Moderated What's wrong with porn?

[sugarb]

You do realize the consequences of posting this.

Yup. You know it.

You're gonna be ignored by SW.

Welcome to the club!!!!

Is there alcohol? Rum and Coke, maybe, or Southern Comfort?

It was being easily influenced. I just couldn't help myself



Besides, I'm not in TOTAL agreement...that might win me some leniency. I'm just admitting I can't find anything to support my feelings. Who knows...maybe Southwind17 will be able to find what I can't. *pout* Then y'all'll throw me out of YOUR club *pout*

 

[JFrankA]

Is there alcohol? Rum and Coke, maybe, or Southern Comfort?

It was being easily influenced. I just couldn't help myself



Besides, I'm not in TOTAL agreement...that might win me some leniency. I'm just admitting I can't find anything to support my feelings. Who knows...maybe Southwind17 will be able to find what I can't. *pout* Then y'all'll throw me out of YOUR club *pout*

If you like Rum and Coke and Southern Comfort, you qualify. We got Tequila too!

And no, we'd never throw you out!

 

[sugarb]

 

[MontagK505]

You do realize the consequences of posting this.

Yup. You know it.

You're gonna be ignored by SW.

Welcome to the club!!!!

It's becoming about as exclusive as a rain storm.

 

[MontagK505]

Is there alcohol? Rum and Coke, maybe, or Southern Comfort?

It was being easily influenced. I just couldn't help myself



Besides, I'm not in TOTAL agreement...that might win me some leniency. I'm just admitting I can't find anything to support my feelings. Who knows...maybe Southwind17 will be able to find what I can't. *pout* Then y'all'll throw me out of YOUR club *pout*

I wouldn't like it if you agreed with me TOTALTY. (half TOTALY is OK)

 

[Southwind17]

Southwind17, since RandFan's comment was directed at me, then...

With respect sugarb, this is an open forum.

You've just insulted me ...

I'm sorry - I didn't mean to (see below)

... (or attempted to ...).

I can assure you that's not the case sugarb.

If you think I am "easily influenced" or lack "a modicum of intelligence", or that I cannot see when someone is being condescending (ahem), just say it outright. I'm a big girl, I can take it.

As usual, I sought to choose my sentence structuring carefully, but you've clearly misinterpreted it, so maybe not quite carefully enough. Allow me to explain:
First, regarding any suggestion that you, personally, are easily influenced, yes, I admit that's claimed in my post, because I believe I've seen plenty of evidence for it here in this thread. I don't think there's any mileage in identifying it to you, unless you see that as constructive, in which case I'd be happy to.
Second, rather than finding the rest of my post insulting you should, if you read it carefully, actually find it complementary. The fact that I have claimed that Randfan is insulting anybody to whom he directs the tactict demonstrates that I consider that you, personally, should find it insulting. Of course, that depends entirely on whether you see what I see and agree! Regardless, by definition, the fact that I consider that you, personally, should find it insulting puts you fairly and squarely in the category of people "with a modicum of intelligence" (which, of course, means "at least a modicum of intelligence"). That category of person, incidentally, includes most people in this thread (at least), most members of this Forum, James Randi himself, Michelle Obama, Edward Kennedy and Ted Turner, to name but a few. So, you shouldn't feel at all offended.
Third, the words "are prepared to admit seeing it or not" at the end were deliberately inserted because I was pretty sure you would seek to diffuse my allegation by claiming not to agree with me. That's just the non-confrontational person you've showed yourself to be, generally(!)(and please accept that as a complement, too).
I hope that serves to clarify matters.

 

[Southwind17]

Again let me state that I personally see nothing wrong with nudity, or depicting people as God made them (yes, I still carry some of my beliefs).

Oh I am positive there are people who would make it all illegal. Few of my friends feel that way...but...that's the point, isn't it? A few *do* feel that way.
Sadly, the ones feeling that way are generally unwilling to differentiate between adults and children. To them, all pornography is evil. All nude art is evil. Nakedness is unholy, or whatever. (Maybe I'm exaggerating there, lol)

It seems both sad and ironic that the precipitator of some of your beliefs and those contrasting beliefs of some of your friends is one and the same. But that's a whole different thread for a whole different sub-forum!

Yes. Exactly. Some might be.
Which means, some might not.

You mean like some people are predisposed to murder whilst most are not, so we have laws to address the minority?

Can you guess why?. Why do some people become motivated to do certain things and others, while watching the same exact material, don't.
Can you answer that? Because therein lies my point.

I believe there are a multitude of reasons, none of which I'm qualified to comment on with any degree of authority. So what, exactly, is your point?

Do we have laws that forbid parents and other adults from using their children/underage relatives or friends in these hate rallies? Another perspective that hadn't entered my mind. Interesting. Does anyone know? I don't think such laws exist.

They don't exist for the same reason that they don't exist for the imbuing of children by parents of their own religious beliefs. Imagine how slippery that legal slope would be!

Who knows...maybe Southwind17 will be able to find what I can't. *pout* Then y'all'll throw me out of YOUR club *pout*

Another slippery slope. See, we're all pretty much the same deep down, aren't we!

 

[Southwind17]

Let me first assure you that I did in fact read all of the quoted material. I paid particular attention to the bolded text. I think there are some interesting and some valid points. Not all both interesting and valid. However, in the case of America the legal concept of prior restraint makes moot the points made (which is why none of Meese's report has had little to no bearing on law or policy). Meese's arguments seem compelling given that his subject matter is easily assailed on the grounds of taste. However, the First Amendmant isn't strengthened by those who would inact laws simply because they thought there was a danger. Perceptions change and danger is in the eye of the beholder. By saying "no prior restraint" we can nip that nasty problem in the bud. It's not simply a rhetorical strategy. It's a principle. A worthy one. Like my example of the video of child molestation being tossed out because of police misconduct it's easy for us to say "but let's make an exception in this case". No. Because we can always find exceptions to jettison principle. If you can't find a way within the law (and without setting aside fundamental rights) then, IMO, you are out of gas.

But "but let's make an exception in this case" already applies, in essence - obscenity, defamation, breach of the peace, incitement to crime and sedition, for example (actually, these would probably be better, if not technically, described as "not subject to" the First Amendment rather than exceptions to it). So, it seems to me, as the Meese Report stated, that the question of banning certain porn, let's say virtual child porn for immediate purposes, first comes down to whether it is actually a First Amendment matter at all. The differentiation, then, to my mind, between "real" and virtual child porn (hinging on whether children are actually harmed as a result of allowing it), becomes somewhat of a red herring, potentially. The question comes down to whether virtual child porn comes under the remit of obscenity laws and/or whether it incites crime (primarily child molestation, presumably). As such, are these not exactly the same questions that determined the banning of "real" child porn, or was that based on the premise that you highlighted earlier, RandFan, namely that banning "real" child porn possession should serve to eradicate its production, and hence associated child abuse? If it's the former, then why should virtual child porn be seen and treated any differently from "real" child porn? If it's the latter, then the law clearly relies on the basis of a causative link (allowing possession of "real" child porn promotes the production of it thereby causing child abuse).

BTW - how would you feel about an industry code regulating porn content, assuming the porn industry generally saw it as beneficial and it could be implemented and enforced?

 

[JFrankA]

As usual, I sought to choose my sentence structuring carefully, but you've clearly misinterpreted it, so maybe not quite carefully enough. Allow me to explain:
First, regarding any suggestion that you, personally, are easily influenced, yes, I admit that's claimed in my post, because I believe I've seen plenty of evidence for it here in this thread. I don't think there's any mileage in identifying it to you, unless you see that as constructive, in which case I'd be happy to.

She wasn't influenced by us. If I may speak for SugarB, she came to her decisions on her own because she couldn't find evidence to your claims. Not one shred.

Second, rather than finding the rest of my post insulting you should, if you read it carefully, actually find it complementary. The fact that I have claimed that Randfan is insulting anybody to whom he directs the tactict demonstrates that I consider that you, personally, should find it insulting. Of course, that depends entirely on whether you see what I see and agree!

Wait a sec, are you saying "no, you shouldn't feel insulted by me....as long as you are agreeing with me." I'm sorry, SW, it really sounds like you are to me.

Regardless, by definition, the fact that I consider that you, personally, should find it insulting puts you fairly and squarely in the category of people "with a modicum of intelligence" (which, of course, means "at least a modicum of intelligence"). That category of person, incidentally, includes most people in this thread (at least), most members of this Forum, James Randi himself, Michelle Obama, Edward Kennedy and Ted Turner, to name but a few. So, you shouldn't feel at all offended.
Third, the words "are prepared to admit seeing it or not" at the end were deliberately inserted because I was pretty sure you would seek to diffuse my allegation by claiming not to agree with me. That's just the non-confrontational person you've showed yourself to be, generally(!)(and please accept that as a complement, too).
I hope that serves to clarify matters.

I'm sorry, I don't mean to attack SW, but this sounds like double talk to me.....

ETA:

Who knows...maybe Southwind17 will be able to find what I can't. *pout* Then y'all'll throw me out of YOUR club *pout*

Another slippery slope. See, we're all pretty much the same deep down, aren't we!

See what you miss when you ban people from free speech? You have no concept of what she was referring to. She was wondering if you could find evidence to back up your claim and her feelings, then making a joke about our "join the SW Ignored Club" comment. Your answer doesn't even come close to making sense.

 

[JFrankA]

But "but let's make an exception in this case" already applies, in essence - obscenity, defamation, breach of the peace, incitement to crime and sedition, for example (actually, these would probably be better, if not technically, described as "not subject to" the First Amendment rather than exceptions to it). So, it seems to me, as the Meese Report stated, that the question of banning certain porn, let's say virtual child porn for immediate purposes, first comes down to whether it is actually a First Amendment matter at all. The differentiation, then, to my mind, between "real" and virtual child porn (hinging on whether children are actually harmed as a result of allowing it), becomes somewhat of a red herring, potentially. The question comes down to whether virtual child porn comes under the remit of obscenity laws and/or whether it incites crime (primarily child molestation, presumably). As such, are these not exactly the same questions that determined the banning of "real" child porn, or was that based on the premise that you highlighted earlier, RandFan, namely that banning "real" child porn possession should serve to eradicate its production, and hence associated child abuse? If it's the former, then why should virtual child porn be seen and treated any differently from "real" child porn? If it's the latter, then the law clearly relies on the basis of a causative link (allowing possession of "real" child porn promotes the production of it thereby causing child abuse).

It seems to me, SW, and no insult meant here, is that you don't understand how important and how vital the concept of free speech is.

No matter what good the intentions are, you "make an exception" for one group, eventually, you will "make an exception" for all groups, and believe it or not, you get chaos. Free speech is for everyone, regardless of how much you dislike the subject.

It seems to me you have no concept of what free speech is considering how quickly you ignore people.

BTW - how would you feel about an industry code regulating porn content, assuming the porn industry generally saw it as beneficial and it could be implemented and enforced?

Other than not having real children involved in the production, Dead. Set. Against.

 

[Belz...]

What's it to be RandFan? What, exactly, is the question that you're asking me to answer? Honestly, I'm genuinely not sure. Please clarify.

Maybe you'd like to try answering the one in the post you were replying to, for starters.

 

[Belz...]

As a smoker, since it is a comparison also made earlier, I am very aware of how easily hysteria can be used to violate rights.

Cigarette is one of the things I hate most, and yet I find myself defending smokers now, because I think the (Canadian) government is going just a bit too far, telling private establishments what to do about it on their own property, for instance.

 

[RandFan]

But "but let's make an exception in this case" already applies, in essence - obscenity, defamation, breach of the peace, incitement to crime and sedition, for example (actually, these would probably be better, if not technically, described as "not subject to" the First Amendment rather than exceptions to it).

Obscenity laws are often struck down and it is clear that the trend is an ever weakinging of obsenity laws as communities are changing. Obsenity laws must meet strict guidlines and there can be no prior restraint. The others are easy as there is clear harm associated with them.

So, it seems to me, as the Meese Report stated, that the question of banning certain porn, let's say virtual child porn for immediate purposes, first comes down to whether it is actually a First Amendment matter at all.

Meese wasn't trying to ban VCP. It didn't exist at the time of his report. What else do you plan to ban?

The differentiation, then, to my mind, between "real" and virtual child porn (hinging on whether children are actually harmed as a result of allowing it), becomes somewhat of a red herring, potentially. The question comes down to whether virtual child porn comes under the remit of obscenity laws and/or whether it incites crime (primarily child molestation, presumably). As such, are these not exactly the same questions that determined the banning of "real" child porn, or was that based on the premise that you highlighted earlier, RandFan, namely that banning "real" child porn possession should serve to eradicate its production, and hence associated child abuse? If it's the former, then why should virtual child porn be seen and treated any differently from "real" child porn? If it's the latter, then the law clearly relies on the basis of a causative link (allowing possession of "real" child porn promotes the production of it thereby causing child abuse).

VCP IS different because there is no per se harm. This is the crux of the matter. You need to demonstrate harm. We know that children must ingage in illegal activity to produce real child porn. That is the problem. That is not the case in VCP.

BTW - how would you feel about an industry code regulating porn content, assuming the porn industry generally saw it as beneficial and it could be implemented and enforced?

I've no problem with the industry policing itself. The problem is that there could be no government enforcement and the regulation would likely lack any teeth.

 

[JFrankA]

I've no problem with the industry policing itself. The problem is that there could be no government enforcement and the regulation would likely lack any teeth.

We already do.

http://www.asacp.org/

ETA: Whoops. Forgot the RTA label: http://rtalabel.org/index.php?content=

(might want to pass that site along to our buddy there )

As to the government regulations, here's the 2257 law that all adult businesses must follow.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002257----000-.html

That regulation has been changed and fought a lot over the Bush years. At one point it was so confusing even the lawyers of the big adult industries didn't understand it. And they demanded that the keeper of the records of proof of ID has a hard copy list of each and every website that any of the images they owned appeared in.

It's still being tinkered with: they adult industry just wants to make it so they have documented legal proof of age, but opponents of porn want to make it so complicated, that if you miss one thing, you are charged with possible child porn.

 

[Southwind17]

Obscenity laws are often struck down and it is clear that the trend is an ever weakinging of obsenity laws as communities are changing. Obsenity laws must meet strict guidlines and there can be no prior restraint. The others are easy as there is clear harm associated with them

So, to be clear, I think you're saying that "real" child porn is banned pursuant to specific child porn laws, not obscenity laws, and that such banning falls outside the First Amendment because it's production causes direct harm to children. Is that correct?

Meese wasn't trying to ban VCP. It didn't exist at the time of his report.

What Meese was or wasn't trying to ban is immaterial to this particular aspect of the debate. I'm debating the underlying principle of the First Amendment so far as it relates (or rather might not relate) to the possible banning of anything arguably constituting free speech. We can then come on to specific instances thereafter, if appropriate.

I've no problem with the industry policing itself. The problem is that there could be no government enforcement and the regulation would likely lack any teeth.

So what aspects do you think should be policed, and to which the teeth, if they existed, should bite into (that aren't already, via. existing laws)?

 

[RandFan]

So, to be clear, I think you're saying that "real" child porn is banned pursuant to specific child porn laws, not obscenity laws, and that such banning falls outside the First Amendment because it's production causes direct harm to children. Is that correct?

I'm only saying that real child porn is banned because it harms children. As to whether it's obscenity laws or specific child porn laws, I don't know how that will further the discussion. I think your statement is correct but I don't think it is important.

What Meese was or wasn't trying to ban is immaterial to this particular aspect of the debate.

On the contrary, it's critical. Either Meese's rhetoric carries weight or it doesn't. It's rather bizarre to say, well, let's ignore his rhetoric when it comes to the reasons he wrote his report in the first place. It immediatly raises the question, what else do you plan to ban? If his rhetoric is good enough for VCP why is it not good enough for the basis of the investigation?

So what aspects do you think should be policed, and to which the teeth, if they existed, should bite into (that aren't already, via. existing laws)?

I'll defer to JFrankA's post.

 

[Southwind17]

Here's an arguably ironically perverse thought RandFan: If the technology of virtual imaging was such that one could tell no difference between real and virtual, and images could be ecomomically created (and I'm supposing that the realization of such prospect is only a matter of time) then, in theory at least, "child porn" would pose no danger to children. There'd be no benefit in using real children. Assuming that to be the case, do you embrace the prospect of unadulterated(!), unfettered production of VCP?

 

[RandFan]

Here's an arguably ironically perverse thought RandFan: If the technology of virtual imaging was such that one could tell no difference between real and virtual, and images could be ecomomically created (and I'm supposing that the realization of such prospect is only a matter of time) then, in theory at least, "child porn" would pose no danger to children. There'd be no benefit in using real children. Assuming that to be the case, do you embrace the prospect of unadulterated(!), unfettered production of VCP?

If VCP demonstrably reduced the harm to children then I would hold my nose and think that a good thing.

 

[Southwind17]

I'm only saying that real child porn is banned because it harms children. As to whether it's obscenity laws or specific child porn laws, I don't know how that will further the discussion. I think your statement is correct but I don't think it is important.

If what you claim is true, that it's because it causes harm, then it seems that, by definition, it cannot be down to the application of obscenity laws.

On the contrary, it's critical. Either Meese's rhetoric carries weight or it doesn't. It's rather bizarre to say, well, let's ignore his rhetoric when it comes to the reasons he wrote his report in the first place. It immediatly raises the question, what else do you plan to ban? If his rhetoric is good enough for VCP why is it not good enough for the basis of the investigation?

I'm just trying to get a better handle on some principles concerning the First Amendment that the Meese Report has served as a catalyst for. That's all. Pretend that I've written what Meese wrote (as I previously posted) instead of Meese writing it, if you like, but in a more general context than he did, if that helps.

I'll defer to JFrankA's post.

Doesn't help me. I was hoping for your view, though, not his.

 

[JFrankA]

If VCP demonstrably reduced the harm to children then I would hold my nose and think that a good thing.

*sigh* If he wants to conduct this debate honestly, he should unignore us and see that most of his questions have already been answered. -.-