Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Prostitutes And Porn: 1st Amend. Protects Porn But Not Prostitutes? Absurd CA Supreme Court
STEVELACKNER.COM ^ | November 24, 2011 | Steven W. Lackner

Posted on 11/24/2011 11:07:08 PM PST by stevelackner

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-85 next last

1 posted on 11/24/2011 11:07:12 PM PST by stevelackner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: stevelackner

America is sliding down the slippery slope we started on when morality laws were abolished.


2 posted on 11/24/2011 11:09:44 PM PST by PieterCasparzen (We have to fix things ourselves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stevelackner

In the old days, it was clear. Obscenity has never received First Amendment protection. Pornographic matter has always fallen within that orbit and that’s why government can zone X-rated theaters and adult bookstores. There is no constitutional protection to promote, sell or distribute obscene matter.


3 posted on 11/24/2011 11:11:03 PM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

What if there is a political message in it?


4 posted on 11/24/2011 11:14:00 PM PST by gman992 ("I'm a conservative. I'm just a happy conservative.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: gman992

And who determines what is pornographic...there’s tons of incest and “begeting” in the Bible, but try to ban that, and people go nuts...


5 posted on 11/24/2011 11:14:58 PM PST by gman992 ("I'm a conservative. I'm just a happy conservative.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: PieterCasparzen

The true descendants of the Puritans of the Northeast are the Liberals of the Northeast - same desire to control aspects of peoples’ lives. The gov’t has no business telling consenting adults with whom they can have sex.


6 posted on 11/24/2011 11:17:01 PM PST by Lou Budvis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: PieterCasparzen
We have laws against immorality since the 10 Commandments, somehow they seem not to have had the intended effect. I do not understand how the repeal of these blue laws has much of an effect either.

As I dictate this I can look out the window and see the steeple of the church in our little Bavarian village. The second biggest building in the village is the rectory which stands to the left of the church. After the war when Gen. Patton swept through here the Americans occupied this village and the rectory served as the American officers' Poof -bordello.

Today the building has reverted to its higher calling of service.

Prostitution has been legal here in Germany and regulated and it seems to be far less problematical than it is in hypocritical, puritanical America.

We do not need more blue laws but fewer.

We do not need more laws about morality but more morality.


7 posted on 11/24/2011 11:25:42 PM PST by nathanbedford ("Attack, repeat, attack!" Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: stevelackner
This is a very interesting article written from a legal perspective and exposing a legal conundrum - or at least an apparent contradiction.

Although I do not wish to step into the debate regarding “obscenity” what seems to be left out of it, in my opinion, is the following (which I freely admit are generalizations):

The “normal” prostitute on the street is often a victim herself. She is not engaged in this “business” as a positive choice, but rather does so under the control either of a pimp or at least a drug addiction. The manner in which law enforcement and society deal with such problems is a primary issue. In some countries the decriminalization of this “job” at least allows for a dramatic reduction in its hazards. Keeping it illegal and punishing the women (and sometimes men) of course does little to alter the core causes of the act. Naturally there will be a minority who happily and voluntarily sell themselves in this manner, but they are a small percentage of the total.

In pornography there is no doubt that many of the women, at least, are not wholly sound in their psychology. However the danger factors are not present and the line between “acting” and “prostitution” may be clear, but nevertheless a porn star still has more in common with an actress than with a street prostitute. To name a few, this includes “normal” hours, safe working conditions, contractually obligated payments and, if she is “talented” opportunities for advancement.

Naturally, as prefaced, none of this truly addresses the legal issues mentioned in the article - which were valid open questions. However just as the statement “obscenity is hard to define but you know it when you see it” is somehow acceptable. The reality that porn and prostitution are different follows the same train of thought.

Lastly, porn is a very big business in CA. To make it illegal would be a huge economic hit. That's the last thing they need right now.

8 posted on 11/24/2011 11:35:38 PM PST by Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit (Using profanity gives people who don't want information from you an excuse not to listen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gman992

And who determines what is pornographic?

If you look at the article I linked within this one, it tries explaining some of the background of the “obscenity” framework (within an illustrative framework). It shows that the federal judiciary has essentially declared that the vast majority of pornography, aside for the real fringe of that product, is not “obscene” and therefore, according to the Supreme Court, is protected by the First Amendment. In other words, the decision has largely already been made by the federal judiciary. That’s the whole point. The correct Constitutional approach would be to leave the decision as to what is obscene to local legislatures and juries. Again, see http://www.stevelackner.com/2011/05/right-constitutional-approach-to-first.html for more that is more directly applicable to that question.


9 posted on 11/24/2011 11:43:50 PM PST by stevelackner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

It’s not a fair comparison to put religious teachings held to be received from God on the level of a public morality law that can be passed or rescinded at the whim of men.

German prostitutes may be savvy about avoiding venereal disease, but there has yet to be a condom that can be placed over your heart. It’s better to have high standards but fail to meet them, than absurdly low ones however easy.


10 posted on 11/24/2011 11:49:26 PM PST by HiTech RedNeck (bloodwashed not whitewashed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit

What you point out are policy differences as to why prostitution *should* be illegal while prostitution should not. But here the issue being dealt with is the First Amendment, obscenity precedent, and a CA Supreme Court ruling. There is no true legal distinction between the two, as my article argues, they essentially criminalize the very same conduct. The fact is that within the State of California just over twenty years ago a case dealt with someone that was convicted for pornography under a prostitution statute. The Court specifically was dealing with arguments based on the First Amendment of the Constitution. I think your points may fare well with a particular legislator, but they don’t quite translate well when dealing with a legal principle announced in something as fundamental as the Constitution’s right to freedom of speech.


11 posted on 11/24/2011 11:50:04 PM PST by stevelackner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit

So lets think hypothetically for a moment. Let’s say you are a “adult film maker” and you decide to start a business where you could search for new talent. Complete discretion is afforded along with anonymity to wannabe male stars. They would have a private screening room with a stand alone camera recording the screening. A female “professional actress” would be provided. The wannabe male star would have to pay several hundred dollars for the screening. Following the act, the female actress and wannabe male star would review the video together and if it didn’t pass muster, it could be destroyed right then and there. If it was pretty good they could then take it to the “Director” to see if they had a promising future in the adult film industry. Would that be legal or illegal? Studio and business licenses already granted of course.


12 posted on 11/25/2011 12:02:19 AM PST by John.Galt2012 (I'll take Liberty and you can keep the "Change"!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: gman992

If Woody comes alive, it’s sexual ... if it’s without my wife, it’s porn.


13 posted on 11/25/2011 12:13:04 AM PST by knarf (I say things that are true ... I have no proof ... but they're true)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: stevelackner

Two women go to a bar to pick up a man for sex. One does it just for the sex and the other does it for money. What’s the difference?


14 posted on 11/25/2011 12:24:38 AM PST by monocle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stevelackner
Things like this are why polygamist Mormons tend to leave Utah and go to live in the bordering states, safest place typically being here in Nevada. I don't see them all the time here, but I've surely seen them.

Heck, prostitution is legal in most of Nevada. How can you tell some guy he can't get married to multiple wives where hookers have been legal since before the Civil War?

15 posted on 11/25/2011 12:42:39 AM PST by The KG9 Kid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: monocle
The Lord your God says "Let there be not even a hint of sexual immorality".

Any sex outside of the marriage bed is?

That this discussion is even taking place shows us all why this once great nation is about to crash and burn.

16 posted on 11/25/2011 1:14:23 AM PST by exnavy (May the Lord bless and keep our troops.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: stevelackner

The idea of a civilized Christian society is to be well separated from living like wild animals.

The goal is and always has been, to build societal structures that encourages people to make and maintain stable families.

Where do you find all the dope addicts and prostitute filth?

In the alleyways and on the edge of town, the dark cracks and fringe of society.

Where the Liberaltarians want to take us.


17 posted on 11/25/2011 1:21:48 AM PST by Berlin_Freeper (For years the Left protested "the occupation of Iraq"- now they want to "Occupy" all across the US)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

bluntly they should be banned.


18 posted on 11/25/2011 1:41:29 AM PST by Cronos (Nuke Mecca and Medina now..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: monocle

The first one gets a gift,maybe a lavish dinner. Just to muddle it further.


19 posted on 11/25/2011 1:42:25 AM PST by wiggen (The teacher card. When the racism card just won't work.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: exnavy

Has a raped woman sinned in your eyes? She must have sinned in terms of your query because your question “Any”. Are you implying that we should follow the muslims and stone rape victims?


20 posted on 11/25/2011 2:00:19 AM PST by monocle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: monocle

I implied nothing of the sort. You twist words as good as any liberal can.


21 posted on 11/25/2011 2:08:53 AM PST by exnavy (May the Lord bless and keep our troops.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: exnavy

I am not twisting words? You should have said “Any consensual sex... .


22 posted on 11/25/2011 2:18:02 AM PST by monocle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Lou Budvis; All
The true descendants of the Puritans of the Northeast are the Liberals of the Northeast - same desire to control aspects of peoples’ lives. The gov’t has no business telling consenting adults with whom they can have sex.

True descendants: I don't think you mean literal biological descendants, since there are tens of millions of them all over the country and their current religious beliefs mostly differ from their forefathers.

Perhaps you mean the true descendants in terms of what you call the "desire to control aspects of peoples' lives" which you attribute to Liberals of the Northeast. I see virtually no attempt at all by liberals of the northeast to control anything related to morality; in the northeast most anything goes. In fact, eastern Massachusetts and the Cape Code area, where the "Pilgrims" first landed, is a bastion of homosexuality that stands out like a sore thumb to even a traveller passing through.

In regards to the gov't having no business, etc., we perhaps have no common understanding of morality. I am a Christian in the Reformed tradition, which is what the "Puritans" were, which I hope does not make you rush to point the finger of "ha!" at me - at least too quickly !

Perhaps we can agree that there is a lot more in the Bible than just guidelines for conduct relating to sex.

In fact, there is much more to the Bible than I can quickly convey to you here, of course.

Any truly believing Reformed Christian will know that the Bible (the Word of God) specifically directs them to not force anyone to believe, repent or even improve their moral conduct. The Bible, in various verses, tells us that this is ultimately futile and actually meaningless in effecting the person's salvation. If I convince or force someone to refrain from sexual immorality - it does nothing to merit that person's salvation ! Little known fact, outside of those who really know their Bible. Without salvation, a person at their death is destined for eternal damnation; eternal separation from God. Therefore, when a true believer sees a person caught up in sin, their concern would be with the person's soul, and if anything they would simply testify of the Gospel (good news) to them.

Sex outside of marriage, historically, was recognized by society to cause what we call today "single mothers". For thousands of years, it was known as "the fatherless" or bastard children. Sex outside of marriage also causes the spread of disease, but of course, STD's were not understood until relatively recently. In most societies of the past, life would often be very hard on families where daughters became pregnant but had no husband. Hence, daughters were married to men and would leave their home and start their own family with their husband. This was pretty much par for the course for all of history until after WWII. If you wanted to have sex with your neighbor's daughter - you would have to marry her first, so you wouldn't start making your neighbor pay for your children.

Christianity was brought to Europe in the first millenium after the death of Christ - and European law is largely the source of American law. The arrival of Christianity in Europe formed a new basis of legitimacy for it's rulers as they converted, and, accordingly, their laws came to reflect a Christian moral foundation. The Bible recognizes the difference between civil government and the Church, and that both are God-ordained institutions. It says that the civil government is given "the power of the sword" over people - and that part of God's purpose for the civil government is to restrain evil acts against the innocent.

In the Bible, sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman is called fornication, and is prohibited. While this and all other sorts of debauchery happened - and certainly was hidden or ignored, especially by the upper classes - it was never officially condoned to the point of being promoted by the law in Europe or in America, any more than lying or stealing was. That is, until the 20th century.

The idea that "The gov’t has no business telling consenting adults with whom they can have sex" has no basis in law as a "Constitutional" viewpoint prior to about 1960. One would be hard pressed to accept this, however, if one only read Wikipedia or liberal websites. However, it is clear that it is not a founding principle of America if one reads primary documents, and there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits the States from passing laws governing sexual acts. In fact, before 1962, every State had laws prohibiting immoral sexual acts which were held by the Supreme Court to be Constitutional for 215 years.

Sexual immorality laws were not specifically repealed, but, as part of a "standardization" process initiated by the legal profession, namely the American Law Institute, State criminal laws had bulk changes passed into law - and the sexual morality laws were often simply omitted. The ALI had drafted a Model Penal Code, finished in 1962, and this formed the basis for passage of various blocks of law by numerous States.

Modern revisionists sometimes wrongly claim that immorality laws were rarely or never prosecuted. To wit:

Morris County,New Jersey Court Records. December 22,1762. The King vs.JOHANNAH AYRES charged with fornication. She plead guilty. 1,5 fine and 30 stripes on her bare back on 27th day of December 1762.

Simple searches will turn up many case records of prosecution of immorality under the law.

Sodomy laws were upheld in 1986 Bowers v. Hardwick by the Supreme Court, and then, true to it's historical decade-or-two pattern, it reversed itself in 2003 Lawrence v. Texas which had the effect of invalidating all morality laws in the U.S.

Those Justices of the Supreme Court who were in the majority in Lawrence v. Texas can rest easy in this case despite their pathetic attempts at rationalizing their political interests. O'Connor's logical contortions to allow her to avoid advocating overturning the Bowers case, in which she was in the majority, and yet still be in the majority for Lawrence which, according to her four Lawrence cohorts, did indeed overturn Bowers (only lawyers can do this) reveal quite the logical gymnast. O'Connor can rest easy, however, because she based her case on equal protection, the liberal judge's catch-all. And the other four can rest easy also in their claim that Bower's assertion of sodomy being widely and historically comdemned is somehow refutable.

The majority opinion in the 2003 case stated "the Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual".

Well, what about the enormous number of illegitimate children born in America since 1960 ? The fatherless, all the children of single mothers ? Since the 1960's America has had it's "sexual revolution" going, removing impediments to anyone having sex any time they want with whomever they want. It's been very encouraging for men and women, young and old to feel no need to refrain from sex outside of marriage. But if this government-condoned casual sex produces millions of children, most of them living with single mothers who find it difficult financially to get along, to work and care for children at the same time and therefore need more government services, what then ? Does that not burden the government and the taxpayer ? Is that not a "legitimate state interest" - the cost of having millions of babies with struggling or absent parents ?

No worries, we can all "rest easy", the SCOTUS has wisely taken care of that. They took care of all those unwanted children in 1973 in the Roe v. Wade decision.

IMHO.
23 posted on 11/25/2011 2:25:12 AM PST by PieterCasparzen (We have to fix things ourselves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: monocle

That’s not what God’s word says.


24 posted on 11/25/2011 2:26:55 AM PST by exnavy (May the Lord bless and keep our troops.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: monocle

Sex is, a gift from the Lord. To be confined to the marriage bed. All other is sin.


25 posted on 11/25/2011 2:31:16 AM PST by exnavy (May the Lord bless and keep our troops.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: exnavy
"All other is sin."

Words have definite meanings. You are saying all sex outside of marriage is sinful and again your are not excluding nonconsensual sex such as rape and incest.

26 posted on 11/25/2011 2:55:44 AM PST by monocle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: stevelackner

Regarding prostitution, one of the oldest civil liberties question is why is it illegal to sell something that is legal to give away? It is ironic that in a supposedly capitalist society, it is the money that makes the act illegal.


27 posted on 11/25/2011 3:21:18 AM PST by muir_redwoods (No wonder this administration favors abortion; everything they have done is an abortion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
"German prostitutes may be savvy about avoiding venereal disease, but there has yet to be a condom that can be placed over your heart."

That my FRiend, is one of the most profound statements ever made in this forum.

Kudos to you.
28 posted on 11/25/2011 3:25:55 AM PST by mkjessup (I stand with Herman Cain !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: exnavy

Since any religion and, in fact, all religions are merely hypotheses, you are welcome to believe in one absolutely but you are not free to bind others to the rules or beliefs of a religion.


29 posted on 11/25/2011 3:31:11 AM PST by muir_redwoods (No wonder this administration favors abortion; everything they have done is an abortion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford
We have laws against immorality since the 10 Commandments, somehow they seem not to have had the intended effect.

I don't know if you're Christian, but the Bible is the Word of God; everything in it has therefore had the exact effect that God has willed.

I do not understand how the repeal of these blue laws has much of an effect either.

Blue laws in the U.S. concern restrictions like closing businesses on the Lord's Day. Prostitution laws would be classified as morality laws. The effects of rapidly increasing mmorality in the U.S. have coincided with the elimination of laws governing morality starting in the 1960's. There is a big difference in the attitudes and actions of the population when immorality is illegal and forced underground and when it is legalized and allowed to increase and spread throughout the leadership of the nation.

After the war when Gen. Patton swept through here the Americans occupied this village and the rectory served as the American officers' Poof -bordello.

Nowhere does the Bible say that everyone who professes to be a Christian will not sin. In fact, the Bible teaches that every human is born into sin an unable to resist it without the help of the Holy Spirit. This is why a true believer be convicted of his own sin and gladly confess that he is a sinner, and though he may falter (even the Apostles faltered), he generally will experience what is called progressive sanctification in his Christian walk if indeed he is saved. Simply because certain GI's patronized a bordello in WWII, a whole nation or Church is not implicated as hypocrites.

Prostitution has been legal here in Germany and regulated and it seems to be far less problematical than it is in hypocritical, puritanical America.

Problems may or may not be visible, but certainly the wages of sin is death; physical death and spiritual death, eternal separation from God. America today is more like Sodom and Gomorrah than puritanical, as many professing Christians and congregations are heretical, let alone the vast number of unbelievers who reject God. As far as hypocrisy, the Bible in numerous verses - many are Jesus' own words - admonishes the believer to not be hypocritical. So if a Christian is hypocritical they alone are to blame, not America or anyone or anything else. We must remember that it is not hypocritical for a Christian to testify to the truth of Scripture, in fact, they are called to do just that. And Scripture clearly says in many places that sexual immorality is a sin. If I were to say that prostitution is not a sin I would be lying.

We do not need more laws about morality but more morality.

The Bible tells us that the civil government is a God-ordained institution intended to restrain evil. This serves God's purposes by protecting the innocent. Also, Godly leaders of Godly nations are directed to make and enforce laws to that effect. This is because rampant sin will multiply - since people are inherently born into sin and can not resist the temptation to sin without the Holy Spirit, which dwells within believers. If there are only few true believers in a nation, and sin is not restrained, it will snowball dramatically and cause great misery. This is evident in history in the rise and fall of nations. God controls all things, nations rise and fall according to his will and purposes. Sometimes evil nations prosper to serve his purposes (there are many cases of this in history, many of them in the Bible), eventually they are brought low. We do not know the mind of God and therefore to what we are predestined by him to, but it is ours to keep trying regardless. We actually have no other choice since we do not know the future, like a person on the Titanic or in a sports event for that matter, we simply keep trying.

IMHO.
30 posted on 11/25/2011 3:49:50 AM PST by PieterCasparzen (We have to fix things ourselves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford
"We do not need more laws about morality but more morality."

Isn't every criminal law statute on the books a "law about morality"?

31 posted on 11/25/2011 3:59:33 AM PST by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: stevelackner

You are right of course and I thought that I wrote that I didn’t actually address the legal issue.


32 posted on 11/25/2011 4:04:18 AM PST by Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit (Using profanity gives people who don't want information from you an excuse not to listen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: John.Galt2012
Good analogy - well thought out.

To a certain extent this is not so terribly far from how the “escort services” work. No cameraman and no filming, and naturally the service advertised can be upgraded only when the girl and guy are together. These higher paid prostitutes I also generally believe are mostly voluntarily doing it.

But to be honest having seen red light districts in places where it both is legal (or at least tolerated and regulated) and controlled and places where it is underground I generally believe that the former is the least bad choice. Illegality of prostitution neither prevents it, nor does it reduce its availability. All it does is ensure the women, who may already be victims, are further victimized and ostracized.

Of course, this is not necessarily the point of the article. The point is a matter of current law. Your analogy is a perfect example of why some additional clarity might be called for.

33 posted on 11/25/2011 4:10:26 AM PST by Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit (Using profanity gives people who don't want information from you an excuse not to listen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: monocle

Much like the question, “Have you ever paid for sex?”
A man takes a woman out for dinner, drinks and a movie. The tab is around $100 and he hopes to get “lucky” and have sex at the end of the date. It might be 3 or 4 dates before he succeeds, he spent several hundred dollars for sex.


34 posted on 11/25/2011 4:30:25 AM PST by R. Scott (Humanity i love you because when you're hard up you pawn your Intelligence to buy a drink)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

Amen and please see my tagline.


35 posted on 11/25/2011 5:04:11 AM PST by crghill (You can't put a condom on your soul.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: stevelackner

Are porn actress’s Prostitutes? Of course they are.

But todays porn isn’t yesterdays porn.

Todays porn has just as many amateurs in it as professionals.

Men photographing their wives in a performance and submitting it to various sites with or without pay.Swingers who photograph their parties. Group sex and women who have sex at parties with male strippers.

Are these women prostitutes or just whores?
How long do these relationships last after the gratuitous sex? Who knows?


36 posted on 11/25/2011 5:14:54 AM PST by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stevelackner

The answer is clear; porn should be illegal.


37 posted on 11/25/2011 5:32:40 AM PST by MrEdd (Heck? Geewhiz Cripes, thats the place where people who don't believe in Gosh think they aint going.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: circlecity; PieterCasparzen
And Einstein's definition of insanity is...?


38 posted on 11/25/2011 5:59:50 AM PST by nathanbedford ("Attack, repeat, attack!" Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: stevelackner

Legal contradiction well think of it like border control it’s how congress operates,it’s all about money.


39 posted on 11/25/2011 6:03:27 AM PST by Vaduz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford
"And Einstein's definition of insanity is...?"

So we should scrap the entire criminal code because it hasn't stopped people from committing crimes? Sorry, I'm not connecting those dots.

40 posted on 11/25/2011 6:06:59 AM PST by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: John.Galt2012

Interesting business model.


41 posted on 11/25/2011 6:09:21 AM PST by wally_bert (It's sheer elegance in its simplicity! - The Middleman)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: muir_redwoods
"Since any religion and, in fact, all religions are merely hypotheses, you are welcome to believe in one absolutely but you are not free to bind others to the rules or beliefs of a religion."

Since any secular belief is merely a hypotheses you are welcome to believe in one but you are not free to bind others to the rules or beliefs of secularism. See, that mantra works both ways.

42 posted on 11/25/2011 6:11:58 AM PST by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

About 20 years ago, when the last serious effort to legalize prostitution ws gearing up, we used to heard endlessly that prostitution was a “victimless” crime...well..that’s shown not to be the case..


43 posted on 11/25/2011 6:18:27 AM PST by ken5050 (Support Admin Mods: Doing the tough, hard, dirty jobs that Americans won't do...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: circlecity
The article is not about "the entire criminal code" but about "prostitutes and porn".

You have been reading the wrong dots.


44 posted on 11/25/2011 6:18:43 AM PST by nathanbedford ("Attack, repeat, attack!" Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford
"The article is not about "the entire criminal code" but about "prostitutes and porn"."

And your post expanded that to "laws about morality". Those were the dots I was commenting on and I still can't connect them.

45 posted on 11/25/2011 6:21:02 AM PST by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: stevelackner

The First Amendment was not intended to protect pornography. It was intended to protect political speech. Simply put, the perversion of it came from the ACLU. They hacked at it until the Supreme Court gave them that ruling.


46 posted on 11/25/2011 6:23:06 AM PST by maxwellsmart_agent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ken5050
You might ask yourself who are the "victims" of criminalizing prostitution?

How about the prostitutes themselves who are put outside the law and left to the vicious mercies of pimps?

How about the police force which is corrupted and made cynical by unenforceable laws about morality?

How about a judicial system and a political system where our judges and politicians find themselves hypocrites for outlawing the prostitutes that they frequent?

How about the innocent folks with nothing to do with prostitutes but who find themselves the victims of street crime because the neighborhood deteriorates?

How about the innocent folks who find that their justice system grows more and more corrupt and hypocritical?

How about the taxpayer whose taxes are squandered uselessly on jails to incarcerate and courts to convict?

List of victims goes on and on.


47 posted on 11/25/2011 6:29:43 AM PST by nathanbedford ("Attack, repeat, attack!" Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: stevelackner
This touches directly upon the inability to finely regulate life through the use of that blunt instrument called "law". Of course the law is a blunt instrument because human thinking is at best finite. Something more is needed. Let's face it, the essence of legal wrangling over whether something is pornography or political speech is recondite argument about arcane definitions of words and actions. It's all about "legalese".

In contrast one reads in the Bible, "This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;" (Hebrews 10:16)

And in another place we read about the fruit the Holy Spirit produces in our lives, "(For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth;) Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord. And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret." (Ephesians 5:9-12)

Today it seems too many of "those things" are done, not in secret, but openly, in public. And those who do are celebrated for it.

Our era could never write the Constitution. Only a moral and religious people could have written it. And a moral and religious people don't need many laws or finely worded statutes carefully parsed by hoards of lawyers.

To the making of many laws there is no end. And in making those many laws there is an end to liberty. It was Christ Himself who told us, " . . . If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free? Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever. If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed." (John 8:31-36)

48 posted on 11/25/2011 6:29:48 AM PST by hfr (Liberalism is a moral disorder that leads to mental disorder (actually it's sin))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: circlecity
It seems to me that if you are about the business of taking away individual liberty, of frustrating someone's pursuit of his definition of "happiness" by bringing to bear the full force and power of the criminal law, the burden is on you to connect the dots.

In connecting those dots, you have five or six thousand years of history to overcome and in every year your way has failed.

You are asking us to endorse a failed system. You are asking us to endorse a hypocritical system. You are asking us to endorse an expensive and self-defeating system.

You are asking us to deprive people of their liberty for engaging in sex in commerce when if they did it for free it would be perfectly legal. Society has passed your position by.

This is your law, you defend it. You explain the broken lives and the crowded jails. You explain the venereal disease. You explain the white slavery. You explain the brutal pimps. You explain the traffic in underage girls.

You must explain all of these things because your system has brought them about. Kindly spare me your inability to connect the dots, you are consigning people to misery and worse.

The German system is clearly better because it produces less misery and more freedom. I thought that was what the pursuit of happiness was all about. It is certainly not about our personal biblical views which we impose on others through the vehicle of the criminal law. If you want to impose the criminal law on someone you have the burden of justifying it. And doing so you shall not be heard to say that we would sweep away all laws against all crimes.

We are talking about laws which are not malum in se but laws which impose criminal sanctions not because victims need to be protected but because hypocrites need to be vindicated.


49 posted on 11/25/2011 7:09:42 AM PST by nathanbedford ("Attack, repeat, attack!" Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: monocle

You make no point.


50 posted on 11/25/2011 7:26:24 AM PST by exnavy (May the Lord bless and keep our troops.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-85 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson