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.
You've never been in Japan, have you? You don't know anything about Japanese culture, do you?
Careers.
Oh, you're funny.
More feminist crap.
You have never worked in a Japanese office, have you?
Careers, again.
Bzzzt. Wrong again.
Are you sure it wasn't baby-seal-stomping? Because that happens too. Seriously, it does.
Yes, I know you prefer your imaginary world where nothing that challenges your beliefs happens, but you really should do some research before replying like this. From Encarta:
Until recently, Japanese law tolerated child pornography; the International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol) estimated in 1998 that up to 80 percent of Internet sites with child pornography originated in Japan. Prior to 1999, the only Japanese statute prohibiting actual child pornography was very limited in its reach, applying only to children under 13 who filed complaints within six months of an incident. A general criminal obscenity law protected minors over 13, but it also specified that the material must depict sexual organs to be considered illegal. Consequently, pornographic materials in Japan often resorted to showing other sexually oriented depictions of children, including abuse or torture, to avoid running afoul of the law. In 1999, partly in reaction to international pressure, Japan's parliament passed a new law banning the distribution, sale, or public display of child pornography on the Internet or in other forums, as well as the production or possession of child pornography for the purpose of these activities. Penalties for the violation of the law range up to three years in prison and a substantial fine. However, critics complained that it did not criminalize possession of child pornography for private use.
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.
Porn wasn't the issue that was raised. The issue was claims that relations between the sexes in Japan are quite happy and healthy. Regardless of what you think of abortion, it's not a pleasant experience for women. There is a reason why the rate has been so high but your reason isn't it.
I am clearly arguing with Molly Yard/Anita Hill/Patricia Ireland here... One should pay no attention to "women are victims" arguments.
Because, Heaven knowns, women are never really victimized or abused, right? I suppose I'm also imagining the large sex-slavery industry in Europe, too, right? Are all those women willing participants, in your opinion, too?
Unless the girls are of Muslim, Gypsy, or some other cruel and unusual culture, those claims are always false or overblown -- all of them.
Uh, huh. And do you also believe that any American woman who claims they were raped is a liar or was asking for it?
The republic survived for 100 years with slavery being legal as well. Even longer with women not having the right to vote. Societal norms change. Does anyone think that dogfighting would have warranted a federal indictment in 1790?
I don't think the founding fathers envisioned the telephone either, but that doesn't mean that the 4th amendment doesn't apply to the government eavesdropping.
So, I guess there's really no need for protection against unreasonable search and seizure? No need for habeas corpus? Civil service reform was unnecessary?
After all, *I* would never search someone's home in unreasonable circumstances. Nor would I ever detain someone unecessarily or reward my cronies with jobs.
So should we just get rid of these protections and embrace direct democracy?
Why less divorces? Cultural. For now.
Probably not. But what was the mechanism by which slavery became illegal, woman gained the right to vote, and dogfighting became illegal and what was the mechanics by which once-obscene and illegal pornography became legal? There is a big difference between legislative means (which come from the people and reflect actual societal norms) and judicial fiat. And if you watch that PBS Frontline show that I posted a link to earlier, you'll see that the changes during the Clinton Administration came about because they simply stopped prosecuting cases that the courts had consistently supported as legitimate obscenity prosecutions.
Seriously. Watch that show and read over the supporting material on the web site. See what changed, how, and why. It bears little resemblance to the banning of slavery, giving women the right to vote, or the banning of dogfighting.
I don't think the founding fathers envisioned the telephone either, but that doesn't mean that the 4th amendment doesn't apply to the government eavesdropping.
It doesn't mean it does, either.
To a large extent that is true. The Constitution's amendment process, along with the election process, give the people ultimate power to change the protection of rights offered by that document. But those two processes are filtered and somewhat complicated...it's not as if the Constitution is immediately malleable to the will of the people.
I think it was designed this way for a reason. The Founders understood that rights are important and that majorities can be just as dangerous as tyrants when it comes to rights.
Of course, it should be mentioned that the Constitution does not grant rights, it merely recognizes and protects them. The people could amend the Constitution to require death for professing Christian beliefs...that does not mean there is no right to religious expression.
Right, right.
Here's the issue as I see it. Pr0n is incredibly corrosive to culture. Not so different from drug abuse. It works almost virally. I'm not going to call it an 'addiction' - its bad character.
A nation worthy of the kinds of freedoms we enjoy can't survive being populated by a bunch of porn-addicted pot heads like subgeniousX. It will inevitably sink into totalitarianism - unfortunately, or the better.
So should CIVIL litigation be used to try and limit it's effect? Why the hell not. They aren't calling for new laws or for new bureaucracy. Just civil litigation to uphold community standards. It's going to be a tough fight - just look at all the lame personal attacks on Meese here. Good luck.
Correct. But, again, to put this all into context, the Constitution was amended, not even 100 years ago, to ban the sale of alcohol. It didn't happen overnight, but it did happen.
Of course given the current judiciary, the Constitution is not immediately malleable to the will of the people but it pretty immediately malleable in the hands of judges.
I think it was designed this way for a reason. The Founders understood that rights are important and that majorities can be just as dangerous as tyrants when it comes to rights.
Of course. But they were also men of moderation and I don't think they envisioned or would have expected the 1st Amendment to protect bestiality pornography, the 2nd Amendment to protect private ownership of nuclear weapons, the 4th Amendment to guarantee a right to abortion, and so on. The paradox of liberty is that if you don't use it responsibly, it becomes enough of a liability that people will give it up or take it away. The purpose of liberty is to leave nice people alone and let them lead good lives, not to let the freaks run wild and make life a living Hell for nice people. And those who abuse their liberty to do awful things are just as big of a threat to your liberty as any tyrant because they will make people veiw liberty as a liability rather than a gift.
Of course, it should be mentioned that the Constitution does not grant rights, it merely recognizes and protects them. The people could amend the Constitution to require death for professing Christian beliefs...that does not mean there is no right to religious expression.
True, but that leaves us back to the question others have asked. Who gets to decide what our rights really are? And there are really only two answers to that. Some sort of body that is unanswerable to The People get to decide or The People do. There is no magical force or army of perfect robots that will protect your rights. People have to do it. Either they are answerable to voters or they aren't, and neither way is a perfect guarantee of your rights.
Suppose you are successful with your civil litigation and over the course of many years the harm of pornography becomes widely known...
...but, some people still choose to view pornography, knowing beforehand the risks they face by doing so. Would you still work to fight against pornography on behalf of these inviduals who freely and knowingly choose to expose themselves to it?
First of all... it's common courtesy to ping someone when you mention them in a post ....
Secondly... are you trying to ruin my reputation ....
you forgot, compulsive gambler and G-ddless morally bankrupt atheist...
lets be thorough next time please ...
Thanks ...
Actually, very few of the jobs you listed ARE dangerous - including coal mining. It's a huge industry and is generally safe.
Porn is different because there is a large UNREALIZED danger among those who get involved. This is different from, say, being a Marine.
Besides, the counter argument may also be that there is no reason that through litigation or regulation, those other industries you mention can be made safer - and frequently are. Watch what is going to happen with coal mining... AGAIN.
Cheers.
Actually it much more likely that it would "sink" into Anarchy...
While it's has been historically demonstrated (time and time again) that societies governed by Theocrats such as yourself more often than not become Totalitarian...
Mmmm, porn. As Dear Abby used to say, MYOB.
You aren't joking about being a drug addict - but attempting to reason while you are on the pipe isn't smart.
Consensual, adult, pornography should be a matter between a man and God/his conscience. Last thing anyone needs is government censorship.
I loathe the people who claim that their right to freedom from religion means the Lord’s name cannot be spoken in a school, but equally a line must be drawn somewhere, and a step like this would only lead down a road no free person wishes to travel.
Certainly, and given sufficient numbers and fervency an anti-porn amendment could be passed as well. Of course, I think it would cause problems similar to those we experienced in the Prohibition era.
Of course given the current judiciary, the Constitution is not immediately malleable to the will of the people but it pretty immediately malleable in the hands of judges.
In many cases that is true. I think we are in agreement on what the Constition allows the people to do. I have to admit, it's nice to see someone properly pointing to AMENDMENTS for a change instead of using their standard interstate commerce/general welfare justification for Federal meddling.
...The purpose of liberty is to leave nice people alone and let them lead good lives, not to let the freaks run wild and make life a living Hell for nice people.
We probably agree here as well, generally speaking. But where you think the line should be drawn? That is, at what point do we say "These people are no longer nice and what they are doing is not good...now they are running wild"?
Who gets to decide what our rights really are? And there are really only two answers to that. Some sort of body that is unanswerable to The People get to decide or The People do. There is no magical force or army of perfect robots that will protect your rights. People have to do it. Either they are answerable to voters or they aren't, and neither way is a perfect guarantee of your rights.
Very well stated. I think the Founders developed a pretty good method for addressing this dilemma. A court with a large degree of independence, though still ultimately accountable to the people (Presidential appointment, for example) is a good (but not perfect) way.
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.