Posted on 10/15/2001 10:57:59 AM PDT by TexRef
As long as every individual involved conforms to both of those terms, let them do what they want.
When contemplating what the Founders meant, one only need read their plain words:
Amendment I: "Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…"
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?
People are always trying to redefine some part of the Constitution they don't like. 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".
No need for that hysterical response. Try not to insinuate things I did not post.
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?
really big hooters.More fine examples of superior American technology.
(And before anyone asks, no, I don't have anything constructive to offer regarding the Porn Czarina. People like her and other "American Taliban" types disturb me more than words can describe.)
However, in a free society, groups like these would do much more for their cause to work toward changes of heart rather than changes of law. It is only through a change of heart, one individual at a time, that positive changes in the whole culture are affected.
Horsehockey. It isn't the porn. If some guy is doing something that his wife doesn't approve of, it's his fault, not the magazine's. If he can't bring himself to please her, he should have married somebody less uptight about it.
This is the Women's Temperance Union all over again. All of society's ills are the fault of demon drink; prohibition is the only solution.
America is beautiful
Interesting.
What do you think you would do if she asked you to keep your vow to cleave only unto her, even in your mind. Do you think it would destroy your marriage?
If you think it is yes, do you really attribute the salvation of your marriage to porn?
Shalom.
But in those cases, there are wrecked cars, damaged livers, burned-out brains, drive-by shootings and depleted bank accounts to point to and say, "here is the damage". In the case of pornography, the problem is completely subjective. If a woman doesn't mind whether her spouse looks at pornography, there is no problem.
Isn't she the "Fat Broad" in the BC comics? Looks just like her.
Hey, we prudish Californians are already ahead of these Utah women, Cosmo-covered-up-in-the-supermarkets-wise.
Now, when I'm at the checkout stand at the local Safeway and I'm trying to count (just for my own amusement) how many times the word "sex" appears on all of the checkout stand magazine covers, the covered up Cosmo cover is skewing my count to the low side.
I hate to say it, but that's pretty funny.
Boy, talk about your fence-straddling California Supreme Court decision...
Although the woman in the photo isn't as skanky as Andrea Dworkin, she *certainly* isn't likely to be the object of unwanted sexual attention by someone who just spent an hour reviewing the latest Playboy T&A.
Methinks she doth protest too much.
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.