Why Does Porn Get a Pass?

Patric Henry Center for Individual Liberty ^ | 8/29/2002 | Gary Aldrich

[Zon]

Wong. I never read any of Ayn Rand's books.

[truenospinzone]

That's a keeper that will serve well to discredit you and further show you as a raving lunatic

It certainly made my home page...

[Hemingway's Ghost]

since porn is not entitled to constitutionally protected free speech.

Yes it is. Pornography means nothing in a legal sense. The word for which you're struggling is "obscenity." Anything that's not legally obscene enjoys First Amendment protection.

[Lorianne]

Hundreds of billions of dollars are made each year on the “sales” of horrible things, images that most of us want to keep away not only from our children, but from our communities."

I share your concern about porn but I disagree with your premise the most of us want a stop to it. This is simply not born out by the facts. In order for porn to be as successuful as it is, millions if not billions of people have to consume it. That is why it is so prevalent. I have no doubt the m/billions of people, even those who even publically decry porn, privately indulge in it.

Hiding from the facts won't supress them.

[Ragtime Cowgirl]

Athens and Rome both turned "prude" as they declined.

Of course. People repent when things get bad enough....too late, too often.

[BluesDuke]

I recall Norman Podhoretz, writing in his book The Bloody Crossroads, words to the effect that he found it entirely possible to admire the execution of a work even as he similarly deplored whatever idea the work sought to express; and, conversely, that he found it entirely possible to admire the idea the work sought to express while deploring what he thought poor execution. He spoke of literature, but those thoughts could well enough apply to any art work, real or purported.

Years ago, I had seen enough of Mapplethorpe's work that was not notably of the more infamous homoerotic variety to know that he was, really, a talented enough photographer. Of course, he would be neither the first nor the last to deploy a pronounced enough talent toward the expression of grotesque or, shall we say, perverse ideas or aspirations. But it is one thing for the art world to man the parapets on behalf of dubious art and something else again for the State to deny their right to do so, or for the State to compel the citizenry to finance the production or exhibition of dubious art (we allow for distinctions in taste - or lack thereof, if you prefer) by way of disbursements of the tax dollars of which the State already extorts too many. (In other words, among other things...decommission the National Endowment for the Arts, anyone?)

[chudogg]

Wong. I never read any of Ayn Rand's books.

Well im gonna call BULL**** on that one. Half the stuff you wrote in your posts sound like they came straight out of Atlas Shrugged.

[Zon]

I have no reason to lie to you. Think about it, why would a person lie about reading a best selling author. They'd have nothing to gain. Perhaps if the lived under a totalitarian or communist State they'd have cause to keep quite, but certainly not here in the USA.

You're not the first person to incorrectly assume that I have read Ayn Rand. Perhaps what she wrote is universally applicable and logical if one does their own research and critical thinking instead of buying into the dogma of external authorities. Leastwise, that's how I came upon my knowledge. And none of my research included any of Rand's books.

 BTW, I take it you disagree with her work.

[Windsong]

Also, since it is impossible to know for certain/fact whether the founding fathers and drafters of the U.S. constitution and Bill of Rights would stand for or against the Constitution of the Universe if they were alive today it is impossible for what I wrote to be a lie. For it to be a lie a person must knowingly contradict a fact. As I said, I stand by what I wrote; that the founding fathers would agree with the Constitution of the Universe.

You ARE aware of the rather blatant (and glowing) contradiction in this statement? You in one sentence state that you dont know if they would approve of Wally's "Constitution of the Universe (i.e. a fancy worded cultic essay based on athiesm and anti-Christian elements) and yet in the next say that you KNOW they would be for it.

No anarchist here for I subscribe to government that is limited to upholding and protecting individual rights and property rights.

Let me guess..government withOUT an IRS? Without taxes? How do you intend to fund the miltary? We all know of Wally's law breaking regarding the IRS and his failure to pay HIS share. If you Zonheads had your way, we wouldnt HAVE a military from which to strike terrorism in its collective asses. We wouldn't HAVE a Navy SEAL program, nor a Ranger program, or a Green Beret program or any program that involved the use of "FORCE" which you seem to be so arduously opposed.

That you chose to side with the IRS in it's crimes against Dr. Ward is no surprise to me.

Another misguided assumption on your part. I don't favor the IRS anymore than anyone else, but anyone with half an ass of a brain can figure out you anti-Christian pipsqueaks would be far worse than the Taliban if you ever assumed the Executive Seat.

Libertarian in the White House? -------> When Pigs Fly.

[Windsong]

"By the way, a phone-book thick publication is not a pamphlet. "The Book" is over a thousand pages and sells for under a hundred dollars."

Actually, I am not surprised at this. Back in 1988, I remember them sending me some "free" info on this. It was expensive then too. And I also recall them spouting off that they were going to, in 10 years or less, surpass IBM in sales. IBM! Guess what. They didnt! Neither have they achieved "biological immortality" (insert Twilight Zone music here). Cults, free-loaders, and hypocrites ("integrated honesty"?? Puh-lease!) come and go and are never in short supply in a country where freedom reigns. Re: the porn issue... I agree with what another poster said (whose name escapes me at the moment), and that is if the Founders could peer into a crystal ball and see the sort of souless garbage that would pass for "freedom of speech" these days, they would have written an entirely different Constitution.

Incidentally, if you have been here since 98, why not divulge a bit more personal info on yourself? After all, that would be the "honest" thing to do, no?

[Zon]

Incidentally, if you have been here since 98, why not divulge a bit more personal info on yourself?

I like my privacy. Especially from dishonest people that would rather attack and lie than be honest and discuss.

After all, that would be the "honest" thing to do, no?

Self-protection is the honest thing to do. There's no way you get to define what is honest. Not when you don't give a second thought to lying through your teeth and accuse me and or Neo-Tech of prohibiting a military despite you most likely having read a post that said I and Neo-Tech agree with having/needing a military.

In fact, your dishonesty grants me a free pass on never responding to you because you have demonstrated no respect toward me. Thus you don't even deserve me telling you the time of day. So why do I respond? Someday you'll know the answer.

[Zon]

You ARE aware of the rather blatant (and glowing) contradiction in this statement?

Yes. Maybe I'd be wrong. Maybe I'd be right. Obviously I think I'd be right.

NRST.  Most likely you have seen the following or similar as I have posted it several times. You may have even  commented on it before. Anyways this will answer your silly military straw man that you fabricated just so that you could kick the stuffing out of it.

Politics is not the solution, it's the problem. Honest business and science is the solution. It has always been the solution.

War of Two Worlds
Value Creators versus Value Destroyers

The first thing civilization must have is business/science. It's what the family needs so that its members can live creative, productive, happy lives. Business/science can survive, even thrive without government/bureaucracy.

Government/bureaucracy cannot survive without business/science. In general, business/science and family is the host and government/bureaucracy is a parasite.

Keep valid government services that protect individual rights and property. ...Military defense, FBI, CIA, police and courts. With the rest of government striped away those few valid services would be several fold more efficient and effective than they are today. 

Underwriters Laboratory is a private sector business that has to compete in a capitalist market. Underwriters laboratory is a good example of success where government fails.

Any government agency that is a value to people and society -- which there are but a few -- could much more effectively serve people by being in the private sector where competition demands maximum performance.

Wake up! They are the parasites. We are the host. We don't need them. They need us.

* * *

We wouldn't HAVE a Navy SEAL program, nor a Ranger program, or a Green Beret program or any program that involved the use of "FORCE" which you seem to be so arduously opposed.

Initiation of force I am against. Obviously there are times when in the process of self-defense that force must be used. Of course, The Constitution of the Universe that I posted at 49  and you responded to at 89, in Article 2 it states: "Force may be morally and legally used only in self-defense against those who violate Article 1"

Is your reading comprehension really that deficient or are you just playing dumb?

don't favor the IRS anymore than anyone else, but anyone with half an ass of a brain can figure out you anti-Christian pipsqueaks would be far worse than the Taliban if you ever assumed the Executive Seat.

This is the second thread you have proclaimed that I was anti-Christian. I'm not and the last time you did this I challenged you to post any quote of mine that was anti-Christian and you couldn't. I am anti-Crusades, anti-Dark Ages and anti-priest-pedophile. Perhaps you think when I say those you think I'm anti-Christian. If so, then I guess that makes you pro-priest-pedophile.

Libertarian in the White House? -------> When Pigs Fly.

You're probably right about that.

Neo-Tech in the White House? Two words; President Bush. 'Nuf said.

[Protagoras]

I concider this article to be pornographic. It should be heavily taxed.

[Protagoras]

But it doesn't mean the goverment should take the role of forcing people to behave in moral ways or else.

If you disagree with censorship, you embrace pornography. Didn't you read the comment of the mope who brought his anti-libertarian agenda to the front with this article? It's the first post.

[Protagoras]

The Taliban punishes what they consider to be immoral but they don't try to make money off of it.

The tactics are different, but not the goal.

And notice that the only reason the author wants to go the tax route on the issue is because the court said he could no longer point guns at the people who view it.

[Zon]

And notice that the only reason the author wants to go the tax route on the issue is because the court said he could no longer point guns at the people who view it.

A milder, albeit more pernicious form of initiation of force than threats of fine and jail.

[Protagoras]

I'm completely against any and all taxes. I'm overtaxed.

Which raises the question about how these geniuses are going to collect this tax from the internet providers of porn located all over the world. Just think of what the next steps would have to be. Does the word "China" ring a bell?

[Protagoras]

Legalize it all and tax it.

Any thoughts on how to collect it from the far reaches of the world?

[Protagoras]

A milder, albeit more pernicious form of initiation of force than threats of fine and jail.

Yes, but not by choice. The first choice is always the threat of violence.