@Miss Piggie:"I think you'll find that it's women who get in
front of cameras and doff their clothes. That doesn't make them
'innocent.' It makes them the problem."The problem is
the viewers, which are mostly males. Women have the right to take their clothes
off when/if they want to. It's their prerogative to appeal sexually to
others. If they get too bare the viewer is supposed to avert their eyes. If
the don't, they are the problem, not the ladies. Mother Nature's god
@LDS Liberal:"I think the Government CAN restrict your access to
weapons."The government cannot restrict ownership or possession
of arms... it says so in the 2nd Amendment. And arms includes ammo... because,
without ammo, arms is simply a chunk of metal and piece of wood."I think the Government CAN tax us to provide Healthcare."The government can tax for any reason... what it can't do is force people
to buy things they don't want to buy.And, by the way, the
government (apparently) can levy penalties without having to call it a tax as in
the case of Obambcare. The government can levy a monetary 'penalty'
if you don't file your income tax return with IRS by the due date. I say
'apparently' because the IRS 'penalty' has not been
challenged in a court of law.
@Mike Richards:"There are so many who justify their 'right'
to view porn that they have no concern about the innocent women..."Too funny...I think you'll find that it's women who get
in front of cameras and doff their clothes. That doesn't make them
'innocent.' It makes them the problem.
I would love to see all the porn sites have a suffix attached to the URL such as
.xxx. Problem solved. Use the net Nanny to block all URLs with those
@Mike RichardsSouth Jordan, Utah---I'm not
the one touting unbridled "Constitutional" rights like you do.I
think the Government CAN restrict your access to weapons.I think the
Government CAN tax us to provide Healthcare.My beliefs show
integrity.Yours do not.I lean to the left - like much of the
rest of the civilized world does.I have no problem with Government
restricting and regulating greedy Capitalists.You do not.I'm just trying to figure out what you really truly believe in?Restricting for the good of SocietyorYour puritan Constitutional
interpretation of each and every law?
Mike Richards,You confuse me with your muddled arguments. On this article, you claim that we should abridge free speech in cases of
pornography or yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, for the good of
others. The government, therefore can abridge my freedom of speech because you
say it's okay, even when the Constitution does not explicitly say it?Yet in the comments on other articles, such as about the ACA, you claim
that the government cannot institute things that are not explicitly stated in
the Constituition.It's either explicitly stated in the
Constitutuion or not, according to you. Which is it Mike? You can't have
it both ways.
Shimlau, thanks for being aware of what my nom de plume means. However, my
antipathy to religion should not at all be a surprise; a thoughtful and rational
person raised in a strictly religious community can't help but notice
absurdity, lies and hypocrisy. Often the only way forward is to abandon it
entirely. Many colonies experience this today among young and old, as well as
rampant poaching activities from other churches. Some are re evaluating their
draconian lifestyle restrictions to prevent population hemorrhage. So for those
of us that are moving forward taking the world on it's own terms without
having to claim knowledge of that which cannot be known, the weggelaufen of the
world, we are at peace and living moral, busy and successful lives as it is. But
don't ask us to buy in again.
@L Liberal,Do you believe that a person shouting "fire" in a
crowded theater has that right or do you abridge his right to shout fire? Are you for or agains the abuse of women and children by claiming
"free speech" gives you or anyone else the right to use and abuse them?
Is that what "free speech" means to you? Do you promote pornography
with your "free speech"? Do you think that pornography should be
"protected speech"? Do you think that the right to speak out against
the government (free speech) includes the right to use and abuse women and
children (pornography)? Where do you draw the line? I assume that
you accept other laws protecting the innocence of women and children, why then
do you demand that society has to accept the abuse and use of women and children
for sexual purposes to preserve "free speech"?Either you
honor women and protect children, or you don't. You can't have it
Perhaps people in England are more progressive with regards to women than the
US? Perhaps they have more of a tradition of reining in the excesses of
capitalism? Percent of people who attend church may lead to a positive
correlation with controlling pornography, but there are other factors.
hutterite; considering your screen name, your antipathy to religion is
Mike Richards -- Are you FOR the Constitution [including free
speech, free press, free expression] and Capitalism in America?orAre
you suggesting that Socialists in Great Britain and Russia or Theocratic Muslim
countries have the better way?You can't have your cake and eat
Who decides which laws are "best" for society? Do we let those who prey
on women and children define those laws? Do we let those who cannot and will
not control their appetites and passions decide that women and children are
"fair game"; or, do we go to the source of all righteousness and ask the
"Creator" what is best for society?Those who justify the
satisfaction of their personal appetites and passions often tell us that God
does not exist or that "their" god allows them to do whatever they want
without calling their personal conduct "sinful". That's garbage.
It has always been garbage and it will always be garbage. "Sin" is the
willful rebellion against eternal truth. Those who tell us that porn is
justified because they have a 1st Amendment right to "speak" are in open
rebellion against eternal truth and the Truthgiver. They claim that their right
to "sin" supercedes the right of our women and children to not be
abused.No human being has the right to abuse a woman or a child. No
"Constitutional" right allows for that abuse. Society demands that we
protect women and children irrespective of personal appetite.
Nobody realizes that you can't fix this buy just censoring it. You need to
get people to totally change who they are. If they don't have that change
within themselves no amount of censorship will work.
Virtue is by no means exclusive to religion. Indeed, it stands a better chance
There are so many who justify their "right" to view porn that they have
no concern about the innocent women and children who are destroyed by that
industry. They would think that we were a nation of heathens if they were told
to drive at any speed in any neighborhood because the lives of the children were
not important. They would think that we have regressed five-hundred years if
they were told that anyone could buy and sell drugs to anyone, including
children because "free-enterprize" was more valuable than the lives of
children. They rise up if someone tells them that parents should decide where
and when the children attend school, or even if the children attend school; but,
take away their porn, and the sky is falling.A society measures
itself about how it feels about families, about children, and about the women.
Many think that the only purpose for women and children is to satisfy the sexual
desires of other members of society.Go ahead promote your
"right" to use and abuse women and children. Tell us how your
"rights" are more important that speed limits, drug regulation, and
This tells me that morals are not coming from religion, much to the
misconception of the American Public.
How about this Sterling...In a free market society, how about if
Internet Service providers (ISP) offer that service on their own without being
mandated by regulations.Or, one can choose to install or configure
internet software to accomplish the same thing.