For those concerned with Free Speech (or Porn), it is time to get active.

Well, I wouldn't mind it if there was a lot less fundamentalist Christianity around. Since you are concerned with the degradation of women, I suspect that you agree with me here.However, I hope you also agree with me that placing legal limits on religious freedom would be an abhorrent way to accomplish this.Even imposing bureaucratic paperwork requirements on certain religious sects would be seen as an odious sneak attack on religious freedom, yes?

I think that you must be responding to the wrong person. This message certainly has no relevance to my post.Edited to fix a typo.This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 27-Jun-2005 07:34 PM

quote:

---

What do we need to protect our kids from?

---

From simple-minded ideologues who draw unsubstantiated connections in order to legislate an enforced code of morality?

No, I think that Tal is saying that we should outlaw war movies. Or at least the ones that show soldiers as heros. Or we should at least restrict their viewing to adults, and require zoning laws that restrict their sales to certain neighborhoods. And maybe impose some sort of bureaucratic record-keeping nonsense so the FBI may crack down of distributers for minor, red tape violations.

Wasn't Ted Bundy crazy?We have all blamed our actions on this or that influence, often without justification. Doesn't that render Bundy's self-assessment meaningless?At any rate, what does a single anectdote have to do with the issue?

quote:

---

It is substantiated.

---

Great! I am looking forward to seeing you substantiate these claims.Oh, wait. But substantiate I am thinking that you mean good statistical data that have withstood scrutiny in the peer-reviewed literature, right?Or by substantiate do you really mean that you can dig up this or that anectdotal evidence, as well as a few quotes from a self-professed "expert"?

quote:

---

I always pictured you as someone who thought that a man was responsible for his own actions.

---

Maybe Tal is a Christian. I've noticed by their concern over providing the "correct environment" in which to raise kids that Christians don't believe in free-will.

quote:

---

I'd be suprised if the administration was really trying to shut down the industry...simply because it's a big industry that makes money....

---

I think that Holmes might have already touched on this, but this kind of record-keeping nonsense probably won't have much of an effect on large corporate entities, who already have on the payroll teams of lawyers and accountants who do this sort of thing.The ones most affected will be the small businesses -- which shouldn't be too surprising considering the contempt for small business that the Republicans have shown for the last few decades.

Hello, Faith.In message 56 you said:

quote:

---

Carry on. I'm through here.

---

In message 77 you said:

quote:

---

NOW I'm through here.

---

So, are you through yet?

Hello, schrafinator.Doesn't non-explicit television, especially advertising, lead to the same dissatisfaction with one's and others' bodies? This is anectdotal, but I became much more satisfied with my appearance, and am less critical of others' appearances, when I quit watching TV.I'm not necessarily disputing your point as much a pointing out that the degradation of women and the cult of a narrow standard of beauty lies much, much deeper in our society.

Hi, Faith.I don't think that you need to apologize; I just think it's kind of humorous. I hope I haven't offended you.

I really am interested in bringing up holmes' original point.The stated purpose of the record-keeping law is to protect children who may be working in the porn industry. I couldn't wade far enough into the legalese before my eyes started crossing, but people who have more patience than I have stated that another claim is to prevent illegal aliens from working in the porn industry (although it isn't clear to me if the suspicion is that the US porn industry is a major contributor to illegal immigration, or whether it is felt that the jobs of American porn actors need protection). So far, those that have expressed an explicit desire to suppress pornography have not really addressed these points.1) Is the actual or possible use of minors in pornography really a great enough problem that justifies this law?2) Is the actual or possible use of undocumented aliens in pornography really such a great problem that justifies this law?3) Why aren't the same child-protection laws and immigration laws that are used in other industries sufficient for the pornography industry?4) robinrohan is the only one, so far, to bring up a point that is even remotely related to the issue of these laws: namely, the possible use of women in pornography against their will. Is this a widespread problem? If so, how will these record-keeping laws help resolve this problem?5) Or is it that pornography such a great evil that any and all methods must be used to eliminate it, even if those methods use deception and blatant hypocrisy?Edited to correct a typo.This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 28-Jun-2005 03:26 PM

This is starting to get off of the main topic (not that this thread hasn't already left the main topic), but what sort of regulations would you suggest? Why do you think that current labor law, as well as current assault and battery and kidnapping laws, are not sufficient in themselves?

quote:

---

It's a special case because degradation is the main theme.

---

There appears to be two points that you have been bringing up, that of degradation and that of abuse of women against their consent.Obviously, if women are being forced to take part in actions they find degrading and humiliating against their consent, then there is a problem that needs to be addressed.But, in this post, I am curious about the claims that pornography is degrading, and the implication that this requires regulation.It has been many, many decades since I have watched a pornographic film in its entirety. Can I ask you what is degrading about pornography? Is all pornography degrading? Most of it? Only a few examples are degrading?What does it take to be degrading? Is it possible to produce a movie that depicts graphic sexual content that is not degrading? If so, do these types of movies exist?Is this a problem requiring regulation? Are the proposed laws mentioned in the OP suitable for this purpose? What sorts of regulations would be suitable? What about regulations that would affect both degrading and non-degrading pornography (if such things exist) -- are they appropriate?

About 10 years ago I was reading an article by Katha Pollitt (a feminist columnist who writes for The Nation). In that article she cited a statistic (with no reference, since it was an opinion column) that said about one fourth of pornographic video tapes (the main source of porn in those days) were rented by women. And she pointed out that this did not include women who made their boy-friends rent the tape because they were too embarrassed themselves to do so.Now, I have no way of verifying the accuracy of this long ago statistic (just as I have no way of verifying Ms. Lovelace's claims), but it would be interesting if someone has some actual statistics on what women think about pornography.