It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Couple gets prison time for Internet obscenity

page: 6
11
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 08:25 PM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 



I agree. I've been trying to restrain myself from using that argument after learning the 'Slippery Slope' argument is actually mentioned in the list of logical fallacies:

Tee-hee!


I strongly believe it is more likely the 'slippery slope' concerning this issue is taking us along the lines of social decay and the devaluing of our humanity.

I can see why people would believe this, I think there is evidence of worrisome social trends, but at the same time the content we're discussing has been around for centuries in different forms, the practices have been practiced for centuries, they just weren't out in the open and discussed so frequently. With most of the western population owning or knowing someone who has a TV or computer with internet access, and with such high numbers of people with the same access to such material around the world this kind of content is bound to increase and become more popular than before because everyone has such a better chance of sharing, discussing, and accessing it through modern technology.

[edit on 6-7-2009 by rapinbatsisaltherage]




posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 08:35 PM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 



I do, however, have issues with this couple who gained financially from it. They exploit the actors they employ and earn a living by turning a life shattering crime into sexual entertainment.

I'm not entirely sure I believe the participants in the videos were exploited. As I said previously, they had to have been given some idea of what type of material they were going to be involved in creating. If they weren't told beforehand, they could easily have stopped and left the studio when they realized it.

Also, even if porn star is/was the only career available to them (which I doubt) they could have just opted to create something they found less demeaning (assuming they actually did find this work demeaning).

I guess my main argument with that is that the people involved are adults who are fully capable of deciding what is and isn't demeaning for themselves. They knew or found out at some point what type of porn they would be making, they decided it was okay, they did it, they were compensated. I don't see any exploitation in that scenario.





If rape porn doesn't make people flinch and it is considered a protected right under free speech, then what about child porn?

Actually, the idea of rape porn does make me flinch a bit. But that's all the more reason to vehemently protect it. If you allow those in charge to censor what you find distasteful, then soon enough someone is going to find something you like distasteful and that will end up on the chopping block as well. As an example, many find fault with religion because some (not all) faiths condemn things such as homosexuality. If you censor things to appease one group, you have to do the same for all and eventually, religious speech would be disallowed. That's just an example, I'm sure someone can come up with a better one.

As for child porn, that should be illegal. Children don't have the mental capacity to consent to sexual acts, ergo there's a victim.

In this case in question, the alleged victim is society because they were charged with distributing 'obscene' materials. I don't need the government to decide what is 'obscene' for me, I'm fully capable of handling that.





This has nothing to do with what a consenting man or woman does behind closed doors. Even I agree that is nobody's business. lol

That, I agree with.





I never took anyone's comments as a high five to these people but instead just as everyone having a very adamant opinion on free speech

Thank you for that. I in no way endorse the material these people were creating, only their right to do so. Thanks for being understanding.


I retract my statement of boredom with this thread, this is kinda fun.


Thank you all for your input, stars and flags.


TA

edit: spelling

[edit on 6-7-2009 by TheAssociate]



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage
 



I can see why people would believe this, I think there is evidence of worrisome social trends, but at the same time the content we're discussing has been around for centuries in different forms, the practices have been practiced for centuries, they just weren't out in the open and discussed so frequently.


Great point. I think that's one of the major issues here. The internet has given us a glimpse into what has been going on in people's bedrooms and some find it to be a bit of a shock. It is important to remember that this isn't new stuff, even if you just found out about it.


TA



[edit on 6-7-2009 by TheAssociate]



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheAssociate
As for child porn, that should be illegal. Children don't have the mental capacity to consent to sexual acts, ergo there's a victim.


As I stated in a following post, not all child pornography involves an actual child. Do you believe simulated child pornography should be covered under free speech or would it fall under obscenity? Like rape porn, I personally say no but am interested in hearing your thoughts and why or why not.

As for adult porn stars, whether or not they are exploited is a matter of debate and I promise I'm not trying to derail your thread here. I'm not terribly familiar with this subject but I would say they could be exploited in the sense they are susceptible to STD's, many have come forward and confessed about the psychological damage they had from working in the industry, share stories how they were enticed to perform due to the need to support a drug habit, some immigrants in the sex slave industry are forced to perform against their will, etc.

I will agree with you, though, that it's a case by case thing. Some might really love what they do while some of the above mentioned might not be so fortunate. I'll leave this angle up in the air for now.



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 09:21 PM
link   
Also, this probably won't change anyone's mind but I just looked into the case past the original article. In one piece of material, they had a rape victim that was dressed up like a little girl. It sounds similar to the Max Hardcore case in that he had his actresses dress up as little girls before engaging in sexual acts.

I also read that during trial, the owner even appealed to Larry Flynt for support (who was also arrested for breaking obscenity laws in the past). Even he declined to help because he was disgusted by what the material contained.

I can't describe it all and still remain within the T&C's but what I mention above sounds like the least of it. Let's just say if Flynt won't even help and the documentary film crew walked out during production, you know this is some pretty vile stuff.

Anyways, I'm off to move on to another thread.



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 



Do you believe simulated child pornography should be covered under free speech or would it fall under obscenity?

I knew I left something out. I would say that unless there is a victim there is no crime. So, while I find the idea of simulated child porn disgusting beyond words, I don't believe it should be illegal. They are using the law that currently makes it illegal to prosecute people for owning/viewing/distributing things like comic books and anime movies and I just think that's wrong, besides the fact that it's a victimless crime. Matter of fact, there was a thread on here a while back about a guy who got charged with possession of child porn for having a collection of hentai/manga comics.





I'm not terribly familiar with this subject but I would say they could be exploited in the sense they are susceptible to STD's

I'm almost certain that they are required to get frequent screenings by law. I'll look into this some more.





I promise I'm not trying to derail your thread here.

No problem at all, I don't consider this a derailment, just things that need to be covered in order for us all to make an informed decision on the topic.






many have come forward and confessed about the psychological damage they had from working in the industry, share stories how they were enticed to perform due to the need to support a drug habit

I think that's more of a personal responsibility issue. If they knew there was a chance that some of the things they would be asked to do might have a negative impact on them psychologically, they should have found another line of work. I'm not saying that work in the porn industry never damages someone emotionally/psychologically, but if someone feels that that line of work might hurt them in that way because of a fragile psyche or a mental illness or for whatever reason, it's that persons responsibility to seek employment elsewhere.

Again, if they decided to go into pornography to support a drug habit, then they assume all the risks that that decision entails. They could have just as easily gone into rehab instead of a porn studio.

Both of those cases are personal responsibility issues.

Thanks for all the replies and insight.


TA

edit: spelling

[edit on 6-7-2009 by TheAssociate]

[edit on 6-7-2009 by TheAssociate]



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 10:27 PM
link   
Oh, and I also just thought of one more thing while heading for bed lol.

Every right has a limit. We have freedom of religion but I cannot teach the Bible in class, for example. It's a 'victimless crime' but I am still not allowed to do it. We have freedom of speech but I cannot get on the Disney channel and start screaming the 'F' word at the top of my lungs. We have a right to bear arms but I cannot go swinging my gun around in a liquor store.

So none of our rights are a right at all costs. I believe that is the crux of the matter here. I do support free speech but realize there is a limit to everything. Being that this degrades and trivializes other human beings and even children by implication in some cases of the material, the line has to be drawn somewhere.

I really do get saddened to see in one thread about let's say, a Christian pastor getting arrested for his sermon, and the members going wild in support and then to enter this thread where rape porn is being defended, of all things, under the guise of free speech (which is not an unlimited right).

I guess I just get concerned about the state of humanity sometimes when the victimization of an entire gender is seen as entertainment and defended as a right.

And that is positively all I have to say on the matter. I was just getting into bed and thinking about how all of our rights are not unlimited and wanted to share that really fast.

Have a good night everyone.


[edit on 7/6/2009 by AshleyD]



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 





not all child pornography involves an actual child.


If it doesn't involve a child then how is it child porn?




I'm not terribly familiar with this subject but I would say they could be exploited in the sense they are susceptible to STD's, many have come forward and confessed about the psychological damage they had from working in the industry, share stories how they were enticed to perform due to the need to support a drug habit,


If we are going to have a free society don't we have to be responsible for our own actions? The moment we decide that we need to assign jurisdiction to someone else to ensure we act responsibly is the moment we lose our freedom.




Even he declined to help because he was disgusted by what the material contained.


I have trouble believing Larry Flint is disgusted by anything. I would wager it has more to do with the fact that he could be indited under the same laws. There is nothing in his magazines that doesn't fit the description of the federal obscenity statutes.




Every right has a limit. We have freedom of religion but I cannot teach the Bible in class, for example. It's a 'victimless crime' but I am still not allowed to do it. We have freedom of speech but I cannot get on the Disney channel and start screaming the 'F' word at the top of my lungs. We have a right to bear arms but I cannot go swinging my gun around in a liquor store.


This is the exact logic that has caused our rights to slowly be degraded. It is incremntalism at its finest. Always justifying the latest restriction with the last. Further restricting anything in the Bill of Rights needs to be done on it's own merit and not because it has already been restricted in one way or another.




I really do get saddened to see in one thread about let's say, a Christian pastor getting arrested for his sermon, and the members going wild in support and then to enter this thread where rape porn is being defended, of all things, under the guise of free speech (which is not an unlimited right).


Errrr. I am not defending "rape porn" under the guise of free speech. I am defending free speech under the guise of "rape porn". I didn't catch the thread about the pastor being arrested but I would have defended his right to free speech just as vehemently.




I guess I just get concerned about the state of humanity sometimes when the victimization of an entire gender is seen as entertainment and defended as a right.


I agree with you there. However can legislation be created that will suppress these urges that some hold? Maybe it is a symptom of a sickness that needs to be identified in our society.





[edit on 6-7-2009 by harvib]



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 11:07 PM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 



We have freedom of religion but I cannot teach the Bible in class, for example. It's a 'victimless crime' but I am still not allowed to do it.

That would actually violate the Freedom of Religion and the Separation of Church and State clause in the Constitution because it is in a government establishment. Technically, it violates the implicit "or from" part of the the clause (freedom of, or from religion). It wouldn't really be a victimless crime because it is required that the children go to school, and therefore can't elect to not listen to you teach the Bible and maybe some of them wouldn't want to hear it (or their parents wouldn't want them to hear it). I say a simple solution would be to stop the public education program, but that's another topic for another thread.





We have freedom of speech but I cannot get on the Disney channel and start screaming the 'F' word at the top of my lungs.

Not on the Disney channel, but you can on, say, HBO because they aren't subject to all the FCC regulations. I don't particularly agree with that, but there's not much I can do besides complain. You should be able to say what you want on TV. If someone doesn't like it, they're free to change the channel.





We have a right to bear arms but I cannot go swinging my gun around in a liquor store.

That depends on which state you live in.


But no, you can't do that because it is something that directly endangers someone's life. I don't see how porn has ever endangered someone directly.





Being that this degrades and trivializes other human beings and even children by implication in some cases of the material, the line has to be drawn somewhere.

Degradation and trivialization is in the eye of the person experiencing it. As I've stated before, if anyone feels degraded while making porn, they're in the wrong line of work. As for the child porn, we already have laws against that.





I really do get saddened to see in one thread about let's say, a Christian pastor getting arrested for his sermon, and the members going wild in support and then to enter this thread where rape porn is being defended, of all things, under the guise of free speech

Personally, I would defend the pastor as passionately as I've been defending the people in this case and anyone who truly believes in the Constitution would as well.




I guess I just get concerned about the state of humanity sometimes when the victimization of an entire gender is seen as entertainment and defended as a right.

Again, you're assuming that they feel victimized. Again, I say if, at any point, they feel wronged in any way it's their responsibility to say 'stop, I don't want to do this.' Not all porn stars feel like victims, and the ones who do need to chose another profession.

Humanity isn't getting any more vulgar or deranged. Humanity's vulgarity and derangement is just getting more attention than it used to.

Thanks for the reply,


TA

[edit on 6-7-2009 by TheAssociate]



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 11:20 PM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 



I guess I just get concerned about the state of humanity sometimes when the victimization of an entire gender is seen as entertainment and defended as a right.


Well I think the others addressed your points very well but I would like to comment on this. Women are not the only people who are exploited by porn. A very large amount of porn features men, there's lots of porn with men being degraded, such as in pegging and dominatrix films. I think that's one of the problems with people who take on the industry, they make it a feminist issue and then they make it a victimization issue, I can guarantee while porn takes advantage of some and even a few illegal aged people sometimes slip through the proper channels these are usually (in the US) adults doing things that they have agreed to for ridiculous sums of money, the only person victimization them quite often is themselves.

I don't think we should look down on those that enjoy porn. Men who enjoy porn are no more abusing women then I am abusing a child for spending money to see a movie in which child actors may be being put into high pressure, psychologically traumatic situations by their "manager" parents.



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 01:04 AM
link   
Ok, I can't keep taking on 3-4 people at a time. It's exhausting, I'm starting to feel dog piled, and everyone is starring each other. lol So this will be a reply to everyone:

reply to post by harvib
 



If it doesn't involve a child then how is it child porn?


By many state's definitions, even if it is animated, digital, or simulated by any other means involving a child, it is classified as child pornography.


If we are going to have a free society don't we have to be responsible for our own actions?


Yes but we do not live in an anarchy. This is not a 'do whatever you want' society. In a utopia, we wouldn't need laws at all and I do feel many are frivolous. However, the reality is, freedom has its limits. And I know you know this. I'm 'free' but I cannot do anything and everything I want.


I have trouble believing Larry Flint is disgusted by anything. I would wager it has more to do with the fact that he could be indited under the same laws.


You're more than welcome to speculate on the 'what-if's.' But I'll choose to pass along what he actually said because I have a hard time imagining that man caring about what anyone thinks. lol He said he would not support this couple because he only supports consensual porn and he accused the couple of bringing down the entire industry. And if he actually feels that way, then judging by his material, that is saying a lot.


This is the exact logic that has caused our rights to slowly be degraded. It is incremntalism at its finest.


We've already discussed the 'slippery slope' aspect and agreed it is a logical fallacy. But for arguments sake, on the same token I could say this takes us down a road to anarchy, desensitization for rape victims or victims of violence, etc. The slippery slope tactic is a double edged sword and both of us could say each position would take us down into total anarchy or totalitarianism but neither would probably end up happening.

reply to post by TheAssociate
 



That would actually violate the Freedom of Religion and the Separation of Church and State clause in the Constitution because it is in a government establishment. Technically, it violates the implicit "or from" part of the the clause (freedom of, or from religion).


First of all, the actual wording is something like Congress shall make no law establishing or respecting a religion. There is no such thing as freedom from religion. So technically I should be able to shout it out from the roof tops of a school if I personally wanted to do so- but I can't. And I'm sure you would agree I shouldn't regardless of free speech or freedom of religion. And I will agree with you that it is fair. I wouldn't want to hear another religion. So I support the freedom of religion but realize it has its cap.

So, the school cannot endorse it as curriculum but if I was a public school teacher who talked to the students in my free time, I'd be fired at worst or severely reprimanded at least. There have been cases where teachers have been reprimanded for merely wearing a crucifix. That has nothing to do with the Constitution.

But you also say this:


It wouldn't really be a victimless crime because it is required that the children go to school, and therefore can't elect to not listen to you teach the Bible and maybe some of them wouldn't want to hear it (or their parents wouldn't want them to hear it). I say a simple solution would be to stop the public education program, but that's another topic for another thread.


But you see, you're saying the children might not like it or the parents might not like it therefore my freedom of religion should be suppressed and that suppression is protected by law. I feel you're failing to see this situation isn't that much different. Slightly different but not much different. Just like I have the freedom of religion but there is a law saying I cannot express it in a classroom (as my limit), as an example, we have a freedom of speech but still obscenity laws as its limit.


But no, you can't do that because it is something that directly endangers someone's life. I don't see how porn has ever endangered someone directly.


Oh but it doesn't matter. We still have a right to bear arms- at all costs! No exceptions! Take them into schools, take them into liquor stores, take them into a courtroom or airplane. It's my right!

Not quite. I believe by you saying there is a reason guns cannot go into liquor stores or by giving the reason the freedom of religion has its time and place, even you can agree that every right has its limit. This includes free speech. It's not immune to having its boundaries if we desire a functioning society.

reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage
 


This is in reply to both you and The Associate since you both make the same point:


Women are not the only people who are exploited by porn. A very large amount of porn features men, there's lots of porn with men being degraded, such as in pegging and dominatrix films. I think that's one of the problems with people who take on the industry, they make it a feminist issue and then they make it a victimization issue, I can guarantee while porn takes advantage of some and even a few illegal aged people sometimes slip through the proper channels these are usually (in the US) adults doing things that they have agreed to for ridiculous sums of money, the only person victimization them quite often is themselves.


Both of you are placing emphasis on the porn actors and actresses but I am going way beyond that. Although I do feel they are being exploited in some ways, that isn't the main issue here. If they they make the decision to do it- it's none of my business. My main concern is how this particular couple's material of rape porn depicts an entire gender. Either by desensitizing the viewer to rape, reinforcing the stereotype that women are not human beings but instead only mindless sexual objects, etc. As another poster even pointed out, that men are just sexual beasts without concern for others.

Although I wonder what interests someone into going into the porn industry and even feel sorry for them in a way, it's not my place to judge them morally. What I have said since my very first post and the reason I replied to this thread in the first place knowing it would create an unholy heck storm lol is not because I have something against the porn industry as a whole and not because I'm on a crusade to reach out to porn actors. What I started out as saying in this thread is this:


Free speech is invaluable but not when it exploits or dehumanizes a group of people. I really couldn't care less if the actresses in the material were involved voluntarily. It's still sick and turns a very serious and life shattering crime into an act of entertainment.

I do not think such things should be allowed and am sick and tired of women being portrayed as victims or sexual objects without feelings. Or worse, individuals getting off on the pain of rape victims, simulated or not.


As a society I feel it is time we said 'enough' and due to the fact women set the social standards in many cases, I spoke up. I'm really tired of women being reduced to nothing but sexualized objects in media, advertising, magazines, etc. But being depicted as victims in pain while others take pleasure is quite sick and I feel that is when we have reached a limit even under the precious right of free speech. Can I do anything about it? Am I going to become an activist? No. But it is how I feel even though I know I don't have all the answers and I know it isn't popular here. My issue is with what the material reduces women to and apparently the law backed up my opinion this time.

[edit on 7/7/2009 by AshleyD]



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 01:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by amazed

Originally posted by shortywarn

well instead of bashing me maybe you should give hell to all the womnen who said that's there fantasy

try googling "top women sexual fantasies" it's on almost every list


boy,,, women are sick huh???

and from the link/survey
www.askmen.com...



As mentioned in our Common Female Fantasies article, rape is a massively popular fantasy among women. Most psychologists believe this top 10 female sex fantasy allows a woman to have the wild, dirty sex she craves, without having to suffer the guilt that often follows.




so obviously women fantasize of this,,,, hence someone made videos of it
people like red cars,, hence ford makes red cars



shows like csi thrive on violent killers and exotic killings of human beings,,,, should we outlaw or put horatio cane in jail???

granted i don't like or condone rape fantasies,,, childlike porn etc. but like i said earlier this is a slippery slope

any ww11 movie portraying jews being burned alive should be outlawed if we follow this train of thought further

do you agree with that as well???


What you missed was


the great majority of women with rape fantasies do not want real rape



women with attachment anxiety (neediness) have more sexual fantasies featuring submission.
Meaning they have emotional issues.


Reaction to Trauma - those who have been sexually abused may try to master their trauma by taming those experiences.



At the end of the day, the woman has control over it, and it can be hot to give yourself over completely to someone within that context knowing that you can trust them


I will repeat something I said earlier, the studies being done show that the majority of women who do have these fantasies, always need the safety factor ie be in control at all times.

As well as many women who have these fantasies have a history of sexual abuse, and are somehow trying to work through their history. They need therapy, not porn.

So, instead of this being used as another way to abuse women, these women should receive the help they need.

Harm None
Peace



exactly,,,,, and hence this couple made video's of those women's fantasies


and i guess i will argue for this couple because gov't is so screwed up,,,, for instance smoking is bad bad bad,,,, yet that's ok,,,, alcohol has many negatives, but makes money-taxes so it's ok,,,

you know what i'm getting at probably

the gov't or a little county judge wanting limelight, press and fame prosecute "the little guys" and those with little money or political clout to properly defend or recieve public outrage

i see this as gov't again telling us what we can and can't make or watch, do etc etc,,,,, each day we're less free



also---- did the gov't, state and county return the tax money, business licenses they paid,,,, after all that was dirty, tainted money

i doubt it,,, they get you coming and going

i guess the public gets one way streets and the gov't, states can have there cake, and eat it too



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 02:24 AM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 



My main concern is how this particular couple's material of rape porn depicts an entire gender.

But I see no legal basis for making such depictions illegal. I'd be willing to wagger anyone who rapes after seeing such a video would have raped people anyway, I've never seen any evidence to suggest that this content has a significant affect on people that are not already emotionally damaged. Again, this argument can be made for any kind of content that someone personally finds offensive. If we approve this kind of thinking within our society and accept it then we open a can of warms. I remember in the 90's when there was a surge of "PTA" mom groups trying to get shows off the air, sometimes they were successfully or sometimes the attention they brought to the issue made the shows 100 times more popular.

I'm really tired of women being reduced to nothing

Again, you're making this a feminist issue when it is not. Again, there are degrading depictions of both genders. If you're going to make such an argument I think you need to include both men and women in your statements or they don't get taken as seriously because it makes it even more obvious that these views come from a very personal place where every piece of this issue is tainted and clouded by ones own experiences instead of actual facts and realities.



[edit on 7-7-2009 by rapinbatsisaltherage]



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 03:16 AM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 



First of all, the actual wording is something like Congress shall make no law establishing or respecting a religion. There is no such thing as freedom from religion.

Actually there is. You can't have freedom of religion without the option of freedom from religion. It isn't explicitly stated, but it is implied. If this weren't true, atheism would be unconstitutional.




So technically I should be able to shout it out from the roof tops of a school if I personally wanted to do so- but I can't.

Could if you wanted to as a private citizen and not a teacher (and therefore representative of the government). And what's more, I'd support your right to do so.





So, the school cannot endorse it as curriculum but if I was a public school teacher who talked to the students in my free time, I'd be fired at worst or severely reprimanded at least.

That's true. Teachers can't teach religion in public schools, but there are always private schools. Because we have a separation of church and state, no government entity can officially endorse any one religion.




There have been cases where teachers have been reprimanded for merely wearing a crucifix.

That's just plain wrong, no matter how ya slice it.





But you see, you're saying the children might not like it or the parents might not like it therefore my freedom of religion should be suppressed and that suppression is protected by law.

Freedom of religion means freedom to choose the religion you prefer. I'm not advocating taking that from you. What I am saying is that a teacher in a public school has no business dispensing religious teachings because of the separation of church and state clause in the Constitution. The important part there is that that clause is actually in the Constitution. There is no Freedom of Speech unless that speech happens to be 'obscene' clause.





Oh but it doesn't matter. We still have a right to bear arms- at all costs! No exceptions! Take them into schools, take them into liquor stores, take them into a courtroom or airplane. It's my right! Not quite. I believe by you saying there is a reason guns cannot go into liquor stores or by giving the reason the freedom of religion has its time and place, even you can agree that every right has its limit. This includes free speech. It's not immune to having its boundaries if we desire a functioning society.

Actually, I believe I should be able able to carry a gun wherever I please. I said that by drawing and aiming it unless my life is in danger, I am putting others at risk and thereby breaking the law. You seemed to miss my point that in the above example I may pose a direct danger to someone's life, whereas speech, no matter how 'obscene' has never directly endangered anyone.

I think rapinbats did a good job of taking care of the rest of your arguments.

I thank everyone for the posts and for remaining cordial and keeping a calm demeanor. It's rare that we get to have discussions of this type without someone blowing a gasket or turning into a name-calling two year old. I genuinely appreciate and have enjoyed our little debate.



TA

edit:



Ok, I can't keep taking on 3-4 people at a time. It's exhausting, I'm starting to feel dog piled,


Sorry about that, it wasn't intentional.

[edit on 7-7-2009 by TheAssociate]



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 04:54 AM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 





Ok, I can't keep taking on 3-4 people at a time. It's exhausting, I'm starting to feel dog piled, and everyone is starring each other. lol So this will be a reply to everyone:


I gave you a star just because I know how frustrating it can be to be the lone voice on a subject you feel passionate about. I am sure there are others who are reading this thread that hold your opinion but will only speak up if they hold the majority opinion. It takes courage to voice the minority view point!




By many state's definitions, even if it is animated, digital, or simulated by any other means involving a child, it is classified as child pornography.


Unfortunately I am aware of that. I don't want to derail this thread by delving into this area too much. But I will point out that one of the fundamentals of this Country is that you are presumed innocent until proven guilty. How can you prove that a cartoon is a minor? Again vague laws lead to unsuppressed authority. Also if animation can be considered a crime against a child what about a spoken story or a written one? Surely if animation is depicting what someone might consider to be a child we most certainly have to agree a spoke story or written one is a crime? Do we not?




However, the reality is, freedom has its limits. And I know you know this. I'm 'free' but I cannot do anything and everything I want.


No freedom does not have limits. And no you are not free, not even close.

I do believe in the necessity of law. However I also believe in the necessity of defining what "rights" are inalienable.




The slippery slope tactic is a double edged sword and both of us could say each position would take us down into total anarchy or totalitarianism but neither would probably end up happening.


But here's the thing. We most certainly have a system of Government that is constantly expanding it's jurisdiction. The federal Governments authority is increasing at an alarming rate. And under various regulations touted as protecting us against terrorist, speech can be a crime. So I don't know if I completely agree that the slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy. Because it does seem that each new restriction is justified with the last.

Almost all legislation being enacted are regulatory in nature. Very few are de-regulatory. So with each passing year if more an more restrictions are imposed where are we to end up?




Oh but it doesn't matter. We still have a right to bear arms- at all costs! No exceptions! Take them into schools, take them into liquor stores, take them into a courtroom or airplane. It's my right!


The Right to Bear arms has been infringed and so has the freedom of speech.




My issue is with what the material reduces women to and apparently the law backed up my opinion this time.


What about all the novels, movies, and TV shows that do the same? I agree with you that women are being degraded and dehumanized but this is not only occurring in porn. Shouldn't something be done about the other media?

[edit on 7-7-2009 by harvib]



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 09:16 PM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 

Edit to correct a response to a misread section:




So, the school cannot endorse it as curriculum but if I was a public school teacher who talked to the students in my free time, I'd be fired at worst or severely reprimanded at least.


You could in your free time, away from school grounds and I would support your right to do so.

It was late when I responded to that post and I misread the statement, my
apologies.


[edit on 7-7-2009 by TheAssociate]



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD
I guess I just get concerned about the state of humanity sometimes when the victimization of an entire gender is seen as entertainment and defended as a right.


Sorry, I have to address this. It's NOT the victimisation of an entire gender. There is plenty of porn that deals with the victimisation of men. There are practices that I won't go into here but even thinking about them makes me wince as they're to do with men having their bits tortured.

Ultimately, it's your perception that this is victimising an entire gender. It's not the reality. All this stuff cuts both ways. Just as there are women who want to be submissive and have rape fantasies, so also there are men who want exactly the same thing. My domme friend I mentioned earlier says that some of her customers achieve orgasm from being kicked in the nuts. It makes me feel ill even thinking about it, but that's their deal, and I'm not going to get moralistic for two reasons, which reveal that indeed I grew up in a Christian environment and some of it made sense to me - even if I moved on to Taoism because much more of it makes sense to me and it's one of the few religions with a properly spiritual component.

The two reasons are

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone: and
Judge not, lest ye be judged.



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 10:19 PM
link   
reply to post by rich23
 




Sorry, I have to address this.


No need to apologize at all, rich23. Those are some great points. I don't really believe that porn itself victimizes anyone. If they didn't want to participate, they certainly don't have to and if they enjoy being 'victimized' they, hey, whatever does it for ya. I have absolutely no right to judge. Thanks for the reply.


TA



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 05:45 PM
link   
A lot of people seem to forget that children have access to pornography just by being online. Don't deny it people.... all you have to do is go to google and type in 'sex' or 'porn' and you'll get 1000's of links in a second.

Would you want your kids watching 'rape porn?' , what about 'bestiality' or 'coprophilia'?

If not.... why not?

Because technically it goes against the very grain of what human interaction entails. It places dark little fimages into the subconscious of the observer.

I remember watching a video (quite by accident) many years ago, depicting a woman being beaten by three men, who take turns on her. This image has stayed with me and scarred me for many, many years. I don't know whether it was real or not, but that's not the point.

People here are making abusrd arguements, twisting the arguement with things like OMG then we should ban horror films........ There is a HUGE difference between a film like Friday the 13th and the videos that i speak of.

I am not easily shocked, but because the defenders of free speech are claiming the high ground, then more and more people will be exposed to such nastiness.

Porn is one thing. Sure, go ahead... film yourself and your wife having sex, this does not bother me.

BUT when you find videos of women being brutalised, whether in reality of fantasy, it shows that there is little compassion involved. Why would you want your wife to appear as though she is being raped?

Exposing this to the world does nothing for the evolution of our species.

Shame on some of the people on this thread.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by mr-lizard
 





A lot of people seem to forget that children have access to pornography just by being online. Don't deny it people.... all you have to do is go to google and type in 'sex' or 'porn' and you'll get 1000's of links in a second.


If the kids lie by clicking the "I'm over 18" button, they're breaking the law at that point. It's the parents' responsibility to keep them from viewing objectionable material.

People have a right to fantasize about whatever they want. And furthermore a right to record themselves playing out their fantasies. The key word there is 'fantasy.' that brings me to this point:




BUT when you find videos of women being brutalised, whether in reality of fantasy, it shows that there is little compassion involved. Why would you want your wife to appear as though she is being raped?

And if the participants enjoy being brutalized? I don't think you know too much about the BDSM community. I suggest talking to some of them before judging their fantasy life.




Exposing this to the world does nothing for the evolution of our species.

Beside the point, entirely. I know you don't have a Constitution over there, but we do here and it is sacred. This is protected by it under the First Amendment.




Shame on some of the people on this thread.

Just can't have a decent debate without attacking the debaters rather than the subject, now can we?


TA

edit: grammar

[edit on 8-7-2009 by TheAssociate]



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join