>> 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
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?