn is going to affect children down the road."

"In a survey the author conducted herself, the overwhelming majority of respondents cited a long list of negative effects from pornography use, including poor relationship skills and serious trust and loyalty issues."

So she's upset that actually researchers don't find the negative effects from porn she wants them to, so she conducts "research" where she asks people what the effects of porn are? Genius!

[Mr. Blonde]

Of course without porn you run into the problem Chris Rock talks about when your mom finds your stash. "Your looking around for something anything with a woman in revealing clothing, finally as a last resort your in the pantry holding a bottle of Aunt Jemima."

[Killborn]

Wow, what a dilemma for fascist liberals. Encourage porn to destroy traditional morality and culture, making Americans easier to control, or encourage harsh anti-porn measures to put Americans in servitude.

Decisions, decisions...

[manwiththehands]

This "to use porn or not to use porn" question is stupid. Let me put it this way:

1. Ladies, how would you feel about your guy if he was getting off on porn?

2. Guys ... ?

Porn isn't really "sex", right?

[catmanblack.]

when you go to stores and they have it staring at you on shelves barely covered up(grocery stores) it gets noticed very easily by children-it affects everyone some differently-porn takes away inhibitions-like bill said it was not realy sex-so some kids are trying it-so much crap is thrown at kids nowadays they don't know what is normal-better when people believed idle hands were devils work

[unspun]

When is someone going to have the guts to study what porn does to adults?

[cycjec]

You (wagglebee) might be right, but it's a pleasant
surprise to find a reporter for Time saying what she
has said.

[little jeremiah]

Moral Absolutes Ping.

Please read this article, and there's info on the thread. Porn is not harmless; it is malignant and ruins children when they are exposed to it. Ruins them.

Freepmail me if you want on/off this pinglist.

And for those who argue "Well, it's the parents' job to keep kids away from porn" - it's too late. Porn has been mainstreamed to the point where the only way to keep kids away from it is to lead a life of hermitude in the woods and homeschool, and not even visit the library. And what about all the kids whose parents aren't careful? Let them all go to hell in a handbasket?

Also, evidence from Antonious that porn is indeed NOT covered by the First Amendment.

[wardaddy]

Pornography much like homosexuality is best left to discretion.

Quiet