>> 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
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.
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.)