I wonder what Mr. Trueman’s definition of “hardcore” pornography is. “Too kinky for me”, I expect.
It’s perfectly acceptable for a married couple to use photos or videos for their own enjoyment. So hopefully, vanilla sex will at least still be legal in pornographic form. Oral stimulation of the male is also acceptable, but only if he ejaculates into a vagina and not on someone’s face or breasts.
So, who gets to be on the Porn Review Committee? It’s a dirty job- how do I get chosen to do it?
This is a debate that’s always going to be asymmetrical. There’s never going to be a pro porn lobby. More people will support broader principles of free speech and freedom to make choices as an adult that may include viewing/reading content that others might find offensive.
No politician is going to say “I love me some porn.”
So, it comes down more to how strident and consistent people are in vocalizing anti-porn attitudes. Both parties have elements of this. However, there is one party for which the “family values/decency” schtick is much more their thing. I don’t really think that is disputable.
Joint the Parents’ Television Council and lead a coup against Brent Bozell?
I’m still waiting to see exactly where the GOP platform now includes banning porn as a plank.
I’m not currently in a position to search for “pornography” on Google. Did the word “pornography” appear in the official Democratic Party platform of the same time period?
It doesn’t mention pornography (child or otherwise) or obscenity, and only mentions “family values” in a dismissive sense.
Therefore, if you accept the standards of the OP, it is definitive proof that the Democratic Party endorses child pornography.
Regards,
Shodan
Yes, I have no doubt that an advocacy group would benefit from sowing that kind of confusion.
Perhaps a new thread excoriating Morality in Media’s inability to correctly parse the wording of the plain language in the GOP platform might be in order.
Of course not UNIQUE. More to the point, I am sure you will find many gender feminists supporting censorship of pornography on grounds that it harms women, although the scientific evidence indicates that it does not. That said, the left in general is less prone to censor than the right, which has that whole big wad of cultural conservatives who feel that censorship of sexual materials is the right thing to do.
My personal feeling is that the present Democratic leadership has little or no personal interest in defending freedom of speech, unless it’s speech by large corporations and it’s the kind of speech that comes in the form of money. THAT kind of free speech, they love. The Republicans, EVEN MORE SO. I don’t think a censorship drive against sexual materials will ORIGINATE from the Democrats, but the Democrats’s only real interest in fighting a Republican censorship initiative is to drum up support from their base.
There are bluenoses in every party. And note the numbers: 36 Republicans, six Democrats. The vast majority of bluenoses are Republicans.
I haven’t seen any indicators that the Democrats are moving to the right socially because of pressure from their base. It’s the usual attempt to grab the center by following the Republicans to the right. Unfortunately, the Tea Party has pushed the Republicans to the Batshit Crazy end of the spectrum. All the Democrats have been doing is going as far right as they can get away with, without being accused of being batshit crazy themselves. They’ve done so so enthusiastically that they are in danger of losing their progressive core, if they have not already lost it. Certainly, they have lost my vote.
Agreed. It’s a damn shame Harry Reid is from Nevada.
Agreed, the difference between the Republicans and the Democrats here is a matter of degree, not kind, and the sort of rationalizations they use. Still, the Republicans have a history of favoring censorship that accounts for that 36 to 6 numbers gap.
Here is where we part ways. Both the Democrats and Republicans are owned by Wall Street. When government power decreases, corporate power increases, you know how power hates a vacuum. And corporations are no more interested in the welfare of the ordinary American than are our elected leaders. So your prescription is just a call for increased corporate power, it’s not only not a productive idea, it’s deeply counterproductive. What we need is to pry our government out of the hands of the corporations. We need more and better regulation of the financial sector, preferably by reinstating Glass-Steagall and putting some reins on CDO gambling. Right now, the government is utterly unresponsive to the electorate on economic issues.
Things like censorship are just dog and pony shows to keep the electorate roused so that the looting by the One Percent may continue ad infinitum.
Porn addiction is not dangerous. And porn addiction is probably right on par with Pez dispenser addiction or rubber chicken addiction as a real social problem. I’m sure some people can be described as porn addicts in a realistic sort of way, but they’re very rare. Most “porn addicts” are just men with wives who disapprove of porn.
Because whether or not vigorously enforcing existing laws amounts to the same thing as a ban is a minor side issue that has little to do with the content of the thread. A sort of hijack.
I hate to give any appearance of acting in response to Bricker’s need for knuckling under, but there is a difference. The explicit ban suggested in your thread title would be eye catching. It is meaningful that the platform does not call for one, and it isn’t fair to characterize it as a hijack.
Well if the thread title were changed to “GOP Calls For Vigorously Suppressing Pornography Including Regular Hardcore Porn” you’d be happy? Because that title works perfect well for me. It really is a minor thing.
Not to take a stand here one way or the other, but what scientific evidence is that? There are many ways the popular consumption of pornography might harm women — e.g. there seems to be some correlation between adolescent porn use and harmful attitudes towards sex (
[quoted here]
(Do we know whether pornography harms people? - BBC News)):
Can’t really infer a causal link, but it may be suggestive. If you have scientific evidence that pornography is harmless to women (for some suitable definition of “harm”) I’d like to see it.
There has been a convincing study that where pornography is readily accessible via the Internet, rape decreases. I’d say that’s an enormous real world benefit to women, that far outstrips any nebulous studies of kids imitating adults who beat up blow up dolls. Gender feminists are actually a sort of pro-rape constituency, because they are willing to ignore the evidence that porn decreases rape, in favor of their prejudices.
So I’m saying that porn is not just harmless to women, it’s BENEFICIAL.
How about “Buzzfeed Spreads Lies about the Republicans”? That would be accurate. Or, as I said, we could adopt the same standards as Buzzfeed and use “Democrats Endorse Kiddie Porn”.
Regards,
Shodan
Feel free to start a thread by either name and make your case.
First – exactly correct, and thank you for pointing it out.
Second, why not react to what I’m saying, if it’s valid? The very suggestion that it would be somehow wrong to act in response to critiques simply because they come from me is precisely the example of differing treatment I highlight.
It is wrong because you will take my post as some kind of confirmation about the unfairness of the larger board culture, which is a nonsensical debate that has more to do with your fixation with accounting, affirming, point scoring and coup counting.
ETA: I anticipated that you would react like a climate change denier to snow in winter by saying “See? This proves I’m right! Acknowledge!”
Because that, too, would be wrong. “Morality in Media Calls For Vigorously Suppressing Pornography Including Regular Hardcore Porn,” would at least put you into a position of arguable merit. In fact, carefully parsing MiM’s press statements shows they seek to confuse (or at least fail to illuminate) the legal differences between obscenity and “hard-core” pornography.
Since “hard-core” doesn’t really have a solid, legal definition anyway, MiM is able to blur the line between that which is legal and that which is not.
Any pornography, “hard-core,” or not, can be illegal if it is obscene. (Not every state criminalizes obscene material, and federal involvement is typically limited to interstate movement of the material.)
[ul]
[li]An “average person, applying contemporary community standards”, would find that the material, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest[/li][li]The material depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically mentioned by law, and[/li][li]The work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.[/li][/ul]
That’s the legal standard, and therefore that’s what’s meant when the GOP party platform says that the existing law must be enforced.
You are welcome to begin arguing that this is an unwise standard; you cannot credibly continue arguing that the GOP platform says something different than this.