Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Tribune7
And Mark, if you can't see the difference, you don't understand the motivation.

You just can not admit that I am saying the same thing.

Not liking people with child porn is because some are harmed in it's production.

Yes it is obvious to me, and Lord help me I would have bet a million dollars it would be obvious to you also.

My only concern here is where the line is drawn when deciding to jail people for having images. It is not hard to imagine some folks who would want others jailed for pictures of naked women.

My concern here is not to defend porn, but we should always strive to keep the government in check.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

38 posted on 09/09/2007 4:43:55 PM PDT by Mark was here (Hard work never killed anyone, but why take the chance?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies ]


To: Mark was here

To some extent I agree with you, but when things involve minors, general rules of liberalism are not identical. What you are arguing would make it ok for Michael Jackson to lie in bed with 6 year old boys even if he didn’t touch them. The majority of the country (99.9%) do not find this acceptible. If Michael Jackson wants to lie next to a 25 year old man, with or without sex, in his own bed I don’t care. I dont care what pictures you take of yourself doing anything you can think of for the most part and sell them to anyone 18 years of age of older or give them away for free. The second it involves a minor, I’m going to (and 99%+ of the country) are going to disagree with you.


39 posted on 09/09/2007 7:43:30 PM PDT by rb22982
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson