Posted on 08/15/2007 1:58:32 PM PDT by 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.
Both Liberals and Conservatives have their favorite
.
YOU CAN’T DO THIS OR YOU CAN’T OWN THAT LIST.
.
They are both anti-American when they would restrict activities and possessions of George Washington.
.
Throw them all out including the #^%&*# Bureaucrats.
.
It’s all about social control. Get you used to
rolling over and when it comes to Amnesty for
Illegal Aliens they try to steamroller you.
Both Liberals and Conservatives have their favorite
.
YOU CAN’T DO THIS OR YOU CAN’T OWN THAT LIST.
.
They are both anti-American when they would restrict activities and possessions of George Washington.
.
Throw them all out including the #^%&*# Bureaucrats.
.
It’s all about social control. Get you used to
rolling over and when it comes to Amnesty for
Illegal Aliens they try to steamroller you.
just don't ask the Govt Courts to handle ...
or do you agree w/ Hillary that "it takes a village" to raise your kids?
Define "Obscenity" please ...
and who gets the final call on that?
I think I agree with you. You probably should not have exposed your children to technology that you didn't understand.
I didn't allow my children to have access to porn until I thought they were old enough to appreciate it, at which point I installed a computer with high speed internet access in their room and allowed them to close their door when they wanted privacy.
I, who was denied access to porn until much later in life, was no where near as healthy in attitude or practice at that age as they are now.
I suspect porn is less unhealthy for a child than controlling, repressed parents who think of nudity and sex as dirty.
Guns don't kill people and computers do not expose children to anything, but those who own guns and computers are responsible for what is done with them.
You knowingly allowed your children to enjoy porn. I wonder what the Nanny State Conservatives think of that.
So do you agree with the statement that “websites clearly announce what content they have inside”?
The jury gets the final call.
Are we going to ban premarital sex too? I mean, hey, as long as we're shoring up public morality and all. How about extra-marital affairs? The article lists "disregard for marital vows" as one of the horrible side effects of porn, along with the "breakup of the family through divorce". So, why aren't these same people also pushing for a ban on divorce? After all, aren't these the real problems?
Wow.. looking at some pictures can do all that?
Not, I imagine, unless you a weak-minded fool.
weak minded fools must be protected by the self annointed “protectors” /sarc
>> After all, aren’t these the real problems?
I think that the argument would be that wide acceptance of pornography has led to premarital sex and such.
But I don’t think that the reasons listed are the principles they are operating out of. They are just ways to get porn sites shut down because of other reasons.
What brings on such a season? Degeneracy. The proclivity of Arabians for vices -- sex, drink, gambling -- brought on Mohammed. He sought to reign those vices in. And look with what we are left! Thousands of years later, even.
The spouse and child abuse, the destitution of England, brought on by gin, brought on the period of harsh Gin Laws in the eighteenth century.
In our own country the widespread production, read availability, and cheap prices of spirits and beer as we became urbanized around the turn of the Century -- and teh consequent spouse and child abuse, the dereliction of the duties of adulthood due to alcoholic stupors and sickness brought on ever increasing harsh laws, eventually the Prohibition.
The later two cases -- the Gin laws, the Prohibition --each was a circuit breaker to the destructive maelstrom unleashed by new production methods.
Porn has such a new method. We are flooded with cheap porn and there are social consequences.
These are undeniable, yet the horde of libertarian-zealots denies any problem, so it would seem.
Will they have us all left to chance against a coming Mohammed? Or to suffer a Prohibition?
For something must be done. If men, by themselves are unable to do it, then society must act by that collective moral force we implement as law.
And that law will be harsher for all the scoffing that nothing is wrong! Or that the pornographic equivalent of constant drunkenness is just a grand FREEDOM.
Folly always finds fools to join its march.
The internet while being in a sense "public" actually requires "Private" things to be accessed... IE. a computer or web surfing device.. an subscription to an ISP.. etc... as an adult I have not found myself being surprised by "porn" while browsing in any time I can remember... now if I look for it thats a different story...
the internet is very different than taking a walk in the public square and finding a 2 people in the act of sex ... or some guy with his unit swinging in the wind...
as far as an earlier question:
So do you agree with the statement that “websites clearly announce what content they have inside”?
obviously this is not the case as there are "campers and such that take advantage of misspellings and such... and who in the hell would have known what "goatse" was (warning do not google "goatse").... but any good filtering software does not rely on the websites name or even voluntary ratings... most use search crawlers to determine content ... as a parent get good filtering software ...
What’s wrong with porn?
Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
A great new program started by Ed Meese.
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.