Quick. Get Registered to change that story from "College Girls Nude" to "Fat Chicks in Spandex".
That would explain her being so Peed off.
Posted on 10/15/2001 10:57:59 AM PDT by TexRef
They knew it is not the job of the federal government to limit or forbid the type of material an individual puts into his\her mind. The consequences, if any, will provide punishment enough. If we want to limit the influence of porn in our society, we must as individuals educate others of our opinions and provide help. Frankly we must get off our butts and do something. It is your job to change society, not the governments. The problem today is that people are too lazy to do things for themselves.
You can not regulate morality. Was it WH Penn that said "Those who will not be Governed by God will be ruled by Tyrants"? He knew that Man could only rely on God for Morality - not Government. I believe he knew something about Government impose morality! This Force, this Fire we call government will turn against it's master and become master when given the power to legislate our inalienable rights.
We need to Revive, not Revise our Constitution! At that end, we will truly be free!
The issue, however, has to do with the fact that women in Utah (obviously, we're talking Mormon women here, for the most part) take seriously the words of Christ who stated that adultery of the heart and mind isn't any different, spiritually speaking, from actual physical adultery.
The Book of Mormon teaches that fidelity is a physical and mental thing.
We should be very wary of giving Powers of censorship to the government no matter how moral the reason.
Generically, this is nothing more than ascribing malevolent characteristics to inanimate objects. The gun grabbers do exactly the same thing when they assert that "guns" are the cause of murders, the drug warriors when they claim "drugs" cause crime, and the "porn czars" when they claim smut destroys families.
Inanimate objects cannot possess such characteristics, by definition. An active perpetrator is required in every case.
Smut is additionally different from guns and drugs in that smut is a form of "information." As such, it can be digitally represented as a sequence of 0's and 1's.
Are we to believe that some sequences of 0's and 1's are "okay" while others are "dangerous"? What is the algorithm that we use to distinguish "dangerous" sequences from "safe" ones?
This entire porn-phobia farce is nothing more than the latest incarnation of the Puritanical mindset that has haunted America since its earliest days. I believe H.L. Mencken defined a Puritan as someone who was constantly upset by the fact that someone, somewhere, was having a good time.
If the modern-day Puritans have their way, we will live in an America where men can be called upon to die in defense of a country where they are forbidden by law to look at pictures of sexually-desireable women not wearing clothes. THAT is what is obscene, not the pictures.
Perhaps it was said more succinctly in the film "Apocalypse Now":
"We train young men to drop fire on people. But their commanders won't allow them to write f@ck on their airplanes because it's obscene!" -( Colonel Kurtz )
(And the context in which they were written)
Amendment I: "Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…"
Which was written in a time when political speech could get one jailed or executed. Ergo, we must take that fact into consideration when making the claim on what that exactly entails. BTW, you seem to have left out a vital part of the 1st that many of the free speech absolutists tend to forget about.
That is an absolute protection. No law, not some laws. All speech, not some speech. They were intellingent enought to provide exceptions if they wanted, but they didn't. That I submit as proof of my position. The onus is upon you to prove that they didn't mean what is written in the 1st Amendment. What proof have you?
Actually, the "onus" is not on me - but another example is that of the publication of child porn, issuing death threats, calling "FIRE" in a theatre, etc. It is by no means an absolute protection.
People are always trying to redefine some part of the Constitution they don't like.
The fact is that porn is widespread precisely because the constitution was redefined by the supreme court.
Some people don't like guns, some people don't like naughty pictures, some people don't think probable cause is needed for searches. Ultimately, the logic is the same: "The Constitution doesn't mean what it says, it means what I want it to say".
As you are making it say what you want it to.
I don't think I'm being hysterical. I was insinuating that you agree with this woman, and would like to ban material you find obscene. Is this correct?
You are being hysterical. You have suggested I move to another country because I don't agree with your revision of the 1st. I agree with community standards.
Anyway, I haven't suggested that I would like to ban it, but that I agree that it does not have 1st amendment protection.
Yes, and the Taliban doesn't want to come across as puppets for the most wanted man on earth. You both failed miserably.
"[They are] poor, ungainly, and pathetically ‘homely’ creatures. … The man that marries one of them has done an act of Christian charity which entitles him to the kindly applause of mankind, not their harsh censure -- and the man who marries sixty of them has done a deed of openhanded generosity so sublime that the nation should stand uncovered in his presence and worship in silence!"
The government (and we, the people, are the government) tells us what it thinks is moral all of the time: that's why we have laws against fraud and theft and assault and slander.
The question seems to be whether or not activities engaged in by consenting adults should be illegal or not. That's what the drug war is all about. It really boils down to the idea of "local standards". If you don't want a Porn Czar, don't move to Utah.
Then you have never been to Utah.... its obvious to anyone that it has a state religion, that being LDS.
Once you learn to read the emanations of the penumbrae, you'll realize that the words don't mean what you thought they meant. Impenetrability! That's what I say!
By this "logic", the plethora of gun control laws which exist today prove that the Founders did not intend to allow citizens to arm themselves.
Quick. Get Registered to change that story from "College Girls Nude" to "Fat Chicks in Spandex".
That would explain her being so Peed off.
Spamming, being a form of theft of services, ought to be illegal regardless of content.
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.