Fighting Pornography: A New Approach

Family Fragments.com ^ | 8/15/07 | Justin Hart

[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.

[SnakeDoctor]

>> The use of lawsuit as a mechanism suggests an inbuilt corrective: if the jurors think the litigant fails to prove harm or fails to prove the nexus of responsibility, out goes the case.

I am as uncomfortable with judges and juries making bad law as I am with legislators making bad law. There are certain rights which cannot be infringed ... by juries, legislators, judges, or executives.

>> They’ll have to craft their arguments to be overwhelmingly persuasive, not just to Mr. Meese, Dr. Reisman, and Mrs. Don-o, but to 12 jurors who will include in their midst such skeptical citizens as yourself.

The justice system was not meant as a back-door way to legislate. If they want pornography outlawed, they should take it up with legislators (state and federal congressmen and Senators) ... just as abortion-rights activists should have 35 years ago.

Judges and juries are responsible for various legislative atrocities throughout the history of this country ... Dred Scott, Roe v. Wade, Kelo v. New London (the eminent domain debacle), etc.

The courtroom is no more the place for this dispute than it is for any half-assed ACLU lawsuit (over taking God out of the pledge, the Christ out of Christmas, etc.). This is nothing more than a means to legislate through the judiciary, and it is a fundamental distortion of the American system of government.

This argument should take place in the legislature ... if you can’t win there, you can’t win.

H

[tacticalogic]

It doesn't. However, when different states start passing different laws, it will become an issue.

And you want to pre-emtively enact a federal ban on pornography for everyone out of a concern for maintaining a level playing field in interstate commerce?

[wagglebee]

I’m not advocating a ban on pornography. I am supporting the right of this organization to pursue it’s agenda which includes education, research and possibly civil action against pornographers. I do support bans on child pornography and laws that have been enacted to protect children from being exposed to pornography (though I am uncertain how viable this is with the internet).

[CitizenUSA]

Hemorrhage wrote: “The courtroom is no more the place for this dispute than it is for any half-assed ACLU lawsuit (over taking God out of the pledge, the Christ out of Christmas, etc.).”

Wrong!

First off, your comparisons are inappropriate. How are people actually harmed by the mention of God or Christ? What actual damages are done?

Secondly, if porn peddlers are causing harm to others and this harm can be proven in a court of law, they are liable.

I am convinced pornography is a great evil, and I would love to see the porn peddlers put out of business. However, I don’t think it’s going to be easy to prove damages in a court of law (unfortunately). I also agree with the other posters who say this is a states-rights issue, not a federal one.

At one time in US history, most people had enough sense to at least recognize porn for what it is...a social ill.

[tacticalogic]

I’m not advocating a ban on pornography. I am supporting the right of this organization to pursue it’s agenda which includes education, research and possibly civil action against pornographers.

So where does any need to invoke the Commerce Clause enter into that?

[wagglebee]

I’m not, I was merely pointing out the fact that this is more of a federal issue than a state one especially where the internet is concerned. I am unaware of any practical method of the individual states regulating internet content.

[CitizenUSA]

Hemorrhage wrote: “If this is, as I suspect, about protecting my marriage and my children from pornography ... I can handle that myself, thanks.”

How incredibly naive. Playing defense is fool’s game, because you’re facing a literal army of porn pushers. While you’re trying to restrict access to your children, the porn pushers will be selling them a bunch of lies, like the one that porn is harmless fun. And, I’m not talking about the hard stuff. Just turn on the TV and see how much it glorifies illicit sex.

You only have to fail once. If you do, your children can make mistakes that last a lifetime.

Now, please explain to me why the perverts should have the right do whatever they wish while goodly people hunker down in a defensive war? Sorry, but I’d rather have the smut lords go back under the rocks where they should be.

[CitizenUSA]

Wagglebee wrote: “I am unaware of any practical method of the individual states regulating internet content.”

They have the right to do so if they wanted to, but I agree it probably wouldn’t be very practical. However, this doesn’t justify using the federal government to overstep the Commerce Clause.

I’m no expert, but I believe the Commerce Clause was intended so no state could apply tariffs or taxes unfairly to another state. For example, a state could place a tax on all imports/exports, but it couldn’t apply different taxes to imports from different states.

For the life of me, I don’t understand how the Commerce Clause can legitimately be applied to telling a farmer who is growing food for his own consumption what he can or cannot legally grow (because if he’s growing his own, he isn’t buying, and if he isn’t buying, he’s affecting commerce-—geesh).

Getting back to the main issue. I don’t see any reason why a particular state couldn’t put a total ban on the possession, sale, and/or distribution of porn. No doubt some citizens would break the law, but that doesn’t mean it’s illegal or unconstitutional to have the law in the first place. The US Constitution was never meant to give people unlimited liberty to do whatever they please.

Again, I’m no expert on constitutional law, so I’m open to other explanations/opinions of the Commerce Clause.

[GreenOgre]

If you don't want porn in your home, send it to me.

;-)

[SnakeDoctor]

>> First off, your comparisons are inappropriate. How are people actually harmed by the mention of God or Christ? What actual damages are done?

I would ask the same question of pornography. It seems to me that both a porn suit, and the “God-out-of-the-pledge” suit are based on an offended individual trying to dictate morality to the masses by judicial fiat.

If morality is to be legislated, it should be via the legislative process. If judicial activism is wrong (which it is), then it is just as wrong for Christians as it is for anti-Christian bigots.

>> Secondly, if porn peddlers are causing harm to others and this harm can be proven in a court of law, they are liable.

They should be no more liable for misuse of their product than McDonald’s is liable to fat people, or Smith & Wesson is liable to gun-crime victims.

Companies should NOT have to remunerate people for their lack of self-control or for intentional misuse of their products.

Pornography does not corrupt people ... corruption corrupts people. If you are offended by pornography, or lack the self-control to use it responsibily (i.e. without destroying yourself or your family) ... then AVOID it like the plague.

>> I am convinced pornography is a great evil, and I would love to see the porn peddlers put out of business.

Michael Newdow is convinced that organized Christianity is a great evil, and would love to see its purveyors out of business. Luckily, the Bill of Rights (free expression, etc.) and a VAST majority of the country disagrees with him.

In this case, the Bill of Rights (freedom of speech) and a VAST majority of the country disagree with you. So, you advocate the SAME tactic he used (and that Jane Roe used with Abortion) - the misuse and manipulation of the judicial system to accomplish by dictatorial judicial declaration what you cannot accomplish legislatively.

If you’re right - convince a majority of the country (or your state) that you’re right. The Constitution does not contain a “right not to be offended”.

>> At one time in US history, most people had enough sense to at least recognize porn for what it is...a social ill.

They also recognized that they did not have a monopoly on “sense” ... and that “most people” deserve the right to dictate for themselves the manner in which they live their lives (insofar that they are not intruding on the liberties of another).

H

[tacticalogic]

Post 261 says otherwise.

[wagglebee]

Huh? Post #261 isn’t even mine.

[Tailgunner Joe]

I don’t need a caliphate because I already live in a Christian Nation founded on the principle that rights are inalienable because they come from God, not wannabe philosopher kings like yourself. Get a clue chump, it’s not you faggots, junkies and pervert freaks who are fighting the war on terror against the jihadists. Heterosexual Christian males are. You liberaltarians are nothing but a cancer on the body politic.

[tacticalogic]

My mistake. I meant 263 (in reply to 261).

[Charlespg]

Thank you

I would be more concerned with the treason and sedition prevent in the media and on collage campuses and then some guy reading Penthouse in a truckstop

[SnakeDoctor]

>>> If this is, as I suspect, about protecting my marriage and my children from pornography ... I can handle that myself, thanks.

>> How incredibly naive. Playing defense is fool’s game, because you’re facing a literal army of porn pushers. While you’re trying to restrict access to your children, the porn pushers will be selling them a bunch of lies, like the one that porn is harmless fun.

It takes a village to raise a child, eh?

Ridiculous. It takes parents to raise a child. My children are my responsibilty - not yours, not Ed Meese’s, and not Hillary Clinton’s.

Christianity (and religion generally) is ALL about playing defense ... that’s the point. You defend, with Salvation, against the constant onslaught of sin. You cannot legislate an end to temptation - and, to my mind, any belief that you can is truly naive.

You cannot control the entirety of the outside world ... you can only control your immediate surroundings, i.e. yourself and your family (to an extent). Living a moral life is, by definition, defensive ... because you cannot force morality or religion on someone.

>> And, I’m not talking about the hard stuff. Just turn on the TV and see how much it glorifies illicit sex. You only have to fail once. If you do, your children can make mistakes that last a lifetime.

I am aware of the content of television. I am also aware that it has yet to destroy my life, my family, or the moral fiber of my Christian home. Its a television show ... if you don’t like it, exercise your freedom to simply turn it off.

>> Now, please explain to me why the perverts should have the right do whatever they wish while goodly people hunker down in a defensive war? Sorry, but I’d rather have the smut lords go back under the rocks where they should be.

That’s the way freedom works. You live by the values that you hold dear, watch what you want, exclude who you want, and dislike whatever you want. The “perverts”, however, get the same freedoms that you do ... freedom to live, watch and do what they want (within the bounds of the law, and to the extent that they are not intruding on the freedoms of others).

Without the freedom to choose, religion is simply meaningless. God gave both you, and the “perverts”, the freedom to choose to follow Him, or not. There are consequences to both decisions. You choose to follow Him, and more power to you - but you will be forced to endure the onslaught of temptation. They chose another path, and there will be consequences to their choices as well.

However, we are free to choose the values by which we live our own lives ... and we will all have to accept the consequences of those decisions (in this life and the next).

It is simply not within the governments purview, particularly under the U.S. Constitution, to control the content of information that the public views.

H

[CitizenUSA]

Hemorrhage wrote: “Companies should NOT have to remunerate people for their lack of self-control or for intentional misuse of their products.”

Agreed. That’s why I said I thought it would be hard to prove actual damages. However, I don’t see why you consider it a misuse of justice if actual damages are proven. Just because you or I can’t imagine a case doesn’t mean they won’t be able to make one.

Hemorrhage wrote: “If morality is to be legislated, it should be via the legislative process.”

Agreed, and morality is “legislated” all the time. At least it appears you agree people have a right to regulate porn. Personally, I’d like to see it regulated out of existence, but that’s just my own opinion. Like you say, a majority would have to agree with me in order to change the laws. I also wouldn’t be so sure a VAST majority of the country favor the unlimited production and distribution of porn.

Hemorrhage wrote: “Pornography does not corrupt people ... corruption corrupts people.”

Sure, corruption comes from within. However, only a cold-hearted scumbag or fool (not saying you’re one) would place a case of booze in front of an alcoholic. So what if many of your fellow citizens crash and burn as long as you’re having fun, right?

Hemorrhage wrote: “They also recognized that they did not have a monopoly on “sense” ... and that “most people” deserve the right to dictate for themselves the manner in which they live their lives (insofar that they are not intruding on the liberties of another).”

Which explains why vices, like gambling and hard-core porn, were widely promoted and praised by the founding fathers. Sorry, but I remember the legal battles against community standards that were fought in the 70’s, and we’ve been on a downward spiral ever since. Somehow I don’t think the founding fathers had the same concepts of liberty that you have.

[fr_freak]

"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

You appear to be claiming that somewhere in the above paragraph, there is wording which declares that the Constitutional restrictions on the federal government, as listed in the Bill of Rights, now applies to state and local governments as well. I will need you to explain to me where that wording is. I concede that the standing interpretation of the 14th by SCOTUS is as you describe, but whether that interpretation is correct is the question here. I say it is not.

The "due process" clause has nothing to do with the ability of individual states to enact laws, with the possible exception of laws which attempt to nullify due process requirements (i.e. a state law which allows the state to imprison, say, black people, without a trial). Rather, it is a limitation on what action the state can take. Furthermore, the fact that this clause was included in the 14th, worded specifically to apply to states is evidence that the original amendments were not meant to limit states in the first place. If they were meant to do so, that clause of the 14th would not be necessary, as the 5th would be sufficient. As it is, "due process" has nothing to do with the ability of a state to outlaw porn, but only with the ability of state agents to execute actions against citizens.

As for the "privileges and immunities" clause, you'll notice that the clause was written with specific regard to "citizens of the United States", not citizens of each individual state, even though citizenship of both the US and the "state wherein they reside" are mentioned earlier in the paragraph. It is reasonable to conclude, then, that the clause means that no state can treat a US citizen (as described in the amendment) as a non-US citizen, but there is nothing in that clause to suggest that rights or prohibitions for citizens of each state, which existed before the 14th passed, can no longer exist.

[wagglebee]

Does the federal government have the right to regulate interstate commerce?

Better yet, since this is a PRIVATE group we are talking about, do PRIVATE groups have a right to advance their agenda?

How does this contradict what I've said before?

[tacticalogic]

Are you claiming federal authority to regulate/ban pornography under the commerce clause or not? If not, why argue that pornography is commerce, or ask if the federal government can regulate commerce in response to questions about federal authority over pornography?