Posted on 03/21/2007 9:14:58 AM PDT by Frank Sheed
And that's the vice of this thread (pun intended).
Which one? Democracy in America? Or the Old Regime and the Revolution?
By contrast, porn in America flew relatively under the radar until the 1960s. The only major legislation that dealth with pornography on the national level was the 1930 Tariff Act and that only prevented a person from bringing pornography in from another country(with good reason. German porn is really disturbing). There were various local ordinances limiting and prohibiting the sale of Pornography (sort of like alcohol "dry laws"), but like most other vices, it was considered a personal indiscretion. Even today's standard of "obscenity" as defined by Miller v. California is at best vague.
The average person wouldn't confess to owning or possessing pornography in the same way they wouldn't confess to being an inebriate. While it would be nice if everyone in America was a fine, upstanding, moral person, unfortunately, that's not the America we live in and it never has been. Ultimately, we aren't talking apples and oranges, we're talking simple supply and demand. If you take away the supply, it doesn't get rid of the demand, it only makes the supply scarcer and more valuable. Ultimately, you are not solving the problem of a desire for pornography or people who become psychologically addicted to pornography. Banning pornography just serves to make you feel as if you've actually accomplished something worthwhile.
I'm also glad to see that you didn't actually disagree that if the production or possession of pornography were criminalized, that it would only be a matter of time before it became a new source of income for organized crime.
Yep. No one has to sneak into sleazy dark dirty book stores any more.
What a crock.
Much better stated than I could have done.
There are some who are not familiar with the Holy Bible who would consider portions of the Song of Solomon pornographic if read out of context.
It is not just being exposed to watching porn but minors who are used to produce porn suffer horrific consequences as well as adults who are forced to appear in it. I recall some pedophile saying that it didn't occur to him to go after children until he saw how much fun it is.
Just because porn is hard to fight and there is a "supply and demand" does not mean that something this demented should be ignored and people be told "just use your keyboard" - that is giving it a legitimacy. There also was a "supply and demand" for slaves but slavery is wrong and was made illegal.
Yep. All porn is child porn, or might as well be. Moral absolutes and all that. There can be no middle ground or moderation.
All of that flying straight in the face of the fact that Jesus established communion with wine and Himself was known to be a wine drinker. He even created wine out of water for a party
You are comparing Ted Bundy to porn?
We already agreed on those definitions and principles at the founding of this Country. The Ten Commandments have not been rescinded. They have 'only' been eclipsed by a penumbra here and there.
Time for the sun to shine again.
No, there can be no middle ground when it comes to child porn - a growing industry. Of course there are moral absolutes such as no innocent person should be framed for a crime they did not commit, the selling and buying of a human being is wrong and should be prohibited, etc. Same with child porn. Anyone who produced, distributes, possesses, or supports child porn is demented.
Not necessarily.
Yes, the Ten Commandments stil exist.
However, they do NOT explain the variance in opinion between even between conservatives. Thus a definition is still required if we're going to get anywhere.
I notice you negeleted to address to statement that all porn is child porn, or might as well be. That's a rather glaring omission from the person who turned a general discussion about pornography to the subject of child porn for no apparent reason.
I call your one 'variance in opinion' and raise you one deviance FROM moral absolutes. And if I may be permitted a bit of word-play, every standard deviation is a slip down the slope.
Yes. Moral absolutes exist.
However, the variance of opinion still makes it necessary despite the moral absolutes on the subject. Heck, the moral absolutes come into play when formulating and codifying such a definition.
Moreover (and rather sadly), society can't agree on the very principle of moral absolutism, therefore, it's all the more critical to come to a consensus as to what's considered obscene.
As conservatives, we ought to be taking that bull by the horns...
"Obscene" is a subjective determination, and as such is incompatible with the application of absolutes.
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.