Hemorrhage wrote: “The courtroom is no more the place for this dispute than it is for any half-assed ACLU lawsuit (over taking God out of the pledge, the Christ out of Christmas, etc.).”
Wrong!
First off, your comparisons are inappropriate. How are people actually harmed by the mention of God or Christ? What actual damages are done?
Secondly, if porn peddlers are causing harm to others and this harm can be proven in a court of law, they are liable.
I am convinced pornography is a great evil, and I would love to see the porn peddlers put out of business. However, I don’t think it’s going to be easy to prove damages in a court of law (unfortunately). I also agree with the other posters who say this is a states-rights issue, not a federal one.
At one time in US history, most people had enough sense to at least recognize porn for what it is...a social ill.
>> First off, your comparisons are inappropriate. How are people actually harmed by the mention of God or Christ? What actual damages are done?
I would ask the same question of pornography. It seems to me that both a porn suit, and the “God-out-of-the-pledge” suit are based on an offended individual trying to dictate morality to the masses by judicial fiat.
If morality is to be legislated, it should be via the legislative process. If judicial activism is wrong (which it is), then it is just as wrong for Christians as it is for anti-Christian bigots.
>> Secondly, if porn peddlers are causing harm to others and this harm can be proven in a court of law, they are liable.
They should be no more liable for misuse of their product than McDonald’s is liable to fat people, or Smith & Wesson is liable to gun-crime victims.
Companies should NOT have to remunerate people for their lack of self-control or for intentional misuse of their products.
Pornography does not corrupt people ... corruption corrupts people. If you are offended by pornography, or lack the self-control to use it responsibily (i.e. without destroying yourself or your family) ... then AVOID it like the plague.
>> I am convinced pornography is a great evil, and I would love to see the porn peddlers put out of business.
Michael Newdow is convinced that organized Christianity is a great evil, and would love to see its purveyors out of business. Luckily, the Bill of Rights (free expression, etc.) and a VAST majority of the country disagrees with him.
In this case, the Bill of Rights (freedom of speech) and a VAST majority of the country disagree with you. So, you advocate the SAME tactic he used (and that Jane Roe used with Abortion) - the misuse and manipulation of the judicial system to accomplish by dictatorial judicial declaration what you cannot accomplish legislatively.
If you’re right - convince a majority of the country (or your state) that you’re right. The Constitution does not contain a “right not to be offended”.
>> At one time in US history, most people had enough sense to at least recognize porn for what it is...a social ill.
They also recognized that they did not have a monopoly on “sense” ... and that “most people” deserve the right to dictate for themselves the manner in which they live their lives (insofar that they are not intruding on the liberties of another).
H
Now that would just be a matter of perception of harm wouldn't it?
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".