FBI organizes new anti-adult porn squad

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Mr Fun is correct.

It must have caused you physical pain as you uttered these words against your inner will.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I uttered nothing!

[Mr. Harley]

Imran, Mr. Fun, and Berz - nice posts.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Oerdin


This isn't about protecting anyone other then the jobs of politicians. The GOP loves culture war issues because they are essentially meaningless and allow politicians to grandstand without actually doing anything meaningful.

The GOP knows that gays and porn get the religious right worked up so they will pander to these "issues" in order to shore up the fundimentalist vote.

Indeed.

[Bill3000]

Let's start a Pro-Porn squad

[Q Classic]

Pro-Porn? Please. Alterna-Pr0n.

[duke o' york]

Explicit sexual entertainment is a profit center for companies including General Motors Corp. and Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. (the two major owners of DirecTV), Time Warner Inc. and the Sheraton, Hilton, Marriott and Hyatt hotel chains.

I know of one member of that dynasty who has done very nicely out of it.

It was always fun when I did the expenses at work, to see the items that employees had paid for as part of their hotel bills with company plastic, and then removed, saying that they'd pay for them themselves.

[Darkstar]

Mr Fun, it's not just the nuts. The entire spectrum of humanity has problems with porn. Even those that are heavy consumers of it have problems with other peoples porn!

Humm... and yet, it was Slick Willy Clinton that gave us our first official Porn-Czar. Seriously. Patrolling all entertainment, adult included, to make sure people didn't see the wrong kind of thing.

Bill3000, there are several pro-porn groups. Half the free speech groups you can find on the internet are pro-porn. Of course, the other half are anti-porn. Go figure.

[Mr. Harley]

Darkstar - you make an unproven, and actually false assumption.

The entire spectrum of humanity has problems with porn. Even those that are heavy consumers of it have problems with other peoples porn!

People who are libetarians do not have this issue. Berz is probably the purest libetarian here, and I consider myself a social libetarian. When my wife was in her third trimester we discussed it, and I went and surfed some porn.

I discovered that the on-line industry had descending into depths I had heard of, but not seen. It is not just the simple old Playboy/Penthouse/Hustler of yesteryear, but some very degrading and unpleasant porn out there. My wife found it terribly amusing, how little that was out there I found sexy. I only liked it if both participants were obviously enjoying themselves. The amateur stuff was often the best.

But even though I find the degradation porn, which I will call it for want of a better term, disgusting, I am still for them to have the legal right to put it on the net with appropriate safeguards; i.e. consenting adults. FYI that is not a problem with porn (appropriate safeguards), but with slavery and/or protecting minors.

I have always defined the Left and Right are people who attempt to legislate their morality, and who want to ban other's "immorality." Good examples are porn on the right and guns on the left. There are a large number of Americans who oppose this. Sadly, they are also the ones who don't always vote. "Getting out your base," i.e. your fanatics has gone from a tactic to a science, and American politics is the worse for it.

[Darkstar]

shawnmmcc, you just proved my point. You yourself do have problems with other people's porn. You are merely nicer then those that find it so personally upsetting, that they want it all banned/made to go away. That you do not feel the need to try to get it stopped is a good libertarian. But there are libertarians that do side with those that would like "bad porn" to be banned and "kept away".

Of course, I bet there are forms of porn that you won't agree deserves any protection. It's just a matter of where you draw the line. For instance, whether it's everyone in the porn has to be over 17/21/35, and whether you have to clearly be able to validate that its all consenting, etc etc etc.

Of course, we have drawn the line several times as a society. And we will keep drawing the line. That's how government by the people is meant to work.

BTW, nice quick edit to add clarification.

[Mr. Harley]

Darkstar - it depends on what you mean by "have a problem with it." You appear to be mixing up "problem" with "dislike".

Problem : a state of difficulty that needs to be resolved

Implicit to that is there is a "solution," or a resolution. Libetarians do not see a problem with porn, even porn we do not like. We understand that once you declare that is acceptable behavior for the government (solving the problem of porn), you let loose the floodgates of whoever can gain control, or even hijack, the appartus of government to start solving all such problems. Then you really have a problem.

Note you mix up the problem of pornography with that of slavery/contract law, and of the rights of minors. Slavery should be illegal, so non-consenting adults should not be physically coerced into something they do not wish to do. Same with contract law, you must be able to give informed consent. So this is not a problem per se with pornography.

Minors cannot consent or enter into certain contractual relations. This makes it impossible for them to consent to pornography, in the legal sense. This again is a contractual issue. I do not have a "problem" with computer generated kiddie-porn, though I find the idea revolting.

The problem is that government by the people is not what we have. We have a Republic, and the people do not make their laws. Elected representatives do. They are only accountable every two to six years. Due to this and the stupidity of voters, we also do not have government of the people, but instead end up very often with whoever can whore themselves out to special interests so they can afford the best propogandists money can buy - the current master is Karl Rove, but both sides do this. For the people - puh-lease, look at where the governments money is going. It is going to those who gave them the money to get elected and hire the propogandists. In the Phillipines we call this corruption, in the US - "access".

I didn't think I edited that last post. Are you sure it was this thread, or was it one of the others I posted in tonight.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Darkstar
Mr Fun, it's not just the nuts. The entire spectrum of humanity has problems with porn. Even those that are heavy consumers of it have problems with other peoples porn!

Humm... and yet, it was Slick Willy Clinton that gave us our first official Porn-Czar.

Goodness me, how quickly the activities of the Meese that roared are forgotten:

He also courted controversy when he appointed the "Meese Commission" to investigate pornography in the United States; their report, released in July 1986, was highly critical of pornography and became a target of widespread criticism.

This guardian of public morality also being implicated in several of the scandals that plagued the Reagan administration.

I have no problems with pornography made by willing participants- I do have problems with kidnapping, sexual abuse, exploitation of minors and child sexual abuse.

But none of those are crimes particular to pornography, and are legislated for elsewhere in criminal codes.

[MrFun]

Molly is my hero.

[chequita guevara]

Ashcroft was supposed to unveil his war on porn on September 11, 2001. Other events intervened.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Ashcroft was supposed to unveil his war on porn on September 11, 2001. Other events intervened.

Clearly, Asscroft lacks all sense of proportion.