Prohibiting Pornography -- A Moral Imperative

Morality in Media ^ | 1984 | Paul J. McGeady

[PeterFinn]

I'm with you on this except for the fact that liberal judges will eventually define conservative dialogue as pornographic if this were to pass.

Let God back into our schools, our government, and our hearts and pornography will fade away all on its own.

[mvpel]

If you want a Iranian-style theocracy, just say so.

Oh wait, you already did.

[Protagoras]

Putting government in charge of morality is like putting pedophiles in charge of children.

[Tailgunner Joe]

You want to be owned by commie pimps.

[Moral Hazard]

Let me be the first to ask: Where are the pictures?

[CSM]

Very frightening that anyone supposedly "conservative" would support government mandated morality enforcable by the barrell of a gun!

What consenting adults chose to do should remain a choice. Even God created man with free will, I would hope that you wouldn't ask the government to trump that precious gift!

[Knitebane]

"We're your neighbors and since we're smarter than you, we'll decide what you can and can't do/say/think/look at"

Gee, when did Bill and Hillary move in?

[jambooti]

*DING!*

This has to be one of the most ridiculous threads I've seen on FR in my short time here.

[mvpel]

Do communist pimps accept pricing instructions from the politbureau, and have ugly prostitutes? Do communist prostitutes pretend to boff while the john pretends to pay them?

*chuckle*

[little jeremiah]

BookmRked - read later today.

Thanks, Tailgunner.

[Tailgunner Joe]

Do communist pimps accept pricing instructions from the politbureau, and have ugly prostitutes?

Sure do. They also have a whore union rep come and make sure they're clean.

[Dead Corpse]

Obscenity is not encompassed within the phrases "freedom of speech" or "freedom of the press."

Really? My copy of the Constitution doesn't say "Freedom of speech accept no naughty pictures". Their repetitively saying so does not make it true. If you wish to accept such repetition as making truth, then did Bush really lie?

Mrs. Grundy is still a blue nosed b*tch. Keep her out of government.

[Junior]

The nanny-staters are back at it.

[Right Wing Professor]

The obscenity genie flew out of the bottle when the internet was invented, and advances in computer software have made pornographjy essentially unprohibitable. With commercial software and an absolute minimum of talent, almost anyone can produce erotica de novo, without using human actors at all. So what are you going to do? Ban computers? Ban legitimate figure-rendering software that people also use to produce vanilla animations?

I suggest you find another windmill to tilt at.

[Junior]

You might enjoy this thread.

[Dead Corpse]

I've got a coffee table book at home that has nothing but vintage tin plate porno in it. Sex has been around a long time.

I'm willing to bet that there are cave drawings somewhere with priapic activities lewdly depicted.

[Paloma_55]

Very frightening that anyone supposedly "conservative" would support government mandated morality enforcable by the barrell of a gun!

Well.. it all depends on what one defines as morality

Some would say that pounding their scumball neighbor's head into the ground is a moral thing. Should our government stop that? How about running red lights?

I get a kick out of those who claim that the government is not in the business of legislating morality. That is Exactly what they are supposed to do.

Now, again... what is morality?

In essence, it is the collective determination of what is good for society.

I agree that there should be limits as to how far a government will go to limit someone's behavior, for example, they shouldn't peek in your window to determine if you are looking at dirty pictures or banging your boyfriend or even smoking dope... that is too far out of their scope.

On the other hand, I see no problem with the government determining that certain things are bad for society (remember, WE are the government) and thereby making it illegal to sell, distribute, or purchase said things.

If a black market exists on those items, that is essentially OK with me if it stays small enough that it does not have the social impact that legitimizing it would.

Pornography is a great example. Recreational drugs are another.

All that said, the penalty for such things should fit the crime. In the sense that possession of some of these things is "anti-social" at worst, the penalty should be a slap on the wrist. But when you legalize something, you essentially have declared it moral. You have declared that it is OK for society. This changes the equation, especially for kids trying to determine what is right and wrong.

God also created hell.. remember that!

[fizziwig]

"God created man with free will, I would hope that you wouldn't ask the government to trump that precious gift!"

Bingo!

[Tailgunner Joe]

The laws against obscenity apply even to the electronic transmission of computer files. The medium is irrelevant. In 1996, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld the sentences of a California couple who had been convicted on Federal obscenity charges in U.S. District Court in Memphis, Tenn. The Court of Appeals rejected defendants' argument that the materials should have been judged by the community standards of California rather than Tennessee. "Federal obscenity laws, by virtue of their inherent nexus to interstate and foreign commerce, generally involve acts in more than one jurisdiction or state. Furthermore, it is well established that there is no constitutional impediment to the government's power to prosecute pornography dealers in any district into which the material is sent," the Court stated. (United States v. Thomas). The U.S. Supreme Court refused to review the case.

In May 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals that invalidated the Child Online Protection Act (COPA), which restricts children's access to obscene for minors material on the World Wide Web. In their decision (Ashcroft v. ACLU, No. 00-1293), five of the justices concluded that federal obscenity laws were not unconstitutional as applied to the Internet solely because obscenity laws require application of "community standards."