Can someone explain how pornography is freedom of speech?

[Berzerker]

Lincoln -

I don't think they do get to decide anything that is contrary to the founder's intentions.

They do all the time.

I still see no evidence that the founders intended to allow the unfettered distribution of pornography.

Lincoln, the Bill of Rights in their time applied ONLY to the federal government. Do you see evidence the Framers meant for us to be flooded with books? If you say, yes, because of the 1st Amendment, then explain why since the 1st Amendment limited federal power only, not state power. You're claiming the Framers never meant for us to have legal access to "obscenity" because states and localities could ban it, but the states and localities could ban books too. But the 14th Amendment changed all that, the states no longer could ignore the Bill of Rights. So you won't find evidence from the Framers about what they felt we should be allowed to do with respect to the states, only with respect to the federal government. And the evidence that the Framers did not want to ban porn lies in the fact the Framers NEVER gave the federal government any power to ban porn.

The laws in force at the time were not overturned because to the first amendment. Even in 1957 there was no right to obscenity. That has been a recent perversion (no pun intended) of the founder's intentions.

Excuse me, but why do you think a "recent" right to obscenity is a perversion of the Framers' intent and not the 1957 decision? You don't think some of those Framers had "obscene" paintings and statues? Where in the Constitution have you found the word "obscenity"? Congress has the power to declare war. Why? Because the Constitution says Congress has that power. Where is the power to ban "obscenity"? It doesn't exist. Don't you see the inherent subjectivity in defining "obscenity"? How does one ban something that cannot be defined consistently?

[Berzerker]

Lincoln -

But my point remains that in the beginning the founder's intentions did not allow for the unfettered distribution of porn.

You don't have any proof for that conclusion.

Can you name a case when that supposed right was upheld before the 20th century? And even now it is supposedly restricted.

I can't name a case when the right to eat strawberries was upheld either. But you have to show a case where the federal government under the Founders tried to ban porn before concluding they opposed a right to view porn. Remember, prior to the 14th Amendment, the states could ban all sorts of things. That doesn't mean the Framers believed they should, the Constitution was a compromise between state and federal power.

[molly bloom]

I would suggest,Lincoln,that you look at some of the books that have been classified as obscene in the past in the United States, compare them with a list of the classics taught at universities all over the world today, and say whether or not you consider them to be obscene.

You might start with James Joyce's 'Ulysses', for instance. Or D.H. Lawrence's 'Lady Chatterley's Lover'. British Customs and Excise impounded a copy of Christine de Pizan's 'Book of the City of Women', which was en route to a gay bookshop, presumably under the mistaken apprehension that it was some super hot lesbo-sado-masochistic bike dike book, instead of a mediaeval proto-feminist Christian work.

http://digital.library.upenn.edu/women/pisan/Christine.html

Books depicting (in words) miscegenation would have been classed as obscene in some states in the U.S.A., as well as books advocating birth control.

http://www.adlerbooks.com/banned.html

http://www.zeal.com/exit.jhtml?cid=522795&wid=903197&so=&xr=/website/profile.jhtml%3Fcid%3D522795%26wid%3D903197

"Ulysses by James Joyce -
The U.S. Customs Office banned the importation of this classic for 15 years on the grounds that it was obscene. In 1918, chapters published in the Little Review were burned by the U.S. Post Office. In 1933, the ACLU won a major legal victory that forced the U.S. Customs Service to lift its ban. "

"Candide by Voltaire -
This critically acclaimed satire was declared obscene by U.S. Customs in 1929 and seized in 1930. At the time, the book was an assigned text at Harvard, and was defended by two professors. The book was then permitted in a different edition. The U.S. Post Office demanded that a mail order book catalog omit the book in 1944."

"The Canterbury Tales by Geoffrey Chaucer -
These bawdy tales were removed from an advanced literature course at an Illinois high school in 1995 after parents deemed the sexual content in some of the tales lewd and inappropriate. Chaucer's classic tales have weathered and endured six centuries of expurgation."

http://www.alibris.com/articles_features/features/banned/banned.cfm

[muxec]

People and what do you think about the proposal of one of Russian deputates "Stop the tradition of political prostitution"? I think that it will define porno as kind of freedom of speech. I agree with him.

[MRT144]

but we all want to know if lincoln finds COHF offensive

[muxec]

Porno is real way to internationalism. People see that all we do the most important thing in the same way.

[Willem]

Originally posted by obiwan18


Many people have problems with pornography, it can be very addictive.

Are you speaking from personal experience?

Just kidding Obiwan, don't get your Bible in a knot.

[Ben Kenobi]

Are you speaking from personal experience?

No, but I can understand why people have problems.

For this reason there should be regulations and restrictions, as we currently have for gambling.

I'm not going to argue obscenity, because that argument cuts both ways. I have large problems with freedom of speech here in Canada because some have taken into their hands what is and should not be obscene.

Unfortunately, some biblical passages are treated as obscene and hateful, while child pornography gains 'artistic merit.'

Better to have a strong first amendment, with provisions for limiting the distribution of this kind of material.

[Willem]

Originally posted by obiwan18
No, but I can understand why people have problems.

People like that are going to have problems no matter what though. If they're not addicted to sex, it will be gambling or alcohol, or something. There are some people that are just predisposed to abuse in one form or another. I don't see how regulations and restrictions will be of any use as far as helping them.

For this reason there should be regulations and restrictions, as we currently have for gambling.

Then you get into the issue of morality. Who's moral vision are people supposed to live by, who decides what's acceptable or not? Frankly, I'm in favour liberalizing our attitude towards prostitution, in the same way it's been done in Amsterdam for instance. I'm a mature, single male. I see no reason why, if I'm foolish enough, it's wrong for me to drop a hundred bucks in order to have consentual sexual relations with a woman. That may offend you, but it doesn't offend me, and I certainly don't feel I should have to live by your standards.

Nor am I offended by someone viewing pornography in the privacy of their own home if they wish. I certainly wouldn't agree if someome started plastering pictures on the telephone poles in my neighbourhood, but I see no reason why people can't be allowed view it discreetly if they wish. Like Trudeau said, "The government has no business in the bedrooms of the nation."

[Ben Kenobi]

People like that are going to have problems no matter what though. If they're not addicted to sex, it will be gambling or alcohol, or something. There are some people that are just predisposed to abuse in one form or another. I don't see how regulations and restrictions will be of any use as far as helping them.

Do you believe that alcoholics anonymous can successfully help people get off booze?

We restrict alcohol in numerous ways, including licensing, having a legal age limit. Why have these restrictions if they do not help?

What the regulations do is to help people who have a problem avoid the source of the problem. It takes some time before one person is strong enough to resist the temptations around them.

We don't give up on alcholics because they are 'predisposed.' Rather, we offer them help so that they can function properly.

That's part of the problem with pornography, in that people can get very addicted to the images, to the detriment of the rest of their life.

Regulations and restrictions seem to me a good balance between the interests of expression, and between the needs of the community at hand.

I see no reason why, if I'm foolish enough, it's wrong for me to drop a hundred bucks in order to have consentual sexual relations with a woman. That may offend you, but it doesn't offend me, and I certainly don't feel I should have to live by your standards.

Do your standards involve concern for the women involved in prostitution? What about some of the spinoff problems relating the community where you section the red-light district? Would having such a district increase the number of people indulging in prostitution?

It comes down to this. Do you believe pornography and prostitution are good things that should be encouraged in society? It is a question of morality, but not one limited to my perspective.

Like Trudeau said, "The government has no business in the bedrooms of the nation."

What about child abuse? Should one use privacy to justify child abuse?

[Willem]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Do you believe that alcoholics anonymous can successfully help people get off booze?

Some, not all. Unfortunately there are some people that just can't be helped, no matter how hard you try.

We restrict alcohol in numerous ways, including licensing, having a legal age limit. Why have these restrictions if they do not help?

Did I say they don't serve a purpose? I certainly don't advocate not having restrictions by any means, there has to be some sort of controls in place. But even with the controls we have now, some people still abuse it. Adding yet more isn't going to make a big difference, some people will still become alcoholics.

We don't give up on alcholics because they are 'predisposed.' Rather, we offer them help so that they can function properly.

Certainly not, but like I said, there are some that can't, or won't be helped.

That's part of the problem with pornography, in that people can get very addicted to the images, to the detriment of the rest of their life.

Regulations and restrictions seem to me a good balance between the interests of expression, and between the needs of the community at hand.

How many actually become complusive though? I suspect very few frankly, and by restricting their access to it, you also restrict it's access to people to whom it is only a harmless pleasure. Why should you dictate what's acceptable to the people who can use it without abusing it, just because there are some who aren't able to draw the line?

Do your standards involve concern for the women involved in prostitution?

That's one reason why I advocate a system like they have in Holland. As it is now, women working as prostitutes are vulnerable and wide open to abuse, not mention susceptible to diseases. If it was controlled and regulated as it is in Holland, they would be much safer and healthier. It would also ensure that the ones working in the trade are doing so of their own free will, and not being coerced into selling themselves.

A good example is that pig farmer in Vancouver. How many murders has he been charged for now? I lost count. If those women would have been working out of a regulated brothel instead of selling themselves on the street, they would still be alive today.

What about some of the spinoff problems relating the community where you section the red-light district?

They seem to have worked out a good compromise in Amsterdam. The area is quite popular for tourists, with economic benefits for the other businesses in the area. As far as I can tell, everyone in the area seems to be happy with the arrangement. You certainly can't plop a red-light district just anywhere, but with proper planning and adequate policing, it could prove to be an economic benefit to a neighbourhood.

Would having such a district increase the number of people indulging in prostitution?

If someone wants a prostitute now, they're easy enough to find. I see ads in the paper all the time; though they call themselves escort services, so I don't see how making it "official" will have any impact. Not everyone is comfortable with the idea of hiring a prostitute, and I don't see how having a red light district will change that at all.

It comes down to this. Do you believe pornography and prostitution are good things that should be encouraged in society? It is a question of morality, but not one limited to my perspective.

I don't say that it should be encouraged, but if someone wants to engage in it I see no harm, provided it is consentual. I don't necessarily view it as a good thing, but I don't see it as bad either. It's just sex, which is an simply aspect of our biological nature. How someone expresses their sexuality should be left up to them, provided they don't harm anyone by doing so.

What about child abuse? Should one use privacy to justify child abuse?

No, never.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
there is a lot of naked people, and sexual interplay, that is not considered porn (in movies, books, and elsewhere)

If they succeeded in making porn illegal, do you think they'd stop there?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by obiwan18
That's part of the problem with pornography, in that people can get very addicted to the images, to the detriment of the rest of their life.

People can get addicted to shopping and overeating. Should we ban these as well?

[MRT144]

we should ban COHF!

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
People can get addicted to shopping and overeating. Should we ban these as well?

Slippery Slope!