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

But that's a matter of specific content aimed at a specific (and significant) part of the market.I'm not keen on degradation either but I'm not sure how it impacts on the basic issue of freedom under discussion here. This bill impacts two elderly homosexual gentlemen who like to urinate on each other* (and their audience) as it does anyone else.

That's a bit of a myth - hardcore pornography has been available for 100s of years and the in regards to the movie industry - silent porns were a big business.Things did happen before the 1960s - we are just more media aware now and the technology now allows the consumer far great control over their viewing pleasure.Frankly, from a technology point of view, pornography is very interesting stuff - it has driven many of the innovations that we take for granted.

The first - I don't see the connection and as for the second ? so what?

quote:

---

People who have studied the case are aware that Ryan was obsessed with commando figures, war games, and the fantasy ideas from action films involving military heroes. He may have viewed himself as someone who could escape into a wilderness and survive off the land, as absurd as that idea actually was there in the small country of England.

​

http://www.crimelibrary.com/...ers/mass/michael_ryan/11.html

---

So you want to ban guns as well - because people become obsessed with them?One of my neighbours was a man obsessed with women's underwear and used to steal them off washing lines in every increasing numbers. I guess you want outlaw panties as well?

quote:

---

A 74-year-old man who shot and wounded his granddaughter barricaded himself in a house Wednesday night, then died when he turned the gun on himself.

​

Hans Bechold shot Nicole Riley, 14, about 7:45 p.m. in the 9300 block of Southwest 54th Street, said Sheriff's Office spokesman Hugh Graf. Graf said the two were home alone, and the girl was on the phone with her boyfriend when Bechold shot her.

​

When Riley ran outside screaming, a neighbor came to help her, and Bechold shot the girl again at close range, Graf said. Bechold continued to fire shots, and the girl and the neighbor fled, Graf said.

---

How is this family's own experience not a demonstration of the negative effects of guns made by adults for adults?So you want to ban guns right? Because clearly following your logic the gun was responsible for that man's actions. I always pictured you as someone who thought that a man was responsible for his own actions.

I will attempt to answer your questions:1) Child protection - the new bill allows the govt. to ensure that children are not harmed in production of such material. The fact that the act is retro-active means that we can track down people who may have been harmed in the past.2) Cutting illegal workers - the bill will help to regulate the influx of illegal fluffers,woodsmen and the like who are work in American pornograpy. This is due to the strict ID restriction that will be in place.3) Free speech - free speech is not affected as the founding fathers meant to protect political speech and anyway this type of work is symbolic in nature and thus not protected.I think all of those are an excellent reasons for this act. Soon america will be a strong nation again!

If they do manage to drive the industry underground or out of stores, where are the american people going to get their material (and the tills tell us they they don't like it, they love it). They are going to try and get it imported or with the use of the internet and fast connections - stream it.Now clearly the american people are going to need to protected from such access and thus the anti-porno police are going to need further access to our ISPs.For your protection of course.....

No they are not - but it was YOU who mentioned that specific group - don't be surprised like many people many of the founding fathers enjoyed the pleasures of pornography (but sadly were not carefully in avoiding the Clap).

Sadly it looks like I will have to bat for the other side.Let's start with my point about Pornography being Symbolic speech and thus should not be protected in the same way as other forms of speech. It is quite clear, that soon the courts will overturn the protection allowed to unpatrotic flagburners (protected by this misunderstanding of what free speech actually is).Moreover,I cannot see why a money-making enterprise NOT be compelled to produce accurate records? Why should your industry be any different?This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 28-Jun-2005 06:17 AM

quote:

---

I KNOW you don't care and you just have more nasty personal things to say to me and I'm not listening.

---

Your constant childish desire to make all of the the threads about you and any perceived slight that you feel is becoming very tiring. Can you not allow the grown-ups to have a debate in peace?

And how does that go against the remark that Holmes made?Abuse of people is not something that is limited to pornography - if you want to close down businesses that have (real honest-to-god) slaves you need to start with the cleaners, resturants, clothing industry etc.

Pretty much yes - What do you think Illegals do otherwise?The general deal is this - they smuggle you out and then you are owned by the smugglers body and soul. If you are lucky this means going to work in a resturants that will pay for your services. Saying "I don't want to do this" can involve all sorts of nasty things upto and including murder.

No I'm not - I'm talking about a legal industry that has various shady elements that forces people to do things against their will. Now is that the fault of the industry or the people involved in that particular situation?Besides your anecdotal example from 30 odd years ago, what modern research can you bring to bear on this problem?I'm not saying that abuse does not occur but that's a straight forward law enforcement problem within the area of "crimes against the person" nothing to do with the inherent merits of the industry in this context.Do you have the same problems with girl on girl home-made pornography? Homosexual pornography?I don't see how your "dislike*" is a problem for the industry.* and mine - i don't actually like porn but for different reasons from you.

quote:

---

Yes, and according to him, he got that way through porn.

---

So you don't agree with individual responsibility? it's the fault of porn. So Drug-users who steal should be set free because the drugs made them do it?

yes it's strange how the natural act is wrong but if I give the guy an animal's head it becomes art Trying to get back to our main discussion - the following reasons have been given in support of this bill (I say support but I've not actually noticed much discussion of the actual bill from the "pros":

quote:

---

* Porn is just plain bad - it causes society to crumble, children can see it

​

* Porn turns people into murderers/sex perverts - speaks for itself

​

* Some porn is made by people who are forced - speaks for itself

​

* Porn is against the intent of the founding fathers - speaks for itself

---

Have I missed any?This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 28-Jun-2005 10:26 AM

quote:

---

The main theme of hardcore heterosexual porn is "I am a woman. I want to be degraded."

---

Can you cite examples from movies that you have watched that confirm this? Just the title of the movie and some detail about the actual scene would be fine. Can you just justify the claim that it's the "main theme".edit: and it occurs to me, by hetrosexual you mean "male", my understanding is that one of the biggest growth areas is the production of porn by Women for women (which seems to me to be a return to some of the higher value productions of the 1970s - films that actually had a story).This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 28-Jun-2005 10:49 AM