>> Will you read the article, for heaven’s sake.
I read it ... twice. Thanks for the slightly condescending suggestion, though.
>> This is not about you and the missus seeing an explicit recorded romp. This is about stuff that’s pure poison, training videos for predation, as well as conspiracy by pedophiles.
The article makes no apparent distinction between the viewing of explicit material by consenting adults within the confines of a healthy marriage, and what you call “pure poison”.
The article simply states, “We envision a society where the negative consequences of producing and distributing pornography far outweigh the financial benefits.” It doesn’t mention “training videos for predation” or a pedophiliac conspiracy ... except for a vague reference to children viewing “scenes of brutality” (which I am, of course, against ... but I am also willing to take responsibility for protecting my own kids).
If this is, in fact, about “pure poision”, predators and pedophiles ... then they need to re-edit their article, because that is certainly not what I gathered (particularly since pedophiles and predators are never mentioned ... addiction, “vow breaking” and spouses becoming disconnected is mentioned). Predators and pedophiles deserve anything and everything that is coming to them ... I’d even support execution for repeat offenders.
What I do not support is taking away the liberties of law abiding citizens in order to punish the law-breaking citizens (pedophiles, etc.). If this is, as I suspect, about protecting my marriage and my children from pornography ... I can handle that myself, thanks.
This sounds like an attack, not on predation or pedophilia, but on the freedom of American adults to view whatever they like (explicit or otherwise), and the freedom of American corporations to produce that material for which there is a demand.
If they want to attack predators ... their attack should be more focused on the predators themselves, not on legally-produced explicit material.
H
The use of lawsuit as a mechanism suggests an inbuilt corrective: if the jurors think the litigant fails to prove harm or fails to prove the nexus of responsibility, out goes the case. They’ll have to craft their arguments to be overwhelmingly persuasive, not just to Mr. Meese, Dr. Reisman, and Mrs. Don-o, but to 12 jurors who will include in their midst such skeptical citizens as yourself.
Hemorrhage wrote: “If this is, as I suspect, about protecting my marriage and my children from pornography ... I can handle that myself, thanks.”
How incredibly naive. Playing defense is fool’s game, because you’re facing a literal army of porn pushers. While you’re trying to restrict access to your children, the porn pushers will be selling them a bunch of lies, like the one that porn is harmless fun. And, I’m not talking about the hard stuff. Just turn on the TV and see how much it glorifies illicit sex.
You only have to fail once. If you do, your children can make mistakes that last a lifetime.
Now, please explain to me why the perverts should have the right do whatever they wish while goodly people hunker down in a defensive war? Sorry, but I’d rather have the smut lords go back under the rocks where they should be.