Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: -MZ- on February 18, 2004, 07:48:05 PM
-
LOS ANGELES TIMES
February 14, 2004
THE NATION
U.S. Plans to Escalate Porn Fight
Justice Department hire of a veteran prosecutor answers criticism from Christian conservatives who have long sought a crackdown on smut.
By Richard B. Schmitt, Times Staff Writer
WASHINGTON — The Justice Department has quietly installed an outspoken anti-pornography advocate in a senior position in its criminal division, as part of an effort to jump-start obscenity prosecutions.
The Bush administration's election-year move follows three years of heat from the Christian right, which believes that Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft, a longtime friend and ally, has fallen down on the job when it comes to fighting smut.
Now, the appointment of a tough new cop on the porn beat and other recent moves by the department to bolster obscenity cases are galvanizing conservatives, while leaving representatives of the adult-entertainment industry to wonder whether they have become a political football.
Officials said the appointment of Bruce A. Taylor, who worked in the department during the heyday of its anti-porn efforts in the late 1980s and early '90s, shows that Justice is serious about cracking down on porn after what critics called lax enforcement by the Clinton administration.
In his resume, the 53-year-old Taylor, who got his start as a Cleveland city attorney in the 1970s, lists his involvement in more than 600 obscenity cases as a prosecutor or a legal advisor.
The defendants in those cases constitute a who's-who of adult-entertainment industry tycoons, including Hustler magazine publisher Larry Flynt and Reuben Sturman, a onetime comic-book salesman turned porn magnate.
In a survey two years ago, Adult Video News, a trade publication based in Chatsworth, identified Taylor as one of the top "enemies" of the industry. The story was titled: "These Are the Folks Who Want to Put You Out of Business."
Taylor, who in recent years has headed a conservative advocacy group fighting for tougher regulation of the Internet, has been given the title of "senior counsel" within the criminal division at Justice, with a focus principally on federal adult obscenity issues.
The department's obscenity chief, Andrew Oosterbaan, who has been drawing much of the flak from conservatives, will retain his position. But instead of reporting to him, Taylor will answer to a more senior-level assistant attorney general.
Bryan Sierra, a Justice spokesman, said that by hiring Taylor — which the department didn't publicize but confirmed when asked by The Times — the department was simply marshaling additional resources rather than undercutting anyone's authority or submitting to political pressure.
"Bruce has vast experience, both at the federal and state level, prosecuting those kinds of cases," Sierra said. "It is all part of our overall effort to kick-start obscenity prosecutions after a long absence."
Sierra said Taylor was unavailable for comment.
The department has made other moves recently to shore up its anti-porn effort, including assigning for the first time in years a team of FBI agents to focus exclusively on adult-obscenity cases.
In his fiscal 2005 budget proposal released this month, President Bush sought increased spending to fight obscenity; it was one of the few spending increases — besides for anti-terrorist efforts — in the otherwise austere proposal.
Porn industry representatives said all the activity had the look of an administration trying hard to appease an important constituency during an election cycle.
"This is a crude, crass political effort," said Jeffrey Douglas, executive director of the Free Speech Coalition, a trade association for the adult-entertainment industry.
He questioned whether the public at large was as interested in cracking down on adult fare as the Justice Department and said the hiring of Taylor was "a very dangerous, disturbing step" toward infringement on free speech.
Some defense lawyers say Taylor's record in court has been a decidedly mixed bag. His first case against Sturman, the erstwhile comic-book salesman, resulted in a hung jury. A few years ago, he was brought in to act as a special prosecutor in a case against an adult bookstore operator in South Bend, Ind.; the defendant was acquitted. Some of the Internet legislation he has pushed in recent years has been roundly rejected by the U.S. Surpeme Court as violating the 1st Amendment.
But conservative activists said the moves in the Justice Department were long overdue. They have been unhappy because, with funds limited for purposes other than the war on terrorism, the department has been targeting only purveyors of the worst forms of sexually explicit material — such as that involving simulated violence. One such pending case is against a North Hollywood film distributor known as Extreme Associates.
Anti-porn groups have argued that this tack misses the largest distributors and the bulk of the problem, including the growth of pornography over the Internet. They are looking to Taylor to launch a tough enforcement era.
"He believes in taking on big cases that will have a major impact," said Patrick Trueman, an advisor to the Family Research Council who headed the Justice Department's anti-pornography unit in the 1980s and was once Taylor's boss. "They are bringing him in for the same reason I did: They want to win, and he is the most experienced guy."
In the 1980s, Taylor was the lawyer for an anti-porn group known as Citizens for Decency Through Law, which was founded by Charles Keating, who later became embroiled in the savings-and-loan scandals and went to jail.
Over the years, Taylor has advised scores of attorneys around the country on the niceties of obscenity law, and two years ago was invited by the Justice Department to participate in a training symposium for new prosecutors.
He maintains a collection of legal papers from pornography cases that covers "every brief in every case," according to Trueman.
Most recently, he has been the president and chief counsel of the National Law Center for Children and Families, a Fairfax, Va., group active in writing federal legislation outlawing indecent material on the Internet as well as fighting child exploitation.
Among the supporters of his law center is Cincinnati billionaire and philanthropist Carl Lindner, who in the early 1990s gained additional celebrity by helping lead the opposition to a local exhibit of sexually explicit work by photographer Robert Mapplethorpe.
Lindner gave Taylor's group $100,000 in 2002, according to federal tax records.
-
that's terrible, what is the AG thinking??
.. you feel porno is good for ones soul , country? how bout your kids? you don't have a problem if they watch it? know you watch it? grow up and star in it? maybe not wait to grow up to star in it?
i see - -
porno = good
ashcroft = bad
:rolleyes:
-
federal government in morals business = ALL bad
ashcroft = satan
culero
-
Ashcroft's Dream
(http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols2/pleasantville.jpg)
And how he plans to achive it
(http://www.miracosta.cc.ca.us/home/gfloren/ripper_anim.gif)
-
Originally posted by Eagler
that's terrible, what is the AG thinking??
.. you feel porno is good for ones soul , country? how bout your kids? you don't have a problem if they watch it? know you watch it? grow up and star in it? maybe not wait to grow up to star in it?
i see - -
porno = good
ashcroft = bad
:rolleyes:
No i dont think its good for society. But I also believe in a free country.
The governement does not exsist to police morales
-
I dont like John Ashcroft and he is very evil man :D
-
Is this the thread where all the child molesters and rapists come in and chime about their freedom to view pornographic material?
Hardcore pornography depicting sexual acts should be outlawed as child pornography currently is. Just my opinion....of course.
-
so you all side with the likes of:
(http://www.manmademultimedia.com/magazine/news/pol/2003/California_recall.jpgs/Larry_Flint.gif)
freedom of speech :rolleyes: ... LOL
-
yeag/eag.. just because *you're* morally weak and need the threat of law to maintain control of your baser impulses doesn't mean others are the same as yourself.
and when exactly was ashcroft elected AG?
<2nd edit> and this is the kind of guy you're wanting to support?
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_150_1077176022.jpg) enforcing morals, lol. :rolleyes:
-
I wasn't expecting the spanish inquisition! :D
-
Do they intend to make the Porno industry a scapegoat?
-
Originally posted by Shane
enforcing morals, lol. :rolleyes:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ethics
Related: Philosophy
in philosophy, the study and evaluation of human conduct in the light of moral principles. Morals may be viewed either as the standard of conduct that individuals have constructed for themselves or as the body of obligations and duties that a particular society requires of its members.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morals are not just about sex, but a code of conduct that each of us live by. Theft is a breach of morals. We legislate against theft and enforce laws against theft.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Is this the thread where all the child molesters and rapists come in and chime about their freedom to view pornographic material?
Hardcore pornography depicting sexual acts should be outlawed as child pornography currently is. Just my opinion....of course.
Of course and while you're at it have all women cover themselves completely, that would be even more ethical, right. Maybe you can get some bargains on bhurka's through the men and women serving in afghanistan, they are rumoured to have a surplus there....
But really, go join a cult, holier than the pope hypocrit..
-
Originally posted by Yeager
snip
Hardcore pornography depicting sexual acts should be outlawed as child pornography currently is. Just my opinion....of course.
I have no problem with your opinion that hardcore porn is bad, but there is a big difference. Child porn is direct evidence of a crime having been committed, and therefore must by nature be illegal.
Please demonstrate how a record of consentual sex between adults meets the same criteria.
If you can't, please demonstrate why those who choose to indulge should be prevented from doing so, when those that don't have the choice not to.
Don't go to "kids might see it" because control of that must be assumed for the sake of discussing this point. I stipulate that's something none of us want.
culero
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ethics
Related: Philosophy
in philosophy, the study and evaluation of human conduct in the light of moral principles. Morals may be viewed either as the standard of conduct that individuals have constructed for themselves or as the body of obligations and duties that a particular society requires of its members.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morals are not just about sex, but a code of conduct that each of us live by. Theft is a breach of morals. We legislate against theft and enforce laws against theft.
Using both my beliefs and your quoted definition, I'd argue that while its true theft can be a breach of morals it isn't necessarily so. It requires a belief system that includes right to property to be so. Its only a breach of our laws because we've agreed for it to be so.
Law shouldn't be equated with morality. Law should be seen as the rules that allow us reasonable assurance that we'll all have free choice to live our lives as we choose, without being able to force our choices on anyone else.
Therefore, we shouldn't make laws based on what anyone believes, but based on how our behaviors affect others. This is a matter of practicality, not morality, and can/should accomodate a society comprised of people with widely varied morality.
culero
-
Originally posted by culero
It requires a belief system that includes right to property to be so. Its only a breach of our laws because we've agreed for it to be so.
And what I quoted, Morals may be viewed either as the standard of conduct that individuals have constructed for themselves or as the body of obligations and duties that a particular society requires of its members.
We have decided what is moral, and have passed laws to enforce the 'code'. Theft is dishonesty and therefore immoral. So are a miriad of other things which have laws passed and enforced to at least regulate them in some manner.
Please do not lose sight of the larger idea by focusing on the example... many a newbie fighter pilot did such and flew into the practice target....
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
And what I quoted,
We have decided what is moral, and have passed laws to enforce the 'code'. Theft is dishonesty and therefore immoral. So are a miriad of other things which have laws passed and enforced to at least regulate them in some manner.
Please do not lose sight of the larger idea by focusing on the example... many a newbie fighter pilot did such and flew into the practice target....
The larger idea is exactly what I'm focusing on, I just illustrated using the example you offered.
To put it another way - we don't have to agree as to whether or not something is immoral in order to decide whether or not it affects each other adversely.
We should legislate based upon our agreements about the effects of our behaviors on each other, rather than personal choices of morality. We should each be free to decide for ourselves what is moral and what is not.
We don't have to see something as immoral in order for it to need to be illegal, and we don't have to see something that's illegal as necessarily immoral. Morality and law should have no connection in a truly free society.
culero
-
Okay let's try this:
mor·al (môrl, mr-) adj.
1.Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.
2.Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson.
3.Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life.
4.Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation.
5.Having psychological rather than physical or tangible effects: a moral victory; moral support.
6.Based on strong likelihood or firm conviction, rather than on the actual evidence: a moral certainty.
Goodness or badness in human action or character.....
are there laws against bad human action? Of course.
Are these laws then reinforcing public morals? Yes, by definition.
There are private actions which some would consider immoral, and are not prohibited by law, but there are things considered bad human behavior by the vast majority of human beings (and therefore society) that are prohibited by law. As a sociopath, Ted Bundy had no moral compass. His behavior was against our collective morals and the laws based on those morals.
By definition these are societal morals which become law. These are some curbs to our freedom which we have accepted as good for society.
(I love semantic arguments)
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Okay let's try this:
Goodness or badness in human action or character.....
are there laws against bad human action? Of course.
Are these laws then reinforcing public morals? Yes, by definition.
There are private actions which some would consider immoral, and are not prohibited by law, but there are things considered bad human behavior by the vast majority of human beings (and therefore society) that are prohibited by law. As a sociopath, Ted Bundy had no moral compass. His behavior was against our collective morals and the laws based on those morals.
By definition these are societal morals which become law. These are some curbs to our freedom which we have accepted as good for society.
(I love semantic arguments)
Try to place my argument in the context I intend - freedom. I agree with you regarding what morality is, and that in some cases law reflects that.
What I'm arguing is not that morality has not been a factor, but that it should not be the standard. If we start out by saying we will legislate based on morals, we start down a slippery slope that leads to abuse. We need to draw a line that says when we want to impose our own morals on everyone, we must demonstrate a practical need to do so.
Bundy isn't an example that supports you, because it wasn't his beliefs that made him unacceptable legally. It was the effects of his actions that we can't accept as a society.
Ever read Heinlen? Would you equate "not wasting food" with what Bundy did? :)
culero (just being silly with that last, really ;) )
-
Bundy doesn't apply?
His character was that he had no "concern with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character"
Pretty much the definition of sociopath, and a direct quote from the definition of 'moral'
No one knows what caused him to go nuts but his symptom was to have no moral compunction to hold him back from doing what he did.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Bundy doesn't apply?
His character was that he had no "concern with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character"
Pretty much the definition of sociopath, and a direct quote from the definition of 'moral'
No one knows what caused him to go nuts but his symptom was to have no moral compunction to hold him back from doing what he did.
Agreed.
But what he believed or didn't wasn't what we have to legislate against, only his actions and how they affect others are important in that regard. He could have believed exactly as he did and never been a problem if he hadn't acted those beliefs out.
culero
-
Had Bundy 'conformed to standards of what is right or just in behavior' (definition #3 of moral) then he wouldn't have been executed.
There was a Twilight Zone episode where some guy bought a paper and tossed a coin into the paperboys coin box, and it stood on edge. This somehow gave him the power to read minds, and later he learned that someone in line waiting for the bank teller was thinking about robbing the place, so the mind reader turned him in.
Turns out thinking about it wasn't a crime, and the guy was just daydreaming about it.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
snip
Turns out thinking about it wasn't a crime, and the guy was just daydreaming about it.
Well, there you have it. Should he have been jailed?
culero
-
Originally posted by culero
Well, there you have it. Should he have been jailed?
culero
only if he imagined the tellers naked as well. :mad:
-
The perverts reveal themsleves.
Disgusting people....
-
but not quite as disgusting as the prudes.
-
your preference for filth over excessive moral concern is duly noted. Pervert.
-
to those that don't mind the industry of "adult entertainment", I can only assume you do not have issue with your son, daughter, maybe wife, how about your sister or mother even - choosing it as a career choice?
If you do have an issue, ask yourself why? Then ask yourself why/how you can support any of it ...
talk about hypocrites...
-
as long as they're adults when they make that career decision.
along with that decision comes choices. on both sides of the fence. could i live with my wife being in the industry as a performer? no. would i remain with her if she chose to enter the industry, not too likely, but that's my choice, see... however if she merely wanted to run a pr0n site, .
sex for money/recreation is nothing new in the history of mankind. and as long as it's consenual i have no bigger moral issues with it.
what's made illegal generally finds a market when it comes to "consumer" goods/services, and operating outside the law introduces all sorts of nasty side-effects. i'd rather keep things in the spotlight of legality, thank you very much.
now if my kid wanted to become a preacher or something, why i'd disown them outright. :mad: :aok
-
Originally posted by Eagler
to those that don't mind the industry of "adult entertainment", I can only assume you do not have issue with your son, daughter, maybe wife, how about your sister or mother even - choosing it as a career choice?
If you do have an issue, ask yourself why? Then ask yourself why/how you can support any of it ...
talk about hypocrites...
I don't want my daughter to pursue a career as postal worker either, that does not imply I strongly oppose anyone receiving a letter.
Weak argumentation, another opportunistic plea for government intervention in the private lives of citizens from someone who usually states on any given subject: "The governemnt has no business intervening in my life, I want less government and more responsibility.
And I quote: "talk about hypocrites..."
-
Originally posted by Shane
as long as they're adults when they make that career decision.
along with that decision comes choices. on both sides of the fence. could i live with my wife being in the industry as a performer? no. would i remain with her if she chose to enter the industry, not too likely, but that's my choice, see... however if she merely wanted to run a pr0n site, .
sex for money/recreation is nothing new in the history of mankind. and as long as it's consenual i have no bigger moral issues with it.
what's made illegal generally finds a market when it comes to "consumer" goods/services, and operating outside the law introduces all sorts of nasty side-effects. i'd rather keep things in the spotlight of legality, thank you very much.
I agree completlely. If you make a choice in life, you should be ready to assume its consequences.
-
Yeah, a Porn Czar. That's what our country needs.
A WAR ON PORN!!
handsomehunked puritans.
-
they are always the most perverted ones also.
aint it ironic.
-
LOL. If banning porn would set a precident to banning gun ownership you tards.
It isnt about the porn, its about letting the government expanding and createing new laws that the constititution dose not support. The governement is not in the business to enforce the church's morales. If a citizen of this country is doing something that does not harm another cititizen then why make pointless laws? To create a porn war that is equally as fruitless as the drug war?
I want to go back in time and have a good talking to with Augustine.
DAMN YOU AGUSTINE!
-
Originally posted by Eagler
to those that don't mind the industry of "adult entertainment", I can only assume you do not have issue with your son, daughter, maybe wife, how about your sister or mother even - choosing it as a career choice?
If you do have an issue, ask yourself why? Then ask yourself why/how you can support any of it ...
talk about hypocrites...
Eagler the issue you should focus on is whether or not any of us have the right to decide for each other what choices we make. If you believe in freedom, you should be willing to allow it, even if others don't choose to choose as you do.
If you want to talk about hypocrisy, consider what it means to espouse freedom yet at the same time seek to limit the freedom of others.
culero
-
Originally posted by CyranoAH
I wasn't expecting the spanish inquisition! :D
...of course not. (http://frogstar.com/wav/displaywav.asp?fil=span2.wav)
-
Originally posted by culero
Eagler the issue you should focus on is whether or not any of us have the right to decide for each other what choices we make. If you believe in freedom, you should be willing to allow it, even if others don't choose to choose as you do.
If you want to talk about hypocrisy, consider what it means to espouse freedom yet at the same time seek to limit the freedom of others.
culero
of course eagler is a hypocrite. You cannot be a devote christian without being one.
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
of course eagler is a hypocrite. You cannot be a devote christian without being one.
Even as an atheist, I can't agree with this statement.
-
Just study their history. Its quite hilarious.
-
Ashcroft. Sometimes a man rises to a job, and sometimes he just matches the job to his limitations. First Tommy Chong, sellin' bongs, now Jenna Jameson, miss behavin' some.
I can't wait for the porn = terrorism commercials to start up. I can see it now. Little Jimmy sitting in the John, smoking a spleef and jerkin' the gerkin, too busy to see Osma Bin Ladin outside the window putting the fuse in the huge dildo shaped truck bomb.
Osama: "With each stroke of the weak American flesh...WE GROW STRONGER!"
Charon
-
Please demonstrate how a record of consentual sex between adults meets the same criteria.
====
Due to my advanced age I have become one of those people that can clearly see the bell curve over the past 5 decades starting with the free love movement in the 60s -the birth control pill -the porno boom of the 70s and the continual fall into sexual moral depravity through the 80s and 90s.
The cultural popularization of the sexual revolution has deteriorated into mass markets of gay sex, perverted sex, sex with children (sometimes infants), sex with animals. Look at where the sexual revolution started in the 60s and look at how it has evolved into what it is today. All because of the freedom to think and do whatever we want sexually.
There is an animal in each of us and it is our discipline as human beings that allows us to control that animal. Opening up and pursuing the freedom to express ourselves in mass markets of lurid sex and ultra violance tempts the animal within each of us and costs us all tremendously as a society. Some here think its worth the price, thats their right. I just dont. Thats my right.
Okay... back to your friendly XXX mpeg
-
Finally, a compelling reason to vote against Chimpy.
-
lol yeager if you cannot control yourself if you see porn you have some serious problems.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
Finally, a compelling reason to vote against Chimpy.
Im voteing against ashcroft, cheny, wolfiwitz, and rumsfeld more then ill be voteing for kerry/edwards or against bush.
-
are you that clueless frog? seriously........
dont like the opinion fine but where you conclude I have no control is a stretch beyond fair reason. Im talking about this subject on a scale a bit larger than the individual.
-
well its painfully obvious that porn offends you. Then dont watch it. Or does the fact that it is out there and you want to watch it but your beating yourself with a switch everytime you think about it yelling " NO NO BAD JESUS WILL CRY BAD BAD" make you want to pass a constitutional admendment to ban it?
-
Ive concluded, for myself, that there is a definate relationship between the gradual decline of moral standards in our society and the freedom to exploit sex and violance for commercial wealth.
I know its a first amendmant issue but it is damaging the society in obvious ways. Violance for entertainment is a companion to sex for entertainment that continuoulsy lowers the standards in our society. In my opinion...
Im not worried about myself. Im in great control. Im worried about the young people growing up in a society that continuoulsy lowers its moral standards. And Im worried about all the women and children exploited by sex and violance for the corporate greed of a few to pleasure the growing mass amoral.
Damn...almost sounds liberal
:confused:
thats all
-
I have yet to see a reason why pornography be banned for anything more than a moral reason. I wrote a short essay over the pornography debate for an English class a couple of semesters ago, still have it on my hard drive. Pornography is something that has to be sought out, no one plays it on your TV when your trying to watch Nascar. The only place I can think of that pornography is unwillingly shown to you, is your e-mail. I think that spam e-mail is something that should be eliminated, so I can see the point there. If pornography were to be banned, it would only create another money sink like the war on terrorism and drugs.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Ive concluded, for myself, that there is a definate relationship between the gradual decline of moral standards in our society and the freedom to exploit sex and violance for commercial wealth.
i see you forgot about, or conveniently weren't around in the late 1800's early 1900's so you might've missed that particular bell curve. probably missed all about the other periods and cultures in history that made no such moral judgements.
making it illegal would only exponentially increase the amount of exploitation, and introduce other dangers for all parties involved.
there was a beautiful bible quote i saw the other day to the effect of tend to your own house instead of looking for troubles in others'.
-
they can't get rid of it, to many of u pervs out there . ..actions as this are just an attempt to control it, hammer down the spikes or do you feel it should have any controls at all?
no ones mentions the ties to organized crime, nice fellows there - they do great things with their profits .. :rolleyes:
porno and drugs - what a great me, me world we live in .. sad sacks
-
When is Ashcroft going to appoint a "violence czar"? I would have thought that the mass production and consumption of violence in the entertainment industry is just as damaging to society as porn is.
-
>I would have thought that the mass production and consumption of violence in the entertainment industry is just as damaging to society as porn is.
====
Yup.
>i see you forgot about, or conveniently weren't around in the late 1800's early 1900's so you might've missed that particular bell curve.
====
Yes, I conveniently was not around 200 years ago or I forgot, I cant remember :rolleyes:
Lets just focus on modern times, say the past 50 years, for clarity and ease of understanding. Our society is as sick as it has ever been and getting sicker. You disagree?
>making it illegal would only exponentially increase the amount of exploitation, and introduce other dangers for all parties involved.
====
A good point but not neccessarily true. I dont think anything can stop the decay. Just make people think a little deeper about the penalties of unregulated freedom to do anything, anytime, anywhere......
there was a beautiful bible quote i saw the other day to the effect of tend to your own house instead of looking for troubles in others'.
====
Glad your keeping up on biblical passages.
When my neighbor starts roaming the neighborhood peeping into windows, exposing himself to children on the street, breaking into homes raping single women, luring children into his house or car to take nude photos of them or molest them then I am pretty much involved whether I want to be or not. No doubt people that behave in that manner are inspired at some point by perverted extreme pornography.
In my community there has been a rash of sexual perverts lately visiting all manner of fear on women and children. Doing what perverts do. One man approaches women from behind and aggressively fondles their crotches and runs off. Another man takes off his shoes, breaks into homes and sits near sleeping women until they awake. Scaring the hell out of them before running out. Still again, a man has been attempting to lure young children into his car locally, several different people are working this way all across the sound. To think that pornography has no role in inspiring these sick people is wishful thinking. To think that pornography is good and should be protected at the cost of all other rights is the status quo these days. We are getting what we deserve.
Keep an eye on the murderer of the young girl in Florida. No one has yet said how she was killed except her father saying she died a "horrific death". I would be surprised to find that her killer was not a consumer of pornographic filth. Perverts love that stuff, feed off it. Its the animal within who feeds on that crap. Everyone has that animal inside them but most keep it contained with morality. Most people are not inspired to lunatic criminal behavior by decent respectable soft porn, or even the sick filthy stuff, but people who are inclined towards violant sexual predatory behavior are no doubt being inspired in harmfull ways for all those nearby.
Go ahead and fight to protect that garbage, all in the name of freedom, right? meanwhile keep an eye on your girlfriend, your wife, your kids...because today there is an army of perverts out there using freedom of filth to fuel themselves, to stalk your loved ones.
You deny it?
-
Originally posted by Yeager
>Keep an eye on the murderer of the young girl in Florida. No one has yet said how she was killed except her father saying she died a "horrific death". I would be surprised to find that her killer was not a consumer of pornographic filth. Perverts love that stuff, feed off it. Its the animal within who feeds on that crap. Everyone has that animal inside them but most keep it contained with morality. Most people are not inspired to lunatic criminal behavior by decent respectable soft porn, or even the sick filthy stuff, but people who are inclined towards violant sexual predatory behavior are no doubt being inspired in harmfull ways for all those nearby.
It's not the porn which abuses, it's the abuser.
Doesn't that sound familiar, but ah well, GOP and its fanbois, as opportunistic as they are hypocrit. As long as it fits your agenda right........
-
some of you seem to REALLY like ur nudie mags/films - to the point ur life would be less without them ... LOL
takes a while for some, but someday you'll realize there's more to life than naked chicks...
-
Originally posted by Eagler
takes a while for some, but someday you'll realize there's more to life than naked chicks...
If so unimportant, then why are you so bent on attacking these almost to the point of obsession? I think a psychiatrist would be able to formulate some interesesting diagnosis on that one...
-
Originally posted by Eagler
but someday you'll realize there's more to life than naked chicks...
you know you can ask a doctor to prescribe you some viagra or levitran, right? these are pills that help people who can't "rise to the occasion."
-
Originally posted by Yeager
>snip
You deny it?
Yeap. For the same reason I deny that guns cause violence.
Do you want to ban guns, too?
culero
-
christians trying to control somthing for everyones good weather they agree or not.
hmm where have i heard that befor?
-
comparing guns to pornography? Liberal theory at work here.....There are laws that prevent the mentally ill, domestic violators and felons from owning guns. Background checks and waiting periods. Regulated to the hilt. Arms are protected by the 2nd amendmant DIRECTLY. Porn filth is somehow protected as free speech in the mind of the liberal immoral.
Its a stretch to compare the two but you obviously want your filth, you got it. Just beware your women and children, sex pervs feed freely off porn filth and hunt down for twisted pleasure those least able to defend themselves.
Enjoy yourself :D
-
Originally posted by Shane
you know you can ask a doctor to prescribe you some viagra or levitran, right? these are pills that help people who can't "rise to the occasion."
no problem on the rise Shane, but thanks for your concern - just saying as most grow up, you grow out of the little head mindset or should, much more to life than skirt sniffin
thud - to some/many porno is a drug and a sickness. it is an organized crime industry which has grown to be accepted as normal and just another form of entertainment, run without restraints or limits, corrupting minds/lives/souls as it rolls along - that is why I speak out against it and for the AG's actions
-
Originally posted by Yeager
comparing guns to pornography? Liberal theory at work here.....There are laws that prevent the mentally ill and felons from owning guns. Background checks and waiting periods.
Its a stretch to compare the two but you obviously want the filth, you got it. Just beware your women and children, sex pervs feed off porn filth and hunt down for twisted pleasure those least able to defend themselves.
Enjoy yourself :D
You're mistaken. I'm not comparing guns to pornography.
I'm against blaming guns for violence. I'm for holding violent criminals responsible for their bad acts.
I'm also against blaming pornography for sex crimes. I'm for holding people who commit sexually-related crime responsible for their bad acts.
Where do YOU stand?
culero (lived through all those decades as well)
-
I see the word pervert branded about in this debate as if its an unshakable label attached to those who would not limit the spread of pornography.
It seems to me that the greatest medium for the spread of pornography is indeed the internet...........
The idea of trying to limit pornography via control of printed material is really just a waste of time these days............
The idea of this (the internet) being subject to the idealism of any religious group set on the rest of the world following its doctrine scares the hell out of me...............
The powers that would have to be invoked to achieve this would basically be totalitarian in the extreme................ what we see, read, even discuss would be subject to the ideals of a (power full) religious group and their definition of what is suitable.
One would think that the US would know better than most nations just how effective "prohibition" is in the long run...........It didnt solve a drink problem, it isn't solving a drug problem and it wont solve a pornography problem.
Of course these are all only problems if you percieve them to be.............
If you really live in a society where pornography can turn folk into malicious rapists then may be the problem goes a little deeper...................
-
Originally posted by Eagler
thud - to some/many porno is a drug and a sickness. it is an organized crime industry which has grown to be accepted as normal and just another form of entertainment, run without restraints or limits, corrupting minds/lives/souls as it rolls along - that is why I speak out against it and for the AG's actions
Nonsense, Of course criminals are active in the porn business and obviously there are many facets that should be looked upon by the government but this is also true for the real estate market, auto business and any other field of enterprise. And it is just another form of entertainment, nothing out of the ordinary. And porn a drug and/or sickness, jellybeans, model trains and chatting on the net are exactly the same to some, time to sent the AG in? Don't think so...
-
Originally posted by Eagler
no problem on the rise Shane, but thanks for your concern - just saying as most grow up, you grow out of the little head mindset or should, much more to life than skirt sniffin
thud - to some/many porno is a drug and a sickness. it is an organized crime industry which has grown to be accepted as normal and just another form of entertainment, run without restraints or limits, corrupting minds/lives/souls as it rolls along - that is why I speak out against it and for the AG's actions
Addiction to pornography is called "paraphilia."
As for the porno industry - it's not owned by the mafia as many of you have erroneously espoused here. And there's no evidence that it leads to drugs, the mistreatment of women, or any other kind of social disfunction.
However, sexual repression caused by religious zealousy does lead to child molestation and domestic violence.
Pornography is actually a white collar corporate business. There are 4 companies which own 90% of the porno content distributed in Amereeeka.
The porn industry pioneered and inovated the credit card market on the internet, pioneered and inovated streaming video technology as well.
If it weren't for pornography, I wouldn't have a dungeon fully equiped with whips, racks, ties, spreaders, clamps, hoods, collars, masks, benches, chairs, and other assorted acoutrement... and women wouldn't be begging for the pleasure to be mastered, perverted, turned up side down spanked, locked up, shackled, and erotically molested and taken to time and space they've only dreamed of in their wildest most secretive fantasies.
God Bless Pornography!
-
Originally posted by Tilt
snip
If you really live in a society where pornography can turn folk into malicious rapists then may be the problem goes a little deeper...................
Yanno, Tilt, I've always been of the opinion that anyone who claims pornography encourages sex crime must be revealing something about their own inner self, more so than the society they live in.
culero
-
Some real enemies of freedom on this board. We are taking names for when the revolution starts.
-
porno = freedom now?? LOL
maybe when I was 16 I'd agreed with you :)
-
Originally posted by Eagler
porno = freedom now?? LOL
maybe when I was 16 I'd agreed with you :)
Eagler no that's not the point. Nobody's defending porn here.
Its more "anything = freedom".
Of course, we have to draw the line where "anything" causes someone else harm. What's being questioned here is whether or not porn actually causes harm.
If we begin to ban things because they offend someone, where do we stop?
culero
-
Eagler, somebody telling you what movies or books or pictures you can or can't look at, how is that freedom? Take off the moral majority blinders and look at what you are saying.
-
Trying to put the blame somewhere else is just BS.
The guy pulled the trigger not the gun. Guns have no will, they do nothing but exist just like pornography videos. They are not morale entities that can choose to hurt people.
Enforcing morals based on your religion is silly because you got no proof that yours is the right one.
If your religion included orgies you might think them right.
It is all a matter of perspectives and opinions.
I don't like porn videos, I think they are dumb, but who am I to limit other people's choices? NOBODY THAT'S WHO.
What people do in their free time is none of my business.
I have only one word for you: SCAPEGOAT!!!!!!!!!
-
Originally posted by AVRO1
What people do in their free time is none of my business.
To paraphrase a former Prime Minister of Canada:
"The Government has no business in the bedrooms of its citizens".
:D
Sorry, got it wrong the first time. The actual quote is:
"The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation."
-
Further food for thought....same Prime Minister:
"The state must take great care not to infringe on the conscience of the individual. I believe that, in the last analysis, a human being in the privacy of his own mind has the exclusive authority to choose his own scale of values and to decide which forces take precedence over others. A good constitution is one that does not prejudge any of these questions, but leaves citizens free to orient their human destinies as they see fit."
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
Some real enemies of freedom on this board. We are taking names for when the revolution starts.
Dont worry comrade funked. the revolution will sweep such scum from this country.