[LightedCandle]

SEE THE BLOG HERE

by Ed Meese, Former Attorney General under Ronald Reagan

In his 1784 book, Notes on the State of Virginia, Thomas Jefferson declared: "It is the manners and spirit of a people which preserve a republic in vigor. A degeneracy in these is a canker which soon eats to the heart of its laws and constitution." Many Americans feel that the vitality of our republic is seriously threatened by the sharp decline in our common morality. However, these same Americans feel helpless and lost, unable to find a foothold to do anything about it. We intend to fill that gap.

The decline and endangerment of American values is not a new topic, but the fight I will describe to you now is very new.

In 2001 John Harmer and I founded the Lighted Candle Society, a non-profit organization geared to fight pornography in a very unique way: 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.

In past decades, patrons of pornography were forced to obtain their materials over the counters of darkened alley stores. Today these same materials (and many times worse materials) can be had over the kitchen counter. The results are unmistakable: exponential increases in addiction; exposure of children to scenes of brutality; loss of feeling towards spouses; disregard for marital vows and breakup of the family through divorce. We are under no illusion that pornography is going away. But at the Lighted Candle Society we envision a world where pornography is largely shunned, spurned and recognized as a threat to society. We envision a society where the negative consequences of producing and distributing pornography far outweigh the financial benefits.

This is a unique fight, with veteran warriors at the helm. We hope you will join our efforts and give us your thoughts on how we can help you and your family.

[SubGeniusX]

More “Big Govt” Nanny state B.S.

[dynachrome]

Your first post, I see. This seems to be just a feel good idea. I say no to a new gov’t bureaucracy.

(p.s. If you are one of the officers of the Lighted Candle, you should disclose that.)

[SnakeDoctor]

>> The results are unmistakable: exponential increases in addiction; exposure of children to scenes of brutality; loss of feeling towards spouses; disregard for marital vows and breakup of the family through divorce.

Am I the only one that thinks that my “feeling toward [my] spouse” and my regard “for marital vows” is not really any concern of the government (or Ed Meese)?

I think we’re barking up the wrong tree here. In moderation, occasional use of a “marital aid” is a bit of a “no harm, no foul” scenario ... much like occasional moderate use of alcohol or tobacco.

The security of my marriage and safety of my children are my problem ... not Ed Meese’s. This smacks of the nanny state cigarette lawsuits (an upcoming gun manufacturers suits) to me.

Though I respect Ed Meese greatly, I must part with him on this issue.

H

[SnakeDoctor]

>> The results are unmistakable: exponential increases in addiction; exposure of children to scenes of brutality; loss of feeling towards spouses; disregard for marital vows and breakup of the family through divorce.

Am I the only one that thinks that my “feeling toward [my] spouse” and my regard “for marital vows” is not really any concern of the government (or Ed Meese)?

I think we’re barking up the wrong tree here. In moderation, occasional use of a “marital aid” is a bit of a “no harm, no foul” scenario ... much like occasional moderate use of alcohol or tobacco.

The security of my marriage and safety of my children are my problem ... not Ed Meese’s. This smacks of the nanny state cigarette lawsuits (an upcoming gun manufacturers suits) to me.

Though I respect Ed Meese greatly, I must part with him on this issue.

H

[jdm]

Fighting Pornography?

Nah, no thanks. I don’t like roughness or violence in my porn.

[who_would_fardels_bear]

There is nothing on this site about what types of civil litigation you will be pursuing.

Are you going to sue for financial loss due to addiction to pornography? Are you going to sue for financial loss because a sex toy shop is decreasing nearby real estate values?

You're going to need to provide a little more meat if you expect to get more contributions.

[Constantine XIII]

Are we really in a decline? To hear the old timers talk, the we’re doing much better than, say, the 60’s. :p

Hippies are an endangered species these days!

[Wiz]

First step to communism, free speech lost one by one.

[ari-freedom]

this really isn’t a good way to fight porn.

The best way to fight porn is to move away from public schools and send kids to religious private or home schools where they will learn about values and respect for relationships.

[GulfBreeze]

Good job and thanks for coming to FreeRepublic.

[hoyaloya]

Perhaps the government might simply use some common sense and tell the folks violating “community standards” to stop?

Instead, to make a point they charge regular people running video stores. I know, I’m friends with one of them.

If this Administration wanted to help American families and kids maybe they wouldn’t run stings against involved fathers and husbands who had no idea what they were doing was considered a crime by some tightwad with a license to prosecute.

[fr_freak]

I'm a firm believer that local communities should be able to enforce some standards of public behavior, as well as set limits to types of businesses in the area. I am willing to accept that view all the way up to the state level. So, if a particular state wants to outlaw the selling of pornography within its borders, or the showing of pornographic movies in public theaters, etc., they have every right to do so. The First Amendment 1) was meant to protect speech of a political nature, but if we accept that it protects all speech, pornography still isn't speech under a reasonable defintion 2) is explicitly applied to the Federal government.

The theory behind our form of government was that the voting public would put in office people who would represent their values and act accordingly. Therefore, if democratically elected representatives enact into law, at the state or local level, such stadnards, then so be it. Where I would draw the line is when the government tries to enforce standards or practices that are against the will of the people. So, for instance, if most people want access to pornography, then it would be unacceptable for their local government to enforce anti-pornography standards upon them.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

The results are unmistakable: exponential increases in addiction; exposure of children to scenes of brutality; loss of feeling towards spouses; disregard for marital vows and breakup of the family through divorce.

Then you'd assume that divorce rates would have skyrocketed in the last few years. In fact, they've been steadily declining for almost 20 years, having peaked in 1979.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

by helping to bring civil litigation against producers and distributors of pornography

First Amendment says otherwise.

[mountainbunny]

I am a woman, a conservative, a mother, a wife, and a person of some faith. You might think that that would make me an opponent of legal (i.e., adults with adults) pornography. You would be wrong.
There are laws against child abuse. Enforce them.
Divorces are sad, but no business of the government.
What adults do with adults is not my business if it does not directly affect me, not is it the business of the court system.
While I personally find pornography offensive, my offense end with me. I do not want to outlaw pornography, as I have read history and know that censorship never stops with the original target and always ends up being more evil than what was originally being censored. It is the price we pay for being able to say what we like.
It is no coincidence that cultures which outlaw pornography *always* end up punishing people who exhibit free thought in other ways.
I despise with all my heart & soul the inclination of some people to try to create a connection between “I wouldn’t have done X (where X is killing, divorce, harming children, whatever) except that I was influenced by pornography”.
You will notice that that is the exact same argument used by Muslim radicals when they force women to dress in black from head to toe, take away voting rights and driving privileges, and stone unmarried adults for being with other adults of the opposite sex.
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.
My creator did not make me so weak as to be unable to resist the clutches of whatever the vice-of-the-week is right now.

[mysterio]

Wouldn’t it just be better to avoid looking at pornography if you don’t like it?

[Tailgunner Joe]

The sodomites, pimps and whoremongers get all hot and bothered when conservatives start talking about taking our country back from the perverted freaks who have corrupted our courts, banishing God from the public square while at the same time ruling that obscene filmed and photographed acts of prostitution are what the First Amendment really protects. Morality must be returned to government by turning out of power the sick depraved deviants who have been degrading American culture.

[humblegunner]

The results are unmistakable: exponential increases in addiction; exposure of children to scenes of brutality; loss of feeling towards spouses; disregard for marital vows and breakup of the family through divorce.

Wow.. looking at some pictures can do all that?

Not, I imagine, unless you a weak-minded fool.

[bvw]

There is a season for harsh laws too.

What brings on such a season? Degeneracy. The proclivity of Arabians for vices -- sex, drink, gambling -- brought on Mohammed. He sought to reign those vices in. And look with what we are left! Thousands of years later, even.

The spouse and child abuse, the destitution of England, brought on by gin, brought on the period of harsh Gin Laws in the eighteenth century.

In our own country the widespread production, read availability, and cheap prices of spirits and beer as we became urbanized around the turn of the Century -- and teh consequent spouse and child abuse, the dereliction of the duties of adulthood due to alcoholic stupors and sickness brought on ever increasing harsh laws, eventually the Prohibition.

The later two cases -- the Gin laws, the Prohibition --each was a circuit breaker to the destructive maelstrom unleashed by new production methods.

Porn has such a new method. We are flooded with cheap porn and there are social consequences.

These are undeniable, yet the horde of libertarian-zealots denies any problem, so it would seem.

Will they have us all left to chance against a coming Mohammed? Or to suffer a Prohibition?

For something must be done. If men, by themselves are unable to do it, then society must act by that collective moral force we implement as law.

And that law will be harsher for all the scoffing that nothing is wrong! Or that the pornographic equivalent of constant drunkenness is just a grand FREEDOM.

Folly always finds fools to join its march.

[FightThePower!]

What’s wrong with porn?