(-6.75, -6.41) Strongly agree.
It is interesting that no one on the board is willing to support the idea of censorship barring the very reasonable exceptions of porn that involves nonconsensual acts (rape, bestiality, child pron). I have to wonder if this isn’t one area where the board is well to the left (or the right, in a sense) of the American public. My suspicion that the only reason we haven’t seen a widespread re-institutionalization of censorship under Bush is that milions of middle class Dads (and Moms, but especially Dads) across America don’t want to give up their sex tapes, and will quickly vote anyone who tries it out of office. It’s just a theory though – most politicians seem to be ever-ready to wind up the right with talk of “Censoring hard core porn on the Internet!” without fear that some silent majority will quietly lever them out of office.
Any thoughts?
Out of curiosity and in an effort to stop the parade of ‘strongly agree’s’, my question to you is…is it only conservatives who would want pornography to be between ‘consenting adults’? Whats YOUR position? That pornography should be between…what? Non-consenting adults? Consenting minors? Non-consenting minors? Consenting/non-consenting adults/minors? Where do you draw the line…and is that line so different from the ‘conservatives’ on this board as far as this question goes? Or did you put in that aside as a cheap shot at ‘conservatives’ on this board? Inquiring minds want to know. 
I’m not sure I understand what you are getting at here. No one on this board is “willing to support the idea of censorship barring the very reasonable exceptions of porn that involved nonconsentual acts”? I don’t know of anyone who has come out and said they DO support allowing uncensored porn consisting of actual rape, bestialitiy and child porn. From what I can tell on this issue the board seems to be more for ‘free speech’ than main stream America, but not THAT far out of wack…as you pointed out Joe American (and Jane American too) wants their god given rights to be able to pay $9.95 per month to see Butt Masters on the Internet!
-XT
I probably could have written that lead sentence more clearly. Let me try:
No one on this board supports censorship. They are all against censorship, with the exceptions (which I regard as very reasonable) of stuff that involves nonconsensual sex. This seems way to the left of the mainstream as it’s typically conceived of. Are Dopers way to the left of the mainstream in fact, or are there are a lot of Americans who, while not willing to overtly support porn, are willing to buy it, and vote out of office those who would censor it?
Ah…gotcha. I’d say that Dopers in general ARE to the left of main stream America (though I don’t actually see this as a left right issue, more a free speech thing). Those Dopers who are considered ‘conservative’ on this board generally have a very libertarian bent as well (free speech and all that).
I think in general American’s are free speech kind of folks though and that the majority DON’T support censorship…at least not censorship of those things discussed in this thread. Its a very vocal minority of folks who want to censor such things…for the publics good of course. As with left wing groups who want to do things against the will of the majority ‘for the publics own good’, its a misguided effort to impose their ideals, mores and morals on either ‘the masses’ or on ‘the godless heathen’. Take your pick its all equally distasteful to me. So, on this issue I don’t think the majority of Dopers is THAT far out of alignment with main stream America…they are just a bit more fervent about the whole ‘free speech’ thing I think, mainly because they think about it more. Just MHO FWIW, YMMV and all that.
-XT
If by “uncensored” you mean “decriminalized posession” then I do support that; if by “uncensored” you mean “legal to posess but illegal to produce or sell” then I don’t. I don’t think the harm done by merely posessing any of those things should be enough to cancel free speech rights.
Producing such porn obviously involves a conspiracy to commit the illegal act which is to be filmed, and should be illegal for that reason. Commercial sale obviously makes a market for such things, which is bad. But posession doesn’t necessarily create a market for ‘original’ material, doesn’t mean the person posessing it is going to be directly involved in any of the acts filmed, and doesn’t directly harm anyone or necessarily lead to someone being directly harmed–at least to the extent that should be necessary to trump free speech.
So although I consider it gross and immoral, I support it. Much like I support abortion rights, even though I consider abortion immoral, or any number of other rights that I personally consider icky and immoral.
That said, it’s not really something I like defending. Especially at work. Especially when I may be a minority of one in taking this stance. So, if you wanna argue about it, I’ll just say “You win.” 
I botched the first sentence; I meant “If by ‘uncensored’ you mean ‘decriminalized posession’ then I do support that; if by ‘uncensored’ you mean ‘legal to produce and sell’ then I don’t.”
I try to steer these threads clear of specific countries and personalities, but in this case I think that Bush did wish to distance himself from the absurd religious prudery of Richard Ashcroft, and wisely.
Ah yes, the “Bush is evil” premise that can justify any conclusion. :rolleyes:
It couldn’t possibly be true that Bush has no interest in “re-institutionalizing censorship” or that he understands the 1st amendment issues involved. Nope, it must be that he’s just afraid of what it would do to his polling numbers. After all, he’s evil. Q.E.D.
I really think Bush personally could give a flip about porn – certainly he hasn’t given any indication that he does. But he IS courting the religious right, and they LOOOOOOVE censorship. Love, love, love it. His AG John Ashcroft was reportedly gearing up for a major anti-porn drive when 911 reminded everyone that there are REAL criminals in the world to prosecute.
It’s a minor point though. The only anti-porn crusade I know of coming from Washington at the moment is the attempt to suppress porn sites through Section 2257 regs, which I don’t believe the Bush Admin. was the driving force for, though I’m sure they love it, as it represses freedom for America.
Ummm, how many evil things does the Bush Admin. have to do: starting wars under false pretences, outing covert agents out of petty revenge, etc., before they officially become evil?
I think the offical checklist still has puppy kicking on it. Has he done that yet?
I’m with you that toddlers and children cannot consent so sex with them should be illegal. However, animals should not be lumped in the same category. Animals don’t have the same rights as humans. We do plenty of things to animals all the time that I’m sure they would never consent to – locking them in the house or yard all day, neutering them, dressing them up in little outfits, etc. I would say all these things cause suffering at some level. And then, of course, if the whole food industry. These animals are raised merely to be slaughtered, and at times they are raised in bad conditions. So you’ll have to forgive me if I don’t accept your rationale against bestiality (i.e., you’re against it beause it may ultimately cause them suffering which they cannot verbalize).
Our society accepts a lot of things that cause suffering to animals, so why the problem with sex? I think it has much more to do with the issue that bestiality is very repugnant. There is no logical reason, unless you are a hardcore animal rights activist, that anyone should be in favor of making bestiality (or pictures of it) illegal. What you are essentially saying is that a farmer can slaughter a chicken but he can’t have sex with it. That makes no sense at all.
For the record, I think bestiality is disgusting. However, if my neighbor wants to have sex with her dog, that is no concern of mine. And if she wants to film it and put it out on the Internet, then good luck to her. I don’t see how that harms me or any other person in any way.
Well said, Mace.
In an attempt to sgue this into an actual debate: while most of us (all?) agree that pornography dhould be legal, is it okay to place any restrictions on the sale and dissemination of it. For instance, should the most hardore stuff be available in supermarkets, or only through the licensed sex shops that a previous poster (I think in England) mentioned?
Can you rewrite that in English?
He DID push baby chicks into a pond full of croc’s though… <and he enjoyed it from what I hear>
-XT
I fairly well agree with what Renob said.*
Protecting the right to bestiality isn’t on my top ten list, but given modern morality, I would have to suspect much more of an ick factor than hard logic behind the drive to illegalise it.
- Minus the assumption that killing an animal for food is necessarily more damaging to the animal’s psyche than having sex with it.
I’ll bet Bush has run over puppies on his bike! The guy’s a menace, I tell ya! A menace!
Now, that’s an line of reasoning that can be debated, rather than just a “Bush is evil” rant. But, as **SM **has suggested, that debate doesn’t really belong in this thread.
Personally, I’m fine with it anywhere. The market (as in free market, not supermarket ) is perfectly capable of keeping it out of where most people don’t want it. On a practical level, I’m not too concerned about local communities setting standards as long as those standards aren’t simply censorship in disguise.
0.63/0.05
It has been awhile, so I don’t 100% remember what I picked .I either picked agree or strongly agree. I am thinking that I picked agree because I felt at the time that choosing strongly agree would have been like supporting porn. As a Christian I have moral issues with supporting porn, but I believe that that is choice each person needs to make. It’s stupid to try and legislate morality.
Don’t recall my scores - I was close to Tony Blair, IIRC.
Agree. Not Strongly because I would have no issue restricting access to porn for minors, restricting porno shops to certain areas of town, and so forth.
However, in a further effort to interrupt the chorus of agreement, let me pose a question -
Joe Sleazeball produces a porno video. All the actors and actresses involved are of legal age, and consent to participate. The lead actress is chosen for the role because she appears to be about fourteen years old.
The video is shot in two parts. The first part is intended to reproduce the look of a surveillance tape of a convenience store, and depicts the lead actress being kidnapped at knife point. The second part is intended to reproduce the look of a home video, and is shot (apparently) over several days. The lead actress is depicted being raped and degraded, but finally coming to enjoy the process. Her final speech is one of thanks to her rapist for getting her in touch with her inner submissive, and a paean to the joys of Woman as Victim, and states that she has come to believe that all women secretly wish to be raped, and that the experience is liberating.
In order to gain publicity, the producers start a whispering campaign that the video is actually real, and the dates on the video are adjusted so that, if real, they would cover a time period where the lead actress was actually fourteen years old. All of those involved are careful neither to confirm or deny the rumors, but they are willing to defend in general terms the ideas put forth in the video.
Would the SDMB support the distribution of such a video?
Regards,
Shodan