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.
In a related note, by allowing your sons to become porn addicted, he will have problems forming relationships with women in his life.
On an unrelated note - YOU said that sexuality wasn't dirty or something to be ashamed of - so why don't you want it to be viewed in a public area of the house? After all, since your daughters' webcam is generating so much in paypal tips... oh, but you don't know that because you give unsupervised minors private broadband access.... I guess that's none of your business.
in reality "all" dosent actually "ping" everyone on the thread... you just think it does (what are you drunk)... it's ok I did too for a while... but nopers
Maybe you would have noticed this if you weren't high and wacking it to some man being done by a horse in another window.
Mr. Hands!!!... he died (the guy not the horse) sad funny story ....Click Here for the Wikipedia entry (no video SFW)
wait a minute there mbraynard ... the contents/theme of the "Mr. Hands" video, nor any other mention of equestrian sex, were not discussed anywhere on this thread ... how do you know so much?... hmmmm?
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic Ping List:
Please ping me to all note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
...Nobody is ever forced to produce it. ...Clueless. The addicts that are used as 'actors' are forced as surely as if guns had been used. And they sometimes are.
After all, aren't these the real problems?They are problems, but not the same as the growing problem of pornography.
Thanks!
I think it all depends on what the Amendment says and how strictly they try to enforce it. I think an Amendment that banned the sale of nude pictures of anyone, even in a non-sexual context, would be as doomed as Prohibition. On the other hand, I think there is a large area of pornography that the vast majority of people would agree is obscene, including animals, children, torture, and so on. In fact, that all but the most fanatical free speech advocates accept the banning of child pornography without concern that it will lead to their Playboys being confiscated suggests that at the extremes, anyway, there is fairly broad agreement on what's so nasty that no nice person should ever want to even dabble in it.
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.
Oh, absolutely. But on the flip side, I think the 14th Amendment (and how it's been interpreted) broke the natural vent that the Founding Fathers allowed, which was to allow states to pass lows covering a smaller segment of the population that would not be acceptable at the Federal level for everyone. And that's how I think these things need to be handled. While a Federal anti-pornography law is probably not a good idea, I think it's reasonable to give smaller communities, state or local, more control over such things. And I should point out (again, as explained in that Frontline), the Federal anti-pornography actions do ultimately come down to local community standards, not some universal federal standard.
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"?
It's drawing that line in the muddly middle where I think democracy, slowed through the structure of a republic, needs to have room to play these things out. But I do think we can tell, by looking a the obvious extremes, where the balance of power is. When I see a woman on a public train, with a toddler and a shirt that says "New F***in York" (no asterisks), clearly the balance has tilted toward the crude and freakish.
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.
Correct, but the Founders also gave much more rights to the States than they currently have. I doubt the Founders would have had trouble with Kansas banning pornography and California adopting an anything goes stance (much in the same way they accepted states that banned slavery and states that allowed it) but just as much as you might think it's a problem having Federal prosecutors meddling in pronography prosecutions (it's the only effective way to reach across state lines), it's just as much against what the Founders intended when the Federal judiciary steps in and invalidates state-level anti-obscenity laws. Yeah, I know all about the 14th Amendment and how it's interpreted but I think the founders started the 1st Amendment with the word "Congress" for a reason.
Yes, protecting fundamental rights is importantant. But so is giving people say over the standards of their community and some control over the quality of life there.
LOL!
hmmm getting a little smarmy, even a biting are we ...
and really ... "reason" was the last thing I was really trying to do as it can't be done with the unreasonable "Moral Nanny Staters" (Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig.*)... I'm however enjoying poking fun at the "Socialist Conservatives" such as yourself...
So a civil litigant proves actual damages from a company' products to a jury based on a preponderance of the evidence, as has been done in this country for 100s of years, and you are declaring it a 'theocracy.'
So:
A. you are/were OK with this tactic when the Anti-Gun folks went after the Gun manufacturers?
or
B. are you a Hypocrite ...
take yer pick
A. you are/were OK with this tactic when the Anti-Gun folks went after the Gun manufacturers?C - You are playing the sleaze game of only two alternatives that both fit your bizarro agenda of promoting a libertine society.or
B. are you a Hypocrite ...
A. And if you can muster support to get a massive injunction passed by Congress for guns (as was appopriate and constitutional), good luck.
A good response. Here is a counter argument:
Now, imagine if a government existed, which, in its innate humility, developed policies fostering a positive environment for all the citizens and nurtured and cherished them in such a loving and parenting way, creating so much positive energy that they all were liberated from their minds and lived happily ever after. While liberals and some social conservatives may dream of such a utopia, it can never be. Inevitably, their grand plans are doomed to failure. Morality and self improvement must be chosen and recognized independently. A life without challenge, bumps, and bruises is not a life at all as no self knowledge can be gained. We are better for our struggles, and government must leave us free to struggle, provided we don’t struggle over the lives and property of others.
A true utopia is where every imaginable vice is available, legal, and plentiful, but yet, the people, and by ‘the people’ I mean each individual person, chooses, volitionally, without the coercion of government, not to partake in these deviations because they are enlightened as to the nature of themselves and are deeply reflective of their thoughts and actions. Sort of like the Communists, the laudable goals of these do-gooders are achievable, if only they would look over their shoulders, turn about face, and march back whence they came.
“[A] State which dwarfs its men, in order that they may be more docile instruments in its hands even for beneficial purposes, will find that with small men no great thing can really be accomplished; and that the perfection of machinery to which it has sacrificed everything, will in the end avail it nothing, for want of the vital power which, in order that the machine might work more smoothly, it has preferred to banish.” —John Stuart Mill, last paragraph in “On Liberty”
what the Social Conservatives are saying and have always been is that Big Govt. is OK as long as it is enforcing/intruding “my way” ...
The outcry on this site was HUGE (and rightly so) when then the anti-gunners tried to do an end run around the constitution using the civil courts....
but it’s perfectly fine when the IDENTICLE tactic is used for a purpose that you agree with ...
that is a textbook example of hypocrisy
be careful if you use your enemy's tactics to much ... you will become them
LOL, what “big government” is used here? The courts are fundamental, and it is FAR from an “IDENTICLE” (SIC) tactic to correctly use the courts to enforce existing laws. That you cannot grasp that is simply indicative of your problem, not of the issues at hand.
In the same way that that the "Anti-Gunners", "Let's enforce Healthy Eating", Enviormentalists or any other Nanny Statist, have decided to to use the civil courts with lawsuits against Gun Manufacturers or Fast Food companies, etc... are attempting to "legislate through litigation"...
If you can't see these are two sides of the same coin then you are truly blind...
BBL
The blindness is yours. Your pursuit of a libertine society makes you blind to the damage. Thankfully you are a fringe voice in a much more rational society.
Since you seem to oppose legislation for the purpose of healthy eating and so on, does that mean that you think the FDA should be abolished and that the government should have no role in enforcing food or product safety? Do you think your neighbor should have the right to bear arms including mustard gas, serin, and truck bombs? Do you think the government should enforce traffic laws? You can simply summarize by explaining exactly what role you think government should have, if any, in encouraging or protecting public safety.
Let's see you do the same with the porn biz.
And when a future gun-grabbing congress decides to end that injunction will you still be ok with the tactic.
It's amazing how social conservatives and theocons hate the ACLU when it uses the court system to achieve their goals but when the theocons do it, it's great.
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.