Why Does Porn Get a Pass?

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

[Diverdogz]

There are plenty of people who would whip out their digital cameras, snap smutty pictures and post them on the internet...FOR FREE. A 25% tax on $0 is still $0.

[Protagoras]

There are plenty of people who would whip out their digital cameras, snap smutty pictures and post them on the internet...FOR FREE.

No question, it's just one more problem with these nutty schemes to force values on people at the point of a gun.

[YoungKentuckyConservative]

Just think of what the next steps would have to be. Does the word "China" ring a bell?

Sure! And we might as well put those traitors at Yahoo at the top of the list, since they abetted China in "censoring" the Internet. I'm doing my best to avoid the use of Yahoo at all costs and will do the same for anyone I see advertising on Yahoo.

It's funny how China found their answer to censorship through plain old American capitalism. Bribe Yahoo and all is well. Maybe Clinton can become a board member. He's about as Yahoo as they get.

[Stone Mountain]

Who gets to decide what porn is?

[Aquinasfan]

Let’s tax porn back into the dark alley where it belongs.

Excellent idea. But if the tax is too high they'll start selling it from indian reservations over the web...

[Aquinasfan]

Thanks for #38.

[Aquinasfan]

The Constitution of the Universe

According to who? Based on what?

[borkrules]

Of course I am sympathetic to small, limited government. But small, limited governments work best with a moral society of individuals who do not think of themselves as social atoms who can do whatever they want with impunity because they do not believe their actions have any effect on others. Small government works best with a moral society which is not afraid to enforce its values, with laws as well as with customs.

Bravo. Well said.

[borkrules]

You really are a hoot.

And you're a nut.

Thanks for sharing your wack-job views, kook. Now, step away from the crack pipe.

[Zon]

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

So true. In the last century governments chose to kill sixty million of their own citizens.

[Zon]

Thanks for sharing your wack-job views, kook.

No doubt you too detest The Constitution of the Universe posted at #49  because it doesn't grant government agents nor yourself the power to initiate force against people nor allow you to enlist government agents to initiate force against people on your behalf.

[Zon]

According to reason and based on reason.

[lainie]

Ah yes, how silly of me. I'm not in favor of censorship, therefore, I embrace pornography. Of course! I'm also not in favor of government snooping and warrantless searches. That must mean I am in favor of kiddie porn and snuff films?

[garbanzo]

I've seen few more idiotic posts than this.

What's idiotic about it? Why do you separate public-as-porn-consumer from public-as-voter? It's the same people. This notion of evil porn-pushers foisting porn on a hapless public is cognitive dissonance to explain why porn exists in a supposedly moral society.

[Luke21]

I agree with you 100 percent.

The only good thing to come out of the boom in internet porn is the dwindling and closing of sleaze shops in neighborhoods and near schools. Adult businesses and arcades formerly allowed for the collecting of all sorts of pestilence in one locale, while making filth look exciting and gaudy to the next generation of users, usually young boys. I was one of them.

Certainly a porno addict staring at a computer screen in the privacy of his own living room is more desirable than the bookstores of the last generation. That's progress. Drive the filth out of polite society.

Pornography and abortion have this in common. They are shameful, and often used in secret. We defeat pornography as we are defeating abortion, by showing by our own living examples that doing the right thing for the right reason is worthwhile, and by being sure that our own lives are free of vice and moral poison. Otherwise telling others what their conduct should be is so much self righteous nonsense.

[Fester Chugabrew]

"Every law ever passed in history has been an act of legislating morality."

I see your point, and I've argued the same before. The original intent of this saying, however, is that one cannot change hearts by enacting laws.

Even the Apostle Paul makes this clear in his Epistle to the Romans. "By the law comes knowledge of sin." Human nature is such that it craves those things that are wrong, all the more when the message of prohibition is clear.

So . . . we can pursue this issue with laws if we wish, but we're kidding ourselves if we think we'll bring about a new world of true love and kindness by so doing.

[Windsong]

"Keep valid government services that protect individual rights and property. ...Military defense, FBI, CIA, police and courts."

Laughable, considering that Wallace objected to FBI agents confiscating his precious "biological immortality" research disks/docs. And Courts? I read the court transcripts where Wally tried to defend himself to the Judge. Stupidity really does love company. At any rate they are there for anyone to read. Just do a search on Google.

Initiation of force I am against. Obviously there are times when in the process of self-defense that force must be used.

OK, so at what part of Special Ops does the "initiation" begin? What point does it end?

And any visitor to your site will eventually find the "Beast" website involving gross misquotations of the Book of Revelations as depicted in the New Testament (Ok, lets call it a BUTCHERY of the Book of Revelations). Every verse is translated into "Neo-Speak-Bull$hit" that would bring a hurtful stab in the heart to any devoted Christian. Or Jew for that matter. I'd call that "anti-Christian". You speak for your NT cult, so hence, you speak foe those that develop the website. Their views = YOUR views.

[Protagoras]

Ah yes, how silly of me. I'm not in favor of censorship, therefore, I embrace pornography. Of course! I'm also not in favor of government snooping and warrantless searches. That must mean I am in favor of kiddie porn and snuff films?

Sadly, many here would have people believe precisely that. To the detriment of the site, and to the cause of liberty and the fundamental values of our society.

Why these childish people are allowed to post such trash while others are excluded for other reasons is open to speculation.

[Zon]

Laughable, considering that Wallace objected to FBI agents confiscating his precious "biological immortality" research disks/docs.

Shows how little you know. The documents and discs including originals were of all their publications as well as over $100,000 that was earmarked for biologic immortality research was confiscated/stolen by 16 armed IRS agents -- not the FBI. One of those agents punched and kicked an editor to the ground, sending him to the hospital with broken ribs. You laugh at people that are working toward curing death. Most people object to anyone stealing their property and especially when it's their own government that's doing the stealing. You laugh at the victims of government agents stealing from their own citizens.

And any visitor to your site will eventually find the "Beast" website involving gross misquotations of the Book of Revelations as depicted in the New Testament (Ok, lets call it a BUTCHERY of the Book of Revelations). Every verse is translated into "Neo-Speak-Bull$hit" that would bring a hurtful stab in the heart to any devoted Christian.

To the contrary, I suggest the interested reader go to the Neo-Tech Web site and read Chapter 2 of Book One.

You speak for your NT cult, so hence, you speak foe those that develop the website. Their views = YOUR views.

You don't like their Web site, fine. That you're a proponent of guilt by association, that's dishonest and irrational. Considering that some of your lies have been documented here, that shows a lack of commitment to being a good Christian. Or are your lies you speaking for Christianity according to Windsong's policy of guilt by association.

[Zon]

Laughable, considering that Wallace objected to FBI agents confiscating his precious "biological immortality" research disks/docs.

The documents and discs including originals were of all their publications as well as over $100,000 that was earmarked for biologic immortality research was confiscated/stolen by 16 armed IRS agents -- not the FBI. You laugh at the victims of government agents stealing from their own citizens. That's irrational and dishonest.

Ending Lawyer-Like Dishonesties #2

They Laugh, Giggle, and Snort at their Victims

Across the Internet, certain lawyers, bureaucrats, tax accountants, and other government agents were caught laughing, giggling, and snorting publicly at their suffering, dying victims. That sadistic mirth occurred when criminal IRS atrocities inflicted on those victims were posted to Usenet newsgroups. Examples of such "laughable" victims are illustrated in the following IRS Abuse Reports selected from those Reports being emailed daily by Neo-Tech Publishing to 300 U.S. Congressmen. In addition to publicly exposing professional value destroyers who laugh at their victims, those Abuse Reports combined with two Neo-Tech tax cases currently in the 9th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals along with potential class-action lawsuits have another purpose: Replace the irrational income tax with a stopgap consumption "tax" as the first step toward a non-force Golden-Helmet revenue system described in the Neo-Tech literature.

What follows are examples of innocent families criminally abused and then destroyed by the IRS tax laws passed by Congress. Those are the victims about whom IRS lawyers and agents, gun-backed bureaucrats, and IRS-dependent accountants were caught laughing, giggling, and snorting:

IRS Abuse Reports: www.neo-tech.com/irs-class-action/

IRS Abuse Report #163

Date: Tue, Apr 8, 1997 1:32 PM
To: sue@irs-class-action.com
From: BG

"In 1993 my husband and I were notified, due to an audit, that there was a problem with one of our previous tax returns. My husband, Bill, contacted the IRS many, many, many times over a two year period in an attempt to remedy the situation. He was laid-off from his job in 1992, and after 3 months found another job at 1/4 of the salary he had been making. Needless to say, things were very hard on us. He tried very hard to make the IRS understand this and tried to work out this situation with them. The IRS was VERY difficult to work with.

"In March, 1995, my husband committed suicide (shot himself in the head), leaving our son, Justin (12 years old) and I in unbelievable GRIEF (not to mention the terrible financial situation). Since Bill's death I had to put my son in a "special" school and he has been seeing a psychologist every single week since then. He is still devastated.

"Bill left me a suicide note mentioning that he just couldn't handle dealing with the IRS any longer, and hopes that some day I'll be able to forgive him.

"If only they (IRS) had worked with him, none of this would have happened."

* * *

Below is another victim's reply to the above IRS Abuse Report:

Date: Thur, April 10, 1997
To: sue@irs.class-action.com
From: AP

"This is almost routine (at least the part about the IRS failing to respond or being hard to work with). One of my best friends committed suicide after the IRS ruined his thriving business (destroying 25 good jobs in the process) and essentially caused his wife's premature death from cancer. After he contacted them in good faith (BEFORE his liability was due) and asked them for more time or some kind of payment plan to handle his tax bill, to which they said 'no problem'. They then seized his bank account and padlocked his business doors. His cancer ridden wife was then told to 'go home' by the hospital in which the medical bills could no longer be paid by a man whose entire fortune had been seized by IRS thugs.

"Then, of course, there is the famous Alex Council story from Winston-Salem, NC. This was another man who committed suicide so his life insurance could be used to pay off what later (in court) turned out to be an erroneous lien on his family's home. This one was covered on 20/20. It is the one where an IRS regional director arrogantly told the 20/20 interviewer: 'Just because a judge says we're wrong, doesn't mean we are.' "

And, finally, is a Usenet response reporting on another victim:

 In article 
 <3385B7F6.34CF@spinach.xylogics.com>, RC 
 <rc@aol.com> wrote: 
 >IRS Abuse Reports #142 - #144 wrote: 
 > 
 >>All this heartache from our government not 
 >>a foreign power. 
 >>but our own UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT. Our 
 >>dreams are shattered, our lives destroyed. 
 >>My heart goes out 
 >>to all the people   who shared their stories on 
 >>this service, I cried for you, I cried for myself. 
 > >I wonder how the IRS apologists will explain this one? 
 

*****

Neo-Tech Publishing Company (NTP) is effectively undermining political-agenda "laws" while working to replace the irrational income tax with a transitional consumption tax. NTP knows through feedback from specific Congressmen and Senators, especially Congressman Archer along with Senators Lugar and Roth, that its IRS-Abuse-Report program is having a material impact on Capital Hill and in the media. In mid 1997, Time Magazine and CBS Nightly News requested and used information from NTP's Abuse Reports. And, in June 1997, 60 Minutes came to Las Vegas to interview NTP's attorney about those Abuse Reports for an August 1997 program. In July 1997, Newsday gathered details from various IRS Abuse Reports for a feature article. Further, CNN's web site provided a direct link to the web site showing the IRS Abuse Reports. Newspapers from the Kansas City Star to the Christian Science Monitor also provided direct links to the IRS Abuse Reports. In October, 1997, NBC News, CNBC, and Cox Broadcasting contacted NTP for further information about the IRS Abuse Reports.

By publishing those Abuse Reports, Neo-Tech Worldwide is changing public perceptions and political attitudes about the IRS and its irrational income-tax laws. The 1997 congressional attitudes and their public hearings about the IRS abuses were a direct result of the IRS Abuse Reports emailed daily to 300 congressmen and published daily throughout cyberspace since 1995.

Ending Lawyer-Like Dishonesties