This guy just volunteered.
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.
dude...
you owe me a new keyboard ... mine is now soaked w/ coffee....
seriously....
well done sir, well done.....
When a thread or post is asking for donations to an organization, as this one obviously is (see the 'join our efforts link", that leads directly to the donation page). It is proper for the poster to disclose the nature of their relationship with the organization.
and if this is not disclosed it is entirely appropriate to ask the nature of the relationship.
While we may disagree on the topic of this thread...
That just showed a TON of Class...
well done FRiend
This guy just volunteered.
There are simple ways to manage things like that with IE. You can create a simple text file that says what domains are allowable and which are not. It kills pop-ups and stops your kid from visiting actual porn sites. The problem was that you didn't understand the technology you were exposing your kids to. You probably didn't even ask anyone who would know about the technology for help with your problem.
I'm a libertarian, but the idea of putting X42 into prison appeals to me. I'm conflicted... :-)
Not that there's anything wrong w/ that....
Don't piss on my head and tell me it's raining. It doesn't take a genius to catch my drift. You want me to flesh out an idea, that's fine, just ask me. But save the charade.
It’s really none of your business if they do is it? I mean [blah blah *snip*]
You're missing my point entirely. Again. I'll try to be more direct:
I’m asking you where the line should be drawn.
Really, GB, that's as direct as I can get. Previously, you said:
"...breaking down the public morality is one of many steps towards communism.
Assuming that's true, how far do we go to ensure that public morality is maintained? That is my question to you. Everything else I have said or asked is a means to this end. So far, you have yet to respond.
>> I want to get this straight. So, you’re saying the content of porn shouldn’t be restricted in any way, shape, or form, but its distribution should be restricted?
Pretty much. In most cases, the government is not permitted to make content-based censorship of materials, but they ARE permitted to place reasonable “time and place” restrictions on the sale or transmittal of material.
For instance, a government cannot outlaw pornography ... but they can reasonably restrict the sale of pornography to persons under the age of 18, certain distances from schools, churches, etc. In another example, a government cannot ban protest marches, rallies or political speech - but they CAN reasonably limit where a group is permitted to protest an event (so as not to disturb the operation of the Republican Convention, for instance), and the government can even require reasonably obtainable permits for large protest marches, etc.
>> Oh wait, we have content restrictions if children are involved. So, we are also allowed to limit content as well as distribution. Agreed?
That is an ENTIRELY different scenario. This revolves around the distribution of recordings of illegal acts ... this is not a free speech issue, it is a child abuse issue. Child abuse is illegal ... so the recording and distribution of child abuse is also illegal.
Consensual sex between adults, no matter how hardcore, is not an illegal act ... so the recording and distribution thereof cannot be restricted based on content.
>> If we can regulate content and distribution, what’s wrong with putting the burden on the pornographers? Instead of giving them mostly free reign, how about putting the burden on them to keep their trash out of public view?
That’s not the way free speech works. People are permitted to say what they want ... others are free to choose not to listen. The government can place reasonable restrictions on the distribution of materials - although those restrictions cannot be a de facto ban, they must allow for the distribution of material in a reasonable manner. The burden of sheltering those who don’t want to be exposed to such material falls some on the government (via reasonable time and place restrictions), but primarily on the individuals that don’t wish to view the material (to change the channel, not purchase the movies, not go to the stores, etc).
No matter how you slice it ... you don’t have the right to control what someone else chooses to produce or view.
H
I’m afraid you have me at a disadvantage. I don’t know who or what X42 is. :(
X42 is FR slang for Bill Clinton.
>> If we were to take the broadest possible interpretation of “liberty”, as you seem to be doing, then both the state and federal governments would be restricted from enacting and enforcing any law that restricts a person’s ability to do something. For instance, a state would be forbidden from making it illegal to park in a red zome, because that infringes on a person’s liberty without due process.
This is the most ridiculous straw man I’ve ever seen. Applying the Bill of Rights to the states via the 14th amendment would not disallow making parking laws. The Bill of Rights does not include a right to park wherever you please.
I am not applying the “broadest possible interpretation” of the word liberty to restrict the government from making any laws ... and I never stated or implied any such reasoning. I am applying the interpretation of the word “liberty” which is used in the 5th amendment ... an interpretation which states that the definition of “liberty”, as used in the 5th and 14th, necessarily includes the enumerated rights in the Bill of Rights.
The government is allowed to restrict a great many things, particularly State governments. However, those rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are guaranteed ... and NO government, Federal, State or Local, has the power to tread on those rights.
According to your flawed interpretation of the 14th amendment, a State government - via an act of the state legislature - would theoretically have the power to ...
(1) seize all firearms ... as the right to keep and bear arms would be a federal right only, [if yours were truly a proper interpretation, there are SEVERAL states which would seize all firearms tomorrow];
(2) arrest peaceful protesters (only a federal right to free speech);
(3) restrict political speech on websites such as this (federal free speech only);
(4) randomly search the homes of its citizens without probable cause or a warrant (restrictions on searches & seizures would be federal only);
(5) torture criminals (bans on cruel and unusual punishment would be federal only);
(6) establish a compulsory state religion (establishment clause is federal only);
(7) jail practicioners of any religion OTHER than the state religion (free expression clause is federal only);
(8) seize private property for public use with no compensation (think eminent domain, but without the necessity of actually paying for the property ... we’d have several communist states on our hands);
(9) engage in double jeopardy in trials;
(10) force accused criminals to testify against themselves;
(11) try accused criminals without an indictment;
(12) throw people in jail without any legal process ... no right to a speedy or public trial;
... etc. ...
However, because the 14th amendment applies the Bill of Rights to State governments ... no State government is permitted to do ANY of these things. Luckily, the Supreme Court, and the VAST majority of the country, disagrees with your fatally flawed interpretation of the 14th Amendment.
H
Ahh! Thank you. I see what you mean now. And I share your dilemma!
>> I’m not trying to control the entire world. I’m trying to place reasonable restrictions on porn.
Regulating pornographers out of business is not a “reasonable restriction” ... it is de facto censorship. It is you (via the government) imposing your opinion onto the lives of people that wish to direct their lives without your interference.
>> I suppose you support legalizing all the illegals, too, because heaven knows you can’t stop all of them from coming here!
A completely nonsensical leap in logic. Illegal immigration is about the enforcement of laws which the government has the right, and responsibility, to make. The difference would be, there is no right to illegally immigrate ... there is a right to free speech. Thus government regulation of the content of speech is an abuse and overstep of government power - enforcement of immigration law is a proper use of government power.
>> However, isn’t it immoral to stand by and do nothing while others self destruct? Your little island of tranquility isn’t going to last forever if society at large self destructs.
Yes, I think it is personally immoral to stand by and do nothing while others self destruct. However, it is not the government’s place (via the legislature OR the judiciary) to save people from themselves. There are plenty of people in this country, and ALL are free to step in and save others from self-destruction ... by themselves, via church groups, or however they like.
The government, however, is a limited entity, and has not the power (or the mandate) to save people from their own stupidity.
What you have described is the precise definition of a “nanny-state” ... where government has the power to decide what is good for you and your family. No guns, no fatty foods, no “high-emission vehicles”, no pornography, no smoking, no drinking ... personally, I don’t trust the government to make those decisions. The battle between conservatism and liberalism is not about choosing WHO gets to impose their morality ... conservatism is about not allowing the government to dictate morality.
>> Sorry, I don’t think you’ll get very far with the “am I my brother’s keeper?” argument.
Actually - its the “mind your own damn business” argument.
>> You are wrong. It’s not within the federal government’s purview [to control the content of information that the public views]. The states, on the other hand, have certain rights not granted to the federal government.
Actually - I’m not wrong. The States do not have the power to violate inalienable rights which are endowed by the Creator. The 14th amendment to the Constitution forbids State governments from taking a person’s life, liberty or property without due process of law. The definition of “liberty” in that amendment has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to include all of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
The States, by their consent on ratification of the 14th amendment, are Constitutionally forbidden from violating the rights listed in the Bill of Rights - including the right to freedom of speech.
>> ... freedom of speech doesn’t give you the right to say whatever you want whenever you want. This is about determining where to draw the line, and I think it should be tightly drawn around the pornographers rather than your family.
Granted that freedom of speech is not an absolute right ... “fire in a crowded theater”, incitement to riot, criminal conspiracy, etc., are all banned forms of speech. Speech which can be banned is generally speech which is physically dangerous to the safety of society (like incitement to riot, fire in a theater, etc. can get people killed), or promoting or planning criminal activity.
Pornography, however, does not fall into those categories - it does not endanger the physical safety of any individual, and does not advocate criminal activity. Thus, it cannot be subject to content-based regulation, by States or the Feds.
>> Porn peddling isn’t some great freedom worthy of protection.
It is not pornography itself which deserves protection ... it is the fundamental concepts of individual rights, limited government and self-determination. It is the concept that individuals are entitled to the freedom to determine, for themselves (and to the extent that their determinations do not intrude on the liberties of others), the values by which to live their lives.
Fundamentally - it is about keeping government (and the morality policing busy-bodies that often seek to act through the government) out of the lives of individuals as much as humanly possible. It is about freedom from government intrusion into fundamentally private decision-making.
Its about getting the government to mind their own damn business.
H
Well you get pissy don’t you? No, your silly ramblings have made ZERO sense. I had no idea what ANY of your odd platitudes meant. I answered all the straight forward points thoroughly, except one. I don’t think you would have the courage to call me a liar like that to my face.
You have behaved the ass and I have tried to respond civilly. I’ll do my best to stay that course but your obnoxious “religiously” self-righteous smug behavior is only tolerable because of the humor it provides when so much of what you say is so patently off the mark and shown to be woefully wrong.
As for your one question that I didn’t answer, “Where do I draw the line?” NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS! Again that’s what you don’t seem to get. NO ONE is trying to draw any lines. The lines are drawn already in the constitution and the law?
Since you are the one looking for lines, Where do YOU draw them? I mean are unauthorized photos of a nude rape/murder victim published for sexual gratification of the end user OK with you? How about child porn as long as the child is “unharmed”? How do YOU define a child? <21? <17? <14? What SHOULD be the limit? Should a day care center for mentally retarded adults and children be able to operate an S&M Pornography sales center at the counter thereof? Tell me; Is there ANY limit to this?
I DON’T draw lines for this group other than to expect that they would obey the same Constitution and Laws that they are expecting others to obey. The law and constitution DO. And apparently since you seem to desire to be protectorate benevolent dictator in your own mind, you do too.
You are constantly hiding behind a falsetto libertarianism set of defenses which you misapply at every step. Your poor efforts and excessive angst when stronger logic makes points opposite of your desired end reveal the simple fact that you aren’t motivated a bit by principles of individual liberty and basic constitutionalism.
It therefore seems that you are simply mad that porn may get harder to find. If that is your worry, fear not! It has always been with us and it always will be until the Good Lord comes and sets things aright one day.
“The Left... the ACLU has employed civil litigation for decades to move our Judeo-Christian heritage to the social margins. The LCS would simply be using the same tools to revitalize the traditional values of our society.”
And after they do you would agree that the LCS is as reprehensible as the ACLU? I doubt it.
Hemorrhage wrote: “Its about getting the government to mind their own damn business.”
That’s a good goal within reason, but no one has an unlimited right to pornography. Like I’ve demonstrated, we already have legal restrictions on how porn is distributed and what it can depict. Child porn cannot be distributed because it’s illegal. So is bestiality and other acts often depicted in porn.
Again, this is all about line drawing, because no right is unlimited. I understand libertarians prefer to draw the line widely to allow as much liberty as possible. I believe laws should be drawn tighter around those things that are cultural negatives, like alcohol and porn.
If the hard core porn were regulated enough to put most (or even all) pornographers out of business, I wouldn’t lose much sleep. Most citizens probably wouldn’t want to go that far, but I bet majorities would support greater restrictions on what can be depicted and/or distributed.
What we are seeing today is a total explosion of pornography. We aren’t talking about just pictures depicting normal male/female sexual relationships. The very nature of porn is that it’s constantly pushing the margins.
The smut peddlers are engaged in deceptive advertising. They make it seem as though you can have sex with whoever (whatever) you want without risk to yourself or others. This is not truth. It’s a lie, and I would be very cold hearted and irresponsible if I ignored the obvious harm done to others. As I’ve stated before, some mistakes are so terribly bad they last a lifetime, and sometimes we all end up paying for them (in more ways than money).
To me, that’s why porn should to be resisted. Put the burden on the smut peddlers to keep their wares out of view, so that the risk to our children and society is minimal.
Why should goodly citizens have to build a wall around their children and families in a free society? You see, it isn’t as simple as letting everyone do their own thing so long as it doesn’t harm anyone else, because someone has to decide what “harm” is. While I’ll be the first to admit our society overly regulates behavior in many areas, like helmet laws or smoking bans, porn isn’t one of them.
They addict their targets with outrageous fantasies that will never happen to them in real life. The addicts treat women the way they see them treated in the porno movies and then they wonder why no real woman wants anything to do with them. They wonder why real live women are not attracted to guys who sit at home masturbating to pornography.
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.