Posted on 04/05/2004 9:23:56 PM PDT by Quick1
WASHINGTON -- Lam Nguyen's job is to sit for hours in a chilly, quiet room devoid of any color but gray and look at pornography. This job, which Nguyen does earnestly from 9 to 5, surrounded by a half-dozen other "computer forensic specialists" like him, has become the focal point of the Justice Department's operation to rid the world of porn.
In this field office in Washington, 32 prosecutors, investigators and a handful of FBI agents are spending millions of dollars to bring anti-obscenity cases to courthouses across the country for the first time in 10 years. Nothing is off limits, they warn, even soft-core cable programs such as HBO's long-running Real Sex or the adult movies widely offered in rooms of major hotel chains.
Department officials say they will send "ripples" through an industry that has proliferated on the Internet and grown into an estimated $10 billion-a-year colossus profiting Fortune 500 corporations such as Comcast, which offers hard-core movies on a pay-per-view channel.
(Excerpt) Read more at baltimoresun.com ...
Dealing with sin is not the primary reason behind regulation of strip clubs. Keep in mind, strip clubs are heavily regulated in the God-fearing, bible-reading town of Los Angeles but quite prolific (and incredibly risque) in the bible-belt city of Atlanta.
Rather, strip clubs are targeted because of so-called "secondary effects" that they cause, such as drunk driving, prostitution, drunk and disorderly behavior etc.
The "secondary effects" argument may or may not be a good one when it comes to strip clubs. However, when it comes to people engaging in sinful behavior in the privacy of their own homes (whether watching pornography, engaging in homosexual sex, swinging etc.), the fear of secondary effects does not seem to be applicable.
Try selling it on the basis that it's "sin", and you'll lose almost every time.
These restrictions are sold on the basis of the banned activities being "criminal", or "reducing property values", or "seedy", or "dangerous to children". The farthest they typically ever go is "immoral", and not very often. This is a view that can be held without regard to "sin".
Having government deal with "sin" IS a recipe for tyranny, because the presumption is the government has the backing of God. It doesn't. Does God write and approve zoning ordinances, or fallible men and women ?
So technically, we can say that we, American taxpayers, are contributing to the decay of society then. After all, our tax dollars are paying people to sit around and look at porn all day.
I could almost justify this whole thing if Ashcroft was going after the porn pop-ups or misleading websites where you get the porn thrust at you involuntarily. I could totally see that, because we don't have porn projected at us from billboards or storefronts or broadcast television (yes, there are things pushing that, but then again, some consider the women's underwear section of the Sears catalogue to be porn). Going after adult porn in general is a ridiculous waste of government resources.
Speaking of the decay of society, I would be willing to bet that poor parenting is doing more harm than all of the porn out there.
And since you're probably basing that on your religious laws, so should adultery, Sabbath breaking, wearing nice clothes and being the wrong denomination. Those were also religious puritan laws aimed at controlling the morality of the masses.
Gotta love PJ!
You brought this up for a reason. You used those words deliberately. Based on that, can you cite for me one example where the government passed a law solely because the activity was "sinful".
And if they never have (and likely never will), why did you even bring this up? Seems a little "Chicken Little-ish", yes?
As an exercise: Religion is damaging to society, this is a basic truth. It has been known to cause divisiveness and persecution. People disagreeing with the truth does not in fact invalidate that truth.
By your reasoning I am automatically right.
And me. The point is that in order to combat "sin" a government would need tyrannical powers. We believe that exercise of those powers is more damaging than any sin could be in itself.
BTW, that is illegal. If you ever find porn at domain with an innocent sounding name, especially one that could be found by kids in looking for kid stuff (especially like a misspelled "harrypottr.com"), write it down and call your prosecutor. It is a federal crime. But I'm sure Ashcroft is too busy chasing down adults producing porn for adults.
I agree. But they never have and never will. See my post #368.
"I don't have the time to try to convince you that porn is bad, if you think otherwise. I don't like spitting into the wind, as it were."
Good day.
So, it's your position that conservatives should be in favor of more intrusive government?
Blue laws.
Pay up.
Yep. For instance, if I set up a lemonade stand that charges $20 a glass, the community will put me out of business soon enough.
Even without the more fundamental reasons why this is a bad idea, this is sufficient reason to abandon this nonsense. It would be bad enough if it merely diverted efforts from the defense of human civilization against Wahabiwacko barbarians; it is absolutely intolerable when it destroys the respect the defenders need to do their jobs.
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.