Couple gets prison time for Internet obscenity, page 7

reply to post by mr-lizard

---

A lot of people seem to forget that children have access to pornography just by being online.

Only if you, as a parent give them access. The parent brings the internet into their home. The parent allows the kid unrestrained access to the internet. Now the parent decides that we need to further alter the United States Constitution because they don't want to parent their child?

I don't want my child exposed to a lot of things including movies, books, and even spoken words but I realize it is my responsibility to keep it out of my home.

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

If not.... why not?

I don't want my kids to watch any porn. I also don;t want my kids to eat junk food, drink alcohol, and watch certain movies. Because they are not healthy for a child.

Are we to outlaw all of those because I have decided they are not healthy for my child?

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.

Doesn't sound any worse then the movie "saw".

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

There are people who believe any type of porn should be outlawed. There are people that believe certain books should be outlawed. And certain tyes of speech. They make the exact same argument as you. Damages children and society. Why not outlaw their sensitivities as well?

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

Agreed. However show me one shred of evidence that outlawing something increase our specie's evolution. How is the war on drugs going?







[edit on 8-7-2009 by harvib]

reply to post by harvib

---

Now the parent decides that we need to further alter the United States Constitution because they don't want to parent their child?

To the detriment of this and all nations, a lot of people are adopting that attitude. They want to have kids, but rely on the government to raise them. They want to have their cake and eat it too at the expense of my liberty. I say no. Not gonna happen.


TA

reply to post by TheAssociate

---

They want to have their cake and eat it too at the expense of my liberty. I say no. Not gonna happen.

Sorry I don't allow my kids to eat cake. It isn't healthy. Therefore I am demanding that cake be outlawed. So to anyone who wants to have their cake and eat it too you are damaging my kids. Shame on you cake eaters.

reply to post by rich23

---

Great points, rich23. You're right, children are very crafty, but we can't go around editing and censoring and, in general, tailoring the adult world to 'fix' that problem.

I don't have kids either, and I don't believe I want any. Adult life is just too enjoyable for me at the moment to sacrifice my adult lifestyle to raise kids. This may or may not change, but that's beside the point. The point is that the fact that others have kids is not even close to a reasonable excuse to force me to change my lifestyle to fit their needs.

It is the parents' responsibility to ensure their kids don't view, read, or listen to things that could harm them psychologically, not the government's. And truly responsible parents should have no problem at all hadling that.

Another issue I have with this case (and I probably should've addressed it earlier) is that I'm an artist, and as such I need the right to freedom of expression.

Under the current obscenity laws, one of the questions asked is whether the material has any artistic value. How can you objectively determine that? What has artistic value to me may be utterly meaningless to someone else.

Let's not forget that at one point, 'Tropic of Cancer' by Henry Miller was banned under these same laws. Think about that for a minute. Anyone familiar with the book knows, at the very least, that an artistic statement is made. But at some point it was deemed to have no creative/artistic value and banned.

That's the crux of the issue with me. These laws are a subjective hold-over from a bygone era of creative repression, when it was inappropriate for ladies to show their ankles. They need to either be more concretely and objectively defined, or better yet, scrapped completely.

To paraphrase: "I can't define 'obscene' but I know it when I see it" just isn't good enough.

TA



[edit on 9-7-2009 by TheAssociate]

[edit on 9-7-2009 by TheAssociate]

[edit on 10-7-2009 by TheAssociate]

Russian scientists reach buried Antarctic Lake Vostok
  Posted 5 days ago with 83 member flags

Google announces privacy settings change across products; users can\'t opt out
  Posted 18 days ago with 78 member flags

BREAKING: Israel teams with terror group to kill Iran\'s nuclear scientists, U.S. officials tell NBC
  Posted 3 days ago with 73 member flags

Monsanto quits as GM results announced (EUROPE)
  Posted 7 days ago with 72 member flags

Strange noises reported around North Battleford
  Posted 18 days ago with 67 member flags

FDA\'s New Claim: "Your Body Is a Drug—and We Have the Authority to Regulate It"
  Posted 10 days ago with 53 member flags

Ayatollah: Kill all Jews, annihilate Israel
  Posted 6 days ago with 49 member flags

Bill Gates Backs Climate Scientists Lobbying For Large-Scale Geoengineering
  Posted 5 days ago with 41 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: