Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Killborn

Why not 1948? Porn was banned in the U.K. back then.


31 posted on 08/30/2006 4:15:30 PM PDT by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]


To: Tribune7

Thanks for the info. I didn't know that.

But it is clear that in 48 all porn is banned and now in 06, the UK banned violent porn. Which means along the line there was a reversal.

Because porn is almost mainstreamed into the culture, banning it now will have the same effect as the Prohibition. A ban wouldn't have matter in the 40s and 50s because there is societal pressure and shame to avoid it.

Add this to the fact that the Labor party is a leftist nanny state party that promotes the "free love" lie, this ban looks like an attempt to control the life of its people.

I hate pornography but Blue LAws today will lead to the opposite of its intended effect simply because society is far more tolerant and accepting of porn and other perversions.


32 posted on 08/30/2006 4:51:26 PM PDT by Killborn (Pres. Bush isn't Pres. Reagan. Then again, Pres. Regan isn't Pres. Washington. God bless them all.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson