Crackdown on Porn

[raphy]

Just heard on the TV that the government crackdown on obscenity is finally getting uderway. It was always on Bush's agenda, but they got sidetracked with 9/11 and all, and now finally the big gears are starting to turn. We all probably know about what's been going on with the FCC and Janet's Tit and howard stern, but now 50 indictments have been served on adult video producers, and the internet isn't far behind.

I just wanted to bring this up to wave it in the face of all the people who didn't bother to vote in the last election, or who think voting doesn't matter, and who don't plan to vote in the next one either.

Also the people who don't bother to look at the issues but choose their candidate because they don't like the way the other guy talks or where he comes from or how he dresses. Just remember that this is the head of your government you're choosing, not a dinner date.

---dr.M.

And of course, who sits in the Oval Office (or 10 Downing Street) makes such a HUGE difference on how the country is run, really.

Raphy, who hasn't ever voted because the head of state doesn't make the decisions that affect day to day life - thousands of faceless beauracrats, pen-pushers and desk-flying pencil-necked geeks do.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Libertarianism, is not neccessarily bad. A moderate libertarian position is actually not a bad thing. The libertarians suffer from the same problem liberals & Conservatives as well as Dems & Reps. That is the loudest proponents are extremists and an extreme libertarian postion is close to anarchy.

-Colly

 

[KarenAM]

And of course, who sits in the Oval Office (or 10 Downing Street) makes such a HUGE difference on how the country is run, really.

This is actually a growing problem in the US. Since WWII the president has taken on more power than the Constitution really intended him to have. The result is an imperial presidency where the morals and failings of one man have a huge impact on all Americans and because of America's power, all the world.

If you like chilling parallels, the same thing happened to Rome, which eventually evolved into an imperial theocracy when Constantine imposed a single version of Christianity on the empire to try and hold it together. In the long run this didn't work and led to centuries of misery for all of Europe and whose effects are still with us in the conflict with the Islamic world.

 

[ABSTRUSE]

Just wondering? What do you think the impact will be on this subject now that there is word of an HIV postive pornstar coming forward. Fuel for the fire??

~A~

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Just wondering? What do you think the impact will be on this subject now that there is word of an HIV postive pornstar coming forward. Fuel for the fire??

~A~

I don't think the focus is public health, I think the focus is public morals. And HIV pos pornstar is more likely to be used as a prime example of the "wages of sin is death".

-Colly

 

[shereads]

Re: Re: Crackdown on Porn

And of course, who sits in the Oval Office (or 10 Downing Street) makes such a HUGE difference on how the country is run, really.

Raphy, who hasn't ever voted because the head of state doesn't make the decisions that affect day to day life - thousands of faceless beauracrats, pen-pushers and desk-flying pencil-necked geeks do.

No excuse, Raphy, at least not over here where the President can stifle this kind of legislation simply by telling a few key congressmen that he will veto the bill. Anybody who doesn't think the president influences legislation should look up the record of presidential vetos. And that's just what's visible to the public; behind the scenes, a lot of bills become more moderate before we ever hear about them, just because the White House has let it be known that he's an enemy of the legislation.

This anti-porn, anti-breast, anti-free-expression agenda belongs as much to GWB as it does to anyone in Congress. It's a critical election-year gift to the religious right, a show of good will. If Al Gore were in the White House, Congress might go through the motions just to make him look pro-porn before the election, but they wouldn't waste a lot of legislative time on something he'd be certain to veto.

 

[KarenAM]

I don't think the focus is public health, I think the focus is public morals. And HIV pos pornstar is more likely to be used as a prime example of the "wages of sin is death".

-Colly

Isn't it sad when public health and morality are considered seperate things by our government?

Social conservatives are HIV's best friends ever.

 

[minsue]

Isn't it sad when public health and morality are considered seperate things by our government?

Social conservatives are HIV's best friends ever.

I agree wholeheartedly with your second sentence, but I must admit I'm confused by the first.

 

[raphy]

Re: Re: Re: Crackdown on Porn

No excuse, Raphy, at least not over here where the President can stifle this kind of legislation simply by telling a few key congressmen that he will veto the bill. Anybody who doesn't think the president influences legislation should look up the record of presidential vetos. And that's just what's visible to the public; behind the scenes, a lot of bills become more moderate before we ever hear about them, just because the White House has let it be known that he's an enemy of the legislation.

And you think he comes up with those pro (or anti) positions all by himself?

Sorry, but I'm far too cynical to believe that there isn't an army of advisors and committes that tell the president what he is and isn't supposed to think (and say)

 

[ABSTRUSE]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Crackdown on Porn

And you think he comes up with those pro (or anti) positions all by himself?

Sorry, but I'm far too cynical to believe that there isn't an army of advisors and committes that tell the president what he is and isn't supposed to think (and say)

I have to agree with that to a point, I think he is a figurehead like the queen.
The real power lies not only with the Senate and Congress, but with big business that has interests in many other countries.
~A~

 

[KarenAM]

I agree wholeheartedly with your second sentence, but I must admit I'm confused by the first.

Ah. I was noting that in the response to the HIV pandemic, the Reagan administration hamstrung the CDC's public health efforts because the disease affected gays and drug users, who were seen as immoral by the social conservatives. As a result, HIV now kills millions more worldwide than it would have otherwise, gay and straight, liberal, conservative, male and female, adult and child.

And social conservatives are still hampering public health efforts with HIV by opposing condom and needle distribution, comprehensive sex education, and through their agenda to stigmatize all forms of sexual expression. This despite recent studies that show that teenagers who take vows of celibacy have higher rates of STD's after their vows than teens who make no such promises, and solid evidence that stigmatizing high risk behavior encourages epidemics rather than slowing them down.

I would argue on this basis that banning porn will kill people and lead to an increase of sexual violence, particularly against women and children.

 

[ABSTRUSE]

a quick interjection:
Pharmacuetical companies were allowed to raise the cost of HIV/AIDS drugs by 400% this past year.

and that bitch Janet has to go and flash her tit.

~A~

 

[KenJames]

asscroft was no typo

-Colly

 

[KenJames]

Libertarianism, is not neccessarily bad. A moderate libertarian position is actually not a bad thing. The libertarians suffer from the same problem liberals & Conservatives as well as Dems & Reps. That is the loudest proponents are extremists and an extreme libertarian postion is close to anarchy.

-Colly

I agree, except that the extreme libertarian position is anarchy, limited only by individual responsibility and enlightened self-interest.

The more moderate position would reduce government interference into private lives, including eliminating the laws against drugs and consensual sex.

It would also shift many government functions to the private sector, such as allowing private companies to collect tolls to build and maintain roads and replacing Social Security and Medicare with private insurance.

I agree completely with libertarians about individual liberties, but I would be very cautious about privatizing government services.

 

[shereads]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Crackdown on Porn

And you think he comes up with those pro (or anti) positions all by himself?

Sorry, but I'm far too cynical to believe that there isn't an army of advisors and committes that tell the president what he is and isn't supposed to think (and say)

Of course there are. The point is, the entity called the Presidency has the power of veto, so it absolutely does make a difference who's in the White House. As few as 500 votes in Florida in 2000 would have made the world a dramatically different place than it is today. We'd stlll have a controlling Republican majority in both houses of Congress, but on issues like the Patriot Act and free speech, they would have an adversary in the White House, not a crony.

The lesson of the 2000 election in the U.S. is that every vote counts in a tight race. Remember, Raphy, the only reason our governments exist in the form that they do is that most of us choose to be led, not to lead. If we all wanted to be leaders, it would be impossible to have a functioning government. But to refuse to take part in the process means you make it that much easier for the greedy few to wield power. I don't intend to ever make it easy for them. I write letters, I phone my congressional offices, and I make them hear my one little voice, and even if it's nothing more than an annoyance, it helps balance the money and power on the other side in a small way.

I was struck by how much power we have all given up - voluntarily, by choosing to remain in the background - when I watched the movie, "Thirteen Days" about the Kennedy brothers and the Cuban Missile Crisis. Imagine: about two dozen people on the entire planet had full knowledge of the fact that a nuclear exchange was imminent between the U.S. and the Soviets. Two dozen people who had both the privilege and the burden of determining whether millions of the rest of us would live, or would die as part of a global chess game.

These were not people who stole power; they were the people to whom we offered power on a silver platter, to spare ourselves the trouble.

In a democracy or any other form of government, 99% of people have voluntarily relinguished the right to fight for what they want. The ones who step forward to fill the vacuum may do so out of greed, or out of lust for power, or out of idealism, but for whatever reason they're in power, they are our creation. Yours because you don't vote, and mine because I do.

 

[raphy]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Crackdown on Porn

Of course there are. The point is, the entity called the Presidency has the power of veto, so it absolutely does make a difference who's in the White House. As few as 500 votes in Florida in 2000 would have made the world a dramatically different place than it is today. We'd stlll have a controlling Republican majority in both houses of Congress, but on issues like the Patriot Act and free speech, they would have an adversary in the White House, not a crony.

I think, shereads, the point I was trying to make was that whilst the entity called the Presidency has the power of veto, the person who decides when that power is used is not the man who sits behind the desk in the Oval Office (or in 10 Downing Street).. Hell, it probably isn't even a person, it's probably those faceless advisors and commitees.

Do I sound like a raving mad conspiracy theorist? Maybe. I'm not really raving about it, and I'm not about to start some crusade to expose the 'true people with power' ..

You say that 500 votes would have made a difference. I say that they wouldn't, because I believe it matters very little who's actually in power in this country - I said the same thing about the UK when I lived there too.

The lesson of the 2000 election in the U.S. is that every vote counts in a tight race.

That is, if you truly believe that it matters who wins the race. I don't.

Remember, Raphy, the only reason our governments exist in the form that they do is that most of us choose to be led, not to lead. If we all wanted to be leaders, it would be impossible to have a functioning government. But to refuse to take part in the process means you make it that much easier for the greedy few to wield power. I don't intend to ever make it easy for them. I write letters, I phone my congressional offices, and I make them hear my one little voice, and even if it's nothing more than an annoyance, it helps balance the money and power on the other side in a small way.

Oh, I'm well aware of the reasons behind governments, and democracy and all the rest of that. And like everyone else who lives in the 'free world', I wouldn't choose to live anywhere else. I was almost Air Force (failed due to poor eyesight) and I would willingly stand up and die to protect *your* right to vote. If you think you're making a difference, go nuts. However, don't forget, voting is privilege, and a choice... And I am as within my rights to choose NOT to as you are to choose to.

I was struck by how much power we have all given up - voluntarily, by choosing to remain in the background - when I watched the movie, "Thirteen Days" about the Kennedy brothers and the Cuban Missile Crisis. Imagine: about two dozen people on the entire planet had full knowledge of the fact that a nuclear exchange was imminent between the U.S. and the Soviets. Two dozen people who had both the privilege and the burden of determining whether millions of the rest of us would live, or would die as part of a global chess game.

To a certain extent, that's what representational democracy is about. I hope you're don't think that I'm one of the government detractor types, the ones that don't vote, but always have something to complain about .. One of those people that say 'I hate the government' and then complain, but never voted in the first place. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

I don't vote, because I don't think it makes a damn bit of difference who sits in the 'hot seat' - You obviously do. I don't.. and I will die to defend my right to live in a country where I get to make that choice.

I don't like pistachio ice cream, but by god, I'm glad I'm able to have that choice.

 

[minsue]

Ah. I was noting that in the response to the HIV pandemic, the Reagan administration hamstrung the CDC's public health efforts because the disease affected gays and drug users, who were seen as immoral by the social conservatives. As a result, HIV now kills millions more worldwide than it would have otherwise, gay and straight, liberal, conservative, male and female, adult and child.

And social conservatives are still hampering public health efforts with HIV by opposing condom and needle distribution, comprehensive sex education, and through their agenda to stigmatize all forms of sexual expression. This despite recent studies that show that teenagers who take vows of celibacy have higher rates of STD's after their vows than teens who make no such promises, and solid evidence that stigmatizing high risk behavior encourages epidemics rather than slowing them down.

I would argue on this basis that banning porn will kill people and lead to an increase of sexual violence, particularly against women and children.

You had me worried there for a second. I suppose I just had a crisis of communication. To me, morals and public health are separate things and I'll fight to keep them from trying to join them. In my mind, it is when government links them that we end up with policies such as those listed above.

Thank you for clarifying. I'm sorry I misunderstood.

 

[KarenAM]

It takes two to have a misunderstanding, minisue, and I should have been wordier in my original post to make it clear. This is odd, of course, because usually I babble and say too much.

If we remember that one of the essential features of a free society is tolerance of things that the majority may not like, then porn is a barometer of the health of the nation.

See? There I go...

 

[pop_54]

Isn't it sad when public health and morality are considered seperate things by our government?

Social conservatives are HIV's best friends ever.

Catholic Priests and the Pope are HIV's best friends ever, in third world Africa where HIV/AIDS is running riot infecting half the population of some countries... The Catholic church... who are the dominant bunch of religious nuts in that part of the world... Still refuse to allow the population to use condoms to protect themselves and others. Instead they'd rather put it about that condoms cause AIDS, yes they did that, issued a paper claiming all condoms were useless and promoted AIDS because the virus could penetrate the rubber. This is all in the cause of the Catholic ideal of 'no birth control', happy to shag choir boys though aren't they, still boys can't get pregnant, only catch AIDS.

As for the topic of this thread, well what have I been trying to tell some Americans for years, you're losing all of your freedoms guaranteed by the bill of rights a little at a time. I've always been jumped on though and told no way man, not here, we got rights, we got a constitution. Wake up people, they're taking it all away from you a little at a time.

Strange, we're supposed to be the repressed bunch, but if Janet had flashed her boobs over here, no bugger would have taken a blind bit of notice, other than a few days of pics on the front page of newspapers. It goes on all the time on our telly, excessive displays of flesh, only got to call it a news item and it can go out in prime time, the kids love it. We've clamped down heavy on the paedo's and child pornographers, but the mainstream seems to be allowed to go on as before.

Guess Literotica might have to move headquarters to Europe then if things are to continue as they are.

 

[SeaCat]

I'm trying to remember the name.

By coincidence, I'm reading a Science Fiction novel based on exactly that. Literally.

On a serious note, will this attempt at cleaning out the media smut have a better chance than the good old Clintonian farce known as the Communicaions Decency Act? Remember that, anyone?

#L

I'm trying to remember the name of the episode not too long ago where we had a governmental inquisition into porn. The best line from it was "I can't describe Porn but I know it when I see it."
This has been going on for quite a while. Every now and then the religeos right rears their ugly heads and try to tell everyone else how they have to live their lives.

SeaCat

 

[KenJames]

I don't vote, because I don't think it makes a damn bit of difference who sits in the 'hot seat' - You obviously do. I don't.. and I will die to defend my right to live in a country where I get to make that choice.

So you'll die to defend a democracy that makes no difference. Why bother?

I'd die to defend my country, too, but that's because I feel democracy, voting and the specific individuals who are in charge do make a difference.

 

[KenJames]

As for the topic of this thread, well what have I been trying to tell some Americans for years, you're losing all of your freedoms guaranteed by the bill of rights a little at a time. I've always been jumped on though and told no way man, not here, we got rights, we got a constitution. Wake up people, they're taking it all away from you a little at a time.

You're right, although some of us do recognize it and fight it as best we can.

Strange, we're supposed to be the repressed bunch, but if Janet had flashed her boobs over here, no bugger would have taken a blind bit of notice, other than a few days of pics on the front page of newspapers. It goes on all the time on our telly, excessive displays of flesh, only got to call it a news item and it can go out in prime time, the kids love it. We've clamped down heavy on the paedo's and child pornographers, but the mainstream seems to be allowed to go on as before.

Guess Literotica might have to move headquarters to Europe then if things are to continue as they are.

I keep hoping the United States will grow up a little during my lifetime, but I'm beginning to have doubts.

 

[shereads]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Crackdown on Porn

I think, shereads, the point I was trying to make was that whilst the entity called the Presidency has the power of veto, the person who decides when that power is used is not the man who sits behind the desk in the Oval Office (or in 10 Downing Street).. Hell, it probably isn't even a person, it's probably those faceless advisors and commitees.

And who determines which faceless advisors and committees have access to the hot seat?

Btw, right after he takes care of the porn problem the Attorney General is going to take on the pistachio ice cream people.

 

[whispering_surrender]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Crackdown on Porn

Btw, right after he takes care of the porn problem the Attorney General is going to take on the pistachio ice cream people.

Eeeek! *hides*...

*scampers back, grabs the ice cream, searches out better hiding spot*

Whisp

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Crackdown on Porn

And you think he comes up with those pro (or anti) positions all by himself?

Sorry, but I'm far too cynical to believe that there isn't an army of advisors and committes that tell the president what he is and isn't supposed to think (and say)

But who hires this army of advisors and committees? God? The Trilateral Commission? Some secret committee of plutocrats in white robes?

Sorry, Raphy, but who sits in the white house does make a difference. A huge fucking difference. And it's the non- voting "cynics" who think there's no difference between the parties who are as responsible as anyone for who's in the white house now and we're at today.

As they say, all that's necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. You call it cynicism, I call it doing nothing.

---dr.M.