Women Uniting For War on Porn

Salt Lake Tribune ^ | Sunday, October 14, 2001 | Mark Eddington

[NoCurrentFreeperByThatName]

FReeperette's point of view?

[Brett66]

The only way they will get my porn is if they tear it from my cold, cramped hands!

FMHHP - From My Hot Harry Palms. LOL!

[Don Myers]

It is true that smut is covered under the First Amendment. People have the "right" to look at porn. It is also true that porn can be detrimental to some people. Porn has always been with the human race. I have a Chinese Wedding Coin centuries old that depict lovemaking positions. The coin was given to the newly weds. Ancient examples of porn exist. Anyway, porn is with us, and it is likely to stay.

[NoCurrentFreeperByThatName]

Can someone mail this woman a copy of a Max Hardcore video to maybe put her objections to the images in the Sears catalogue into perspective?

She ain't gettin' any of my videos.

[zoyd]

MY GOD! If they wanna stop the spread of porn, make that lady pose for all of it!

Paula Houston -- that guy has some guts, trying to get my porn...

[Cogadh na Sith]

You're gonna' need to get the dog drunk.

No, you're gonna have to get the volunteer drunk--and a Viagra I.V.

[discostu]

Just goes to show these folks don't listen to the right stuff. 30 years ago George Carlin had a routine about word choice that sounds a lot like what she says here, I can only remember the beginning and the end: "we have to prick holes in the stiff front errected by the smut dealer...", "... it's going to be hard on us but we can't lick it by being soft." I think it's in "Filthy Words" on Occupation: Foole, definitely one of the Little David albums.

[Smedley]

"Implicit in the history of the First Amendment is the rejection of obscenity as utterly without redeeming social importance."

Actually, I agree that MOST pornography should not have constitutional protection. 100% -- no 100000000%.

However, as an adult, I personally think I can choose my own reading material -- that is all! Not a constitutional issue for me -- I just don't care for nanny-states.

[freeeee]

We don't need pornography polluting our lives at a time like this.

OUR lives? Let me make this sparkling clear to you: Your life is yours, and my life is mine. You have no ownership over other's lives, and therefore absolutely no authority to determine what others see, hear and read.

[Economist_MA]

Pornography destroys families.

I honestly believe that pornography saves a lot of marriages. It gets you through periods of PMS, long business trips and whatever other periods of marital withdrawal you might encounter. I am fortunate enough to be blessed with a wonderful wife who doesn't mind me looking at other women, and can trust me that I would never touch anybody else.

[Smedley]

all your porn are belong to us

[Cogadh na Sith]

This is great news. We don't need pornography polluting our lives at a time like this.

Speak for yourself, you!

Lately, I've found the local topless bars to be a great stress reliever after pulling a long shift of guard duty with my National Guard unit.

Furthermore, it helps me to remember all the things worth fighting for: God, Guns, The Constitution and the freedom to ogle really big hooters.

[Hacksaw]

But they didn't. Instead, they reaffirmed our right to unlimited free speech.

I think you would be hard put to argue with the founders that they meant to include pornography as freedom of the press. The fact that it is still regulated today should clue you in on that.

If you don't like it, the amendment process is well defined for you. If that doesn't work out, there are plenty of countries that will play mommy for you and decide for you what you can see.

No need for that hysterical response. Try not to insinuate things I did not post.

[StoneColdGOP]

My God. It doesn't surprise me that a woman of that magnitude wants to stop other people from enjoying their lives.

[goodieD]

As conservative as I am, I believe that as long as this stuff stays under wraps where it belongs, and doesn't violate any obvious laws (such as kiddie porn), then hey, leave em alone. The women who do this stuff do it for their own reasons, they are NOT victims! They are adults. As long as they don't go around spreading AIDS or recruiting kids, let them sort out their own problems.

[dead]

I think you would be hard put to argue with the founders that they meant to include pornography as freedom of the press.

I’m not interested in yours, or anybody else’s, clairvoyance regarding the minds of the founding fathers. I’m interested in the actual words that they wrote in the Constitution. They did not specify that obscenity or pornography were exempted from 1st amendment protection, so they are not.

The fact that it is still regulated today should clue you in on that.

Like guns?

[Justanumba]

I am not in favor of more legislation (on hardly anything, for that matter -- we have way too many laws). Appreciation of scantily clad women by men doesn't bother me. Nor does nude art (Hey David's a fox!) But Porn can be used as a weapon. And some porn is so sick and demented that I cannot believe that any good man would be interested.

I write for Sierra Times, Eaglesup and Free Republic. About a year ago, I was spammed with pornography -- probably some leftist who didn't like what I wrote decided to sign me up with every disgusting porn site they could think of. My e-mail was filled, and just the subject lines were enough to make me sick. I worked with Yahoo abuse and over the year we have been able to eliminate most of it. I did not choose to have this perversion forced on me and it was a trifle intimidating to have to even deal with it at all. Luckily, you are speaking to a second amendment supporter!

I think that pornography can be abusive of, and detrimental to women and the men (especially the young and underage) that view the worst of it. Perhaps it is just the price of freedom, which as we all know, while not perfect, is the best system there is! I wish I knew the answer.

[Rodney King]

Maybe we should have a tri-state freeper strip club outing.