Fighting Pornography: A New Approach

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

[CitizenUSA]

I agree with you. We didn’t start the Culture War, but we need to win it.

On the other hand, I don’t think personal attacks belong here. You are rightly offended that they implied you were homosexual, yet you call them “fairies and pinkos.” How is that different?

One of the very aspects of the Culture War you are fighting is a modern lack of civility.

[fr_freak]

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.

As I stated before, I concede that what you describe IS the standing interpretation of the 14tgh amendment, meaning that the SCOTUS has, indeed, declared that the 14th means that states are bound by the Bill of Rights. I hope we can now move past that. I, however, for all of the previous posts, have been arguing that this interpretation of the 14th is incorrect. You subsequently have been telling me that my interpretaton of the 14th is incorrect because it does not match the standing interpretation. And round and round we go.

The word "liberty" is used but not defined in neither in the 14th amendment, nor the 5th. It is, therefore, subject to interpretation by the Court. The cleanest definition of the word "liberty", as has been used since the country's founding, is physical and perhaps spiritual freedom (from political imprisonment, for example). Only an extremely broad definition of the word "liberty" would include the right to engage in such activities as, say, buying/selling/viewing pornography. Yet your claim is that because the word "liberty" appears in the due process clauses of the 5th and 14th, that somehow a state's ability to restrict pornography is somehow forbidden.

As for your assertion that, without the current standing interpretation of the 14th in place, States would then be free to infringe on all of the rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights, you are entirely incorrect. You have forgotten that each state, as a condition of statehood, must have a state constitution and, within each state constitution, you'll generally find an enumeration of protected rights that mirror the federal Bill of Rights.

My question to you is: if the federal Constitution were intended, originally, to restrict State behavior, why would there be the need for such redundancy? Why would the States even bother to have a constitution? The answer is that the States originally were under no such restriction, and that was by design. The federal government was never meant to be lord and master over the state and local governments, but with the standing, overreaching interpretation of the 14th Amendment, it is.

The only reason that the 14th Amendment restricts State rights is because the Supreme Court says it does. It is not written that way, nor do I believe it was intended to do any such thing. It was originally intended to protect newly freed blacks from having their citizenship rights taken away by former slave states who were using grandfather clauses to keep blacks down. However, the Supreme Court saw an opportunity to usurp power from the States and hand it to the federal government by saying that the 14th Amendment is now a tool by which the federal government can micromanage state and local governments. The result is the federal government telling a local public office, for example, that they cannot display a cross, or teh Ten Commandments, or telling local public schools that they can't celebrate Christmas. That is what the flawed interpretation of the 14th has wrought.

[SnakeDoctor]

>> 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 do not consider myself a libertarian ... I’ve never voted libertarian, and I won’t vote libertarian. Libertarianism is as wrong as authoritarianism. I am a conservative - I am well aware that liberties have limits ... this just isn’t one of them.

>> I believe laws should be drawn tighter around those things that are cultural negatives, like alcohol and porn.

Around those things that you deem “cultural negatives” ... and therein lies the problem.

- What happens when evangelism or organized religion is considered a “cultural negative” by Michael Newdow and his ilk? Would we draw tighter lines around Christians?
- What happens when smoking, even in private, is deemed a “cultural negative”? Tighter lines around smokers?
- What happens when gas-guzzling cars are deemed a “cultural negative” by environmental wackos because of contributions to global warming? Tigher lines around SUV-drivers?
- What happens when spanking and disciplining your own children is deemed a “cultural negative”? Tighter lines around parents?
- What happens when eating meat is deemed a “cultural negative” by evangelical vegans and PETA? Tighter lines around carnivores?
- What happens when fatty foods are deemed a “cultural negative” because obesity costs the healthcare industry money? Tighter lines around fatty food?

Pretty soon - you’ve got pretty tight lines around everybody, in areas where the government was never intended to draw ANY lines. And few will remain free to live as they choose.

You have no more right to define what is and is not a “cultural negative” than Newdow, PETA, anti-smoking nazis, environmental wackos, or the anti-spanking crowd.

When you allow the legislation of moral values, you leave open the possibility that the majority will adopt a skewed view of morality, and outlaw something that you believe you have the right to do (whether that be drive an SUV, eat meat, practice Christianity, discipline your child, or view pornography).

>> 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.

That’s the beauty of a right ... the majority is irrelevant. If Michael Newdow gets a majority to agree that Christians are a plague on society ... he cannot stop the practice of Christianity. And, if you get a majority to agree that they should limit the depictions of pornography ... you cannot legally stop pornographers from producing what they want.

>> 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,

Agreed - that isn’t the truth. But, that still does not mean that the government can regulate the sexual activities of the citizenry. Pre-marital and Extra-marital sex is a HUGE problem ... but policing it isn’t among the mandates of a government. Liberty inherently includes the liberty to screw up your own life ... to make your own decisions, and succeed or fail on your own merits.

>> 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.

Government isn’t about “heart” ... its about the law. You seem to believe that the government has the power to save people from their own mistakes. It doesn’t. People will make mistakes, and people will ruin their lives with poor decisions stacked upon poorer decisions. You can’t legislate away stupidity or irresponsibility.

And, people like you and I are free to help them out (to the extent that they want help) ... help guide their decisions, evangelize, teach them about Christ, counsel them, or just listen to them. Whatever.

This is NOT the government’s responsibility - it is the responsibility of each individual. The government is not a caretaker of each individual citizen ... citizens must care for themselves and those around them (again, to the extent that help is welcomed). The government has no authority to become a caretaker, particularly if its “care” is forced on people that would not welcome it.

Also - I must object to the suggestion that the viewing of pornographic materials necessarily ruins lives. Many (if not all) responsible, well-adjusted, family-values centered Christians have viewed pornographic material at some point in their lives - some regularly - and they remain functional well-adjusted God-fearing citizens.

>> 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.

Basically, in simplified legal terms, “harm” is an intrusion on the “life, liberty, and property” of another citizen.

>> 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.

Oh - I get it. You’re OK with the government over-regulating behavior ... just as long as its on your approved list (i.e. porn ban is fine, but not a smoking ban, helmet law, seat belt law, etc.).

You’re glaringly inconsistent in your application of the law here. Either the government has the authority to regulate “cultural negatives” or it doesn’t - the authority to regulate “cultural negatives” cannot be cherry-picked to fit only those “cultural negatives” that you approve.

Over-regulation is over-regulation. The government has limited powers, and a limited mandate of authority to act. Any overstep of those limits is an act of over-regulation, regardless of whether I morally approve or disapprove of the target of that regulation.

H

[CitizenUSA]

fr_freak wrote: “The result is the federal government telling a local public office, for example, that they cannot display a cross, or teh Ten Commandments, or telling local public schools that they can’t celebrate Christmas. That is what the flawed interpretation of the 14th has wrought.”

I couldn’t agree more. That is also why law in this area is such a total mess, with some displays of the Ten Commandment being legal while others are illegal. All of these issues, including abortion, should be and were intended to be, left to the states. Now we have to return to the SCOTUS nearly every time a dispute occurs, because many of the justices are ruling based on personal agendas rather than the clear meaning of the Constitution. Every case becomes a literal crap shoot!

[amchugh]

I agree that we don't need a new Government program. We probably don't even need some old Gov't programs. This is about suing to enforce existing law though. I support their right to do so as long as they can prove they are injured parties.

My opinion is that they are probably interfering busybodies, but that's their own lookout, and not a reason to deny their rights.

[CitizenUSA]

Hemorrhage wrote: “Around those things that you deem “cultural negatives” ... and therein lies the problem.”

No, around those things that a majority of Americans deem cultural negatives. I’m powerless to set public policy by myself, although I’d certainly consider it if you want to make me dictator for life. I promise to be a benevolent one.

Seriously, you appear to concede the issue on whether or not lines can be drawn. We agree. They can and are drawn every day. Therefore, the only remaining point of contention is where the lines SHOULD be drawn.

I think we also agree personal liberty is an important right, but it’s not an unlimited one. While I disagree with smoking bans, for example, they ARE legal.

I enjoyed the debate but it appears we’ve narrowed it down to the bare essentials. Unless you’re willing to concede porn should be more tightly restricted, further debate accomplishes little.

Thank you.

[Lurking Libertarian]

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.

Well, technically, not all of the rights in the Bill of Rights have been applied to the states through the 14th Amendment, but most of them have, including the First Amendment, which is the subject of this discussion. (But to be strictly accurate, states are permitted to indict people for a felony without using a grand jury, despite one clause of the 5th Amendment, and are not required to use juries in civil cases, despite the 7th Amendment. And there is one big undecided issue-- the Supreme Court has not yet decided if the Second Amendment binds the states. I think everything else in the Bill of Rights has been held to be included in the 14th Amendment.)

[monkfan]

“No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him.” —Thomas Jefferson to Francis Gilmer, 1816.

“He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from opposition; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach himself.” ~Thomas Paine

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences.” — C. S. Lewis

[SnakeDoctor]

>> You have forgotten that each state, as a condition of statehood, must have a state constitution and, within each state constitution, you’ll generally find an enumeration of protected rights that mirror the federal Bill of Rights.

I have not, at all, forgotten that. Whether the State has exercised its power to revoke the rights of its citizens is entirely irrelevant in an argument about whether they SHOULD have the power to do so. The fact would remain that a state legislature would have the authority to not recognize, or repeal a right in its own Constitution ... and thus would, under your interpretation, be under no obligation to recognize the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

Lets take the right to keep and bear arms, for example. I have browsed the California Constitution, and cannot find a right to keep and bear arms enumerated in the California Constitution.

Is it your position that the State of California is permitted, with the approval of its legislature and governor, to prohibit the sale and ownership of firearms within its borders, and forcibly confiscate all weapons at its discretion?

If your answer is “yes” ... then at least you’re consistent. Entirely wrong, but consistent. The NRA would probably like to have a word with you, though.

If your answer is “no” ... why not? Under your interpretation of the 14th amendment, the 2nd Amendment is a wholly federal right. If a State’s Constitution does not further guarantee the right to keep and bear arms, upon an act of the state legislature, California should be entirely within its rights in forcibly confiscating every gun in the state.

I’d bet you would think California confiscating every gun is a violation of the Constitutional rights of its citizens - and you’d be right. However, you seem to think California would be perfectly within its rights to ban the sale of pornography. In which case, you’re cherry-picking the rights which you believe a State should be federally forced to recognize.

I think they should be - and, in fact, are - federally forced to recognize each of the rights in the Bill of Rights ... including both the right to bear arms, and the right to freedom of speech.

>> My question to you is: if the federal Constitution were intended, originally, to restrict State behavior, why would there be the need for such redundancy?

This is a two part answer ...

(1) I’d omit the word “originally” in your question. The federal Bill of Rights was not intended to apply to the States until the ratification of the 14th amendment in 1868. I’ve been very clear on this point. Thus, your question would only apply to those 13 States whose Constitutions were enacted AFTER the ratification of the 14th amendment.

(2) State Constitutions Bill of Rights, even if redundant, have a couple of purposes beyond merely recognizing the rights ... and those purposes would exist regardless of whether the State were forced to abide by federal rights. First, the presence of a State Bill of Rights creates a State cause of action for violations of those rights - allowed to be litigated in state court. Second, and probably more importantly ... States are fully permitted to (and often do) expand on those rights enumerated in the Federal Constitution. State Constitutions allow the State government to set boundaries on liberties in excess of federal boundaries ... States are simply not allowed to contract or contradict any federally recognized rights.

>> The only reason that the 14th Amendment restricts State rights is because the Supreme Court says it does. It is not written that way, nor do I believe it was intended to do any such thing. It was originally intended to protect newly freed blacks from having their citizenship rights taken away by former slave states who were using grandfather clauses to keep blacks down.

The 14th amendment was written to rectify slavery issues, and to prevent any future ignoring of the Constitutional rights of individuals, regardless of race, by State governments.

>> The result is the federal government telling a local public office, for example, that they cannot display a cross, or teh Ten Commandments, or telling local public schools that they can’t celebrate Christmas. That is what the flawed interpretation of the 14th has wrought.

Distorted intepretations of the 1st amendment, as applied to the States as well as the Federal government, cannot be blamed on a correct interpretation of the 14th. It is the interpretation of the 1st amendment, in those cases, which is erroneous.

H

[SnakeDoctor]

>> Well, technically, not all of the rights in the Bill of Rights have been applied to the states through the 14th Amendment, but most of them have, including the First Amendment, which is the subject of this discussion.

Actually - I am aware of that (it has been a few years since I’ve taken a Constitutional Law class, though). I opted to leave that tidbit of information out, as it seemed like a bit of a useless footnote in a somewhat complicated Constitutional argument.

>> ... to be strictly accurate, states are permitted to indict people for a felony without using a grand jury, despite one clause of the 5th Amendment, and are not required to use juries in civil cases, despite the 7th Amendment.

I remembered the jury trial exclusion (which is why I didn’t include it in my list) - though I did forget about the grand jury exclusion. Ah well - I guess I could use a Con Law refresher.

>> And there is one big undecided issue— the Supreme Court has not yet decided if the Second Amendment binds the states.

I’d bet most of the anti-incorporation voices in this thread would come down on the other side in the 2nd amendment case. So much for consistency.

H

[Lurking Libertarian]

I’d bet most of the anti-incorporation voices in this thread would come down on the other side in the 2nd amendment case. So much for consistency.

Very few people-- judges included-- are consistent when it comes to constitutional law.

[dynachrome]

“Do you demand all celebs disclose that fact? Sheesh.”

“No one expects the Spanish posting police!”

[dynachrome]

“and if this is not disclosed it is entirely appropriate to ask the nature of the relationship.”
Thanks for the support there.
I wonder if any other non-zot newbies’ first post received so many replies?

[MHGinTN]

Bwahahaha, good one.

[secretagent]

The thought that decent people have to be protected from ideas or images of other adults is repugnant, and the implication that God created us to be so weak and unable to think for ourselves (and therefore requiring constant downwards guidance from all-knowing religious leaders and government) is disturbing and quite un-American.

Dittos.

[secretagent]

Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies.

In context, I agree.

Civil society needs some government, as a court of last resort.

[AndyTheBear]

I say no to a new gov’t bureaucracy.

Are you sure a new bureaucracy is involved? This article is the first I've heard of this effort, as for what they actually do we just get:

"...by helping to bring civil litigation against producers and distributors of pornography. This website, FamilyFragments.com, will be our primary communications arm to inform you about the lawsuits and to provide interactive tools for those hoping to join the fight or simply fight pornography in their own homes."

[Luke21]

Applause...

[AndyTheBear]

I read too fast. LightedCandle, have at it!

OK, I see, so never mind.

[AndyTheBear]

A Jewish Family/Child may be made to feel ostracized if prayers or lessons that appear Govt sanctioned portray Jesus Christ as the Messiah -- I would say that that is a situation that could conceivably "cause harm".

If a Christian moved to Israel, should I expect the government to do nothing that might be construed as implying that Jesus might not be the Messiah?

Also I've noticed you've used the "SubGenius" tag for over 6 years. Have you forgotten that Bob is a "short term" personal savior? Or should we call you "Bobby"?