Porn, morons from the FRC, and YOU.

[Strings]

Sorry Fig: I didn't buy it at the time, and I don't buy it now...

 Saying porn makes people pull the kind of BS that Bundy did is the same thing as saying a woman asked to be raped because of how she dressed, or that guns make people commit crimes. Yes, the outfit MIGHT make a woman slightly more of a target, and ACCESS to a gun MIGHT make someone of a criminal bent more likely to commit an assualt (that they MIGHT not if they were unarmed). But the perp has to be messed up in the first place...

 The only thing porn does is get people excited: yes, I find beautiful naked women exciting to look at. That doesn't mean I'm going to go out and attack one, or look at women as less because they show their bodies. Am I THAT weird, that I would act in an honorable fashion twords a woman regardless?

 Bundy was doing nothing but trying to cop out. Yeah, he SAID he took responsibility for his actions. But then went on to say "the porn made me do it"...

[Sean Smith]

The porn = rape/murder thing has been pretty comprehensively discredited, folks.  When you've gone as far as to take the words of a cannibalistic serial killer at face value, just because he says what you want to believe, you might want to re-consider your thinking.  

I can see it already... "WHAT?  YOU DON'T BELIEVE THE SERIAL KILLER?  I BET YOU'RE A PORN-MONGER TOO!"  

Of course, most people only support human rights if those rights would be used in a way they would use them themselves, which isn't much of a right, now is it?

The people who cry "slippery slope" every time there is a restriction on the right to keep and bear arms, are often the ones breaking out the snowboards when the 1st Ammendment is attacked.  There is no exception in the Constitution that says there is freedom of speech and freedom of the press "unless it doth involve boobies or naughty bits."

[roo_ster]

[devil's_advocate]

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...

Hmmm, it says "speech" and "the press," not "pixels" and "the cybersmutmasters."  No text respecting naughty pictures* or pixels in naughty configurations*, just "speech" and "the press."  Clinically describing, whilst standing in a park,  two (or more!) folks copulating in the mannner they please can not be legislated against by Congress.  Showing a naughty pictureshow of the same does not carry the same aegis of protection from Amendment #1.  Furthermore, folks with enough money or reputation to be considered part of "the press" may enjoy Amendment #1 protections, but Joe Schmoe the internet poster does not.
[/devil's_advocate]

* I can see how pictures (collection of pixels) can be considered "naughty," but the pixels themselves are perfectly innocent of any hint of naughtiness.

[grislyatoms]

Sign of the times, I guess.

The neo-prohibitionists, (MADD, in particular), anti- porn, anti- dietary fat, PETA, anti- rpg, anti- 2nd amendment, et al folks are turning this country into a mockery of what it was meant to be.

They all have three things in common:

1. They distort information to "prove" their conclusions.
2. They do not arrive at their conclusions via scientific method.
3.  Mass media is their delivery vehicle.

Please, all you antis, go hump some Democratic legislator's leg and leave me, the Constitution of my country, and my personal liberties alone.

"Albuquerque police will begin seizing vehicles from all drivers arrested for SUSPICION of DWI, including first-time offenders. The seizure takes place immediately upon arrest, no waiting to see if there is a conviction. Mayor Martin Chávez signed the bill at MADD headquarters. Terry Huertaz, MADD executive state director, applauded the mayor for signing the measure. "We will use this tool every night in the community, and we will use it aggressively," said the police chief."

"It has become far more neo-prohibitionist than I ever wanted or envisioned," ---MADD's founder, Candy Lightner

[Strings]

>seizing vehicles from all drivers arrested for SUSPICION of DWI, including first-time offenders<

Heh...

 I was driving home REALLY late one night. Had been working a gunshow in GB, and stopped to visit with friends after. Dropped another friend at home, and was going to my own. It's roughly 11pm, middle of winter, and Spoon's sleeping in the back seat. I see headlights pull out behind me, and think "that's a cop"...

 Sure enough, it was. And he was following me close enough that I couldn't see his headlights in my rearview. I started paying so much attention to him, that I crossed the white line a touch. On go his gumballs...

Officer Followstooclose: Sir, have you been drinking tonight?
Me: No... haven't drank alchohol in several years.
OF: Are you on any medication?
M: No
OF: Are you feeling tired?
M: No
OF: where are you going?
M: Home
OF: Do you know why I pulled you over?
M: No idea
OF: well... you kinda went over the white line a bit. Is there some reason for that?
M: Well... I was probably paying too much attention to the ahole trying to drive up my tailpipe...
OF: Here's your liecense, have a nice night

 Now, this twit WAS following WAY too close (especially on winter roads), and probably thought he had a good chance of me being a drunk. Assuming he had decided to "bring me in on suspicion", and we had a similar law to the abve, would my vehicle have been seized? And, if so, how much do you think I could get for the police station after the lawsuit was done (theft under colour of law)?

[Guest]

Hmmm, it says "speech" and "the press," not "pixels" and "the cybersmutmasters."  No text respecting naughty pictures* or pixels in naughty configurations*, just "speech" and "the press."

Its a dangerous argument:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

This doesnt say that you have the right own an AK-47. It just says 'arms', and that could mean a lot of things. Certainly the founders didnt KNOW how weapons would evolve and clearly were speaking only of weapons contemporary to their era. On the other hand, pornography most certainly did exist in one form or another during this era and they didnt see fit to exclude it from the first amendment.

Hell, if you want to read the second amendment THAT literalls, all it says is that the state doesnt have the right to deprive you of either your left or right arm. It doesnt say anything about legs though...

[Justin]

Hmmm, it says "speech" and "the press," not "pixels" and "the cybersmutmasters."  No text respecting naughty pictures* or pixels in naughty configurations*, just "speech" and "the press."

Hmph.

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

Gee, I don't see anything in there about self-contained cartridges, repeating arms, or evil black rifles.  Just "arms" and a "well regulated Militia." I'm sorry, but this argument doesn't hold water.  You are basically stating that since the first amendment is deliberately vague about what constitutes free speech that this means congress should be allowed to regulate anything short of Gutenberg-era movable type.

Incidentally, I will also point out that porno has been around since at least paleolithic times.
The following link, though academic in nature probably contains material that's NSFW.
Wikipedia entry for Pornography.

[Stand_watie]

...I have always been amused by the notion that the definition of freedom is the defense of the coarse and low aspects of Man.  That we cannot be free unless we accept or at least tolerate that which we know does not have much redeeming value other than physical gratification has perplexed me.  Those among us defend pornography, but rail against the notion that others are equally as free to be disgusted by it.  Irony?  Why can't freedom also be to aspire to the higher nature of Man, to seek the light rather than darkness?

I'm not weighing into the argument, this just reminded me of a quote from C.S. Lewis that has been poignant in my life of late...

"The damned are successful rebels to the end, enslaved within the horrible freedom they have demanded. The doors of hell are locked on the inside."

From The problem of pain

[grampster]

Having been around for over a half century and actually paying attention to what was transpiring, seeing the results of loosening the moral restraints over the last several decades, gives me some ability of discernment.

This is what I have observed.  The more that those who amplify the the base nature of the human critter and continually push that nature into the mainstream of daily life, the more our daily life has been degraded.  Freedom is a blessing.  But total and absolute freedom is anarchy.  Those who would promote anarchy probably have never been very thoughtful as to the ramifications of it, except as how it would serve their own selfish wants.  To somehow promote freedom without considering the benefit of moral restraint, is to give rise to the notion that Man is so pitiful that he must always aspire to the lowest common denominator.

The rule of law, the basis of our Constitutional Republic, is intended to have a civilizing effect on people.  It allows us to get along with each other.  Our country's roots are deep in the fact that we should aspire to high ground.  Many have stood for that notion and given their lives to promote it.    

I stand by my comments earlier in this thread.  Criticism of those comments by using shooting .22's  rapidly, or shaving one's back is a lame attempt to misdirect a worthy argument.  Further to hint that porn has some redeeming feature is a selfish comment that does not take into account the degradation of many of those people who bring that titilation to the masses.  Freedom is not freedom unless we agree that some self restraint is neccessary.  They are also the comments of youthful inexperience.

I understand the Constitution and BoR very well.  If the local newspaper wishes to put photos of middle aged men fornicating with 10 year olds on the front page, well, perhaps the First Amendment allows that.  We just don't have to buy the newspaper, do we?  But on the other hand, if the people in that community decide that they ought to draw the line on those photos, what then is the difference there between that and zoning rules?  The Constitution also guarantees the right to the pursuit of happiness.  What if happiness for me is to want to put a pig farm right next door to you?  I'll bet your happiness will be furthered because there was a zoning ordincance that doesn't allow it.

The point, ladies and gentlemen, is not about promoting absolute freedom to do any damn thing one pleases and then screaming "Freedom".  The argument is really about holding fast to the fact that the founders wanted us not only to be free, but also civilized as well.  They did not promote our Constitution by rutting in the street and yelling "I got my rights!"

To compare base human behavior to things like personal safety, target shooting, or the freedom to come and go as you please, or read about differing political opinions, or the sanctity or our homes and possesions is ludicrous.  The media plays fast and loose with the truth, our politicians do as well, and so do our "entertainers".  Would it not be better to know that the freedom that they have to do so be based in truth.  As for "entertainment" shouldn't we expect entertainment rather than propaganda in disguise?   The further we get away from demanding the High Road, the faster our institutions will crumble.   I just think one ought to be a bit careful about what one wishes for.  The closer we get to blurring truth into some sort of amoral relatavistic abberation, the sooner we will loose all the freedoms that we howl about.  I am constantly amused by those who say "Whose truth is it?"  or "Whose moral standard?"  Well, that is why you have a brain and should get some education, so that you'll be able to discern who IS telling the truth and what standard is to be aspired to.   Then you'll be able to quietly and freely go about your business and not be putting up simplistic arguments about very important things.
Our institutions are crumbling because we have given in to the notion that anything goes, or we've become coarsened to the point we just don't give a damn.

I've had my say and I leave you to your folly.

[Justin]

Grampster-  That's all well and good, but the vibe I get from your posts seems to say that it's better to enforce good morals and virtue through the law rather than letting people choose of their own volition.  After all, is a person really a good person if they choose to act civilly* and with decorum* because to do otherwise would result in a fine or jail time?


*Realize that I am only making reference to activities that are victimless.  I am not interested in discussing legalizing murder, assault, rape, fraud or other activities that result in an actual victim.


-Edited for clarity-

[jefnvk]

Grampster, that is all good, but who gets to decide which things should be regulated?  What if one neighbor is gong to benefit from the pig farm being next door, and the other doesn't want it anywhere near them.  Will you support the farmer and the one neighbor, or will you support the neighbor that doesn't like pigs?

[grampster]

Justin,  You answered you own question if you will look again at your post.  Is it moral or virtuous to prohibit bank robbery?  Are you less than a good person if you choose not to rob a bank because there is punishment involved?  The law is daily training toward grasping the fact that it is much better to avoid getting your fanny kicked for stepping out of line.  Then perhaps you become a better person for it, gradually.

If you look carefully at laws, they are moral and virtuous.  That's the whole idea.  The law is a "code" of civilized behavior.

[Justin]

Grampster-  I was imprecise in my language.  Apologies.  My post has be edited for the sake of clarity.

[grampster]

jefnvk,

I sided with the non pig farmer.  I helped write the zoning ordinance in our township.  In a residential neighborhood, the residents in the township decided that farming was not worthy.  Other areas of the township are better suited to it.  If you move to that district and don't farm, well, get use to the odor.  The law keeps everyone moderately happy.  
Porn, for example, has always been around.  I am not a monk living in a cave.  It will never go away.  My point is that things of this nature are better as forbidden fruit.  The honest man knows in his heart what forbidden fruit is.  He doesn't need anyone to tell him what it is.  I don't deny that some revel in it.  I also realize that we can go way too far in the other direction.  The tribal fuedalism fired by irrational religious zealotry is an example of that.

[Strings]

There's also the question of WHO'S morals are considered acceptable. To you, "carnal entertainment" is something "base". To others, it has no moral standing either way. Still others consider it in almost a spiritual light...

 But ok: let's say we allow anything "pornographic" to be banned. Fine: what's next? Do we allow the "Keepers of Moral Purity" to decide something else is base and immoral? Maybe certain forms of sexual contact between consenting adults? Maybe even any sexual contact not meant for procreation?

 And what happens when the "KoMP" decide to push more of their religious beliefs, as that's the primary basis of their morality? Does that mean I have to hide my pagan faith? That everyone should go to a "morally approved" church?

 What about some other aspects of life? Maybe the "KoMP" decide that the biker culture isn't apporpriate for our society: does it get banned, regulated, pushed off to the corner? What about shooting? After all, you CAN easily argue that participating in the shooting sports does nothing but train the individual to take life. And the list is endless...

 Right now, *I* choose wether or not I view porn, what religion I practice, what subculture I belong to, and what recreational activities I take part in. The only three deciding factors on those choices are: a)is it legal; b)does it hurt anyone else; c)will I find enjoyment/fullfillment in it. And honestly, I can't see any reason that more restrictions would help society in any way...

[Ron]

The rutting in the streets comment is appropriate to the internet.

The internet is populated by all types of people and more and more children have access to the internet every year.

The self absorbed narcissists who will not willingly help shield children from their content are begging for government intrusion.

If the pornographers don't police themselves someone else will.  Why is that so hard to understand.  You don't have a right to "flash" children,  children have access to the internet.  

I think a red light district ie.  .xxx is the perfect compromise.

[grampster]

Justin,

Since this thread loosely revolved around porn, I take it then, that you believe porn to be victimless?  If you believe that, then you do not understand the culture.  

In our Constitutional Republic, we choose those who would make those decisions for us.  That is why we must be careful about who we choose and why we ALL need to be involved in the process.  The words of one of the founders when asked, "Sir, did you give us democracy?" The reply was, "No, madam, we gave you a republic, if you can keep it."  Those words should be resounding in our nation today.  Rather, they are mocked by our dis-involvement in the process.  I think the founders are rolling in their graves.  The concept of arguing freedom and using porn as an example, is a worthy descriptive benchmark, but at the same time it should be recognized for what it is.  Conceptualy it has merit, in realty none.

I got off my train of thought for minute, but the notion of representative government  is the whole idea.  If we had a pure democracy, we probably would have fallen into internecine warfare 200 years ago and they'd be still talking about the "American 200 Year War".  We need to be involved so that we can be careful about who our leaders are.  They DO make our choices for us.

[grislyatoms]

Grampster - I respect your wisdom and don't want to seem adversarial, but I would like to get your ideas on something.

You stated: " I am constantly amused by those who say "Whose truth is it?"  or "Whose moral standard?"

Morality is relative, so those questions will always be asked. As such, I become increasingly irritated with those who point out what MY moral standards should be.

For example, (and this is an extreme one, but it illustrates my point) let's say I am a German Christian harboring a Jewish family in my attic during WWII. The Gestapo comes to my door and asks where the family is.

Do I lie to protect the family, thus breaking one of Ten Commandments (Thou shalt not bear false witness), and compromising my morality, or do I tell the truth in keeping with my morality and watch innocents be slaughtered?

[grampster]

So, Hunter:  You pose three possibilities and one question.  Baseness, ambivilance and spiritual light.  Who's opinion is ascendent?  Whenever any of us get in a discussion of this nature it always seems to come down to "who's rules?".  With billions of sentient (and some questionably sentient) critters walking around this earth, you're going to have billions of opinions as well as billions of lower posterior orifices.  It also tends to push the discussion into absurdity from time to time.

In America we have a Constitutional Republican form of representative government.  The rules will be decided by the critters you and I put in office.  That is why I believe we have to be involved in our governance and be careful about who gets in office, from the lowest in the township, to the highest in the land.  That is one of the reasons that my hope resides in the higher behavior of those that would lead, whether it would be public office, media, entertainment, education, religion, or those that say "dammit, just leave me to my own devices".

That is why I think it is important to ask the hard questions about the beliefs of those who aspire to those positions.  It has always been amusing to me to hear those voices who proclaim that a publicly ethicaly or moraly bancrupt person is of no concern if he wants to be in public office, that it should make no difference as long as he is a "good" (insert the office).  That is such a ridiculous statement.

  If a man who would aspire to be a Justice of the Supreme Court, if he be Wiccan is of less importance to me than his stand on strict construction.  In fact, he may be more qualified to be concerned about legitimate minority issues.  On the other hand, something tells me if the other candidtate belongs to NAMBLA I might have some concern about him.  Now, that decision is mine to make.  If the rest of my peers pick candidate 2, then I have to live with it, or watch him carfully for an impeachable offense.
The rule of law, it seems to me, is about common sense and being inclusive, rather than divisive.  I think the law allows us the latitude of being judgemental in an orderly fashion.  If the law is bad, we can change it, but the change should have some merit by some majority standard.  That is the way we are set up.

So to answer your question simply after blathering about it: We elect those who make the rules.

[grampster]

Grisly,

Blackburn gave you one answer to your question.  If morality is relative then it must be relative to something.  The law at present gives eminance to local standards.

Regarding the situation you described:  You have choices to make and you have to live with them.  You would not have had the Jews in your house if you didn't already know the moral answer to your question.

Goodnight all, I've caused all the trouble I'm up for this day.

PS:  I have not been responsible for throwing anyone under a jail for their beliefs, at least not for a long while.

[Strings]

Ok grampster... I can see your point. Still think you're wrong though...

 By insisting that those involved in the production of pornography are in some ways "victims" opens the door to extreme abuses. And when you discuss legislation, you HAVE to look for the most absurd possible abuses of said legislation, as the intent will go by the wayside rather quickly...

 Example: several years ago, an anti-terrorism bill was introduced in the Wisconsin legislature. Burried within it's sixty-some-odd pages was mention of making it a felony to be in possession of a detonator, which was defined to include "a primer". Now, I reload, and usually have several THOUSAND primers laying around my bench. I think most reloaders do. So I called the office of the twit who introed the bill: I pointed out the section, and that I would probably qualify as a major terrorist under this bill, worthy of SWAT attention. The staffer I talked to assured me that such was not the intent... and couldn't rebute that it wasn't the intent of the "possession with intent to sell" drug laws to put away people that might have just had a good year for their own consumption, or had a heck of a pot plant growing in the raspberry bush in their backyard. But those DO get prosecuted that way now...

 Oh... by the way: the raspberry bush thing? That was my father's old place in IL. Wild growing pot, right in the middle of the raspberries that dad had spent good money to get started. The guy that bought the house was forced to destroy the bushes (only way to effectively destroy the pot) or face prosecution...

[grampster]

Blackburn:  You hit the nail squarely on the head regarding hearts and minds.  That's why it's good to armwrestle as we do.  I can't say I disagree with you in most of what you say as well.  I understand your points and good discussion such as this always gives me pause and provides good fodder for contemplation.  I thank you also for the compliment.

Hunter:  Err, ahh, cough, ahem...Where did you say that rasberry patch was again?  Regarding the law you mentioned...what was the quote that had something to do with good intentions?...What was it?  Oh, I think I remember..."The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."  Again, goes to my diatribe about being collectively involved and picking the right people for the job at hand.

[Strings]

Oh, I'll definately grant you that we need to be more involved. However, it's hard to get people involved when it's a choice between evils...

[Nightfall]

grampster;

...you believe porn to be victimless?  If you believe that, then you do not understand the culture.

May I ask what extensive experience with the pornographic industry led you to this understanding of the culture? I'm really not trying to be a jerk, I've just gathered from some of your declarative statements on this specific point that you have some good information or experience that has led you to this opinion. I'd like it if you shared it with us, I'm always looking for more info to better refine my opinions.

[Sean Smith]

How is it that, when the convesration is about sexual material involving consenting adults, that the opponents of said materials always inject child molesting, NAMBLA and kiddie porn into the conversation?  It is like a law of physics or something.

They are not related.  

To make child pornography, you have to commit a crime, child sexual assault.  Buying it furthers the commission of something that is a crime in and of itself... sexual assault of a minor.  In other words, you are paying somebody to commit a sexual assault of a child for you so you can watch it on video.  Thus, there is no civil rights issue in making the stuff illegal.  Same reason snuff films are illegal... you can't pay people to kill people for your viewing fun.

The pornography that was the subject of this topic when it was started involves consenting adults engaging in acts that are, in and of themselves, legal.  You can restrict child access to that material all you want, because children are accepted as not having the full rights of audults.  They can't vote, drink, work, etc., either.

However, when you don't allow adults to look at or read about legal things done by other adults, it is a completely different issue... and one that has nothing to do with buggering children, incidentally.