Conservatives try to curtail hotel porn

AP via Yahoo! News ^ | August 22, 2006 | DAVID CRARY

[spunkets]

"Nobody that I know, Democrat/Republican/Christian etc., is proposing a "Taliban" response. If the Taliban didn't like what you did, they could have you imprisoned or killed, without a trial."

The talibunnies had their trials. They never did w/o them. In case you missed it, the groups in the article are attempting to make simple pay per view a crime. That means they would jail folks for getting involved in it.

[GulfBreeze]

While we have always (since con) had the right to keep and bear arms, we have never had the right to to fire them indescriminantly into crowds.

While we have always (since con) had the right to freedom of speech. we have never had the right to scream "FIRE!" falsely into a crowded building.

The destructive use of any right is illegal.

Further. Heavy arms have always been illegal to the individual. I.E. The constitution does not protect anyones right to own a Bazooka, an operational tank, a scud missile, etc.

Communities have always had the right to limit what would be obscene within them. (That is in the same SCOTUS rulings that dumped the rain of porn us we "enjoy" today.) Most communities find it difficult to enforce, define, or prove what is agreed to be obscene within their community. However, if their is an anti-obsenity law passed it is enforceable and constitutional.

For example, you can be fined up to four hundred dollars per curse word anywhere in Texas for cursing in front of women or children. This law has been enforced and held up in court within the last 6 years.

If there are laws on the books that you don't like, you may want to get the ACLU to defend your right to ignore them. But you will still have to win in court.

[GulfBreeze]

What's more, unless it was filmed in Nevada. Hardcore porn pretty much is the filmed record of two (or more) prostitutes engaged a criminal act. I don't see how they get away with engaging in paid sex, anymore than engaging in paid assisted suicide. Just because it's on film doesn't make it legal. Even if it is "Art".

[MinnesotaLibertarian]

Well, that's a relief. But you're right, the nanny-staters seem to be in ever-increasing numbers.

[GulfBreeze]

As opposed to three cheers for Second Hand Pimps???

Well sure, I guess so.

[spunkets]

"Heavy arms have always been illegal to the individual."

No they haven't. That's a lter 20th century violation of the 2nd Amend.

[VRWCmember]

Now where did you find your information on the content of these movies? Watching for research purposes?

Hah! I was wondering how long it would take for someone to post the somewhat obvious "how do you know" question. I will simply respond that I try to stay informed and aware of what is going on in the world around me and leave it at that. You are free to infer from that whatever you wish as to "how I know".

[spunkets]

"Heavy arms have always been illegal to the individual."

No they haven't. That's a lter 20th century violation of the 2nd Amend.

[durasell]

There are many, many people who live in constant fear and outrage that somewhere, someone is doing something that they do not approve of. The world is a strange and horrifying place to them....

[tacticalogic]

Socially conservative political opportunists. The end justifies the means.

[ScubieNuc]

"The talibunnies had their trials. They never did w/o them. In case you missed it, the groups in the article are attempting to make simple pay per view a crime. That means they would jail folks for getting involved in it."

Really? Never? Notice I said that they could have you killed without trial. It happened.

In case you missed it, it is part of our government "by the people" that allows people to oppose whatever they wish. It is also part of our government that those opposed to such new laws also have a voice. It is also part of our government to have a open press (FR) to get the word out there. It is also part of our government that the majority rules. It is also part of our government that laws can and should be judged against the Constitution.

All that is going on is part of a democratic republic. Not a dictatorial Islamic Taliban. If you truly don't see the difference, then you are as bad as the libs who call Bush a "Nazi."

Sincerely

[Republican Party Reptile]

There are many, many people who live in constant fear and outrage that somewhere, someone is doing something that they do not approve of. The world is a strange and horrifying place to them....

I have often thought that FR needs a "Desperately Seeking To Be Offended" ping list.

[Doohickey]

Darn. There goes that fantasy. Thanks a lot!

[lesser_satan]

Islamist fanatics who want to blow us six ways from Sunday

Speaking of porn, that wouldn't be a bad title.

[durasell]

Certainly no shortage of folks who feel compelled to tell others how to live their lives.

[tacticalogic]

Communities have always had the right to limit what would be obscene within them. (That is in the same SCOTUS rulings that dumped the rain of porn us we "enjoy" today.) Most communities find it difficult to enforce, define, or prove what is agreed to be obscene within their community. However, if their is an anti-obsenity law passed it is enforceable and constitutional.

I don't think you find much disagreement there. If state and local governments want to ban pornography in their hotels and let the state and local police enforce it that's one thing. That's not what the people in this article are after.

[spunkets]

The word taliban was not used to describe the govm't. It was used to describe the folks mounting the assault on pay per view. Also, the taliban had trials and judges, which was a point I made, regarless of any isolated incidents.

With regard to the use of the word nazi. It was F. Hayek that pointed out in the Road to Serfdom, that England was on the same path as the National Socialists they were fighting against. If the comparison fits, it's appropriate.

[wireman]

Nice rack!

[mgstarr]

The concept of freedom is very frightening for some here. Like the Left, they wish to interpret the amendments their own way, without regard to what the Framers intended.

The party caters to them because they are the activists and they make a lot of noise. We get a lot of farcical candidates as a result of them too.

[Larry Lucido]

Here ya go!

I'll send my invoice in the mail.