Posted on 08/15/2007 1:58:32 PM PDT by LightedCandle
Ed Meese, former attorney general under Ronald Reagan and Judith Reisman, noted author and scholar kick off "FamilyFragments.com" a website dedicated to fighting pornogrpahy.
Yes, really. The "Bill of Rights" is a series of amendments to the original document and those amendments can, themselves, be amended. Please see the 18th Amdendment for a good example of exactly what the Constitution empowers the people to do (as well as the 21st Amendment). In other words, if a sufficient number of The People wanted to make the possession of pornography Constitutionally punishable by death, they could. You should actually read the Constitution sometime, if you haven't already. The protections it offers and rights it contain are not nearly as firm and absolute as many people seem to imagine.
I suppose I should also point out that the clearly stated intended scope of the 1st Amendment was "Congress" (the first word of the amendment) and it was not intended to stop the States from enacting legislation concerning free speech and that the idea that the 1st Amendment would someday be used to defend your right to have pictures of women having sex with animals would probably have seemed as absurd to the men who passed it as the idea that the 2nd Amendment did not grant an individual right to own firearms. But here we are, with the courts saying just that.
I thought I was yer FRiend...
pout....
Seems like a good idea to me. Big Porn, however, has billions of dollars at their disposal. It won’t be an easy fight. But anything that can drain their coffers, even a little bit, is well worth it.
Yet the Japanese have incredibly low rates of sexual assault, rape, and about HALF the divorce rate of the United States (1-in-4 vs about 50%).”
They also have extremely high rates for suicide far out stripping the USA. It not necessarily related to porn per se but more as an expression of social structure IMHO. The truth is always a 3 edged sword. your Truth, my Truth and the Truth thats revealed.
And you should try being less snarky, if you haven't already.
It is true that the constitution can be amended, but it is a far more difficult process to amend the constitution than it is for some city to pass an ordinance.
BTW, none of the bill of rights applied to the states, not just the 1st. Only via the 14th were they incorporated and then only selectively.
When my now-wife, working in a college computer lab, found a picture of a woman having sex with a dog on the lab computer, perhaps "force" is too strong but she didn't voluntarily want to look at it. When people in public libraries walk past men looking at pornography on the public computers, perhaps "force" is too strong of a word, but they are not voluntarily wanting to look at it. When a woman driving with her children her car pulls up behind or next to a minivan with clearly visible pornography on the entertainment system, perhaps "force" is too strong of a word, but she's not voluntarily wanting to watch pornography, nor does she probably want her children watching it.
I know the stock Libertarian solution is that nice people should close their doors, pull down their shades, and hide in their homes. But when a liberty imprisons nice people in their homes and lets the freaks run wild, I'm sorry but that liberty has become a liability, not a benefit. It's the freaks that should be hiding behind drawn curtains, not nice people with families.
And what I find curious is how quickly things have shifted from protecting people's rights to do things in the privacy of their own home to protecting people's rights to do things in public spaces. That, boys and girls, is the classic slippery slope in action.
Oral or Anal?
Work in porn and your core decays. That's why "Linda Susan Boreman (January 10, 1949 – April 22, 2002), better known by her stage name Linda Lovelace, who was a pornographic actress in the 1972 film Deep Throat, went on to leave the pornography industry and became a spokeswoman for the anti-pornography movement" , to closely quote Wikipedia.
And you are not honest about the answer. Be bold enough and honest enough to yourself to answer the question -- the miner or the porn star?
I strongly disagee. We influence (and ultimately control) the government, but that doesn't mean "we" ARE the government.
"I think you are confusing low reporting rates with reality."
Classic feminist tripe.... 'Women are victims, and either don't know it or won't report it....'
"In Japan, a woman who gets felt up on a train will traditionally (though this is changing) simply not say anything because causing a commotion in public is considered rude and embarassing and she won't report it for the same reason."
So?
"Do I also need to tell you about the high number of young women who no longer get married,"
Careers.
", the rampant sexism in the workplace,"
More feminist crap.
"the low birth rate,"
Careers, again.
"the child pornography that was only recently stopped,"
Are you sure it wasn't baby-seal-stomping? Because that happens too. Seriously, it does.
"And let's not forget that Japan has more abortions per year than the United States with half the population."
They are Buddhists. The Japanese have long rationalized the evils of abortion in believing that every dead baby is happily reincarnated the very next day. No connection to porn.
"And what about the actual Japanese women who are pushed into making pornography to pay off family debts by the Yakuza?"
I am clearly arguing with Molly Yard/Anita Hill/Patricia Ireland here... One should pay no attention to "women are victims" arguments. Unless the girls are of Muslim, Gypsy, or some other cruel and unusual culture, those claims are always false or overblown -- all of them.
OK, perhaps I was being unfair. I've enountered more than a few people who speak with certainty about how the Constitution works who have clearly never read it. I'll assume for the sake of argument that you are not one of them.
It is true that the constitution can be amended, but it is a far more difficult process to amend the constitution than it is for some city to pass an ordinance.
Correct, but at least one time in American history, the Constitution was amended to ban something that was considered harmful to men and society -- alcohol. If alcohol can be banned by amendment, so can pornography if the will and numbers are there. And here is the point. Doing so would be entirely Constitutional.
But people don't ignore my other point. Do you really think that the Founding Fathers who wrote the 1st Amendment intended it to protect obscene material like, say, bestiality pictures (to keep this from getting to abstract)? Do you think the drafters of the 14th Amendment had that intent?
BTW, none of the bill of rights applied to the states, not just the 1st. Only via the 14th were they incorporated and then only selectively.
Correct. So at the time it was passed, and for nearly 100 years, that amendment was not the absolute protection of free speech that people claim it is today, yet the Republic endured, didn't it?
As for "selectively", that's part of the problem, isn't it? What's the rational and objective basis for deciding that child pornography and, maybe, bestiality are far game for prosecution but other pornography isn't? I mean once you step on that slippery slope, is it really possible to make a distinction that doesn't slide you one way or the other?
Aye, you've made a example of a what a social disease the porn culture is today. In it's thrall, no one can be trusted, fear mongering, baseless mistrust of fellow men and women is rampant.
The porn addict internalizes the lie and falsehood that sex by porn is -- it's not sex at all, at least "sex" as interaction between the genders. It's only aloneness on steroids. A porn -afflicted person projects his distrust on others, not wanting to be so alone in his mistrust of himself.
Define "obscenity."
In that case Mademoiselle and Cosmopolitan magazines should be banned.
Yes, tim, trust yourself and you CAN then trust others. When that happens you’ll see that WE are the government. Me, “them”, all the “thems” there are, and you too.
I know, it's crazy. Their company stock goes down, or they get a B- in school.... Insanity.
There’s porn on the internet? I’m shocked.
(actually I just meant that if it was an official post by the organization, i.e. a news release, it should be noted)
You can apologize for your heterosexuality if you want.
Don't wonder why today's young men are so emasculated when they are continually forced to justify it to their government and (ironically) gay pedophile priests.
lemonparty
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.