Fighting Pornography: A New Approach

Family Fragments.com ^ | 8/15/07 | Justin Hart

[LightedCandle]

Ed Meese, former attorney general under Ronald Reagan and Judith Reisman, noted author and scholar kick off "FamilyFragments.com" a website dedicated to fighting pornogrpahy.

[SteveMcKing]

'It has nothing to do with the spam.'

You brought it up! That's exactly what you were referring to:

"and shoving pictures of orgies down to everyone with an email address."

[GulfBreeze]

Fighting pornography is not any step toward communism as a matte rof fact if you will read Karl Marx works you’ll find out breaking down the public morality is one of many steps towards communism.

Get your facts straight.

[GulfBreeze]

Fighting pornography is not any step toward communism as a matte rof fact if you will read Karl Marx works you’ll find out breaking down the public morality is one of many steps towards communism.

Get your facts straight.

[GulfBreeze]

Looks like someone is projecting a little bit of Marxist self loathing to me.... Hmmmmm?

[hoyaloya]

Perhaps the government might simply use some common sense and tell the folks violating “community standards” to stop?

Instead, to make a point they charge regular people running video stores. I know, I’m friends with one of them.

If this Administration wanted to help American families and kids maybe they wouldn’t run stings against involved fathers and husbands who had no idea what they were doing was considered a crime by some tightwad with a license to prosecute.

[fr_freak]

I'm a firm believer that local communities should be able to enforce some standards of public behavior, as well as set limits to types of businesses in the area. I am willing to accept that view all the way up to the state level. So, if a particular state wants to outlaw the selling of pornography within its borders, or the showing of pornographic movies in public theaters, etc., they have every right to do so. The First Amendment 1) was meant to protect speech of a political nature, but if we accept that it protects all speech, pornography still isn't speech under a reasonable defintion 2) is explicitly applied to the Federal government.

The theory behind our form of government was that the voting public would put in office people who would represent their values and act accordingly. Therefore, if democratically elected representatives enact into law, at the state or local level, such stadnards, then so be it. Where I would draw the line is when the government tries to enforce standards or practices that are against the will of the people. So, for instance, if most people want access to pornography, then it would be unacceptable for their local government to enforce anti-pornography standards upon them.

[Do Be]

There is a huge difference between killing a woman for showing her hair publicly and shoving pictures of orgies down to everyone with an email address.

I didn't get one. I would have remembered.

Should I assume that you don't know your facts or that you are exaggerating(lying)?

Maybe you should shore up your facts by sending me the one you got. Or did you get several? If so, in the interest of honesty, send them all.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

The results are unmistakable: exponential increases in addiction; exposure of children to scenes of brutality; loss of feeling towards spouses; disregard for marital vows and breakup of the family through divorce.

Then you'd assume that divorce rates would have skyrocketed in the last few years. In fact, they've been steadily declining for almost 20 years, having peaked in 1979.

[SubGeniusX]

"How are they creating a new government bureaucracy? Looks to me like they are just using civil litigation to fight pornography."

The same sort of "Legislation through the Courts" and "Judicial Activism" that is decried so forcefully here when it is practiced by the Left (Roe v Wade or Kelo v City of New London, are two prominant examples) ....

but it's ok if the Bench legislates YOUR morality???

what a crock, raise your own kids and family, keep yourself and the Govt away from me and mine ...

Ping to Nanny State and Libertarian

[SteveMcKing]

Fighting pornography is not any step toward communism as a matte rof fact if you will read Karl Marx works you’ll find out breaking down the public morality is one of many steps towards communism.

That's Yuri Bezmenov's take on Marx, and he's right. But there is no connection to porn.

Japan produces immense quantities of pornography having the most outlandish, violent, rape fantasy, bondage, weird fetish, giant orgy, schoolgirl themes... every vile thing you can imagine.

Yet the Japanese have incredibly low rates of sexual assault, rape, and about HALF the divorce rate of the United States (1-in-4 vs about 50%).

Japan is most certainly not moving toward Communism -- not by this or any mechanism.

[dan1123]

I think we need to amend the saying to "Libertarians are Republicans who want to smoke weed and watch porn".

[SubGeniusX]

Gear G-d, I really do hate Theocrats...

Religious Zealotry in ALL forms is dangerous to Liberty and Freedom

[SubGeniusX]

I think we need to amend the saying to "Libertarians are Republicans who want to smoke weed, watch porn, and gamble online."

I say this as I am simultaneously, ^*sitting at my computer, posting at FR, playing a Tourney on PokerStars, and browsing YouPorn (not currently "smoking"^{not that there is anything wrong with that}).

God I love freedom...

^{*All with only one hand of course....}

[GulfBreeze]

LOL... That’s funny.

[dan1123]

Thanks for the reminder, I forgot about gambling.

It’s like the three moral vices of Libertarians: smoking pot, porn, and gambling. As long as you’re not hurting anyone else, who is anyone else to tell you what to do.

It would be perfect if you were able to do all three online, but you can’t smoke pot through the internet though.

[GulfBreeze]

You are wrong on every point you made. Even Yuri. He makes references to the KGB’s intentions. What I said about Marx absolutely stands.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

None of your business if adults want to view sexual material.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

by helping to bring civil litigation against producers and distributors of pornography

First Amendment says otherwise.

[mountainbunny]

I am a woman, a conservative, a mother, a wife, and a person of some faith. You might think that that would make me an opponent of legal (i.e., adults with adults) pornography. You would be wrong.
There are laws against child abuse. Enforce them.
Divorces are sad, but no business of the government.
What adults do with adults is not my business if it does not directly affect me, not is it the business of the court system.
While I personally find pornography offensive, my offense end with me. I do not want to outlaw pornography, as I have read history and know that censorship never stops with the original target and always ends up being more evil than what was originally being censored. It is the price we pay for being able to say what we like.
It is no coincidence that cultures which outlaw pornography *always* end up punishing people who exhibit free thought in other ways.
I despise with all my heart & soul the inclination of some people to try to create a connection between “I wouldn’t have done X (where X is killing, divorce, harming children, whatever) except that I was influenced by pornography”.
You will notice that that is the exact same argument used by Muslim radicals when they force women to dress in black from head to toe, take away voting rights and driving privileges, and stone unmarried adults for being with other adults of the opposite sex.
The thought that decent people have to be protected from ideas or images of other adults is repugnant, and the implication that God created us to be so weak and unable to think for ourselves (and therefore requiring constant downwards guidance from all-knowing religious leaders and government) is disturbing and quite un-American.
My creator did not make me so weak as to be unable to resist the clutches of whatever the vice-of-the-week is right now.