Utah scraps the First Ammendment.

A rose by any other name... The effects are still the same.

por·nog·ra·phy
n.

1. Pictures, writing, or other material that is sexually explicit and sometimes equates sex with power and violence.
2. The presentation or production of this material.

---

e·rot·i·ca
pl.n. (used with a sing. or pl. verb)

Literature or art intended to arouse sexual desire.

---

The first amendment should have been, "The right of the people to experience the consequences of their irresponsible use of "rights" shall not be infringed."
 
Un-freakin-believeable...

It's amazing. Even here, on a pro-gun political bulliten board, there are still plenty of people who will defend government regulation, as long as it meshes with their own ideas about right and wrong.

Anytime you give the state power to regulate something...ANYTHING...internal to itself, you've given them the power to regulate (or restrict) everything. Every object, every action, every thought. You've lost the ethical consistency that is the core of a rational argument.

"Redeeming value" matters not a whit, nor does "the majority opinion." Every object, word, or action is protected. THAT is what a free society entails, where every human being can regulate his own property and his own thoughts, without having to justify it to a regulatory authority (beyond whatever deity or philosophy you happen to follow.)

And some people (many, I suppose) find that scary. Even here. That's too bad.

Later,
Chris
 
Yup they are all the same. "assault rifles" and BB guns are just the same. Ban them all. <sigh>

No offence intended of course. You already stated that guns have a value and porn doesnt. It's not the porn I'll miss, it's the right to decide. It's the right to govern myself in a sensable way. Soon I wont have to decide what is right and wrong because the government will be there to tell me which is which.

How is the first amendment so terribly different from the second? Some would argue all guns are are nothing but killing weapons, they were designed just to kill so they are evil... what value does a product like that have to an anti? None.

We are entitleled under freedom to make our own mistakes, and find the best road for us to travel. I encourage your right to spit upon porn, but please respect my right to make my own decission on the matter, and not regulate it with laws. As this is what the first amendment is all about....
 
Christopher II,

I'm guessing your comments are mostly directed to me.

That's fine.

But, you said,
Every object, word, or action is protected.
Click to expand...

By the word "every" do you mean that murder, theft, extortion, abuse, traitorous acts, etc. are to be protected? Or would you care to qualify that statement a little bit more.

We are not talking about a perfect world. In a perfect world people would regulate themselves. There would be no need for government beyond the individual.

The point that I am trying to hammer home here is that the IRRESPONSIBLE excercise of rights is not justifiable under ANY amendment. The rights that we have are to benifit us and society, "no man is an island." And all our actions have consequences that ripple outward for good or bad. Some ripples move faster and are larger than others.

I do not recall ever expressing my opinion that this law was a good law, nor do I recall saying that it was a bad law.

Government is fire, and no matter how well intentioned it is, whenever we take our eyes off of it we get burned.
 
Originally posted by John/az2
"The right of the people to experience the consequences of their irresponsible use of "rights" shall not be infringed."
Click to expand...

So what you are saying is that we all have the right to offend and be offended. Correct?

I agree with you, if this is what your quote means. However, this doesn't mean that you have no right to do something personally to stop that which you find offensive. Just please don't push a morality judgement into a government regulation on free speech.

BTW, I happen to agree with you on the pornography issue, but I believe that we must protect even free speech we disagree with if we are to be true to the Constitution. Some seek a higher law than the Constitution, and that is admirable. It is not, however, the role of the state or federal government to impose value judgements via the law.

An old signature line of mine:
"Rights liable to be perverted into wrongs if we are incapable of rightly exercising them." - Sarah Josepha Hale
Click to expand...

Just like using firearms, this is a personal responsibility issue. If you don't like the way someone else is using their firearms at the range, you can do something about it, or leave.
 
I am saddened to see how quickly the "protectors" of the Costitution can do an about face. How many of us have said "its all or none" or someother form of rhetoric when we whine about the media/government blast the second, the fourth and the fifth. Yet here we are saying its OK to blast parts of the first cause YOU dont like watching people screw. I'm not a big fan of porn, but I am a BIG fan of the Constitution which sais we have a right to express ourselves. Now as long as the people doing the porn are volunteers and are not being coerced in any way shape or form and as are the viewers, what harm is it doing??? I fully aqree with age minimums for both actors and viewers, but the rest can go to hell. Unless someone is FORCING you to watch it is not violating any of your rights, cause you can freely turn the channel or leave the establishment displaying it. You dont want your kids watching it, then be better parents and raise them to live life according to your belief systems. I didnt watch porn as a kid because it wasnt available or I wasnt curious, but because my mom and dad raised me to know better.

If you read through all the arguments used to defend this stupid position, you'll find many of the same logical arguments used against guns and privacy. Its for the children... strikes again.

I hope that this "porn tzar" does go on the offensive and gets a bunch of unconstitutional laws thrown out.
 
So what you are saying is that we all have the right to offend and be offended. Correct?
Click to expand...

This is absolutely correct. Choose to knowingly offend someone; choose to reap the knuckle sandwich. :D

However, this doesn't mean that you have no right to do something personally to stop that which you find offensive. Just please don't push a morality judgement into a government regulation on free speech.
Click to expand...

Government is ineffective, at best, when it tries to regulate morality. That is something best left to the individual.

I believe, based upon personal experience and history, that pornography/erotica is a self-indulgent selfish activity who's negative ripple effect is small and slow, but it's destructive effects are cumulative over long periods of time. We reap what we sow, even if the plant is slow to germinate.

The more people that understand this (and not just about pornography, but about all rights and actions), the less people will feel the need to turn to government for the ineffective "solution".

Education, understanding, and individual positive change are more lasting, and freedom promoting than the most "comprehensive" government program.

The fight is for the right to choose.

Let's choose our actions with the best knowledge about the consequences that that choice will bring. Even if it means personal change.
 
Go re-read my post.

Victimization takes place on both sides of the fence.
Click to expand...

John/az2,

I did re-read your post and I'm still not sure how pornography "poisons the mind", "wrecks homes", et cetera. I think I see what you mean, but you haven't made the cause and effect relationship explicit enough.

You could, for instance, state that "Some people become addicted to pornography and devote so much time to viewing it that they neglect their families, which in turn results in broken homes". Or you could state that "Regular consumers of pornography become so accustomed to stimulation on demand that they can't handle the complexity of real interpersonal relationships". Or you could even extend that argument to claim that pornography, by portraying sexual partners as mere objects, influences people to use violent, criminal means to satisfy their over-stimulated libidos.

The mechanism of harm is important because it defines the nature of the problem. In countering the claim that "Guns are bad", for instance, we can point out that guns are harmless until handled by a malicious or negligent user. But if (please note the "if", everyone :) ) pornography is both addictive and harmful when "used as directed", that's a different situation.
 
John/az2 - I couldn't agree more. And I like your point about the knuckle sandwich. I know that if I ever saw a U.S. flag burning in protest, I would exercise my "right to free speech" by discharging a fire extinguisher in the same vicinity.

"Let us choose our actions with the full understanding of the consequences that our actions will bring; especially if it means personal change for the better."

Other than "Unintended Consequences," I think we've got us a pretty good quote here. :)
 
John,

Please re-think your statement, "Should we have laws banning such things? If the people pass such a law, then they obviously feel that it is for the good of their society."

It comes down to value judgements, John. Pornography does not injure me or my family so far as we can tell. We use Art's On/Off switch to avoid what we want to avoid. I guess some "addictions" are not so strong as others. ;)

I'm darned leery of giving ANYone the power to determine what's the best for me, what I should read, what I should think, etc. Please re-consider.
 
John/az2 -

Not entirely. Well, maybe you kind of triggered my comments. I've just read (here and elsewhere) too many statements by too many supposedly pro-freedom people in support of the drug war, restrictions on porn, and dozens of other pro-state regulations. It tends to get under one's skin.

Anyhow, as to qualifying my statement, I'll try to spare us all another rendition of "Libertarian Philosphy 101." Initating force against another is never protected, and the state quite rightly punishes those who do. What I was talking (complaining?) about is the premptive regulation of ownership and action that the state engages in. Such as gun control, and obscenity laws.

I guess the point I wanted to make is that just because something is not good for you (or for society) doesn't give anybody the perogative to ban it. Who decides???

Yada yada yada...

Later,
Chris
 
No, Dennis. I made a statement of fact. Are you assuming that I agree with the law? I did no such thing.

Let me re-phrase that statement. It might help clear up what I meant by it.

"Should we have had Bill Clinton as president for the last 8 years? If the people elected such a person then they obviously felt that it was for the good of their society."

WE elected him!

You said,
I'm darned leery of giving ANYone the power to determine what's the best for me, what I should read, what I should think, etc.
Click to expand...

So am I.

What other purpose then does congress serve, other than being a dart board for those who recognize the futility of the majority of the laws that they pass?

WE elected them! To what end did we do that?

Don't get me wrong. I WANT a smaller less intrusive government!

As far as the damage that pornography causes... well, this is a gun issues board. So only with the consent of the moderators and yourself will I elaborate on that and see if I can put my thoughts and reasonings down in print.

Otherwise I will write a rather lengthy email for anyone interested in how I see the connections.

And if this post seems scattered, it's because I am writing it between tasks at work... :)
 
Censorship

***RANT MODE ON***

If a woman wants to take a picture or video of herself naked, and sell it to me, who in the he!! are you to try and put either of us in jail for doing so? It is not up to *you* or our politicos to decide what is and is not moral for *me*. If I'm harming no one but myself, you have NO right to regulate my behavior, period. Making providing porn to children a crime, and outlawing child pornography (which requires child abuse to produce) is fine, that's a good thing. Otherwise, keep your 'morality' out of my life, I'll run own my life for myself! I don't need any anal-rententive control freaks deciding what's good for me, thanks.
"Of all the tyrannies, a tyranny sincerly exercised for the good of its victims may be the most opressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
-- C. S. Lewis --
Click to expand...
***RANT MODE OFF***
 
I believe that the sex industry is "damaging". Be it dancing, prostitution, videos, or photo shoots. This is from personal observation. It still shouldn't be regulated in the manner that Utah does. It is contrary to the 1st Ammendment.
 
What a farce. "Community Standards????" They are not originated from within the individual communities in that state; they are dictated from the large building(s) downtown in SLC.

Classic example of not wanting to let a lil' ol' phrase in an "obscure document" getting in the way of what one person or group wants to impose upon everyone.

Bleah.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top