Posted on 08/15/2007 1:58:32 PM PDT by LightedCandle
Ed Meese, former attorney general under Ronald Reagan and Judith Reisman, noted author and scholar kick off "FamilyFragments.com" a website dedicated to fighting pornogrpahy.
I’d like to see stats on what percentage of those in the military think porn is OK - I don’t think that would support your argument.
And who’s bringing in homosexuality? I’m willing to bet that’s not the kind of porn most people on here are thinking about.
Now that would just be a matter of perception of harm wouldn't it?
A Jewish Family/Child may be made to feel ostracized if prayers or lessons that appear Govt sanctioned portray Jesus Christ as the Messiah -- I would say that that is a situation that could conceivably "cause harm".
Our military is a democracy now? Ask only the commanders if they think porn is okay. You might get a different result.
I was talking about personal morality as I (perhaps wrongly) assumed you were.
Porno-patriots believe all porn is a sacred and God-given right which our founding fathers sacrificed their lives and fortunes for. Fag porn, porn with animals, coprophilia, incest, they think all these things are protected by the first amendment.
>> However, I don’t see why you consider it a misuse of justice if actual damages are proven. Just because you or I can’t imagine a case doesn’t mean they won’t be able to make one.
It is a misuse of justice to SEEK damages from a company for your lack of self-control ... regardless of whether you win or not.
>> Agreed, and morality is “legislated” all the time. At least it appears you agree people have a right to regulate porn. Personally, I’d like to see it regulated out of existence, but that’s just my own opinion.
I agree, to an extent, that you have the right to regulate porn. Like many other forms of speech (including political protests, for instance), the government has the right to place “time and place” restrictions on pornography (and all adult businesses). Meaning, you can regulate WHERE it is sold ... but, I believe it entirely unconstitutional to “regulate it out of existence” or to regulate its use in the privacy of ones home.
The first amendment simply does NOT allow the government to censor speech based on content ... regardless of whether the content is explicit, controversial, political, etc.
>> I also wouldn’t be so sure a VAST majority of the country favor the unlimited production and distribution of porn.
Who said anything about “unlimited production and distribution”? The vast majority would consider pornography a protected form of speech under the first amendment, subject to the same time & place restrictions as any other speech.
>> However, only a cold-hearted scumbag or fool (not saying you’re one) would place a case of booze in front of an alcoholic. So what if many of your fellow citizens crash and burn as long as you’re having fun, right?
Alcoholics must learn to live in a society where most people are capable of controlling themselves and their consumption of alcohol. No, I wouldn’t put booze in front of an alcoholic ... but I wouldn’t restrict the sale of booze to non-alcoholics either.
All addicts must simply learn the art of self control ... but their addiction is no excuse to intrude on the liberties of those who are capable of controlling themselves.
>> Which explains why vices, like gambling and hard-core porn, were widely promoted and praised by the founding fathers. [...] Somehow I don’t think the founding fathers had the same concepts of liberty that you have.
You seem to have an idyllic view of the founders ... womanizing, gambling and drinking were popular pass-times of MANY of them (Sam Adams and Ben Franklin, for instance). Perhaps you haven’t read of the exploits of Franklin. Though pornography wasn’t an issue (probably due to printing costs), Franklin was widely known to have indulged in prostitutes quite often, and was a heavy drinker.
Franklin himself WROTE of (perhaps “praising and promoting”) the necessity of prostitutes (who he called “low women”). Sam Adams was a drunk. Jefferson was a womanizer. Though I have no specific knowledge of gambling by the founders ... I wouldn’t doubt it happened.
The founders were well versed in the vices, and their concept of liberty, embodied in the government they founded, allowed the continuation of those vices. I have a feeling my “concept of liberty” isn’t too far off.
H
Tailgunner Joe seems to have an unnatural preocupation/obsession with the subject....
Just making an observation...
Hemorrhage wrote: “You cannot control the entirety of the outside world.”
True, but that’s not even arguing the same point. I’m not trying to control the entire world. I’m trying to place reasonable restrictions on porn. I suppose you support legalizing all the illegals, too, because heaven knows you can’t stop all of them from coming here!
Hemorrhage wrote: “I am also aware that it (TV) has yet to destroy my life, my family, or the moral fiber of my Christian home.”
Good for you, seriously! However, isn’t it immoral to stand by and do nothing while others self destruct? Your little island of tranquility isn’t going to last forever if society at large self destructs. Sorry, I don’t think you’ll get very far with the “am I my brother’s keeper?” argument.
Hemorrhage wrote: “It is simply not within the governments purview, particularly under the U.S. Constitution, to control the content of information that the public views.”
You are wrong. It’s not within the federal government’s purview. The states, on the other hand, have certain rights not granted to the federal government.
This isn’t a black and white issue. For example, freedom of speech doesn’t give you the right to say whatever you want whenever you want. This is about determining where to draw the line, and I think it should be tightly drawn around the pornographers rather than your family.
Porn peddling isn’t some great freedom worthy of protection.
At the very least, it’s entirely legal for the states to regulate it, they DO regulate it, and I’d love for them to regulate it more.
Your idea of freedom and liberty is greatly distorted from what the founders thought. Otherwise, how did we survive so long (until the 70’s) with significant restrictions on porn?
They don't believe in personal responsibility or personal morality ... TG and those of his ilk ... have so little control over themselves, they feel the need to be protected by the govt., they assume we all must be similarly weak and need govt overseers.
They don't believe in personal responsibility or personal morality ... TG and those of his ilk ... have so little control over themselves, they feel the need to be protected by the govt., they assume we all must be similarly weak and need govt overseers.
>> You appear to be claiming that somewhere in the above paragraph, there is wording which declares that the Constitutional restrictions on the federal government, as listed in the Bill of Rights, now applies to state and local governments as well. I will need you to explain to me where that wording is.
Here you go ...
“No State shall ... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ...”.
What “liberty” do you suggest that this phrase refers to? The definition of “liberty” in this passage is the same as the definition of “liberty” in the 5th amendment ... and necessarily includes the freedom of speech.
>> The “due process” clause has nothing to do with the ability of individual states to enact laws, with the possible exception of laws which attempt to nullify due process requirements.
You are entirely wrong. See the following passage from the 14th amendment ...
“NO STATE SHALL MAKE OR ENFORCE ANY LAW ... etc, etc, etc.”
The WHOLE point of the amendment is to prevent individual states from passing laws which (1) infringe on privileges and immunities of citizenship, (2) deny life, liberty or property without due process or (3) deny equal protection.
>> Furthermore, the fact that this clause was included in the 14th, worded specifically to apply to states is evidence that the original amendments were not meant to limit states in the first place.
EXACTLY! The original amendments DIDN’T apply to the States ... UNTIL the 14th amendment was ratified. That was the entire point of the 14th amendment ... to ensure citizens’ Consititutional protections from State governments.
>> but there is nothing in that clause to suggest that rights or prohibitions for citizens of each state, which existed before the 14th passed, can no longer exist.
The other clauses suggest exactly that ... rights or prohibitions which violate the due process, equal protection or privileges and immunities clauses CANNOT continue to exist (such as blacks not voting, etc.).
H
SubGeniusX wrote: “A Jewish Family/Child may be made to feel ostracized if prayers or lessons that appear Govt sanctioned portray Jesus Christ as the Messiah — I would say that that is a situation that could conceivably “cause harm”.”
Which is probably why the ALCU is winning a number of these cases. Unfortunately, this is a slippery slope the SCOTUS seems intent to explore. That’s why we have illogical rulings against some displays of the 10 commandments (not all) by a SCOTUS working from a building that prominently displays the 10 commandments.
Tailgunner Joe wrote: “Fag porn, porn with animals, coprophilia, incest, they think all these things are protected by the first amendment.”
And snuff films should be legal, too, so long as the victims are willing participants, right? And maybe we should set the age of consent to a more reasonable 10 years old, too. After all, people should be free to do whatever they want, right? That’s what made America great, our liberty to do whatever we want whenever we want.
I find these libertarians to be very...tiring.
Also not sure how many porn producers are homosexuals - the one or two I know anything about are actually happily married.
Just an observation.
A quick trip from square one to ground zero:
Symbols transfer both ideas and emotions.
There are those which are good and those which are bad. Some of the bad violates the recipient (whether he wants it or not) and some even violate those who are used in the process (whether they want it or not).
Protecting people from violence is what government does.
End of jouney.
You’re not exaggerating. These scumbags really showed the Christian right they hate so much their vision of “free” America. It was a weeks long snuff film of the court ordered starvation and death of an innocent handicapped woman named Terri Schiavo.
Hemorrhage wrote: “The vast majority would consider pornography a protected form of speech under the first amendment, subject to the same time & place restrictions as any other speech.”
I want to get this straight. So, you’re saying the content of porn shouldn’t be restricted in any way, shape, or form, but its distribution should be restricted? Oh wait, we have content restrictions if children are involved. So, we are also allowed to limit content as well as distribution. Agreed?
If we can regulate content and distribution, what’s wrong with putting the burden on the pornographers? Instead of giving them mostly free reign, how about putting the burden on them to keep their trash out of public view?
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.