You set up an account at FR just to post this hit and run piece?
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.
The “Tailgunner” name is a dead giveaway.
Bubba Ho-Tep wrote: “The “Tailgunner” name is a dead giveaway.”
You do realize that’s a personal attack that has nothing to do with discussing the topic? On the other hand, it certainly reflects the general coarseness of the libertarian crowd.
So, when “Tailgunner” calls his opponents in this debate “you faggots, junkies and pervert freaks” it’s fine, but when I point out the humor and irony of someone with the screenname “Tailgunner” being so obsessed with homosexual practice, it’s over the line? Is that about right?
No, you need to go back on your meds. You know nothing about me. But, like all good Nazi’s you can’t handle any dissent your simplistic,juvenile world-view.
There is no large commercial or political movement to sexually prey on kids (and where ever there is, I naturally oppose it).
That was a stupid question, almost unworthy of response.
Secondly, gay men who have no understanding of women, and no clue how to treat a lady without damaging her.
The Chinese government.
The Taliban.
All of these groups convulse and seethe at the thought of girls being girls, and of straight people enjoying themselves.
On a slightly more serious note, I'm interested in the opinions of those who think the interstate commerce clause has some utility in regulating the sale or use of porn. Assume the ICC is used to ban interstate sale of porn; would I be okay as long as I bought locally-produced porn? What about porn imported from a foreign country directly into my state? What about porn produced elsewhere, but given away free on the internet? Could I purchase a one-year membership in an online "photography" club that includes a number of "free" pornographic layouts?
You set up an account at FR just to post this hit and run piece?
What's wrong with pictures of beautiful naked women? "It doesn't matter where you get your appetite from, as long as you eat at home."
Wow! I leave for an hour and the questions grow and grow:
1) This is not legislation or government regulation. We will leave that to other groups. Our interest is civil litigation.
2) This is all about a product that causes harm to individuals. It’s actually pretty akin to a tobacco lawsuit.
3) What’s wrong with porn? You may not know this but there are numerous scientific studies that affirm the harmful and addictive nature of porn. Essentially, the harm to the brain is very close to that of heroin... release chemicals within in the brain.
_______________________________________________________
Libertarians are trying to explain to the right wingers who value their freedom as tax paying adults to do what they want as long as they don’t hurt others. Some holdouts on FR don’t think the slippery slope applies to them. Tell that to this guy.
When they came for the drinkers during Prohibition, I did not speak out, as I was not a drinker.
When they came for the employees of the oldest profession in the world, I did not speak out, as I had no interest in purchasing sex.
When they came for the purveyors of what was deemed to be “obscene” or “offensive”, I did not speak out, as I was not a fan of entertainers like Lenny Bruce or Howard Stern.
When they came to ban the female mammary gland from TV, I did not speak out, because Brian Boitano told me not to.
When they came for the marijuana smokers, I did not speak out, as I was not a marijuana smoker.
When they came for the steroid users, I did not speak out, as I was not a steroid user.
When they came for the _______ (insert nominally objectionable behavior here), I did not speak out as I was not a _________ (fill in the blank).
When they came for the pornographers, I did not speak out, as I was not a pornographer.
When they came for the people who don’t wear seatbelts, I did not speak out, as I always wore my seatbelt.
When they came for the gun owners, I did not speak out, as I was not a gun owner.
When they came for the gamblers, I did not speak out, as I was not a gambler.
When they came for the cigarette smokers, I did not speak out, as I was not a smoker.
When they came for the overweight and the obese, I did not speak out, as I was not overweight or obese.
When they came for the drinkers (again), I did not speak out, as I was not a drinker.
Then they came for me...and there was nobody left to speak out.
Yet.
It is all about:
a) Enforcing the laws that are there now.
Hmm. That's an interesting concept. I wonder if it would work with speeding. Oops, sorry. I was thinking out loud there.
b) Changing the public perception of pornography and acceptance of pornography in its midst.
That fair. Innocuous even. Can we expect them to work towards longer skirts and higher necklines? Is it too early to say goodbye to hiphuggers?
I'm asking you where the line should be drawn.
2) All of the things you mentioned are illegal in certain states.
I'm not aware of any state having a law against premarital sex. Please, enlighten me.
Do you have a problem with people being required to keep the terms of their contracts?
No. But I sometimes have a problem with people referring to marriage as a contract. It's not. It's a sacrament of the church. Oh, wait. I forgot. Not everybody goes to church.
So much for enforcing morals.
Are you the evening’s posting police? Why should an officer of the org have to post that fact for your satisfaction? Do you demand all celebs disclose that fact? Sheesh.
They should tax porn like they do cigs and booze. Then put warning labels all over it from the surgeon general.
Have you ever seen the warning labels on british cig packs? The warning label covers the entire pack. There’s no room for the brandname. ONe of them says “WARNING MAY CAUSE IMPOTENCE”. It’s hilarious.
That particular label may not be suitable for porn, however.
Yet.”
If you have something to say say it. “Yet” says nothing unless YOU are getting into thought crime enforcement yourself.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
“It is all about:
a) Enforcing the laws that are there now.
Hmm. That’s an interesting concept. I wonder if it would work with speeding. Oops, sorry. I was thinking out loud there. “
Again, I have no idea what you are getting at... Is there a point to be made behind your meaningless ramble here.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
“b) Changing the public perception of pornography and acceptance of pornography in its midst.
That fair. Innocuous even. Can we expect them to work towards longer skirts and higher necklines? Is it too early to say goodbye to hiphuggers?
I’m asking you where the line should be drawn.”
It’s really none of your business if they do is it? I mean as long as they are working from the angle of persuading peoples hearts and minds, it's really there own business. Your snarky attitude does not defend the fact that YOU are trying to control these folks actions, thoughts and efforts. Very Orwellian of you, I would say.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
“2) All of the things you mentioned are illegal in certain states.
I’m not aware of any state having a law against premarital sex. Please, enlighten me.”
Okay, I glossed right past the premarital sex one. Sorry. A quick Google search didn’t turn up any states where it is illegal but I could have sworn there was one where there was some obscure law that was no longer enforced. Hmmmmmm.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
“Do you have a problem with people being required to keep the terms of their contracts?
No. But I sometimes have a problem with people referring to marriage as a contract. It’s not. It’s a sacrament of the church. Oh, wait. I forgot. Not everybody goes to church.”
Wrong again. Marriage is a contract in every state of the US and is, BESIDES being a Sacrament of the Church, a recognized institution of the state and that is why you go to the STATE for a divorce or to ENFORCE the marital obligations of spousal support etc.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
“So much for enforcing morals.”
What??? Look, you are going to have to decide whether you want to try to debate based on logic. Or try to keep throwing out these snarky vacuous comments which really have not made sense. I vote for the logical path at least you don’t look so silly when you fail on that one.
Those are clearly issues separate from the production of pornography. I have no problem with public libraries restricting the viewing of pornography on public taxpayer funded computers and servers. I have no problem with local ordinances prohibiting the viewing of pornography on a car video screen in such a way that it is visible to others (public decency laws and the like), and I have no problem with public or private universities restricting web sites that contain pornography. My point is that we do not need an expensive government program to accomplish any of this.
They are not forced to become addicts. If they do something against their will, there are already laws preventing that. We do not need a new government program to combat such things.
Human trafficing and forced prostitution are already illegal. We do not need a new government program. We simply need to enforce the law.
When I first read Tailgunner’s comments, they came across as attacks on the porn peddlers themselves. After a second look, I realize they could be construed as personal attacks on other FReepers. I’m sorry.
I think you’re sincere, and wouldn’t want even a whiff of pederasty around your childen. But you are not well-informed, I think. about the pro-child-abuse political and ideological movement (not calling itself pro-child-abuse, of course) whose activists are all over the sex-ed and sex-therapy professions, and all over the Internet.
No time to elaborate now, but later in the day I’ll get you some info.
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.