Posted on 08/22/2006 12:04:00 PM PDT by King of Florida
NEW YORK - Pornographic movies now seem nearly as pervasive in America's hotel rooms as tiny shampoo bottles, and the lodging industry shows little concern as conservative activists rev up a protest campaign aimed at triggering a federal crackdown.
A coalition of 13 conservative groups — including the Family Research Council and Concerned Women for America — took out full-page ads in some editions of USA Today earlier this month urging the Justice Department and FBI to investigate whether some of the pay-per-view movies widely available in hotels violate federal and state obscenity laws.
The coalition also is trying to draw attention to CleanHotels.com, a directory of hotels and motels nationwide that pledge to exclude adult offerings from their in-room entertainment service.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
please add me to your libertarian ping list. Thanks!
Before the NFA in 1934, there were no restrictions. Anyone could and did build whatever they wanted to, as they saw fit to do. They could make and have whatever explosives they wanted. The NFA wasn't changed until the 60s. That's when the more draconian measures were put into place, as far as I know. The limit on caliber is .50 for modern weapons. Otherwise it's classified as a destructive device- the same as a good firecracker.
SO the argument isn't that they participate in private because they feel ashamed, rather they participate in private out of respect for you and to avoid offending you.
Saloon
Trust me, dcwusmc believes that every man is his own island, that we should be allowed to do whatever we want, whenever we want, and never ever think about paying taxes.
Possible, although people often do the opposite - try to force you to accept who they are and what they do.
Try this on and see what you think.
A group of conservatives ask hotel owners to make a personal moral decision not to offer a service. Libertarians should have no problem with this. It's a business decision that the hotel owners have a right to make. This particular service is one that most people would be ashamed to admit they use. Therefore it is a service that is reasonable for a moral man to refuse to offer.
The article is posted on FR and people scream bloody murder about nanny staters and people who don't want to have fun but don't want others to have fun either. "Don't like it, don't use it" they scream. Yet nobody is defending anything on his/her own behalf.
So, a perfectly reasonable request to make a personal decison to curtail a service that causes a recognizedly shameful behavior draws a great deal of ire from people who want to defend other people's rights to the service they don't admit wanting.
Shalom.
Bingo.
Many of the cannons used in our own revolution were privately owned.
Equating the specifically enumerated second amendment protection of the right to bear arms, with the esoteric right to porn that must be inferred among the penumbras is about as ridiculous as the earlier comment equating porn and abortion.
State & local governments use community standards to justify their supposed 'power to prohibit' - guns, drugs, porn, whatever...
In other words, while the power to set community standards is rightly recognized under the 10th Amendment as reserved to the People and to the States,
You conveniently 'forget' that in the 10th - some powers are prohibited to States..
the power to set community standards regarding ownership of firearms is not as it is clearly prohibited by the 2nd Amendment.
Yep, that is one of the prohibited powers mentioned in the 10th.
I already stated on this thread that I would be loathe to petition the federal government to restrict what people can choose to buy for entertainment. But my citation of the 10th Amendment should have made it clear that the power to establish community standards is CLEARLY reserved to the people and to the states. For the Feds to enforce "community standards" on states would violate the 10th Amendment.
The "Law of the Land" applies to the States, and it is the duty of the feds to enforce it as written.
...and getting back on topic, behaviors, not things, should be our concern here. One may behave in whatever bizarre manner they please, or own whatever unpleasant property they choose so long as others aren't harmed.
Generally speaking, you are allowed (read: should be allowed, were it not for gun banning busy bodies; but I digress...), under the Constitution, to own and use any weapon that may be accurately fired. A cannon can be directed at a specific target, but a nuke cannot. You may fire a weapon, such as a rifle or pistol, so long as uninvolved third parties are not harmed. The thing involved is not what matters; it's the use of that thing in relation to the rights of others that's important.
Porn, featuring performers who voluntarily participate, viewed by someone in a hotel room, who purchases it of their own free will, does not harm any disinterested third party. If it were forced upon hotel guests without their consent, then that would be another matter. That would be like firing a weapon indiscriminately.
Owning a weapon is a right, but that right does not give its owner the power to violate the rights of others. Viewing, owning, or making pornography is a right; but, not if others are forced to participate in some way. What's being discussed here is involves adults who consent to be involved. No third party is having their rights violated. If you view porn in your hotel room and I don't have to see it or hear it, then my rights aren't being violated. If I turn on The Sound Of Music in the next room and turn the volume up to 11, then your rights are being violated; even though the material in question in not generally regarded as offensive. It's all a matter of who consents to be involved.
I have and if you read this thread there have been many people who said that they have have watched porn or enjoy it on occasion. No one is showing any shame, which they shouldn't.
If you're getting that sort of response on one of the most conservative mainstream sites on the net, what do you think you'd get in the general public?
If you want to use the guns of the Federal Govt. to restrict actions (given those actions are not violently or coercively depriving others of life, liberty or property) then you are a nannystater and possess a perspective that is hostile to the constitution. I don't think this describes you though, right?
Asking the government to enforce existing laws justifies scorn? I disagree. I think those who think the laws are wrong should work to repeal those laws.
I'm not sure what laws they are talking about. If the hotels are not being sufficiently careful to ensure that minors can not get access to pornography without their parents' consent (and I know this happens) then I agree with the groups. If the laws say that people can't watch what they want to in a hotel room once rented, then I would disagree with those laws.
Was the original article specific?
Shalom.
This particular business arose because people felt and feel shame. Bully for you if you don't. We'll save the argument over whether you should for another time.
BTW: Once I have left active participation in a thread, I don't always go back and read everything written since I've left. I look at pings to me, but not everything in-between. Yours is the first such post that I have seen.
Shalom.
They are trying to use the FED to legislate morality and that never works and never will. No matter how hard they clamp down someone, somewhere will be able to get away with it.
The whole contention as I understand it was based on a fear that kids are being exposed to porn because the hotels have pay per view porn.
Any rational person who understands the principles of individual freedom and accountability knows dragging the FED into this sort of thing is a veiled attempt at using government force to impose thier morality. Kids watching porn is not at the level of a crisis even if it happens every once in a while and certainly doesn't warrant the expense incurred by a national FBI inventigation. We have more pressing matters for our federal government to attend to.
Why not just have them bring there laptops with their own porn on them. That way everyone is fine because nobody will be forced to watch it or even on the schedule. Sounds like a fair way of handling it. With porn all over the web it should make porn junkies happy.
Wow! You are stretching. I can't believe you compare poor little dead kids with "needing a cold shower". You either are extremely rigid or sarcastic.
And I doubt highly that these youngish teens had any use for porn...I believe they had other ideas.
Based on the quote you posted they were trying to use the FED to enforce existing legislation. That's a very different thing.
I have been in rooms where cable access channels had pornographic material available without any access restriction whatsoever. Granted this was at 2:00 am. I would not put it past many children to be up at that hour watching TV while their parents sleep.
That said, I agree with you for the most part. Pay per view is a private agreement between the traveller and the hotel owner and there is nothing but trouble trying to legislate this. Since I haven't read the laws being discussed I can't comment on whether what FoTF and the others are trying to do falls into this category or not.
I will also say that I would not be unhappy if the hotel owners of America decided they didn't want to provide ppv smut and people who REALLY wanted to view it could not get access anywhere but at hotels that charge by the hour. America is not best served where every vice that interests a man is catered to. But I would not want to see laws banning same.
Shalom.
Or moan. :-)
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.