Replies

Apparently everyone enjoys these 'discussions of what it means to have freedom and liberty', so here you go! Let's have a mature discussion, free from name calling and childish behavior.

Apparently everyone enjoys these 'discussions of what it means to have freedom and liberty', so here you go! Let's have a mature discussion, free from name calling and childish behavior.

Not likely. But an interesting article nonetheless. Libertarians will part company by paragraph 3. They do not recognize "the idea of restraints on individuals by communities " as legitimate.

Any serious attempt to root out the worst in our popular culture may be doomed unless the judiciary comes to understand that the First Amendment was adopted for good reasons, and those reasons did not include the furtherance of radical personal autonomy.
The 1st Amendment IMO was not added for "good reasons", it was added to keep the Gov under control and out of our hair. The writer needs to understand that the 1st ammendment applies to everyone (including porn. producers) and the minute that some group is excluded from these protections there will be an avalanch of new restrictions following on it's heels. (see the 2nd amm.)I don't know how many times it has been said but, you cannot legislate morality. That is not the gov's purpose or responsability. And even if it was the gov's job it would never work. If you want to see smut removed from everyday life it must be done from within the population on a voluntary basis, not under threat of censorship.

EBUCK

I find libertarian tenents to be valid and desirable at the federal level precisely because they do not take into account societal or cultural values.

Societal and cultural values should be avoided whenever possible in federal law. If you want laws that reflect the values of your society and culture, then pass them at the state and local level. When people start talking about needing something legislated at the federal level, they think they're going to get federal laws that reflect the values of the culture and society where they live. What they end up with instead are local laws that reflect the values of the culture and society inside the beltway.

Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see Bork's solution to the pornography problem. He obviously doesn't advocate it (I don't know anyone who does), he criticizes those who refuse to prevent adults from looking at it, yet offers no solutions or answers in this short article other than to imply that the First Amemdment isn't for personal freedoms that may offend others' sense of morality.

Or is he actually taking the long and quiet way to saying that porn should be banned and criminalized? If so, where is the line? Obviously nekkid babies in the tup or on a bearskin shouldn't be illegal, nor should Victoria Secret catalogues. On the other side, is there any redeeming social value to exlicit films and pictures of hte most deviant acts known to man (and animal)? Who decides what is and isn't? Would fiction be included?

At what point do we arrest and jail people for nothing more than looking at dirty pictures and reading raunchy material?

Who can justify prosecuting someone because they "might" commit an illegal act because they possess pornography?

Can there be any doubt that as pornography and depictions of violence become increasingly popular and increasingly accessible

Not to say it isn't so, but I am not personally aware of any increased popularity or accessibility of porno / violence (at least within the last few years) can anyone offer any empirical evidence to back this claim?

Robert H. Bork critiqued the 2nd amendment as a guarantee of the individual right to keep and bear arms too.

Needless to say, I don't put a whole lot of faith in the opinions of Bork.

It took 5 posts for nazism to be drummed up! They're slipping!