Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Iceland Considers Pornography Ban (first Western democracy to block online porn?)
Telegraph UK ^ | 13 Feb 2013 | Staff

Posted on 02/14/2013 6:08:31 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o

The government is considering introducing internet filters, such as those used in China, in order to stop Icelanders downloading or viewing pornography on the internet.

The unprecedented censorship is justified by fears about damaging effects of the internet on children and women.

Ogmundur Jonasson, Iceland's interior minister, is drafting legislation to stop the access of online pornographic images and videos by young people through computers, games consoles and smartphones.

"We have to be able to discuss a ban on violent pornography, which we all agree has a very harmful effects on young people and can have a clear link to incidences of violent crime," he said.

Methods under consideration include blocking access to pornographic website addresses and making it illegal to use Icelandic credit cards to access pay-per-view pornography.

A law forbidding the printing and distribution of pornography is already in force in Iceland but it has yet to be updated to cover the internet.

The proposals are expected to become law this year despite a general election in April.

"There is a strong consensus building in Iceland. We have so many experts from educationalists to the police and those who work with children behind this, that this has become much broader than party politics," Halla Gunnarsdottir, a political adviser to Mr Jonasson told the Daily Mail.

The proposed control over online access...is justified as a defence of vulnerable women and children.

"Iceland is taking a very progressive approach that no other democratic country has tried," said Professor Gail Dines, an expert on pornography and at a recent conference at Reykjavik University. "It is looking a pornography from a new position - from the perspective of the harm it does to the women who appear in it and as a violation of their civil rights."

(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs
KEYWORDS: assault; child; internet; littlewomen; moralabsolutes; porn; sm; woman; womenmeannothing
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-117 next last
Porn opponents say they are taking it from a "new" perspective, "from the perspective of the harm it does to the women who appear in it and as a violation of their civil rights."

As far as I know, that's not new: societies have long been concerned about protecting women and children (and young males, for that matter), because of the links between "transgressive" sexual entertainment, and, well: transgression.

It will be argued that arousal/stimulation doesn't impact attitudes and behavior.

Really?

Advertizing doesn't ramp up demand?

Arousal patttern training doesn't affect arousal pattern?

All those billions of dollars to Madison Avenue are for nothing, because exciting visual stuff doesn't fuel what people consider exciting or desirable? It has no impact on what people want to have or get, or how they want to have it or get it?

A conversation-starter.

1 posted on 02/14/2013 6:08:41 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah; Dr. Brian Kopp

LJ, you have mail.


2 posted on 02/14/2013 6:10:18 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

I am glad we have a 1st Amendment to protect us against this silliness.


3 posted on 02/14/2013 6:16:07 AM PST by Perdogg (Mark Levin - It's called the Bill of Rights not Bill of Needs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

A ban on not attending church would be more helpful.


4 posted on 02/14/2013 6:17:43 AM PST by Rennes Templar (Business owners work harder! You have to support millions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Morgana

Sounds like an idea worth considering


5 posted on 02/14/2013 6:19:18 AM PST by GeronL (http://asspos.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

It’s in the dead of winter up there...lack of sunshine makes people do screwy things.


6 posted on 02/14/2013 6:21:00 AM PST by mkboyce
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o; Lazamataz
Obviously the Icelanders didn't see this...
7 posted on 02/14/2013 6:26:51 AM PST by JRios1968 (I'm guttery and trashy, with a hint of lemon. - Laz)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

Do you really want the Govt controlling an Internet filter?


8 posted on 02/14/2013 6:27:21 AM PST by Perdogg (Mark Levin - It's called the Bill of Rights not Bill of Needs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

I definitely don’t think we should go the other way and legalize kiddie porn like pervertland Japan


9 posted on 02/14/2013 6:29:57 AM PST by GeronL (http://asspos.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

In before the, “This thread is useless without pics!” comment.

Seriously, advertising works. So does porn. It serves a purpose, to entertain and stimulate. That raises several questions: Is the stimulation from porn good or bad?

If it’s bad, does government have the right to ban or control it? What if a community wants to permit it?

If government has a right to ban or control porn, how does one effectively do that without affecting other harmless information. For example, would filtering stop the picture of a nude woman? What about medical journals? Art?


10 posted on 02/14/2013 6:30:51 AM PST by CitizenUSA (Why celebrate evil? Evil is easy. Good is the goal worth striving for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

Please answer my question, do you want a US Gov agency to control what we view on the internet? Kiddie porn is already illegal and should remain so.


11 posted on 02/14/2013 6:35:21 AM PST by Perdogg (Mark Levin - It's called the Bill of Rights not Bill of Needs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: CitizenUSA

While it is a nice thought, all it would achieve would be to create a new, profitable, black market.


12 posted on 02/14/2013 6:36:50 AM PST by Little Ray (Waiting for the return of the Gods of the Copybook Headings.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o; don-o
Porn made me the man I am today. I have a heaping helping of porn for breakfast, a light porn snack, then a healthy porn lunch, a midday porn pick-me-up, then some serious close up hard-core porn for supper.

Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn

13 posted on 02/14/2013 6:37:53 AM PST by Lazamataz (Republicans have the same policies as the Democrats, except for the part where they win elections.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

I dont think it’s silly.


14 posted on 02/14/2013 6:41:07 AM PST by kabumpo (Kabumpo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: CitizenUSA
If it’s bad, does government have the right to ban or control it?

An irrelevant debate, since it will be impossible to control access to internet pornography regardless of what laws are passed.

15 posted on 02/14/2013 6:44:12 AM PST by Strategerist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz; Mrs. Don-o
Observe and Serve: RESOLVE to SAVE the U.S.A. Free Republic Original Content | Jan 8, 2012 | By Laz A. Mataz
16 posted on 02/14/2013 6:44:21 AM PST by don-o (He will not share His glory and He will NOT be mocked! Blessed be the name of the Lord forever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
Kiddie porn is already illegal and should remain so

You must have missed that thread last week. Libertarians are all in favor of it.

The government should make laws, not carry it out. The President already has a "kill switch", so I guess this is all academic anyways.

17 posted on 02/14/2013 6:48:12 AM PST by GeronL (http://asspos.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

Silly? Desperate times call for desperate measures?

I do take issue with the “poor women” tack taken with pornography by cultures that want to have their cake and eat it, too. How are the men acting in porn or the men watching it not degraded also? And how do all those poor lil’ ladies end up as adult performers? Greed couldn’t have anything to do with it...

The Bible—the most honest book on sex in the world—hardly portrays women as sexual innocents. Quite often they are the predators.


18 posted on 02/14/2013 6:49:22 AM PST by avenir (I'm pessimistic about man, but I'm optimistic about GOD!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

>>”Iceland is taking a very progressive approach that no other democratic country has tried,” said Professor Gail Dines, an expert on pornography

I thought it was the progressives that wanted porn in every classroom?


19 posted on 02/14/2013 6:54:20 AM PST by Betis70 ("Leading from Behind" gets your Ambassador killed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

I’m for blocking Porn on all ISP’s, how’s that for a thought starter.


20 posted on 02/14/2013 6:55:31 AM PST by Rappini (Veritas vos Liberabit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CitizenUSA
If it’s bad, does government have the right to ban or control it?

Government only has those powers specifically enumerated. What enumerated power does government have that would give it the legitimate authority to ban porn?

21 posted on 02/14/2013 7:04:06 AM PST by Durus (You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality. Ayn Rand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

Absolutely not.

I don’t go to porn sites, and nobody I know does but I don’t want the government or any government controlling anything about the internet. If you can’t keep your kids off the bad things on the internet or just can’t help peeking yourself then get rid of it.

Who in said governments decides what is porn? You know that the answer is that they (the governments) will decide if FreeRepublic is porn or not or any religious or political site is porn. The definition will be left to select power groups who will use it to control the flow of information rather than just porn.

Never, ever give governments or bureaucrats or even religious leaders the power to control what you might see or not see on any media or what information is “good” for you.


22 posted on 02/14/2013 7:06:42 AM PST by RJS1950 (The democrats are the "enemies foreign and domestic" cited in the federal oath)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Durus

Durus: “What enumerated power does government have that would give it the legitimate authority to ban porn?”

I think you’re talking about the federal government. What about state or local governments? If you think no government has the right to impose restrictions on images, can kiddie porn be banned? Wouldn’t that also be protected speech?

I asked questions because I’m interested in what other’s think. I already know what I think is right.


23 posted on 02/14/2013 7:18:19 AM PST by CitizenUSA (Why celebrate evil? Evil is easy. Good is the goal worth striving for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
IIRC Iceland's Prime Minister is a Communist lesbian.If that's true that could explain this plan.To protect children from that garbage is reasonable....actually,more like essential.But it's the responsibility of parents to see to it that kids don't see it,just as it's my *doctor's* responsibility to warn me about trans fats...not some billionaire mayor.

My parents did a very good job of protecting me from all the different kinds of trouble I could have become involved in.What's wrong with *today's* parents?

24 posted on 02/14/2013 7:32:53 AM PST by Gay State Conservative ("Progressives" toss the word "racist" around like chimps toss their feces)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

What the article didn’t mention was that pornography, to a great extent, has only been *legal* since the late 1950s, and even then, it was very tame by today’s standards.

But, at the same time, when it was illegal, there was a substantial black market for it. For example, the infamous “plain brown wrapper” packages from Cuba, a major exporter of porn. Stag films were de rigueur at bachelor parties, and there are now museums dedicated to “pornography as art” from about the 16th Century onward.

Even in ancient history, pornography was ubiquitous. The Romans loved it, and the ancient Hebrews were known for their dirty poetry.


25 posted on 02/14/2013 7:34:28 AM PST by yefragetuwrabrumuy (Best WoT news at rantburg.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CitizenUSA
State governements also only have enumerated powers (via state constitutions) and are also limited by the bill of rights otherwise we would have state tyrannies. (which we apparently have anyway, but that is beside the point)

Porn with children can not be made without raping a child. That is why it is banned and obviously laws protecting children from sexual exploitation is constitutional. Child pornography can not be conflated with typical pornography made with consentual adult actors. The child pornography issue is raised only to muddle an otherwise crystal clear 1st amendment issue. This isn't to say that I think pornography has any redeeming merits, or even that it doesn't present some very clear dangers, but my opinions don't change the clear meaning and principles of the constitution.

26 posted on 02/14/2013 7:38:01 AM PST by Durus (You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality. Ayn Rand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

Libertarians are all in favor of it (kiddie porn).


We are not. Children lack the maturity to consent to sex.


27 posted on 02/14/2013 7:48:10 AM PST by Atlas Sneezed (Universal Background Check -> Registration -> Confiscation -> Oppression -> Extermination)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: don-o

Porn overrides all petty concerns. Good porn, I feel will touch your heart, uplift your soul, and encourage you to GET UP when you’ve been knocked down. Porn heals. Porn is the culmination of mankinds experience. Porn makes a summer day a little warmer. Porn delights the spirit and makes love to the soul. Porn is festive. It’s like a parade with free buffet and jumping cheerleaders with pompoms and a band playing and a big silvery moon, with fireworks and party hats and streamers and cotton candy on a summer night by a glass-smooth lake as you hold the one you love in front of a roaring fire on a bearskin rug, while you overlook the mountains of Aspen from the deck of your expensive yacht.


28 posted on 02/14/2013 7:48:22 AM PST by Lazamataz (Republicans have the same policies as the Democrats, except for the part where they win elections.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Rappini
I’m for blocking Porn on all ISP’s, how’s that for a thought starter.

But then you get to the question of "what is porn?" and who has the right to say what it is and isn't? To some, the Super Bowl Halftime Show was porn. Does that mean ISPs have a duty to block the Super Bowl?

I'm disgusted by a lot of what is on the internet but I'd rather have it and choose not to partake in it that have some Obama-chosen bureaucrat decide that Free Republic should be banned. And if you don't believe they wouldn't try it, just wait.

29 posted on 02/14/2013 7:53:20 AM PST by OrangeHoof (Our economy won't heal until one particular black man is unemployed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
There has been a big drop in rape and murder since the mid 1990s. That shouldn't be happening if porn were a causative factor.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

30 posted on 02/14/2013 7:53:20 AM PST by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

You had me at Good Porn!


31 posted on 02/14/2013 7:56:18 AM PST by Dr. Ursus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

It’s an interesting question. In 30 or 40 years the generation that was raised in an era of very easily accessed porn will be the ones in charge. If it is as bad as many say for society, it will probably be too late at that point to do anything about it.

On the other hand, I can’t see the state sticking soley with ‘porn philter’ limits once they get the power. On the other-other hand, they already probably limit access to certain things.

The libs that seem to be for this have become so liberal that they went in a complete circle and came out the other side.

If it is implemented I suppose we can always compare Iceland to free access porn places in 50 years or so. Of course Iceland is the place where the state has to approve the name you call your kid, if I recall.

Freegards


32 posted on 02/14/2013 7:56:30 AM PST by Ransomed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

Yes, but I suspect this is a situation of closing the barn after the horse has run out.

Admittedly, I do not know much about Iceland and its culture, but I think that I am correct in saying that religious observation there has decreased markedly. Internet porn, I suspect, is just blooming in a weedy field where there has been woefully insufficient seeding of moral truth and standards of decency.


33 posted on 02/14/2013 8:03:11 AM PST by Bigg Red (Restore us, O God of hosts; let your face shine, that we may be saved! -Ps80)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

There is some affliction or dread condition that needs a poster child out there. I am making that a project. Stand by.


34 posted on 02/14/2013 8:06:21 AM PST by don-o (He will not share His glory and He will NOT be mocked! Blessed be the name of the Lord forever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg; Lazamataz; CitizenUSA; don-o
Me.. I'm all for First Amendment (you knew I'd say that) but I am wondering in porn isn't a special case.

The First Amendment relates primarily to political and intellectual liberty: it is the expression of meaning. It is a cognitive process: the conveying of ideas by speech and by the publishing (in today's world, the media.)

But porn, by definition, doesn't work because it "means something" (on the cognitive level); it works because it "does something." I don't think it's any exaggeration to say it's operant behavior conditioning, based on chemicals, brain hormones.

To put it simply (especially for you, my well-loved Laz), sexual arousal and release works like a drug because it triggers feel-good brain chemicals: it suppresses cortisol, sends in a rush of serotonin, dopamine, and oxytocin.

If you could get this stuff via a needle in the vein by pressing the S-E-X keys on the compute keyboard, you'd be reacting not to the cognitive meaing of word "sex," but by the entry of blood-borne drugs into the brain.

I think that's what makes porn different from "speech" and "the press." It has more similarities with drugs and addiction. In other words, it's not, precisely speaking, communication (an intellectual process). It's more like a chemical hit.

True, you could bring this on by plain-old masturbating with a tintype of Queen Victoria (if that's your taste.) But internet porn, especially, has a degree of instantaneous access, sensory overload, and perversion so extreme, that it compares to making IV heroin available to every 12-year-old with an internet connection.

It also sets up adult men to be interested in those 12-year-olds, because it significantly weakens their natural sense of good-touch and body-boundary, and their normal, self-protective aversion toward anything that is dangerous or perverted.

And that is a legitimate human rights and public safety concern.

(And citizen usa, it's obviously different from medical journals, art, and the like. Anatomy charts and Michelangelo's David don't reach right in from your eyes to your crotch to effect chemical-based operant conditioning on your brain.)

35 posted on 02/14/2013 8:39:06 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

Interesting in that Iceland is one of the most sexually loose nations on the planet....and the first to legalize abortion (1930’s)

They must be having major problems with child porn.


36 posted on 02/14/2013 9:12:55 AM PST by SeminoleCounty (GOP = Greenlighting Obama's Programs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg; avenir
I'm genuinely concerned about government controlling an internet filter. I am, for instance, irreconcilably oposed to "blasphemy" laws at any level: local, national or international.

However, just as there may be legitimate criteria to distinguish between "active terrorist conspiracy" and political speech, and there may also be legitimate criteria to distinguish between "toxic BDSM pornography" and intellectual/artistic expression.

I myself, have had the experience of both being frustrated by a self-installed filter on my computer when researching a sexual issue, AND to have been assaulted by a sadistic image of sexual brutality which popped up when I was looking for an illustration for Louisa May ALcott's "Little Women."

It's not safe for me that men are being repetitively conditioned toward the torture of women as a form of entertainment. Or women so abusing men, or other women. Or children.

Keywords "Little women". No joke.

In a democratic republic, it has been possible to make such distinctions in the past, and may be possible to make them again.

37 posted on 02/14/2013 9:16:00 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

My momma always said that if I looked at porn I would turn to stone. I did!

I wish I still did!


38 posted on 02/14/2013 9:20:53 AM PST by Ruy Dias de Bivar ( Too old to cut the mustard any more.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

Comment #39 Removed by Moderator

To: Mrs. Don-o
Porn opponents say they are taking it from a "new" perspective, "from the perspective of the harm it does to the women who appear in it and as a violation of their civil rights."

So then, they should be ok with gay porn. No women involved there.

40 posted on 02/14/2013 9:26:24 AM PST by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

The problem is, as always, what is porn and what is art? Opinions vary. Nudes (female) are fine with me, sex is not.


41 posted on 02/14/2013 9:39:08 AM PST by jpsb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
...overlook the mountains of Aspen from the deck of your expensive yacht.

....that's sitting in your driveway?........

42 posted on 02/14/2013 9:47:20 AM PST by Red Badger (Lincoln freed the slaves. Obama just got them ALL back......................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: don-o

There are people who lack porn. Let us work together to help them!


43 posted on 02/14/2013 9:50:02 AM PST by Lazamataz (Republicans have the same policies as the Democrats, except for the part where they win elections.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Gay State Conservative
Well, for one thing there's hard-core porn available on the internet-access computers in the Public Library, and the ACLU is pushing to make it illegal to block it under the First Amendment.

They've already got that in place --- the exceptionless legal protection of porn on Public Library internet --- in California and, I presume, elsewhere as well.

So if I'm a home-schooling parent, it's my job to keep my children out of the Public Library? And all other children as well, because sick memes run through groups of kids like a virus?

What right has the ACLU to make Public Libraries unusable by the very part of the public to whom they are indispensible: parents with kids? Am I a threat to democracy because I don't want my kids to "open any door" and stumble upon an inches-away zoom shot of a well-hung male f*cking a well-hung male?

Are you saying, as well, that during all those decades when porn WAS suppressed by interstate commerce laws, everybody had the law wrong, but now that the mind-adhesive filth is everywhere, we've finally got what the Founding Fathers wanted?

And are you not familiar with Communist aims for breaking down society, or do you think that's some sort of Conservative canard?

18. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.

19. Break down culture standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and T.V.

20. Present homosexuality, degeneracy, and promiscuity, as "normal, natural, healthy."

I would be a tad more satisfied with the Free Republic if it would make a clean break with the ACLU.
44 posted on 02/14/2013 9:50:28 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy
There's no doubt that salacious literature and graphic sexual display has been with us since ancient history. An ancient pedigree does not make a thing either good or bad. The ancients had servile pederasty, courtship by bride-capture, castration of boy sopranos, sex-slave recruitment by abduction, and abortion by toxic poultice and pointed stick. That doesn't make it right. And it doesn't make the suppression of those practices unreasonable.

Second, note well this simile:

16th century nudes: internet pornography :: 16th century beer: IV heroin.

What we have today is corrosive beyond compare; there's not been anything like it ever in the history of the world for technical production values, universal instant accessibility, and rank perversion.

Although whatever was going on on the threshing-floor of Baal-peor (Hosea Chapter 9) might be comparable in terms of an abomination that stinks to Heaven and pollutes the earth, and a spectacle that pleases the Slayer.

45 posted on 02/14/2013 10:03:44 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Durus
"The child pornography issue is raised only to muddle an otherwise crystal clear 1st amendment issue."

You have made a reasonable point that in child pornography, there is the additional problem of child (what do they call them? actors? stars? models? rapees?) being utilized in the production. The Japanese have solved that particular problem with child rapee CGI's.

But there is the additional problem that, as I said in #35, the First Amendment was arguably intended to protect all controversial speech and publishing, i.e. the conveyance of ideas. Cognitive content. That did not include, even then, sedition, which is a form of treason; and I would argue it did not include porn, which is arousal-based (which is to say, comparable to the purveying of a harmful drug) --- and not communication-based.

I think it could be objectively defined, too. And on a more objective basis than, "I don't know how to define it, but I know it when I see it."

I don't think the "prurient interest" criterion is utterly useless, but going a step further, surely some University can monitor the sexual arousal patterns of experimental subject-viewers, program that basic info into a computer, and thereafter use the computer make a reasonable assessment of whether the material in question is physiological-arousal oriented rather than intellectual-cognitive oriented.

46 posted on 02/14/2013 10:24:58 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
I am glad we have a 1st Amendment to protect us against this silliness.

Actually, you've got it backwards. We had laws against pornography for 180 years until some idiot judges decided that the First Amendment covered things like gay sex videos. Sorry, but once a noble idea like the First Amendment is expanded to protecting disgusting obscenity, it ceases to have any meaning.

But hey, enjoy watching your gay sex videos in your post-Christian totalitarian society.
47 posted on 02/14/2013 10:38:11 AM PST by Antoninus (Sorry, gone rogue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba
We are not. Children lack the maturity to consent to sex.

When do they gain that authority? Who gets to decide? That's the sticking point for Libertine-arians. Does the government have the right to set an age of consent?
48 posted on 02/14/2013 10:41:40 AM PST by Antoninus (Sorry, gone rogue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba
"Children lack the maturity to consent to sex."

That's interesting, and of course I agree with you.

But why is sex special? Why does it require a greater degree of maturity to legally consent to sex, than to consent to a foot-massage or a shoulder-rub or even a ride in a tilt-a-whirl?

With children pre-puberty, the unwanted-pregnancy risk does not exist, nor does it exist for an older child if the sex is confined to the usual sterile copulatory perversions; and if the adult perp is either infection-free or condom-equipped or otherwise shrink-wrapped for freshness and quality assurance, the STI risk does not exist either.

(But excuse my use of the disrespectful "perp". Now they call themselves adepts at intergenerational love, sexuality mentors, or even activists for children's sexual rights.)

So, prescinding from pregnancy and infection, what reasons are there for protecting children from sexual access? And if those reasons are not really compelling, will they not necessarily be dropped in favor of equal rights, the liberty interest, and (no doubt somebody will call this a means of free expression) The First Amendment?

Conversely, if sexual exposure really IS harmful to children -- as these scrupulously agnostic Icelandic "experts" say it is --- wouldn't that justify curbing the universal (including childrens') access to adult porn, which is the Internet status quo?

49 posted on 02/14/2013 10:42:45 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
I would be a tad more satisfied with the Free Republic if it would make a clean break with the ACLU.

Seriously. There has always been a faction on FR that think Larry Flynt was one of the Founding Fathers. It's long past time for them to wise up and realize that they've been played.

Addiction to sexual vice = slavery.
50 posted on 02/14/2013 10:50:48 AM PST by Antoninus (Sorry, gone rogue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-117 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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