Posted on 08/15/2007 1:58:32 PM PDT by LightedCandle
That is actually why there is a difference between what can be shown on "broadcast" vs "cable" television (FCC compliance on cable is "voluntary")... (ie. why Fox could not show "The Shield" unedited but FX can)... you need to "subscribe" to the internet
Who's morality? Yours? I think not. Here we go again. Mind your own business, it's a fulltime job. Blackbird.
always a guaranteed good time when these two ping lists come together...
In the case of an International medium like the Internet, do you apply the standards of the most restrictive communities, least restrictive communities, or the average?
Generally, when we speak of one evil thing leading to another, it's a lesser evil that leads to a greater evil. So, here we have people saying that porn leads to premarital sex and is consequently destructive. Therefore, they argue, porn should be banned. But no mention of banning the greater evil of premarital sex. Or any of the other dysfunctional behaviors they claim are spawned by porn. I'm not sure what to make of that.
But I don’t think that the reasons listed are the principles they are operating out of. They are just ways to get porn sites shut down because of other reasons.
I suspect the same.
I believe in this case, the targets of the lawsuits would have to be the producers or hosting companies within the court’s jurisdiction.
I oppose this. Rampant litigiousness is more corrosive to our society than porn is.
“More “Big Govt” Nanny state B.S.”
You’ll grow a tail if you see nekkid boobies!
Okay, so I buy a computer, hook on to a free access point either my neighbor’s open WiFi AP or at some place of business. I haven’t subscribed to anything and I can look at all the porn I want. Just like broadcast TV or radio. Does that give the gov’t the right to regulate it?
I don't know of many libertarians (or even Libertarians) who would deny that there are social consequences to pornography. I suspect that most feel as I do on the subject.
Those who engage in obsessive viewing of pornography, and those who marry porn addicts are suffering the consequences of their own choices. While it would be nice to wave a magic wand and save people from the consequences of their bad decisions, some problems are probably insoluble without creating worse issues and side effects. People are often self-destructive, and we can't cocoon everyone indefinitely from actions that have consequences. If it's not porn, it could be gambling, drugs, alcohol, risky stock market investments, sub-prime variable rate mortgages, risky sex, fast driving, riding a motorcycle without a helmet, free solo climbing, choosing the wrong life partner, gaming addiction, and/or under-insuring. The people who seem to me to be most vulnerable to porn addiction are those with poor impulse control, and addictive personalities, and I for one would rather they look be able at their filth on the Internet than resort to hiding wireless cameras in ladies rest rooms, or over motel beds.
I do support formation of a .xxx top level domain in the hopes that porn will self-segregate their and be easier to filter. However, the US Gov't is against it. I also support the idea of harsh penalties against malware and trojan software developers who infect people's systems with porno-popups.
Again, it’s up to juries of Americans to decide if the standards of their own communities have been violated. Americans should judge right and wrong by our own standards. To do away with all standards and norms just to be “tolerant” and “multicultural” and “diverse” is to embrace moral relativism.
Laziness comes to mind. Do a porn user have anything else better to do? If the answer is no, well, that does say something about that person. Porn does not make you a better person. It is a waste of time.
Yet -- it is very addictive. The opium den of our time.
Multiply that "laziness" times a few tens of millions, and we have a social problem.
Sloth does kill societies. Societies where basic human things such as, in stat case the sexual drive, get fulfilled too easy, on the cheap, are societies that regress.
Porn is individually a waste, individually harmful for many reasons, and socially a danger -- a harm.
It's goatse.cx, and the probably intentional similarity to the words "goat sex" gave me pause the first time I saw the link. Note that it does not actually depict goat sex, but don't click on anything related to it anyway.
that i could live with ...
... better that having to get thicker glasses every other month and the the razor blades for my palms are getting damn expensive...
Besides... The Internet is for Porn! (no porn at link, just a great WoW machinima)...
Ready Normal People!
Besides... The Internet is for Porn! (no porn at link, just a great WoW machinima)...
Ready Normal People!
That always cracks me up. Ought to e-mail a copy to Ed Meese.
I’m speaking more generally about how obscenity law should be crafted rather than the generally inconsistent way it is applied.
no....
you are choosing to use another persons/companies "private" connection to access the internet ... now that person or company has every right to restrict or filter the content that is accesed...
but keep narrowing down the situations in your argument ... you may get one...
btw are you suggesting that that you would steal your neighbors bandwidth?
as are so called "Moral Groups" such as Focus on the Family ... belying their BS line of protecting children and showing that they really want to legislate and control the actions of adults ...
As a hypothetical example, I don't want some small township of isolated Muslims near DC to be able to ban depictions of women not wearing Burqas on the Internet.
I suspect you'll have little tolerance for slippery slope arguments, so instead I'll argue that the majority of American's either don't care much one way or another about pornography, or secretly enjoy it in private regardless of what they say about it in public. I'll be happy to have you prove me wrong by pointing me to an anonymous poll that denies the point.
And freedom, by itself, is no virtue -- it is necessary for full human development, but there are aspects of being that are both necessary and virtuous. Like responsibility.
If a culture encounters a new thing, a change in the ground so to speak, such as gin in England, or the bottled booze industry in the US, or in our time, porn on the internet -- it is sometimes a necessity to implement social circuit breakers that do lessen liberty, if considered by themselves alone, so as to rescue the unadapted culture, the culture without-as-yet developed barriers and protections from the tyrannies of addiction and destructive behaviors that the "new thing" brings on.
These circuit breakers are a temporary thing -- if not, then they are Mohammedean afflictions to freedom.
The human body can fight of a germ -- yet if a person gets a fever and is overwhelmed by weakness and ill-feeling from the propagation of the germ, that person both withdraws from the full freedom of daily activity in order to rest and recover, and also takes a bitter medicine -- an anti-biotic -- to stop the infection, as well as other medicines to ameliorate the negative effects.
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.