by PhilBiker » Fri 23 Sep 2005, 09:11:05
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('emersonbiggins', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PhilBiker', '.')..I am willing to just let our democracy work.
It's funny how true 'democracy' is constantly at odds with our Constitution, isn't it?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PhilBiker', 'S')ince you're so much smarter than everyone else you've decided you had better protect them from themselves. I'll bet you call them "sheep" too right?
Or maybe you just don't know the difference between a mountain and a molehill.....
What twisted hyperbole. I'm saying LET THE MARKET DECIDE, which essentially means EVERYONE DECIDES FOR THEMSELVES what's 'obscene' within the context of the law, and forces their opinion ON NO ONE ELSE.
You suggest LETTING THE COMMUNITY DECIDE what's obscene FOR ME.
*bleat* *bleat*
If this is such a big deal maybe you should consider moving to Amsterdam.
So far we're letting the market decide what to do about the upcoming energy crisis. Markets seem to be your sacred cow when it comes to porn, is the market always right? Do you believe that the almighty markets will save us from the upcoming energy crisis?
Hey maybe the market will decide that snuff will sell enough copies to be profitable? So are you saying you want that to be legal? There is a market for simulated rape, that's ok, right? There's a market for animal movies and child movies. Let the market decide right? Or do you have to draw the line somewhere? How do you draw the line? Apparently you want it both ways - you want people to have the freedom to make the movies you think are ok for them to make (even if you personally don't care for them), meanwhile you don't want anyone else to be able to pass judgement on what should be allowed because it doesn't pass your personal lithmus test.
Meanwhile you insult the average juror who would potentially decide on the prospective cases as righ wing morons. I personally think that jurors are a lot smarter, tolerant, and more aware of the issues then you give them credit for.
by PhilBiker » Fri 23 Sep 2005, 09:15:04
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lotrfan55345', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '3')) attempts to produce arousal through imitation of illegal activity (such arousal is itself considered motive for crime by some courts)
Wouldn't many movies be banned with that too? Just change the word "arouse " to "enterntertain".
Yes. And banning children and animals like Elijah suggests$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '1')) involves any non-consenting individuals, animals, children, drugged prom dates
could, if interpreted literally, render illegal that cute famous old Coppertone print with the dog pulling the little girl's bathing suit off. That's why these things have to be decided on a case-by-case basis.
Emerson, you really need to drink less coffee. This is nowhere near the big deal that you're making it. Do you overreact to the extreme like this all the time?
by emersonbiggins » Wed 28 Sep 2005, 11:12:47
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PhilBiker', 'I')f this is such a big deal maybe you should consider moving to Amsterdam.
So far we're letting the market decide what to do about the upcoming energy crisis. Markets seem to be your sacred cow when it comes to porn, is the market always right? Do you believe that the almighty markets will save us from the upcoming energy crisis?
It's not so much the 'market' that I believe in, but rather that government intervention rarely solves problems, especially when it comes to legislating a certain group's moral agenda. See government drug policy for example.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PhilBiker', 'H')ey maybe the market will decide that snuff will sell enough copies to be profitable? So are you saying you want that to be legal? There is a market for simulated rape, that's ok, right? There's a market for animal movies and child movies. Let the market decide right? Or do you have to draw the line somewhere? How do you draw the line? Apparently you want it both ways - you want people to have the freedom to make the movies you think are ok for them to make (even if you personally don't care for them), meanwhile you don't want anyone else to be able to pass judgement on what should be allowed because it doesn't pass your personal lithmus test.
Now, who's talking absolutes? As I've stated *often* before, if one's rights are infringed upon, then prosecutions should follow, no questions asked. That being said, no one has a right to *not be offended*, rather it be by a seedy fetish tape or an idiotic Eminem tune. The 'market' can turn the TV off or turn the radio to another station, one that's more 'in line' with their tastes and sensibilities. Might I point you in the direction of George Carlin for more wisdom on this matter?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PhilBiker', 'M')eanwhile you insult the average juror who would potentially decide on the prospective cases as righ wing morons. I personally think that jurors are a lot smarter, tolerant, and more aware of the issues then you give them credit for.
Yeah, soccer moms don't often base their opinions on what they wouldn't want their children to see...
They want a world sanitized for a 5-year old's consumption. And, by and large, they have one via the nanny state.