PeterDavid.net

Another fine example of why I keep saying that our industry needs to beware of Firestarters. There is an election year coming up, and visual imagery will always be the first thing to be contested.

While the material at issue here is nothing that I would ever watch, or encourage - I also support the rights of others to exercise their free speech. I also feel sorry for their jurors who will be forced to witness those movies - and by that action, it will almost inevitably seal the conviction.

Out here on public ground - we're all targets.

Michael Tierney

"Obscenities have always been a priority of the attorney general," said Mary Beth Buchanan, U.S. attorney for western Pennsylvania. "[A]nd he has asked each U.S. attorney to make that our priority as well."

Yeah, because back in the early part of the last century, Prohibition worked so well...

Well, Let the knee jerk reactions on all sides begin.

Personally, I support the stopping of pornography that has " Extreme Teens #24 has adult women dressed up and acting like little girls in various hard-core pornographic scenes.”

Sorry, depicting children as sexual objects is just plain wrong.

Nope, not art, not covered by free speech.

Everyone is bitching about the Catholic Church having pedophiles, but they want to have their porno movies that support, advocate and advance pedophilia.

Can’t have it both ways. I don't care if the actresses in the movies are adults, depicting children, as a sexual objects is still wrong.

You will not change my opinion about that.

Something that wrong has nothing to do with who is AG, President, PTA member, your Religious Affliction, or what sign you are.

I hate to break it to ya’ll, but there are moral boundaries.

Are they the same for everyone? Should there exist a formalized moral code written and enforced by the Government.

Of course not.

But there are still boundaries.

Now, before you screaming about 1st amendment rights, go read the Federalists papers, and some US Supreme Court Decisions. Not all speech is protected, and frankly crap like pedophilia in any form should not be.

Now, I am going to go find some porn, involving women over 18, being victimized and traumatized by a patriarchal society, being big-breasted and horny sexual objects over the age of 18. Damn I wish I were a Pizza delivery guy.

Usually I post under Col, but lately I've been offended enough by these facsist maneuvers on the part of the government to start "coming out" and encouraging people to do something about it.

What PAD didn't mention was that Nightline had a show on this very subject and when Ted Koppell(or is that one l?) interviewed the Justice Department's head of the obsceneties division, he asked where the line was? At what point do you stop prosecuting?What porn do you prosecute and what porn don't you?

The man's answer(after much wabbling so as not to appear as the censor-hound he is) said "As to content, I see no reason there should be a line".

No line drawn. That means anything goes. Keep that in mind while arguing that a grown woman dressed as a school girl should be illegal. Cuz they're coming after what you do like next.

I agree with PAD, join the CBLDF and ACLU. In addition, pay attention to what happens and remember it come election day.

Michael Norton

Okay, so let's re-cap. The US government still hasn't tracked down bin Laden or Saddam. A couple of Americans are being killed every day, in a misguided military action that will cost our government tens of billions of dollars, and made us a laughing stock in the international arena. The economy is in the toilet, unemployment is rampant. Gas prices are flirting with two bucks a gallon, with no relief in sight. Environmental regulations are being relaxed- old power plants no longer have to worry about the level of their pollutants, and we're getting ready to cut down lots of trees, so that, well, they don't burn down. So all things being equal, let's go after a couple of pornographers. Thank goodness when our government doesn't know how to do their job properly, there are always a couple of easy targets to create the illusion that they're actually doing something.

Brooks-- Indeed there is a relevant Supreme Court decision but it bolsters the opposite side to your argument. In 2002 the Supreme Court held that virtual or simulated, child pornography is in fact protected speech. In that case, the defendant created realistic looking digital images of very young children engaged in sex acts. The “teen” video that you cite above is similar in that the so called “teens” are in fact consenting adults engaged in activity that is otherwise legal. The relevant case is Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition. As much as the Attorney General tries I doubt that he will be ultimately victorious. Perhaps a Jury can be convinced but it will be overturned eventually.

I'd just like to state that in regards to Paul Fishbein's comments in the ABC News article, he has personal and monetary issues with Rob Zicari and Extreme Associates.

In California they have tried prosecution for adult videos a few times and failed in the last couple of years.

As Glenn and others have pretty much said, it's nice that this country has the time and money to pull stunts like this when there are terror issues, murderers and rapists to deal with among others.

Just to provide a little more info, when Extreme Associates was raided on April 8th there were roughly 47 uniformed federal marshals and postal inspectors from Pittsburgh and Philadelphia. That's 47 people flown both ways, hotel rooms, cars, meals, etc. The length of the warrant was for 10 days, I'm not sure if they stayed the whole 10 days or not.

Our tax dollars at work.

Yeah let's all bitch about Bush and his administration when if you READ the article or pay attention to, uh, the real world (instead of the little bits of partisan vitriol tossed around, dare I say it, liberally), what we are really talkig about is enforcement of laws that have been on the books for years!!! Years!!! So what you are really bitching about is the U.S. government doing its job.

Hey if you disagree wth the law, that s fine. Work to get it changed, but you don't get to McDonalds and yell at the checkout girl for offering you the Big Mac value meal when what you wanted was a Whopper. She's just doing her job; it's not her fault you're at the wrong restaurant. Likewise, don't bitch at the law enforcement officials in this country no matter how high up, when they are just doing their jobs.

"Yeah let's all bitch about Bush and his administration when if you READ the article or pay attention to, uh, the real world (instead of the little bits of partisan vitriol tossed around, dare I say it, liberally), what we are really talkig about is enforcement of laws that have been on the books for years!!! Years!!! So what you are really bitching about is the U.S. government doing its job."

There's a joke in there about them FINALLY doing their job and how that THIS is a weird one to finally start doing, but I'll leave it alone.

Yeah, it might have been on the book for years, but it seems to be a little too weird that they chose NOW to suppossedly enforce it.

Give money to the ACLU? I'd rather burn my money.

I love when they make claims like they want the removal of all crosses from Federal property. I guess we'll have to find a new marker for my grandfather soon:

"Everyone is bitching about the Catholic Church having pedophiles, but they want to have their porno movies that support, advocate and advance pedophilia.

Can’t have it both ways."

Sure you can. I can support the enforcement of laws against murder, but not be against movies that depict killings. And as for whether such depiction advocates and advances pedophilia, that is a separte case to be made anyway. It may give people with pedophiliac desires a safe and appropriate outlet.

"Gas prices are flirting with two bucks a gallon, with no relief in sight."

You don't live where I live. Here, they've flirted, smooched, and have gone on to do things that aren't legal with such a young price.

As for those who say they are just doing their job -- Attorney Generals have always picked and chosen what to enforce, and also advocate new laws.

It may give people with pedophiliac desires a safe and appropriate outlet.

Not trying to single you out, but whatever happened to the notion of not encouraging bad behavior? If a pedophile starts masterbating to the kids underwear section of the JC Penny catalogue, how long before he's sitting in his car across the street from a playground doing the same thing? Or worse yet, talking to your sister or daughter on AOL?

I realize banning objectionable material isn't much of a solution. Depraved people are going to seek porngraphy out regardless, but I see no reason to devote my time and money to helping others be free to prduce obscenity.

And, no, I don't give a rat's behind how long it's going to be before "they" come after something I do like.

The simply fact is, I can get turned on by a Playboy model dressed in a plaid skirt and button down white shirt and tie. I cannot get turned on by a little girl in the same outfit. To prosecute me for getting turned on by the former is to prosecute me for a normal biophysical reaction inherent to adult males. No child is harmed by this.

Brooks: Personally, I support the stopping of pornography that has " Extreme Teens #24 has adult women dressed up and acting like little girls in various hard-core pornographic scenes.”

Sorry, depicting children as sexual objects is just plain wrong.

I don't care if the actresses in the movies are adults, depicting children, as a sexual objects is still wrong.

Luigi Novi: If they’re adults, then they’re not depicting children. You can’t depict a child with unless you actually use one.

Brooks: Everyone is bitching about the Catholic Church having pedophiles, but they want to have their porno movies that support, advocate and advance pedophilia.

Luigi Novi: What a non sequitur.

It is a fallacy to equate actual pedophilia (you know, where there actually IS a minor, and where that minor actually IS harmed) with material depicting grown adults dressed AS kids.

You can’t advocate or advance pedophilia with a movie in which a grownup is dressed in overalls and a helicopter beanie.

Brooks: Can’t have it both ways.

Luigi Novi: It isn’t “both ways.” Pedophilia has nothing to do with an adult dressed up in a school uniform or baby outfit. It’s idiotic to say that if Pamela Anderson does a Playboy spread wearing a bib or pigtails that it’s kiddie porn, which it isn’t.

Brooks: Now, before you screaming about 1st amendment rights, go read the Federalists papers, and some US Supreme Court Decisions.

Luigi Novi: The Supreme Court is not always right.

Brooks: Not all speech is protected…

Luigi Novi: The only expression that should not be is that which violates the Clear and Present Danger Clause.

Brooks: …and frankly crap like pedophilia in any form should not be.

Luigi Novi: Movies featuring adults are not pedophilia, regardless of how they are dressed, no matter how many times you advance the false argument that they are.

Wade: …what we are really talkig about is enforcement of laws that have been on the books for years!!! Years!!!

Luigi Novi: What’s the law in question? If it’s one pertaining to child pornography, it doesn’t apply, since there are no kids in the movie in question. Hence, there is no law on the books prohibiting the movies in question.

Wade: Hey if you disagree wth the law, that s fine. Work to get it changed, but you don't get to McDonalds and yell at the checkout girl for offering you the Big Mac value meal when what you wanted was a Whopper. She's just doing her job; it's not her fault you're at the wrong restaurant. Likewise, don't bitch at the law enforcement officials in this country no matter how high up, when they are just doing their jobs.

Luigi Novi: Um…………………………..no.

Where people like Bush and Ashcroft are concerned, they are not simply “doing their job,” they’re violating other peoples’ rights by limiting their speech. Who cares how the people in the movie are dressed? They’re adults. Period. The girl at the McDonalds isn’t trying to tell me what I’m allowed to eat, just what her establishment offers. Your analogy is false.

James Tichy: I guess we'll have to find a new marker for my grandfather soon

Luigi Novi: If the person is a Christian, putting a cross in a cemetery seems appropriate, even if it is a Federal one. But if he’s an agnostic, atheist, Buddhist, Muslim, Shinto, Scientologist, Wiccan, etc., why would there be one in the first place?

Possessing such lewd material, or making it, is not illegal. Sending it through the US Postal Service is. Thus, he broke a law where he should have known better.

No freedom of speech issue here.

Of course there is.

You can't express something if you're prohibited from distributing or displaying it. People are being prosecuted. Many think they shouldn't be.

Hence, there is an issue.

The argument of "They haven't caught all the terrorists yet so they shouldn't be enforcing obscenity laws" seems to me to be a lot like "They haven't caught all the ax murderers yet so they shouldn't be prosecuting petty theft", or "They haven't caught all the drunk drivers yet so they shouldn't pull me over for speeding". There are big crimes and little crimes, but if you wait until all the big criminals are taken care of to start working on the little criminals, then you could run red lights, steal food, and inject yourself with heroin without any fear of being arrested and taken to court, because we'll never be completely rid of the big criminals. I think it's perfectly acceptable for investigators and prosecutors to enforce smaller crimes, too.

If you don't like the law, your complaint is with those that make the law, not those that enforce it.

davidh

You can't express something if you're prohibited from distributing or displaying it. People are being prosecuted. Many think they shouldn't be.

Let them distribute it, but not through the USPS and not by breaking the law.

Hence, there is an issue.

Not a Freedom of Speech issue.

"On the "Frontline" segment, he defended his wares, which includes a video called "Forced Entry" which consists of episodes in which a woman is raped, beaten, spat on, degraded in every way and finally murdered. "

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/03220/209919.stm

And, no, I don't give a rat's behind how long it's going to be before "they" come after something I do like.

Then it's not going to be a very long time. You're not giving a rat's ass, y'know....

"As Glenn and others have pretty much said, it's nice that this country has the time and money to pull stunts like this when there are terror issues, murderers and rapists to deal with among others. "

Because of course those Federal Attorneys would be over in Afganistan hunting for Bin Laden if they weren't doing that...

This is by far the stupidest argument I have ever heard!

It's raining in New York, how dare you blow your nose!!!

Jesus Christ...there's plenty of other, logical, reasons to argue against censorship. Leave those attacks and your head up your ass politics out of it please. There are a lot of Republicans who would support the CBLDF, but who then tune you out when you make everything political.

Luigi Novi: The only expression that should not be is that which violates the Clear and Present Danger Clause.

Normally, and in all the rest of your post I agree with you but not here. Even speech that could be considered to violate that should be protected because if not, then you're going to have to ask who gets to make that decision and what is it that violates it?

From Jerry Wall:There are a lot of Republicans who would support the CBLDF, but who then tune you out when you make everything political.

I have to say that it is the Bush administration that makes this political because their own attorneys keep pointing out that the Clinton administration didn't make it a priority.

That said, we knew this was coming because of what a whackjob Ashcroft is when it comes to this stuff.

But all this griping won't do anyone any good if we don't turn it into action. Research,donate and vote. And also write your congressmen to protest the appointment of Bill Pryors from Alabama to the court of appeals. Trust me, if you think Ashcroft is bad, Pryors is worse.

Michael Norton

Not that I disagree that this is a stupid waste of resources and manpower on the part of the Justice Department, but exactly what does this prosecution have to do with the Jesus Castillo case that was tried in the state court system by local prosecutors?

Ashcroft is a scary guy no question, but trust me, the LOCAL AGs with that power-hungry evil gleam in their eyes as they go after comic book shop owners, and adult filmmakers, and the Dead Kennedys (I may be young, but I'm old enough to remember all that PMRC nonsense) are far, far worse. City and State level laws that wouldn't last ten second in the House or the Senate, are being passed at alarming rates across this great land of ours. Not just stupid laws like you can't ship porn through the mail (which, BTW, was started as an efofrt to curb young women sending nude photos to their husbands on the fornt lines during the Civil War), but even MORe ridiculous laws like the "you can't slander beef" law that oprah thankfully beat in court a few years back (I'm not a fan of her's in general, but I was with her every step of the way on that bullshit), or even a really dumb one here in the great state (well, it used to be anyway) of Colorado that, get this, bans any business that promotes "alternative religions" i.e. Buddhism, Wicca, Neo-Paganism; basically any religion that isn't Christianity (or it's off-shoots), Judaism, Islam, or Scientology. And remember that anti-gay amendment that pased here a few years back, but was mercifully shut down by the USSC (Supreme Court)? Ashcroft, for all his bark, is only the big dog that distracts you, while that rabid littel terrier goes for your nuts.

P.S. I agree with Luigi. If you want a cross as your tombstone, more power to you. Shit, let the neo-Nazis have swastikas too. That's so we know where to pe when we're drunk and stuck in the graveyard. ;-)

"Not trying to single you out, but whatever happened to the notion of not encouraging bad behavior?"

I don't assume that this does encourage bad behaviour. I've seen The Sting plenty of times, but it has never encouraged me to become a grifter. I don't think that people are getting one of these tapes accidentally, discovering that it turns them on, and then feel the need to go do something that isn't actually like the tape anyway.

As for the argument that it's not a freedom of speech issue because it's just a restriction on the use of the USPS: the USPS is granted special government monopoly status. Its interferences with distribution of speech are government interferences with speech.

If anyone wants to point to a case where the ACLU stood against crosses on grave markers, I'd be interested in seeing it. Otherwise, I reckon this is just the usual argument-by-assumption that people use against the ACLU.

Captain Nate posted: "Possessing such lewd material, or making it, is not illegal. Sending it through the US Postal Service is. Thus, he broke a law where he should have known better.

No freedom of speech issue here."

Actually, the US Postal Service itself does not prohibit anyone's sending allegedly lewd material, provided the intended recipient actually requested the material for his or her own use. If someone receives unsolicited "lewd" material, that person can request Postal inspectors investigate (although, there's little the inspectors can do other than investigating the nature of the sender's postal permits; if the material doesn't violate local standards, the only result is to contact the sender and advise him to update his mailing list). Anyone who thinks the USPS forbids mailing of lewd material is sadly mistaken--there are plenty of undelivered copies of "Playboy", "Hustler", and "Playgirl" which wind up being destroyed (mainly because the publishers have no use for returned copies).

Nat Gertler posted: "As for the argument that it's not a freedom of speech issue because it's just a restriction on the use of the USPS: the USPS is granted special government monopoly status. Its interferences with distribution of speech are government interferences with speech."

Actually, the USPS isn't a monopoly. If you're not happy with the USPS, there's always FedEx, UPS, even the internet. There's nothing to prevent someone from starting up their own postal system and operating it other than gaining acceptance by the public. UPS and FedEx didn't become overnight successes, after all. Also, it should be noted that while the internet can't handle any actual shipping or transporting of merchandise,it is quite handy in paying bills, placing orders, and communicating with people anywhere in the world.

For those that care I found a Liberal Online Radio Station.

Here's the link

http://www.radioleft.com/

Pretty cool, when you think that you are alone and the media makes you feel like it.

Grem-

Joe Nazzaro said:

Gas prices are flirting with two bucks a gallon, with no relief in sight.

You should try living in the UK... According to the AA:

http://www.theaa.com/allaboutcars/fuel/

the average price for unleaded petrol in the south of England (where I live) is 343.2 pence per gallon. According to this currency converter:

http://www.translatum.gr/converter/currency.htm

that's equivalent to $5.42. The main reason being that we pay 76% tax on petrol. (This is one reason that I ride a motorbike rather than driving a car.)

Michael Norton said:

No line drawn. That means anything goes.

Of course, just because that's what other people think, doesn't mean you need to agree. In other words, just because they want to ban everything, that doesn't mean that you have to say "don't ban anything" - you can still make your own decision about what you think is acceptable and what isn't.

Generalising beyond Michael's point, I've heard people reference Pastor Niemuller's prayer in similar situations ("First they came for the Communists, and I did nothing, because I wasn't a Communist" etc.). I think that there's an important distinction between saying "I think that this person is being treated badly, so I'll stand up for them even though it doesn't directly affect me", and saying "I want to have a buffer zone of people who are doing stuff that's more dodgy than me, so that as long as the police don't go after them, they won't come after me either".

Personally, I'm glad that I can sidestep this issue, since the 1st Amendment etc. doesn't apply to the UK. But based on the descriptions of the films I've seen, I'd say that in an ideal world the company would go out of business due to lack of customers.

Luigi Novi: You can't express something if you're prohibited from distributing or displaying it. People are being prosecuted. Many think they shouldn't be.

Captain Nate: Let them distribute it, but not through the USPS and not by breaking the law.

Luigi Novi: Bull. It’s the citizens’ tax dollars that run the USPS. Any government that thinks it should play Big Brother and tell me what I can and cannot communicate to someone else through the mail should go fuck itself.

Luigi Novi: Hence, there is an issue.

Captain Nate: Not a Freedom of Speech issue.

Luigi Novi: Of course it is. There is discussion over it. One side feels its freedom of speech is being abridged by the prosecutions in question. Hence, it’s a Freedom of Speech issue.

Luigi Novi: The only expression that should not be is that which violates the Clear and Present Danger Clause.

Michael Norton: Normally, and in all the rest of your post I agree with you but not here. Even speech that could be considered to violate that should be protected because if not, then you're going to have to ask who gets to make that decision and what is it that violates it

Luigi Novi: Michael, anything that presents a clear and present danger cannot be protected. Slander, libel, perjury, lying to a police officer or Congress, revealing classified government secrets to an unauthorized person, false advertisement, threatening someone, or anything that violates pre-existing laws to the same effect (murder, rape, blowing up a building) is not covered, nor should it be. There is no problem of “who” makes that decision. Some girl dressed up like a schoolgirl in a sex video does not cause harm. It merely offends some people.

Chris Galdieri: exactly what does this prosecution have to do with the Jesus Castillo case that was tried in the state court system by local prosecutors?

Luigi Novi: I assume Glenn was simply mentioning another obscenity case involving some other person or persons being persecuted for making adult material available to (GASP!) adults.

From http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/03220/209919.stm

In 1973, the high court said materials are obscene if the average person thinks they appeal to a prurient interest, that they are "patently offensive" and that they have no artistic merit.

From http://dictionary.com

Prurient: 1. Inordinately interested in matters of sex; lascivious.

Patently: 1. In a patent manner; openly, plainly, or clearly:

Offensive: 2. Causing anger, displeasure, resentment, or affront

Artistic: 3. Showing imagination and skill

Merit: To be worthy or deserving

Now my question is does this particular law actually require for all of these things to be true?

Because I can see where pornos...any pornos...always appeal to the prurient interests.

But the patently offensive thing seems iffy. I think everyone can agree that pornos, while not necessarily offensive to yourself, can be offensive to some people. But the question is, is that good enough for the law?

And the Artistic Merit thing just makes me laugh...I'm sure someone can make the argument...but unless its a porno based on Jackson Pollock's after hours activities, I can't see it...

-Joe

""One of the confiscated movies, Forced Entry, features three graphic scenes of women being spat upon, raped and murdered. Extreme Teens #24 has adult women dressed up and acting like little girls in various hard-core pornographic scenes. We can't even tell you the title of one of the films.""

I'm all for the right to produce and sell such films, but I'm not going to help pay the lawsuit. I'm sure the ACLU and the CBLDF have done some amazing things in the past, but this guy's gonna have to pay hiw own bills.

Do I think he should go to prison? No. Do I think he should have the right to make porno films about women being raped and murdered? Yes. Do I think he should make such movies? God no.

Is the government coming down on this company because their crazy religious nuts who want to tell the rest of us how to live our lives? Partly. Are they also coming down on brutal rape porno because some of those movies are actually real? Partly.

but unless its a porno based on Jackson Pollock's after hours activities, I can't see it...

Thats presupposing you consider Jackson Pollock of 'artistic merit' which is a whole 'nother can of worms!

"Actually, the USPS isn't a monopoly."

Actually, it is -- on non-express letter carriage, due to the Private Express Statutes. You can have other companies carry letters, but you still have to pay the USPS the postage, making an effective monopoly. And once you have USPS as both the monopoly and have laws that prevent the USPS from carrying certain sorts of material, you have a real freedom of speech issue.

For more on the Private Express Statutes, see http://pe.usps.gov/text/qsg/q011.htm for the basics from the USPS itself, or http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_express_statutes for a more in-depth look.

I'm all for the right to produce and sell such films, but I'm not going to help pay the lawsuit. I'm sure the ACLU and the CBLDF have done some amazing things in the past, but this guy's gonna have to pay hiw own bills.

I thinks this passage is the most sensible thing I've read in this thread so far.

I'm sure there must be near infinite more worthy causes to spend money for than on someone who's producing faux-snuff movies, no matter how much doing so might be in his right.

Comparing that case to Jesus Castillo's (someone I believe really can be described as a victim who deserves all our sympathies) is a joke for so many reasons it's not funny at all.

Another example to point to when people ask why I'd never join the military to fight for this country....

"In 2002 the Supreme Court held that virtual or simulated, child pornography is in fact protected speech. In that case, the defendant created realistic looking digital images of very young children engaged in sex acts"

What the fuck?!?!?!?! What the Fuck is this shit? That is just fucking wrong! Child porno is FILTH!!!! It's disgusting. Child subjected to this kind of abuse are not emotionally or mentally ready to decide to this kind of thing. What's just as bad as actually performing lewd acts on them is taking advantage of their innocence, trust, and vulnerability. That's part of what the thrill is for paedophiles: children are vulnerable and can't resist, so they can force their will on them. I don't care whether it's virtual or simulated, it's wrong and the Supreme Court are just fucking disgraceful. But of course we already knew that.

Donald W. Pfeiffer: I'm all for the right to produce and sell such films, but I'm not going to help pay the lawsuit. I'm sure the ACLU and the CBLDF have done some amazing things in the past, but this guy's gonna have to pay hiw own bills.

Luigi Novi: No he isn’t. The ACLU will doubtlessly be aiding him.

Donald W. Pfeiffer: Do I think he should go to prison? No. Do I think he should have the right to make porno films about women being raped and murdered? Yes. Do I think he should make such movies? God no.

Luigi Novi: Neither do I, but they are being prosecuted for them. Their right to make and distribute them is what’s being challenged, not whether they “should.”

Donald W. Pfeiffer: Is the government coming down on this company because their crazy religious nuts who want to tell the rest of us how to live our lives? Partly. Are they also coming down on brutal rape porno because some of those movies are actually real? Partly.

Luigi Novi: They’re not real. They’re fiction. They’re not actual snuff films.

Jeremy: In 2002 the Supreme Court held that virtual or simulated, child pornography is in fact protected speech. In that case, the defendant created realistic looking digital images of very young children engaged in sex acts"

Pete Wiggins: What the fuck?!?!?!?! What the Fuck is this shit? That is just fucking wrong! Child porno is FILTH!!!! It's disgusting. Child subjected to this kind of abuse are not emotionally or mentally ready to decide to this kind of thing. What's just as bad as actually performing lewd acts on them is taking advantage of their innocence, trust, and vulnerability.

Luigi Novi: What part of the above passage didn’t you understand? There WEREN’T any children involved. They were simulated digital images (i.e.: someone drew them on their computer). How can you take advantage of the innocence, trust or vulnerability of an Adobe Photoshop JPEG?

Thanks for the question, Luigi. I understand that the images weren't REAL, but simulated or not, that's still pretty fucked up. Yes, no children were being harmed, but it's still horrible that this shit is distributed and PROTECTED, so perverts can drool and fantasise and wank over it. I'm sorry if that's too much info, but that's what happens.

And I still say that the Supreme Court is disgraceful.

"Luigi Novi: Bull. It’s the citizens’ tax dollars that run the USPS. Any government that thinks it should play Big Brother and tell me what I can and cannot communicate to someone else through the mail should go fuck itself."

Damn right, by the way.

The next person who complains about gas prices get bitch-slapped.

You do realize we pay for less than the rest of the wolrd for our gas here in the US of A? That we pay LESS than the gas is worth?

To hell with it anyways, they NEED to add another DOLAR OR TWO to the price of gas so all the idiots driving 10mpg SUVs and trucks get decent vehicles. Any person who OWNS a vehicle that gets under 30 miles per gallon needs to pay a huge "we are helping fuck up the planet" tax.

Mike: To hell with it anyways, they NEED to add another DOLAR OR TWO to the price of gas so all the idiots driving 10mpg SUVs and trucks get decent vehicles. Any person who OWNS a vehicle that gets under 30 miles per gallon needs to pay a huge "we are helping fuck up the planet" tax.

Hell yeah! People in this country bitch and moan about stuff that we actually need that's really a bargain like gasoline adn postage stmaps, then shell out ridiculous amounts of money for useless crap. 5 dollars of gas to go ten mile is too much, but 5 dollars to the valet to go ten feet, that's OK. Morons.

James Tichy said: "Give money to the ACLU? I'd rather burn my money.

I love when they make claims like they want the removal of all crosses from Federal property. I guess we'll have to find a new marker for my grandfather soon"

I agree, I seriously don't want to give money to the ACLU. While I'm sure they do good work in some areas, they really have been acting more like a bully over the years. They seem to support Criminals more than they support victims - and while I believe violaters of the Law have rights - they seem to be going totally out of their way to trample victim's rights.

I heard on the news that a convicted criminal was being given internet access - and talking to young kids (apparently, I believe if I recall correctly, the same reason he was put in jail.) The victim's called for his access to the computer to be taken away - but the ALCU supported his ability to get on the net - able to talk to children.

I'm sorry, but that seems to not even be helping the convictied man. How is he ever to be reabilitated if he's allowed to continue his misdeeds.

Places like the ACLU just seem to be becoming more like Nambla. It's just not helping anyone.

Oh - and I really hate the idea of putting so much time, effort, and money into getting rid of religious symbols in governemnt.

The 10 Commandments - for crying out loud - are not harming a single person! It was basis for our Laws and Lawsystem) And how much money is it going to cost to remove it. (Especially in a time when States need to learn how to spend money more wisely)

The reason America is spirling away in morality, I believe, is efforts like this to expell religion from everybody's life. If you don't believe in religion - fine - but don't expect the world (where 95% of people on Earth apparently believe in some higher life or another) to change for you.

Plus, as for the case - I don't believe "they" are going on a rampage to arrest decent people. Fight for this if you believe in it - and help to change the laws if you like - but don't yell at all of us if we don't follow suit with you.

I'm all for the CBLDF, but I don't see WHY I'd want to contribute to it for the sake of these people. I don't see how porn movies and distribution has anything to do with comic books.

Surges: The 10 Commandments - for crying out loud - are not harming a single person!

Luigi Novi: Try decorating a courthouse with passages from the Koran, scrolls with Shinto wisdom, Buddhist prayer wheels, or Scientology tracts, and see if people suddenly think that harms someone. The state has no business endorsing religion or connecting the law with religion by putting something like the Ten Commandments in a courthouse. Who is the state to decorate a courthouse with something that tells me which gods I can have, to keep someone else’s Sabbath holy, and not to take someone else’s god’s name in vain, and then say it “doesn’t harm” anyone?

Surges: It was basis for our Laws and Lawsystem)

Luigi Novi: No, it wasn’t. Our legal system was derived from the British, not from the Ten Commandments.

The first three Commandments are purely religious, commanding to not worship other gods, not take the Lord’s name in vain, and to keep holy the Sabbath. There are no such laws in the U.S., for there is a separation between Church and State.

The fourth Commandment, to honor one’s parents, is not a law. If anything, things like child abuse and neglect have made it necessary to enact legislation to protect children from their parents. Moreover, honor cannot be automatically bestowed by an honest intellect. Intellectually honest people can honor only those who, in their opinion, warrant their honor. The biological fact of parenthood does not in and of itself warrant honor. Until very recently parenthood was not even a matter of choice, and it still is mandatory, not optional, for many of the world's people. Why should any child be commanded to honor, without further basis, parents who became parents by accident--who didn't even plan to have a child? All of us know children who have been abused, beaten or neglected by their parents. What is the basis for honor there? How does the daughter honor a father who sexually molests her? Honor those who merit your honor would be a much more appropriate teaching, and if that includes your parents, good! It has been suggested that “Honor your children” would be a useful commandment. Some may argue that this commandment is for most children to obey their parents in general, but what good is this? Children are already imprinted with a sense of obedience to their parents by the mere fact of their upbringing, and the only reason children would even be exposed to religion in the first place is because their parents indoctrinate them in that religion anyway. They only obey the commandments because their parents tell them to. If the child obeys the parent by upholding the rules of their religion, isn’t such a commandment redundant?

The fifth Commandment prohibits murder, something that was already illegal in cultures preceding the Bible, and would doubtfully be illegal even if we didn’t have the Bible.

The sixth Commandment prohibits adultery, which is not illegal. In countries where it is, punishments are typically severe, involving stoning to death, and/or are not doled out equally to both genders.

The seventh Commandment prohibits theft, which, like murder, is not a concept that required the Bible to be invented.

The eighth Commandment prohibits lying. Lying is not against the law (except in cases of perjury, obstruction of justice or false advertising), and in many instances, lying is not only necessary, but moral as well. There are also laws against libel and defamation, but these are civil liabilities, not criminal offenses.

The ninth and tenth Commandments say it is wrong to covet anything, which is preposterous. The desire for gain has led to capitalism, industry, science and technology, medicine, and the betterment of our lives. It’s ridiculous to say that these rules were the basis for the most successful capitalist nation on Earth.

Of the Ten Commandments, therefore, only two reflect actual laws that are commonly enforced in Western society (three if you want to include the one about lying). To argue, therefore, that these ten rules are the basis of our laws requires you to ignore reality.

surges: The reason America is spirling away in morality, I believe, is efforts like this to expell religion from everybody's life.

Luigi Novi: Bullshit. Why is it that so many theists feel the need to distort the separating church and state into “expelling religion from everyone’s life?” This is a lie. The state has no business taking any position whatsoever on any religion, period, that includes putting the Ten Commandments in a courthouse. To argue that this “expels” religion from your life is a LIE. In what way is your ability to practice your religion mitigated by the mere absence of its decoration in a state-owned piece of property? Give me just one example of how cases like that actually AFFECTED someone’s ability—ANYONE’S ability, to practice their religion?

I have waited on purpose so that I get a better idea what this is actually about. Did I get this right: This is about distributing child porn, although the parts are played by adults and there is some computer manipulation involved as well?

I don`t see why anybody should be disgusted that these people get procecuted because of obcenity - because this is what it is. I have no problem with porn showing adults but children, no. No exceptions whatsoever.

Supporting cases like the comic seller is one thing. This is another. But if you treat both the same, you will harm the comic seller and people who really seem to deserve support. I certainly wouldn`t give a penny to an organization that supports child porn, fake or otherwise, even if they also do good things.

Cheers Baerbel. I just came back to see if we'd got back on topic yet. Thanks for pointing out how obscene child porn is and how it shouldn't be supported, simulated or not who gives a damn?

I have waited on purpose so that I get a better idea what this is actually about. Did I get this right: This is about distributing child porn, although the parts are played by adults and there is some computer manipulation involved as well?

Posted by Baerbel Haddrell @ 08/31/2003 06:12 PM ET

You did not get it right. As Luigi has pointed out several times now, it cannot be child porn since there are no children involved in it. No children engaged in sex for the making of this video, none were assaulted, none were even present.

You may find the idea of adults pretending to children in such a film hideous and unspeakable. I have very personal reasons to agree with you, if you do. But our outrage is unimportant. Our distaste is unimportant. Whether or not you or I find the idea repellent is of no concern to whether or not consenting adults should be forbidden from engaging in, distributing or watching such material.

There are no children involved in this. Therefore, it is not child pornography. I personally find the idea of murder obscene, and it is illegal to kill people. It is not illegal to *pretend* to kill people, and film it, and distribute it. Once we begin removing the portrayal of atrocity and loathsome activities from our arts and media, we have as a people decided that our artists cannot depict anything unpleasant or shocking. We will have sanitized their attempt to portray the world, in all its horror and beauty.

I'd personally like to break these people's kneecaps. I'm not allowed to, under the law. But I certainly could write a story about a man who went around breaking the kneecaps of people who made movies with adults engaging in sexual activity and pretending to be raped or children while being filmed, and I could even make a movie wherein such kneecap breaking took place. It is not illegal in a work to depict illegal activities, even ones like child pornography, rape, murder, drug trafficing, etc, etc. If it were, comic books would be illegal. Movies would be illegal. The Bible would be illegal...people are stoned to death in it, people are thrown to lions in it, people are murdered in scores in it.

I have waited on purpose so that I get a better idea what this is actually about. Did I get this right: This is about distributing child porn, although the parts are played by adults and there is some computer manipulation involved as well?

Posted by Baerbel Haddrell @ 08/31/2003 06:12 PM ET

No. The specifc charge is obscenity. Child porn charges specifically haven't been leveled.

One of the films that is named in the case is a film that features actresses of legal age in a film called "Extreme Teen #24". To my knowledge, no computer generated work was involved.

The CGI thread branched off because of a child porn law that defined something as child porn even when no children were involved-- actresses of legal age could not play underage characters engaged in sex (for example, any actress playing "Lolita" or "Juliet Capulet") nor could a completely CGI character or animated character be underage. In other words, you could have child porn even when no actual children were involved to be harmed. By that argument, of course, you could have child porn when no porn was involved either. That law was recently struck down.

There's a movie where the stars rape, kill, steal, humiliate, and depict thoroughly evil behavior. And they're playing underage teens!

So let's ban A CLOCKWORK ORANGE.

Actually, the central theme of this movie (and I think they made a book of it too) is that for freedom to exist, so must the most reprehennsible forms of that freedom. Free speech isn't "it's fine unless I find it disgusting," it's protection of those things we hate. And much as I hate it, adults dressing like kids do NOT make child porn, any more than HALLOWEEN is a snuff film.

And for fun, remember that James Joyce's ULYSSES was once considered pornography, and its case went to the Supreme Court to allow it to be shipped.

"As to content, I see no reason there should be a line."

Yeah, right.

Have any posters seen Extreme Teen # 24? I haven't. But I'm curious why everyone assumes that the adult actresses are pretending to be children in this movie. Anyone with a passing familiarity with "porn" movies knows that movies with teen in the title refer to 18 and 19 year olds. Just because they are dressed in school girl uniforms does not mean they are pretending to be children. they do act a little younger and a little more naive than your average 18 or 19 year old. but no one in a "porn" movie acts like normal people. I don't think they are pretending to be children. Its more like the fantasy of a sexually naive and virginal 18 year old.

It seems to me most posters on this thread have no idea what is actually depicted in extreme teen #24. I have no problem with people being unfamiliar with "porn" and having no desire to be familiar with it. But calling something obscene based on a vague and possibly inaccurate description of it, without even seeing it is just the sort of things the comic book censors do.

I would also wonder if a husband and wife who get turned on by "spanking" one another in the privacy of their own home are guilty of child molestation because they're imitating treatment usually given to children.

Luigi Novi: Bull. It’s the citizens’ tax dollars that run the USPS.

The Postal Service is a self supporting business, hence the rise in postal rates to maintain service, rather than asking for tax.

(Nore I did not preface this with "bull" or a "lie.")

Luigi Novi: No, it wasn’t. Our legal system was derived from the British, not from the Ten Commandments

The legal realists will tell you otherwise, but valid law can only be based on Higher Law or else they are merely social constructs subject to whims. And, of course, not open to judgment, as their is no authority to base them on.

(That ought to get some atheist panties in a wad.)

The separation of chirch and state says otherwise.

Another reason religion needs to be banned...

Keep your religious beliefs to yourself and OFF the law books...

"Pretty cool, when you think that you are alone and the media makes you feel like it.

Grem- "

I really do respect your feelings. Honestly I do. But a few questions please.

Are you 18 or younger?

Do you have a Che poster or t-shirt?

Is RageATM playing right now?

Just wondering.

The legal realists will tell you otherwise, but valid law can only be based on Higher Law or else they are merely social constructs subject to whims. And, of course, not open to judgment, as their is no authority to base them on.

(That ought to get some atheist panties in a wad.)

Posted by Jamie @ 08/31/2003 10:31 PM ET

Any laws based on appeal to a being who may or may not exist, rather than the society in which they exist, has absolutely no authority and is subject to the interpretive whims and vagaries of religious pronouncement, which often takes the form of fits and/or 'divine revelation' which cannot be verified.

Were I an atheist, I would tell you that basing my laws on the pronouncement of some imaginary being strikes me as full-on insanity, no more rational than basing them on an invisible rabbit or giant purple dinosaur. It is exactly the intention of our Constitution that it be amended to suit changing times: that is the genius of the document. The impulse to amend law does not reduce it to 'whim' any more than the Prophet Jeremiah's decision to alter the direction of Judaism following the beginning of the Babylonian Captivity reduced that faith to a 'fad' or 'passing fancy'.

I am not an atheist, however. I do believe that your God is no more or less likely to exist than anyone else's God, and that the Higher Law you refer to is also merely a social construct, as is your religion. Therefore, since we do not compel the worship of a specfic God in this nation, why should we compel the obedience of any specific God's strictures?

I was raised Catholic. Under *our* interpretation of the Ten Commandments, any non-Catholic reading this fails the essential "I am the Lord Thy God" test. Should this be the law of the land? Whose Ten Commandments will we be using, exactly?

If we as citizens wish to be free to practice our religious beliefs, we must allow others theirs, even if they come to the conclusion that there is nothing to believe in. Therefore, "I am the Lord Thy God" is not an acceptable law. "Keep holy the Sabbath day" is not an acceptable law. "Do not take the name of the Lord Thy God in vain" is also not an acceptable law for us, because it implies that the Lord *is* the God for everyone, and such is not the case.

The only Higher Law we require is respect for our fellow human beings and their right to be inviolate whenever possible in their thoughts, beliefs and persons.

Luigi Novi-Luigi Novi: Michael, anything that presents a clear and present danger cannot be protected. Slander, libel, perjury, lying to a police officer or Congress, revealing classified government secrets to an unauthorized person, false advertisement, threatening someone, or anything that violates pre-existing laws to the same effect (murder, rape, blowing up a building) is not covered, nor should it be. There is no problem of “who” makes that decision. Some girl dressed up like a schoolgirl in a sex video does not cause harm. It merely offends some people.

Oh but it can. I mean, who is to say I haven't threatened Tom DeLay by constantly writing him and asking him to step the heck down? He could say it's an implied threat....

I mean, I get your point, lying to congress, giving away national security secrets(though just what that means is another debate) is all well and good as considered Clear and Present Danger, but you have to make sure such things are written down and not ambiguous. Otherwise some idiot calls you a "enemy combatant" and your off to Gitmo.

Brian D. Webber-Ashcroft, for all his bark, is only the big dog that distracts you, while that rabid littel terrier goes for your nuts.

Don't I know it. I'm in Texas. I don't trust any of them.

Michael Norton

I heard on the news that a convicted criminal was being given internet access - and talking to young kids (apparently, I believe if I recall correctly, the same reason he was put in jail.) The victim's called for his access to the computer to be taken away - but the ALCU supported his ability to get on the net - able to talk to children.

Searching the Web, I cannot find a reference to any such case... which isn't to say that you didn't hear any such things. However, commentators frequently misdescribe ACLU actions, often as an excuse to attack them. What I suspect was being discussed was the Arizona situation, where prisoners were forbidden from even passing information to Web site owners via physical mail. This was an attempt to keep prisoners from putting their case before the public via websites. This ruling does not grant prisoners Internet access. Or perhaps you were hearing about the California case that allows prisoners to receive Internet printouts via physical mail; previously, they could receive a newspaper article photocopied the paper, but not receive a printout of the same article posted on the Internet. This was in the case of a prisoner who specifically does not have Internet access, and was not a request to gain such access.

I don`t see why anybody should be disgusted that these people get procecuted because of obcenity - because this is what it is. I have no problem with porn showing adults but children, no. No exceptions whatsoever.

And if this actually WAS a case of child porn, do you really think anyone here would be taking Zicari's side? No fucking way! I mean, we NEED lawas to portect children. Some of them may seem Draconian to Free Spech Absolutists, but what we need to remember is, no matter how smart they may be (I can remember wanting to shout "Stop singing that fucking song!" in Kindergarten whenever they made us do the A-B-C song because I'd been taught to tead and write at home. probably the ONLY thing my parents did right, but I digress. The fact that they skipped me out of Preschool (true story! I was there one week, and they decided In was too smart and they bumped me up to Kindergarten!) only made it worse) they are still KIDS, so "the rules" for them are simply different then they are for us. But a 40-year old women in pig tails counting as child porn? Does that mean the fact that I got turned on by that episode of The View when Meredith Vieira (who is fucking gorgeous for a woman on the cusp of 50 BTW) had a schoolgirl haircut makes me a pedophile? She is over 40 as I've already pointed out. Plus, she just turns me on period, but that's kinda beside the point.

But I shouldn't be so harsh with you. At least you're not being an asshole about this like some people.

"The legal realists will tell you otherwise, but valid law can only be based on Higher Law or else they are merely social constructs subject to whims. And, of course, not open to judgment, as their is no authority to base them on.

(That ought to get some atheist panties in a wad.)"

Y'know, I was going to make a lengthy response to this, but since (a) you've made it clear that you wrote it with the clear intent of "get [ting] atheist panties in a wad", (b) you acknowledge it's not a legally realistic view, and (c) you've already been rebutted nicely by Ezrael, I think this falls under the heading of "just not worth it."

TWL

Notice that I no time do I mention my viewpoint on "obscenity" or religion. It's no one's business but my own, and maybe I won't get cursed at if I keep my views to myself.

Regarding child pornography, I do have a few comments.

Comment #1. At what age is the person considered obscene? The age of consent in most states in the US is sixteen. In some states, it's eighteen; in others, as low as fourteen. Ancient jewish society had it at thirteen for males / none specified for females. Some societies (ancient and modern) use puberty as the age of consent. But for the sake of argument, let's use the age sixteen. So... You can participate in sex at sixteen. You can't film it until you're eighteen. And then you can't purchase/rent/watch your own legally performed and recorded actions until you're twenty-one. I find this hard to justify.

Comment #2. The criminal code in Alabama uses the phrase "...to intice or cause to respond in an excited manner..." This puts such a vague notion of obscenity on the books that it's impossible to understand. Is a photograph of a family (including the minor children) at a nudist colony child pornography? Even though stunt doubles and a formed and dyed body suit were used in the film "Pretty Baby", was this intended to intice or excite?

Comment #3. It's almost universally agreed for the purpose of the law that life stops when the subject can no longer breath. Theft of property is defined as when an object is taken from it's legal owner without legal cause. Battery is the use of force to harm another person without legal justification. These are all clearly defined and understood definitions. Thus far, no one has been able to articulate a logically consistent and justifiable definition of obscene.

To summarize, we've got a situation where the age of the participant is arbitrary to current and local customs; where the intentions of the viewer and producer are both subject to conjecture; and with no clear defintion of the action itself.

So tell me again why I shouldn't donate to the ACLU anymore?

Luigi Novi: Bullshit. Why is it that so many theists feel the need to distort the separating church and state into “expelling religion from everyone’s life?” This is a lie. The state has no business taking any position whatsoever on any religion, period, that includes putting the Ten Commandments in a courthouse. To argue that this “expels” religion from your life is a LIE. In what way is your ability to practice your religion mitigated by the mere absence of its decoration in a state-owned piece of property? Give me just one example of how cases like that actually AFFECTED someone’s ability—ANYONE’S ability, to practice their religion?

You can't really have it both ways sweetie. If not having it there doesn't hinder ANYONE then why does having it there hinder ANYONE? I can practice my religion as much as I want to, whenever I want to, wherever I want to. Nothing that anyone in the government can say or post will be able to stop me. We have the right to freedom of religion, and quite frankly, if someone wants to post 'religious' materials from other religions, even in a 'government-owned' building, it won't effect my worship of God in any way. If you (general you...not specific you) don't have enough willpower or religious belief, or whatever you want to call it, that your religious beliefs won't stand up to a little testing, you should reevaluate them.

As for the porn..yes it is obscene. Movies where they 'pretend' to kill someone or 'pretend' to rape someone, those are just 'pretend'. Porn is not 'pretend', they are actually having sex with someone. Morally, that is wrong. And no, morality and religion do not go hand in hand. I wish some of the people posting above me would not compare porn movies to regular movies. There is no comparison unless they start actually murdering people and selling the video (COPS comes close as do several other 'reality' shows).

As for whether or not people think these are trumped up charges, there had to be an actual law on the books somewhere or they could not have issued a warrant, made an arrest, or have a hope of succeeding in a trial.

sorry for my long post but I believe I've got my 2 cents worth aired out now :)

Oh one more thing. Luigi dear, you got the Ten Commandments wrong.

Porn is not 'pretend', they are actually having sex with someone. Morally, that is wrong. And no, morality and religion do not go hand in hand. I wish some of the people posting above me would not compare porn movies to regular movies. There is no comparison unless they start actually murdering people and selling the videoI find this equation of murder and sex bizarre. Murder is the taking of a life, sex is the sharing of pleasure, the parallel is hard to see. Heck, in Judaism sex can be considered a "mitzvah", a good deed.

If a beautiful blonde came up and offered me my choice of having sex with her or being murdered by her, I know which I'd choose.

***As for the porn..yes it is obscene. Movies where they 'pretend' to kill someone or 'pretend' to rape someone, those are just 'pretend'. Porn is not 'pretend', they are actually having sex with someone. Morally, that is wrong.>>>

Having sex with someone is morally wrong? OK if you say so. Me I say concenting adults can have sex with anyone they want, and if they want to allow it to be filmed so that other concenting adults can watch, well that's thier bussiness, not mine. Also the word "porn" covers a whole lot, everything from Maxium magazine and Baywatch to "bare assed teen sluts" has been considered porn by someone, not all of it has people actually having sex. I briefly worked for a video company that produced some of Penthouse's videos, and I can assure you there was no actual sex going on while filming, lots of nudity, lots of "fake" sex but no actual sex. You might think watching the final product that there was some actual sex happening but there wasn't, all play acting and tricks of the camera. You'd be amazed at how much on these things is actually fake. So I don't think you "porn = actual sex" agurment really hold up.

*Can’t have it both ways. I don't care if the actresses in the movies are adults, depicting children, as a sexual objects is still wrong.*

OK lets say your right. Lets ban all movies which have adult actors and actresses depicting children as sexual objects. Among those movies and TV shows to go

American Beauty

American Pie (and just about every other teen age sex comedy/coming of age story, AP specifically has an older women sleeping with a high school age boy, hardly the only movie to have such a scenerio)

Manhatan

Casabanca (The chief of Police character tries to elict sexual favors from a girl that the dialoge makes clear is "under age")

Buffy the Vampire Slayer (The first two seasons at least, Angel is over 200 years old and was in his 20's when he became imortal, but when he starts his relationship with Buffy she's only 16, any way you look at it that would be covered).

Brintney Spears videos, (OK maybe those should be banned).

Should I go on, or have you started to rethink your "it all should be banned" platform?

Oh one more thing. Luigi dear, you got the Ten Commandments wrong.

According to whom?

You see, with all of the supposed value and importance of the Ten Commandments, even the various factions of Christianity cannot agree on the delineation of the ten. Luigi's listing seems to be loose descriptions of the Catholic edition of the Ten Commandments.

For a comparison, go to http://www.positiveatheism.org/crt/whichcom.htm

Luigi Novi: Bull. It’s the citizens’ tax dollars that run the USPS.

Jamie: The Postal Service is a self supporting business, hence the rise in postal rates to maintain service, rather than asking for tax.

Luigi Novi: It’s an arm of the federal government. Hence, it should be subject to the will of the people. Not some narrow-minded fascist censors.

Jamie: Nore I did not preface this with "bull" or a "lie."

Luigi Novi: Of course not. Given the reliance on such material in the body of your posts, which I clearly illustrated in a previous thread at http://peterdavid.malibulist.com/gmlog/00000474.html#comments, putting more of them in your prefaces would be redundant. Just seeing your name on your post gives me an idea of what to expect.

Luigi Novi: No, it wasn’t. Our legal system was derived from the British, not from the Ten Commandments

Jamie: The legal realists will tell you otherwise, but valid law can only be based on Higher Law or else they are merely social constructs subject to whims.

Luigi Novi: Laws are perfectly valid when they reflect our rights, protect us from harming one another, and provide for a stable society. They do not have to be based on religion, nor do I see religion as necessarily being “higher,” or even “Higher.” Of course laws are social constructs. That doesn’t mitigate their validity, nor does it stop some censors from trying to create laws like the one discussed here that most certainly are based on “whims.”

Jamie: And, of course, not open to judgment, as their is no authority to base them on.

Luigi Novi: The only authority necessary is the authority of the people to govern themselves. There are indeed countries that base their laws on their whimsical interpretations of holy books. Are those just societies? Would anyone here want to live there?

Luigi Novi: Michael, anything that presents a clear and present danger cannot be protected. Slander, libel, perjury, lying to a police officer or Congress, revealing classified government secrets to an unauthorized person, false advertisement, threatening someone, or anything that violates pre-existing laws to the same effect (murder, rape, blowing up a building) is not covered, nor should it be. There is no problem of “who” makes that decision. Some girl dressed up like a schoolgirl in a sex video does not cause harm. It merely offends some people.

Michael Norton: Oh but it can. I mean, who is to say I haven't threatened Tom DeLay by constantly writing him and asking him to step the heck down? He could say it's an implied threat....

Luigi Novi: It doesn’t matter what he says. Threatening someone is against the law, period. Not writing a letter saying that someone should step down. That’s not a threat, and doesn’t violate the Clear and Present Danger aspect of the First Ammendment.

Michael Norton: I mean, I get your point, lying to congress, giving away national security secrets(though just what that means is another debate) is all well and good as considered Clear and Present Danger, but you have to make sure such things are written down and not ambiguous. Otherwise some idiot calls you a "enemy combatant" and your off to Gitmo.

Luigi Novi: You may write that clarity into the Clause, or interpret it if it comes to trial. If the person was just expressing themselves, but not doing anything to harm anyone, it should be protected.

Brian Webber: Does that mean the fact that I got turned on by that episode of The View when Meredith Vieira (who is fucking gorgeous for a woman on the cusp of 50 BTW) had a schoolgirl haircut makes me a pedophile? She is over 40 as I've already pointed out. Plus, she just turns me on period, but that's kinda beside the point.

Luigi Novi: Yeah, she’s hot. :-)

Amanda French: You can't really have it both ways sweetie. If not having it there doesn't hinder ANYONE then why does having it there hinder ANYONE?

Luigi Novi: It is the endorsement of a religion by the government, babe. The government has no business promoting ANY position on ANY religion whatsoever. To put the Ten Commandments in a courthouse is WRONG. Again, I wonder if people outraged by the removal of the monument would like it if the courthouse were decorated like a Shinto shrine, a Muslim mosque, Jewish synagogue, or a Scientology camp.

Think about it: Why don’t we decorate our courthouses like Jewish synagogues? Of course, Judaism forbids the depiction of graven images in synagogues. So that would mean we couldn’t put statues or paintings of God or Jesus in them. Some people may not like that.

Amanda French: As for whether or not people think these are trumped up charges, there had to be an actual law on the books somewhere or they could not have issued a warrant, made an arrest, or have a hope of succeeding in a trial.

Luigi Novi: Often such laws fly directly in the face of the Constitution.

Amanda French: Oh one more thing. Luigi dear, you got the Ten Commandments wrong.

Luigi Novi: Sorry to disagree with you, dollface, but you’re wrong. That is the version I was taught in parochial school. The fact that there is more than one version doesn’t mean that your version is “right” and my version is “wrong.”

The way I see it, the defendent's have only one chance - and that is to request of jury of their peers. The lawyer for the defence might be able to argue that only a jury of regular porno watchers could make a distinguishment without reasonable doubt on if a crime has been comimtted, or not.

Well, naturally the catholics have to leave out the make no graven images and worship no idols one...look at that entire religion. So yes, I would have to say, having looked at the site posted by Nat Gertler, the catholic interpretation is wrong (in my oh so humble opinion which won't effect you one way or the other). 'Course that is yet again a whole 'nother can of worms.

Brian Webber: Does that mean the fact that I got turned on by that episode of The View when Meredith Vieira (who is fucking gorgeous for a woman on the cusp of 50 BTW) had a schoolgirl haircut makes me a pedophile? She is over 40 as I've already pointed out. Plus, she just turns me on period, but that's kinda beside the point.

Luigi Novi: Yeah, she’s hot. :-)

Much as I agree, I find it kinda sad that that's the only part of my post anybody has responded too. :-

Well, naturally the catholics have to leave out the make no graven images and worship no idols one...look at that entire religion.

Oh cripes, yes, let's get into a religion bashing contest.

But, of course, it's apparently ok to bash a reglion as long as it isn't Christianity.

As was said, if this were any other religion under discussion wrt that 10 Commandments monument, there would be no question of it's removal.

I'm surprised nobody mentioned that this is only an issue because it's happening in the south (Alabama to be specific).

But actually, it isn't. According to some folks I met over the weekend, this same situation is also going on, for over two years (apparently the same length of time as the Alabama situation, which nobody in the media has mentioned) to remove a similar monument from a small Nebraska courthouse.

Another ongoing battle, but the principal is the same - we are not all ruled by the ideals and "laws" of one religion, so don't try and force it on anybody.

The moment you do, you're no better than those such as the Taliban.

As for the whole obscenity thing, it disgusts me as well that people can get away with trying to make people appear to be younger than they are, etc, but it's been done for CENTURIES.

Somebody mentioned American Beauty, but do we really want to ban Romeo & Juliet?

Because that's what it comes down to.

People's definitions of art will differ, of course, so why bother trying to fit *some* things under the law, but not others?

That's what alot of you want.

You truly cannot have it both wants.

1)

Regarding the picture of Arlington Natl Cemetary (or some other Federally owned cemetary) since I don't think it has been addressed yet.

It might be federal, and thus public land, but a cemetary is rather unique in that each gravestone can be considered owned by the family of the deceased. There is no part of a courthouse that can be considered owned by one and only one family/person. It belongs to the entire city/county/state. And thus erecting monuments that symbolize one religion, or even a trio of religions, over and above all others is a violation of the first ammendment.

2)

The ACLU by and large only goes to court if someone comes to them. It might look like they're always supporting 'the Liberal' causes, but it's not exactly true. They defended Oliver North, and have also defended Neo-Nazis. They defend people across the political spectrum.

And since the ACLU primarily deals with issues involving violation of Constitutional rights...and since by the nature of these cases it is one person - or a group of people - against the Government. They are ALWAYS defending the victims. The government is the one accused of a crime.

3) I am not a Catholic, but they do not leave out "You shall have no other Gods before me" and not bowing down, and not making a graven image are both part of that commandment. Just because the King James Bible tries to divided this commandment into two, doesn't make it two. (Yes, I'm Jewish)

4) it's a small nitpicky detail, but I was a literature major. A Clockwork Orange was originally a novel. The movie was based on the novel, by Anthony Burgess. (Not the other way around.)

If that's the case, they won't have any problem finding prospective jurors.

Crud. That last one was in response to Michael Tierney's commetn about an all-porno-watching jury.

Catholicism is Christianity. In fact, save for Greek Orthodox and some small sects still existing in the Middle East, Catholicism has a far better claim to the title Christianity than any Protestant faith. Catholicism was Christendom, the literal Body of Faith, for 1500 years. Many hundreds of millions worship Christ under the Aegis of Catholicism.

Well, naturally the catholics have to leave out the make no graven images and worship no idols one...look at that entire religion. So yes, I would have to say, having looked at the site posted by Nat Gertler, the catholic interpretation is wrong (in my oh so humble opinion which won't effect you one way or the other). 'Course that is yet again a whole 'nother can of worms.

The Catholic interpretation may be wrong. Then again, so may you be. Unless Christ spoke to you directly last night and told you exactly what His father meant by the Ten Commandments, your opinion is simply that, your opinion. It should not be Federally enshrined as long as I am an American Citizen. Under the tenets of the faith as I was raised in it, you're a heretic. Let's post that in our courthouses, shall we? All ye dread sinners who rebel against the Rock of the Church, the Vicar of Christ, he who inherits the mantle of Peter who Christ gave unto the bedrock of Christendom, shall ye be accursed, your names as ashes in the mouth, and the angel Uriel shall seal ye in the lake of endless fire to be tormented nightly, for that ye knew the name of your Redeemer yet turned away from those He placed above you. That could go right up above the door. You could read those words every time you went in front of a Judge. Wouldn't that make you feel secure in the fairness and impartiality of your justice system as an American, to see the dogma of a particular faith enshrined in her houses of judgement? Or we could put this one up...it's a particular favorite of mine, which you'll see the reasons for in a moment:

And the murderers and them that have made common cause with them shall they cast into the fire, in a place full of venomous beasts, and they shall be tormented without rest, feeling their pains; and their worms shall be as many in number as a dark cloud. And the angel Ezrael shall bring forth the souls of them that have been slain, and they shall behold the torment of them that slew them, and say one to another: Righteousness and justice is the judgement of God. For we heard, but we believed not, that we should come into this place of eternal judgement.

--From "The Apocryphal New Testament"

M.R. James-Translation and Notes

Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1924

Why not stick that up in the main lobby? It's direct, it speaks of harsh punishments for any who commit crimes like murder and justice for the slain, and it was supposedly written by the Apostle Peter himself. Of course, it's only sacred writ to a handful of really extreme Christians nowadays...but so what? After all, you don't seem to mind if Buddhists are expected to see the Ten Commandments in our courts and not think anything of it, so why not put stuff you might not believe up? After all, the seperation of church and state shouldn't mean that your faith isn't exempted, so why should it mean that any of them are? And certainly I could make a case that excerpts like the one above have had an effect on the development of jurisprudence since the time of Constantine...indeed, it was said to be one of Constantine's favorite passaged, and his successors Justinian and Theodora helped bring the Justinian Code of laws to Rome under Belisarius, a code that influenced the Papacy and thus every nation in Europe at the time, a code that influences us today through the English Common Law it helped bring into being. So why not? Since we're going to be using the argument that we should have the influences on our jurisprudence posted in the lobby, and that the Ten Commandments supposedly are such, let's go nuts.

I hasten to also point out that *if* the Ten Commandments were to be seen as the foundation of our jurisprudence, it would almost certainly be the Catholic version. Since Catholicism is the faith that shaped European law from 500 to 1500, after all, and even those nations that became primarily Protestant did so in reaction to Catholicism, not in a vacuum.

It's simple. If we are to be free to practice our religions without government interference, we must practice them without government interference. That includes posting passages from Holy Texts in our courts of law. Unless you're willing to allow for the possibility that a plurality of Jainists might somehow get elected. As much as I respect Jainism, I don't want their ideals emblazoned in our courts either. Not even if it became the majority religion of the United States.

Keep your faith. Keep it in your life and your observances. And keep it out of mine, because I have my own, and I don't require instruction from either you or the state.

***Somebody mentioned American Beauty, but do we really want to ban Romeo & Juliet?

Because that's what it comes down to***

Hell we can go even further. Ban Snow White since in the original version, (not the Disney adaptation) Snow was about 12 years old.

I think most people have got my opinion twisted around...I agree there should be seperation of church and state, as it is put forth in the constitution. However, just because something is posted somewhere *any religious text of any kind* doesn't mean that: a) I'm going to read it, b) I'm in any way forced by the government to believe it and c) I'm going to make a fuss to have it removed.

Why aren't all the atheists, wiccans, any other religion you can think of, throwing money away? Why aren't they demanding that the little phrase "In God We Trust" be removed from their money or refuse to use it? It is because their conviction is not strong enough I guess. The 10 Commandments posted in a courthouse in Alabama doesn't effect most of the people that are here posting about it. Yey I'd be willing to bet that each and every one of you uses money on a daily basis, and you all have yet to make a cry of inequality concerning that. I, on the other hand, am a Christian, do believe "In God We Trust" and am probably the only person who HAS written a letter concerning the phrase being on the national money (because I do believe it violates the separation of church and state and so I let all my senators and such know about it). Just a little heads up so to speak.

Yes, there should be separation of church and state. No it should not be limited to the 10 Commandments being posted in a courthouse.

Can't remember where I heard it, but I recall the ACLU has been reporting that they've got a lot of new members lately from the conservative wing of the political spectrum. I take this as a sign that John Ashcroft is scaring folks on both sides of the aisle.

And Amanda, this atheist doesn't have a major problem with "In God We Trust" on the currency, simply because it's the national motto of the United States. Note that this is not the god of the Old Testament/New Testament/Koran, but an unspecified "god of nature" worshipped by the deists (since Jefferson, Franklin, Washington, etc. were deists).

Unlike Roy Moore's Ten Commandments monument, "In God We Trust" is sufficiently ambiguous and non-denominational that taking offense at it would be tantamount to taking offense at the phrase "Oh my god..."

In addition, Amanda, many Atheists do have difficulty with that phrase on the money. They tend to believe in one battle at a time, however.

Now, I'm not an Atheist, as I've already pointed out. I have my own religious beliefs, although they aren't to be found in any particular faith currently extant. However, were I one, I may be of the opinion that there are still creationist and creation science battles to win in my children's schools, that there are battles like the Moore case to engage in, that there are other causes that are more important to me right now and more specifically religious than a mention of God on the money that doesn't come from any source used by any existing faith. Of course, I might not. When asking a question like the one below:

Why aren't all the atheists, wiccans, any other religion you can think of, throwing money away? Why aren't they demanding that the little phrase "In God We Trust" be removed from their money or refuse to use it? It is because their conviction is not strong enough I guess.

You aren't really asking this question looking for an answer. You're using it as a rhetorical launching pad to accuse an entire section of the population of insufficient belief in their own stated creeds as a means to justify why they shouldn't object to something. Well, you don't object to it on money, so you shouldn't object to it in the courts. And you do this with no real basis in fact. Here is an excerpt from an article written by Richard Dawkins recently:

I used to deplore what I regarded as the tokenism of my American atheist friends. They were obsessed with removing "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance (it was inserted as late as 1954), whereas I cared more about the chauvinistic nastiness of pledging allegiance to a flag in the first place. They would cross out "In God we Trust" on every dollar bill that passed through their hands (again, it was inserted only in 1956), whereas I worried more about the tax-free dollars amassed by bouffant-haired televangelists, fleecing gullible old ladies of their life savings. My friends would risk neighbourhood ostracism to protest at the unconstitutionality of Ten Commandments posters on classroom walls. "But it's only words," I would expostulate. "Why get so worked up about mere words, when there's so much else to object to?" Now I'm having second thoughts. Words are not trivial. They matter because they raise consciousness.

Obviously it is established that at least some people do in fact object to the words In God We Trust being on our currency. So your argument that they don't does not hold water. Furthermore, even if it did, it does not follow that all references to God enshrined in the workings of the Federal government are of equal objectionability (some are from a specific religion and therefore favor that religion over others, whereas others are mere references to God without a specific bias towards any religion, which does not have the effect of endorsing one faith over another) and should thereby all be treated the same way. Prioritization of these cases is not the same as endorsing one over the other, it just means choosing where to devote your time and resources.

The 10 Commandments posted in a courthouse in Alabama doesn't effect most of the people that are here posting about it. Yey I'd be willing to bet that each and every one of you uses money on a daily basis, and you all have yet to make a cry of inequality concerning that. I, on the other hand, am a Christian, do believe "In God We Trust" and am probably the only person who HAS written a letter concerning the phrase being on the national money (because I do believe it violates the separation of church and state and so I let all my senators and such know about it). Just a little heads up so to speak.

You have no idea what other people have done, and what you may have done does not end the discussion. Many, many Atheists have done exactly that, and furthermore, the fact that you have done it does not invalidate another's argument on the issue of the Ten Commandments in our courts. I'm glad you recognize the principle of separation of church and state, but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't also apply in this instance. This is like saying to a crowd who gather in front of a courthouse to protest the favorable treatment of a specific murderer Well, you didn't protest when that assault happened last week. We are not required to demonstrate our beliefs in a prescribed manner.

For myself, I agree with Robert above me that "In God We Trust" is sufficiently non-religious to be allowed. Others may disagree, and may therefore use their time and effort to argue their position. My then saying Then you shouldn't the schools to use the word good because it is derived from God doesn't then require them to go on an etymological purge.

**Somebody mentioned American Beauty, but do we really want to ban Romeo & Juliet?

Because that's what it comes down to.**

Better than that, let's ban the Zeffirelli version because Olivia Hussey is only 15 and is nude in it(you don't see anything).Or howabout the big hooplah over "Lolita" a few years ago?

The real problem here is society's repression when it comes to literary children. They freak for some reason.

That said, I saw "Bowling For Columbine" last night so I have to ask if this is all being raised out of fear and maybe we shouldn't be making decisions from fear?

Michael Norton

"it's a small nitpicky detail, but I was a literature major. A Clockwork Orange was originally a novel. The movie was based on the novel, by Anthony Burgess. (Not the other way around."

Um, I was being sarcastic. I've read the novel three times, including with the chapter originally left out of the American movie (and, consequently, the film). Saying it's a movie adaption is like talking about the "adaptions" of THE LORD OF THE RINGS being out now. Anyway, it's a small point.

As for the (ongoing) argument, freedom is the ability to choose to accept/purchase/believe something or not. Freedom of religion doesn't mean erecting monuments of your beliefs on federal grounds; it means you can worship or not worship any religion you please. As for porn, freedom of speech lets the folks behind it make it (as long as it's not kiddie porn or involving a crime, like kidnapping or rape), and we the people have the freedom to buy it (if we want) or to ignore it (if we want). When you ban it, or try to keep it from being made, you're abridging the freedom of those who *do* want to watch/buy it, simply because you hate it.

(On an unrelated topic, is anyone else surprised there isn't more superhero-related porn? Superheroes and porn have several good points of crossover -- skin-tight costumes, masks, beautiful people with great bodies, traps involving bondage -- and yet there are very few superhero skin flicks I can think of! (If anyone asks, I can name the ones I know.)

You have the freedom of expression, speech, religion (and other examples) as long as this doesn`t harm the rights of others. This is at least the general idea in Germany and Britain, the cultures I know best, and I agree with this 100 %.

Of course there are grey areas and a lot is debatable, also because absolute laws are unjust and individual circumstances have to be taken into account. I certainly prefer this approach to discussions like this one than the American view which seems to be "You have to allow EVERYTHING because nothing is more important than my freedom to watch, say, read etc. what I want".

My opinion is, there have to be limits and child porn is one of them. I have been told here that because adults were playing the parts of children, it is not child porn. Others have said, if it is computer generated and no children were really involved, it should be ok. Not to me. There is no excuse for child porn and nobody should support it in any form whatsoever.

There is no excuse for child porn and nobody should support it in any form whatsoever.

Since you're redefining child porn from even the loose definition generally used (porn containing children), could you give us a definition to address, so we know what you're talking about?

Me, I'm a fan of the comics of Ariel Schrag, autobiographical work that contains explicit drawings of underage folks having sex. Is that porn? Is that something that I need to be protected from? Something that the people depicted (primarily Ariel herself) needs to be protected from? I happen to think it's beautiful, moving work... but if it has "no excuse"...

(On an unrelated topic, is anyone else surprised there isn't more superhero-related porn? Superheroes and porn have several good points of crossover -- skin-tight costumes, masks, beautiful people with great bodies, traps involving bondage -- and yet there are very few superhero skin flicks I can think of! (If anyone asks, I can name the ones I know.)

There is Superhero porn. Playboy did a spread back in the 70's with models dressed up as Superheros, (Batgirl, Wonder Woman, Shena of the Jungle, Supergirl) costumes altered to reveal far more then would ever be allowed in a code approved comic, (or even a Vertigo comic). There have been several porno movies that parody Super-heros (Buttman comes to mind, and I believe Pamala Anderson did a video for Playboy where she dressed up in a Batgirl outfit and called herself "boobgirl" or something like that). Penthouse magazine tried to launch a line of comics in the early 90's, at least one of the strips was an x-rated superhero strip. There's also Strippella, which could be argued is borderline porn, (not x-rated but it's definatly not for children) and it's created by Stan Lee no less. It's also been announced that Stan is working on a project for the Playboy chanel that will have Playboy playmates as superhero's with Hef being a Professor X type who leads them. (I kid you not). So yeah there's superhero porn out there for those who really want it. And it is really scary that I know so much about this. :-)

There is Superhero porn. Playboy did a spread back in the 70's with models dressed up as Superheros, (Batgirl, Wonder Woman, Shena of the Jungle, Supergirl) costumes altered to reveal far more then would ever be allowed in a code approved comic, (or even a Vertigo comic). There have been several porno movies that parody Super-heros (Buttman comes to mind, and I believe Pamala Anderson did a video for Playboy where she dressed up in a Batgirl outfit and called herself "boobgirl" or something like that). Penthouse magazine tried to launch a line of comics in the early 90's, at least one of the strips was an x-rated superhero strip. There's also Strippella, which could be argued is borderline porn, (not x-rated but it's definatly not for children) and it's created by Stan Lee no less. It's also been announced that Stan is working on a project for the Playboy chanel that will have Playboy playmates as superhero's with Hef being a Professor X type who leads them. (I kid you not). So yeah there's superhero porn out there for those who really want it. And it is really scary that I know so much about this. :-)

Thanks, Darren, but that's not *quite* right what I meant. While the Playboy spread sounds wonderful (guess who's going to Google?) as was the Penthouse book (and a few other comics), not many videos. A lot of parodies have next to nothing in terms of superhero elements (costumes, action); Chloe did a video (THE WILD AND WACKY ADVENTURES OF CHLOE) where she dressed as Wonder Woman on the cover, with *nothing* like that inside. If you (or, in this case, I) limit this to adult videos (the original topic here) with definitive superhero elements, I'd say there are 4 or 5 good ones -- in an area with dozens of releases every week.

And while it's scary I know so much about this, it surprises very few people who know me :-)

There was a porn movie the adult cable channel called "X-Girls." I didn't see the beginning, and there wasn't any sound, but from the costumes, I think it was a superhero parody.

Of course laws are social constructs. That doesn’t mitigate their validity..

Ah, so if enough people get together and pass a law making it legal to strangle redheads on alternating Tuesdays, that's fine, because society has deciding rdhead's rigyhts are no onger inportant.

Rights are based on a higher principle than society's whim whether you like the idea or not.

**Of course not. Given the reliance on such material in the body of your posts, which I clearly illustrated in a previous thread at http://peterdavid.malibulist.com/gmlog/00000474.html#comments, putting more of them in your prefaces would be redundant. Just seeing your name on your post gives me an idea of what to expect.

**

So you were wrong about the post office being tax supported. Quit being a crybaby about it just because I pointed it out.

What's that you say? You want superhero porn?

I did an article on this very thing waaaaay back when. Here's the first part: http://the-trades.com/column.php?columnid=1323

There's a link at the bottom to the second part. Enjoy.

"There was a porn movie the adult cable channel called "X-Girls." I didn't see the beginning, and there wasn't any sound, but from the costumes, I think it was a superhero parody."

Watching the non-subscribed channels, eh? "X-Girls" is one of the better superhero pornos out there. And they're pretty much ALL parodies; the question is whether they're also exciting.

What's that you say? You want superhero porn?

"I did an article on this very thing waaaaay back when. Here's the first part"

A very nice article. However, I fear the part on "antisocial misogyny" missed a bit. For reasons I still haven't grasped the basis behind, a lot of the superhero fetish sites have some *really* nasty, weird stuff. It's a bit like regular porn: You have to slog through a lot of s#$%to get to the good stuff. Come to think of it, that's true of regular movies too...

You have to slog through a lot of s#$%to get to the good stuff. Come to think of it, that's true of regular movies too...

Wasn't it Theodore Sturgeon who said "90% of science fiction is crap. Then again, 90% of anything is crap"?

Everyone is bitching about the Catholic Church having pedophiles, but they want to have their porno movies that support, advocate and advance pedophilia. Can’t have it both ways.

Of course you can. Just as you have movies that support, advocate and advance violence, drugs, teen sex, murder, mayhem, and drinking...movies which routinely land in the top ten box office. At the same time we have a society or elements of that society which decry those very things. How many people who watch action films have ever actually been in knock down, drag out fights or shoot 'em ups. A very small percentage, I'd guess.

Prove to me that porn movies have taken decent, well-behaved priests and turn them into monsters, and then we'll talk.

PAD

what we are really talkig about is enforcement of laws that have been on the books for years!!! Years!!! So what you are really bitching about is the U.S. government doing its job.

No, I think what folks are really bitching about is that the U.S. government is NOT doing its job in so many other areas, that time, monies and energy would be better spent attending to things other than the dodgy question of porn.

PAD

The only expression that should not be is that which violates the Clear and Present Danger Clause.

Just a reminder: The reference to Clear and Present Danger came from the horrific Supreme Court ruling supporting the jailing of a man for fifteen years simply because he distributed a flier opining that the draft violated the Constitutional prohibition against slavery. "Clear and Present Danger" remains a testament to how the judiciary is willing to stomp on the First Amendment for the most capricious of motives.

PAD

I’m aware of that, Peter, but the principle in theory is still a far better test than the Miller test regarding obscenity, which if I recall correctly, you yourself said was bogus. Obscene material should be protected, because I think whether something has literary or artistic value should be left up to the buyer, not 12 strangers. But material or acts that directly fly in the face of pre-existing laws against harming other people (libel, slander, child molestation, threats, yelling fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire), that constitute unethical business practices (false advertisement, insider trading), or otherwise inhibits the justice system (perjury, lying to a police officer or Congress during an investigation, revealing classified government secrets) should not be, and it is those things that in my opinion, can and should be confined to the concept of Clear and Present Danger.

Luigi Novi: Of course laws are social constructs. That doesn’t mitigate their validity..

Jamie: Ah, so if enough people get together and pass a law making it legal to strangle redheads on alternating Tuesdays, that's fine, because society has deciding rdhead's rigyhts are no onger inportant.

Luigi Novi: This is another non sequitur of yours. This statement by you bears absolutely no resemblance or relationship to the quote by me that precedes it.

I said that the fact that laws are social constructs does not mitigate their validity. The validity of any idea (including a law) should be promoted or challenged on its own merits. Not whether it’s a social construct. A law’s validity is not determined solely by whether it is derived from a dubious book of myths written 6,000 years ago when people thought the world was flat.

Jamie: Rights are based on a higher principle than society's whim whether you like the idea or not.

Luigi Novi: I didn’t say rights were based on whims. “Construct” and “whim” are not the same thing. Again, you use the bait and switch tactic of making a deliberate confusion between two different things, substituting something I did say with something I did not, and think you’re so smart that no one will notice.

Many laws (The First Ammendment, the Second Ammendment, the Fourteenth Ammendment, the Twenty-Second Ammendment, Separation of Church and State, Banning cell phones while driving, etc.) are not based on religious law, but I would hardly call them “whims.”

Jamie: Nore I did not preface this with "bull" or a "lie."

Luigi Novi: Of course not. Given the reliance on such material in the body of your posts, which I clearly illustrated in a previous thread at http://peterdavid.malibulist.com/gmlog/00000474.html#comments, putting more of them in your prefaces would be redundant. Just seeing your name on your post gives me an idea of what to expect.

Jamie: So you were wrong about the post office being tax supported. Quit being a crybaby about it just because I pointed it out.

Luigi Novi: I didn’t make the above statement in regard to anything about the post office. The quote above is in response to your statement: “Nore I did not preface this with "bull" or a "lie." Why are you taking a response to one statement, and making believe it is in response to another?

I have no problem with you correctly pointing out to me that the Postal Service is not tax supported. In the first place, the underlying point of my first pointing it out was that it’s an arm of the federal government, and therefore, in my opinion, it should be subject to the will of the people, and not some narrow-minded fascist censors, which, if you actually read my posts correctly, you’d have seen. Although my referring to it as supported by taxes may have been incorrect, the point that it should not be playing Big Brother because it’s an arm of the government supposedly founded on the principle of self-rule was the main point I was making, and it remains intact. Simply correcting me by substituting “tax supported” with “part of our government,” and the point remains. To focus on the distinction between those two phrases after the correction’s been made, rather than on the main point it was made in reference to is simply hair-splitting.

As far as being a “crybaby” because you pointed it out? Spare me. I already exposed you as a snob, a pathological liar, a flat-out hypocrite, and an extremely poor debater on the prior thread in question (and here) merely by pointing out and dissecting your own paralogisms. I have no problem being corrected, but anyone who reads that thread can plainly see that the same does not hold true for you, so save the violin music for yourself, as I am not saddened or disturbed by your transparent attempts at argumentative sleight of hand, but quite amused by them, since responding to them is like shooting ducks in a barrel.

I have to share this. I hope it can be viewed from here.

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/getarticle.pl5?nn20030903b6.htm

For another opinion on how our laws are not derived from the Ten Commandments, here is one that goes into greater depth than mine, and indeed uses a different version of the Commandments: http://www.randi.org/jr/090503.html

"On the "Frontline" segment, he defended his wares, which includes a video called "Forced Entry" which consists of episodes in which a woman is raped, beaten, spat on, degraded in every way and finally murdered. "

I take it, then, that similar obscenity charges will be brought against the producers of films/television shows such as The Accused or Twin Peaks for their works featuring "episodes in which women are raped, beaten, spat on, degraded in every way and (in the case of TP) finally murdered?"

We're talking about fictionalized depictions of a crime, not a crime itself, here.

Why aren't all the atheists, wiccans, any other religion you can think of, throwing money away? Why aren't they demanding that the little phrase "In God We Trust" be removed from their money or refuse to use it?

This particular agnostic with atheistic leanings would be glad to. Would you care to point out another form of US legal tender without those words that I can use to feed, clothe and shelter my family?

fbgfdhgfhxg