Pornography should be ILLEGAL in the USA

[laska]

What if an individual believes widespread availability of pornography has a negative impact on society that effects their own family's freedom such as placing their daughters in an environment where they are more like to be sexually harrassed or assaulted?

 

[MrFungus420]

What if an individual believes widespread availability of pornography has a negative impact on society that effects their own family's freedom such as placing their daughters in an environment where they are more like to be sexually harrassed or assaulted?

So? I believe that religion is something that is extremely harmful to society. It has been at the heart of some of the most brutal conflicts and bloodiest massacres in history.

Now, does that belief mean that we should outlaw all religion?

The KKK believes that the white race is superior, since they hold that belief, does that mean that we should base legislation on that belief?

Just because someone believes something doesn't mean that it is right. Ideally, laws should be based on facts, not beliefs.

I think I've said it before; what consenting adults do should be no business of the government.

 

[catholicauthor]

I think I've said it before; what consenting adults do should be no business of the government.

Yet it was through the consent of adults that our government was born :rofl

 

[Urethra Franklin]

 

[laska]

So? I believe that religion is something that is extremely harmful to society. It has been at the heart of some of the most brutal conflicts and bloodiest massacres in history.

Now, does that belief mean that we should outlaw all religion?

The KKK believes that the white race is superior, since they hold that belief, does that mean that we should base legislation on that belief?

Just because someone believes something doesn't mean that it is right. Ideally, laws should be based on facts, not beliefs.

I think I've said it before; what consenting adults do should be no business of the government.

I apologize for taking so long in giving a response. I thought I would have to write a lengthy response to explain my thoughts here and so I have been avoiding it. I do think it is government's duty to protect the freedom of the innocent. I also believe it is possible to determine policies of government that truly benefit society in protecting these freedoms. A few questions:

Does the government have a right to interfere in the freedom of consenting adults in polluting the environment? Can the government regulate businesses to require safe working conditions? Does the evidence suggest these policies truly benefit society?

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Does the government have a right to interfere in the freedom of consenting adults in polluting the environment?

Government has no rights. People don't either, but that's a different matter.

Government has the obligation to protect citizens from the depredations of others. That includes protecting from from pollution emitted by others.

Can the government regulate businesses to require safe working conditions?

That gets fuzzy. Is the business owner deliberately overcrowding a factory to point where experience suggests that accidents and fatalities become almost a certainty, or is the question one of how hot can a cup of coffee be?

Does the evidence suggest these policies truly benefit society?

As far as porno goes, the only harm is done to those voluntarily participating in the making of it (their choice, they're adults), and those voluntarily looking at it (their choice, they're adults). The only obligation on the government's part is to do what it can to prevent minors from gaining access to the stuff, without unduly inhibiting the adult consumer's freedom to indulge. Banning pornography is not a valid mechanism to this end.

 

[laska]

I agree pretty much but I guess my point is that if studies do show a harmful effect from pornography on others then a case could be made to make it illegal.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

I agree pretty much but I guess my point is that if studies do show a harmful effect from pornography on others then a case could be made to make it illegal.

No. It can't hurt you if you don't look at it, and looking at it is a voluntary act.

If we want to protect the taxpayers from the scourge of pornography, simply remove coverage from all taxpayer funded health plans for repetitive motion injuries to wrists and elbows.

 

[jimmyjack]

Porno should be banned, it serves no purpose.

I think God will punish us for what we have allowed.

It is true.

 

[MrFungus420]

It is true.

It is opinion.

 

[wackestmc]

"Pornography is addictive." Then so is EVERYTHING. Addiction is a problem with the addict, not the substance. If someone's addicted to gambling, it's not the card's fault, it's the persons fault. Should cards be illegal? You can't even say pornography is addictive because there's millions of people of almost all ages who view it chronically and have no mental addiction or dependance whatsoever.

"Pornography makes for dangerous social environments." So, if some guy who happens to look at porn to feast his already unhealthy needs finally acts out and abducts a girl, it's no the fact that he's messed up and unfit for society; it's the porno's fault. Yeah, sure. Hell, if anything, if someone has unnatural or immoral cravings sexually, porn should be a terminum; rather there be porn for some psycho to feed his cravings on than have none and force him to look for real flesh.

There's absolutely no reasonable American, political, or legislatial argument for the prohibition of pornography. It's images, it's videos; it's completely protected under MY own rights handed to me as a citizen, and the dephilement of that is just further violations of our constitutional rights that we don't need. People want to rid the world of porn out of fear; well guess what, maybe I fear my rights being infringed on?