GOP Platform Officially Endorses Banning All Porn

[Bricker]

@Hentor_the_Barbarian

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!”

Heh heh heh.

See? This proves I’m right.

(Although I’m sorry, in the sense that I should not discourage posts like your because of fears that I’d do that; it’s more valuable to have you post as you did than me crow about a point that is at best only a tiny example and at worst not even one.)

So: sorry.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Evil_Captor

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.

It’s not a minor thing at all. The GOP calling for a ban on pornography is news. The GOP calling for enforcement of laws regulating pornography isn’t just not news, it’s surprising it was ever not in their platform.

It’s the difference between invading Syria and having troops involved in a UN peacekeeping operation.

[Oakminster]

@Evil_Captor

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.

Your title is wrong. The GOP Platform (as it existed in 2012) did not Officially Endorse Banning All Porn. It really is a major thing. You say something happend that clearly did not happen. You’ve been called on it, and now you refuse to acknowledge your error.

[Paranoid_Randroid]

@Evil_Captor

There has been a convincing study that where pornography is readily accessible via the Internet, rape decreases.

Perhaps if people were interested this might be better for a spinoff thread.

But FWIW I don’t find your link terribly convincing. The study doesn’t per se involve scenarios in which “pornography is readily accessible via the internet”; rather it shows that a higher degree of any internet access coincides with a lower incidence of rape. Even if we were to buy the causality story (I don’t — varying degrees of internet access fails as a natural experiment) that doesn’t imply that greater use of pornography would lead to fewer rapes.

I mean, it may, but it remains undemonstrated.

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.

“Porn decreases rape” is a valid and even plausible opinion, but it’s not anywhere near clear enough to render valid an accusation that the opposition is somehow pro-rape.

[Der_Trihs]

@Paranoid_Randroid

Even if we were to buy the causality story (I don’t — varying degrees of internet access fails as a natural experiment) that doesn’t imply that greater use of pornography would lead to fewer rapes.

I mean, it may, but it remains undemonstrated.

“Years of field research” are clearly needed…

[elucidator]

“For the first ten minutes of a porno, all I want to do is fuck. After ten more minutes, I never want to fuck again as long as I live.”

• Erica Jong

[Fear_Itself]

@Bricker

See? This proves I’m right.

Not unless there is a wager involved.

[UltraVires]

@Bricker

For those that may not recall, the Miller test was crafted in 1973 by the Supreme Court, and it says that a work is not entitled to First Amendment if the following three conditions are met:

[ul]
[li]whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest[/li][li]whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law[/li][li]whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value[/ul][/li]
So calling for enforcement of existing law is not remotely the same as calling for a ban.

I’ve always thought that the Miller test was hopelessly vague. Okay, step #1. The answer is obviously “yes.” It wouldn’t be porn or nudie magazines if it wasn’t primary for a prurient interest.

Questions 2 and 3 are wholly opinions that can shift from one person to another. What I might be “patently offense” you may think is no big deal. Whether the work overall lacks literary, artistic, etc. is again up to each person to decide. How can a judge, as a matter of law, say that something does or doesn’t have literary value?

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

He can’t, which is why Potter Stewart was wrongly excoriated for “I know it when I see it”. It’s one of those things that will nearly always be a totality-of-the-circumstances analysis.

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

@BrainGlutton

But, does that apply to British political culture? The Brits have long held the conceit that they are not really part of Europe, that they are something different from Continental Europeans.

They still have the legacy of aristocratic rule.

[elucidator]

OK, so autocracy is rulership by cars, plutocracy is rule by a cartoon dog,what is the name for rulership by inbred hemophiliacs?

[running_coach]

@elucidator

OK, so autocracy is rulership by cars, plutocracy is rule by a cartoon dog,what is the name for rulership by inbred hemophiliacs?

Bloody hell?

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@elucidator

OK, so autocracy is rulership by cars, plutocracy is rule by a cartoon dog,what is the name for rulership by inbred hemophiliacs?

Monarchy?

[usedtobe]

If they used images of aborted fetuses to attack abortion, exactly what images will they use to oppose Pron?

Look at This! Do you want your kids to find this, or this, or this, or, for God’s sake THIS!?

Actually, some of the posters they’d carry just might be interesting

[aNewLeaf]

@jtgain

Whether the work overall lacks literary, artistic, etc. is again up to each person to decide. How can a judge, as a matter of law, say that something does or doesn’t have literary value?

Could a judge decide that “literary” means “tells a story” and that therefore any single image is bannable?
Folders showing a progression of images from one series, and motion pictures would be allowed, just not one-off pics, even in collections
Legally plausible? Conceivably enforceable?

[Evil_Captor]

@aNewLeaf

Could a judge decide that “literary” means “tells a story” and that therefore any single image is bannable?
Folders showing a progression of images from one series, and motion pictures would be allowed, just not one-off pics, even in collections
Legally plausible? Conceivably enforceable?

I think the justice department isn’t really enforcing based on the Miller test any more. Most porn online consists of one man, one woman, and one guy with a videocam filming them having sex in a hotel room. Very little else. If prosecutors or judges were going by Miller, most of those videos would not cut it.

[foolsguinea]

I haven’t even read the OP, just the thread title.

Welp. Nice knowing you guys. (GOP, not SDMB.) Weirdly enough, given the filtering that goes into who gets to join the caucus, this should not be a terribly surprising result. Yet it still seems surprising to me. I wonder how avidly it will be pushed.

Edit: Read more of the thread. Awwww, so they’re not officially self-destructing over this yet?

[BrainGlutton]

@elucidator

“For the first ten minutes of a porno, all I want to do is fuck. After ten more minutes, I never want to fuck again as long as I live.”

• Erica Jong

So she has something in common with men . . .