I agree this is the kind of thing that scares me about him. It’s not his place to police adults and decide what kind of “speech” should be free.
Cindie
“I agree this is the kind of thing that scares me about him. It’s not his place to police adults and decide what kind of “speech” should be free.”
Pornography is, at best, purile entertainment. It is NOT “speech” in the original intent of the 1st Ammendment. The Founder’s would be horrified as to what is allowed in the name of “free speech.” One could say that the “courts” expanded the definition of “free speech” in their rulings. However, that was a court...not the people acting through the proper process of ammending the constitution.
Bottom line is that one shouldn’t get in a twist over this. First, because as others have pointed out, it just isn’t possible to control the internet. Secondly, there aren’t enough “social conservatives” to back him on this issue.
It is a shame though. The internet is so saturated with porn from soft to hard core. You have to be so careful when you surf the net to avoid it. Often you just can’t, even to read a news story. So, to some extent I wish is was more regulated.
There have been times when posters to this forum post inappropriate photos of scantily chad women. An abuse of “freedom.”
Just more proof that the “Libertarians” are actually “Libertines.”
Folks I’m not a prude and don’t want to force my “morality” on you. However, I view “pornography” as being anything with the intent to cause sexual arousal or sexual attraction in print or other media. My view towards towards seeing even soft porn is similiar to my views on miniskirts on women. That is - I don’t like being around women in miniskirts for two reasons: (1) They look good in them and I should NOT be looking! (2) They look bad in them and I don’t want to see it! Either I shouldn’t be looking or I don’t want to see.