Catholicvote Endorses Rick Santorum

[kujo]

[quote name='Norseman82' timestamp='1332127598' post='2403664']



OK, but what happens when the ACLU challenges one of those state level laws in federal court on first amendment grounds? I believe they have already challenged - successfully - attempts by local libraries to restrict children from viewing "adult material" (I don't have the case name handy, so feel free to correct me or give any details I may be leaving out). This is where the power of the presidency to appoint judges comes into play here.
[/quote]

I'd be interested in reading the relevant material related to this case if you were to unearth its name. Seems germane to the topic at hand.

[Norseman82]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1332131927' post='2403735']
I'd be interested in reading the relevant material related to this case if you were to unearth its name. Seems germane to the topic at hand.
[/quote]

OK, here is the issue that I read about and where it stands now. I was only partially correct in my recollection.

A library district in Washington state had fiddlers on its computers to block porn sites from being accessed. The ACLU sued (on grounds that non-porn sites were also being blocked), but the state supreme court sided with the library district. Now the case is in federal court:

[url="http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/03/10309475-libraries-struggle-with-issue-of-internet-access-and-porn"]http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/03/10309475-libraries-struggle-with-issue-of-internet-access-and-porn[/url]

[Norseman82]

[quote name='Norseman82' timestamp='1332133226' post='2403753']
A library district in Washington state had fiddlers on its computers [/quote]

Thanks a lot, dUSt, now I have this image of Jewish men in traditional Jewish garb playing violins while sitting on top of a computer!

Edited March 19, 2012 by Norseman82

[Ice_nine]

[quote name='XIX' timestamp='1332107656' post='2403355']
My understanding is that there are already many laws restricting pronography. They're just never enforced.

Regardless, porn is a basic human rights violation and is worthy of some sort of banhammer. I'm for small government, but not for anarchy. Many porn actresses are effectively treated like sex slaves, so it needs to end. Like, now.
[/quote]

Agreed.

[quote]
[size=4][font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Take out all the verbiage having to do with pornography and insert appropriate diction pertaining to cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana and any other substance or behavior that has been judged to be "immoral" at some point in history.[/font][/size]



[size=4][font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Difference of opinion. I think getting paid for services rendered =/= slavery. Perhaps indentured servitude would be a more appropriate term?[/font][/size]
[/quote]

Not that I think that pornography should be banned by civil law, but your comments really show a lack of understanding of the current porn industry in the good ole USA. People are getting, abused and hurt but it's all ok because of some supposed "consent" even though young women and men are routinely manipulated into doing things they don't want to do.

That's not OK. So you think "fine two people want to film their consensual sex and broadcast it to paying viewers? Not my problem," but for MOST of the time that's not what happens. And to reiterate I don't think a ban would address the heart of the problem, but I encourage you to do more research because comparing the abuse of porn actors/actresses to the abuse of prospective Olympians is absurd. You can't abuse someone just because you get their consent and/or because the abuse will result in fame or monetary gain, whether it's a promising young athlete or a pretty 18 year-old who stumbled into LA with big dreams.

Honest to God, when did playing the consent card become the basis for what is permissible both in law and morality?

[Basilisa Marie]

[quote name='Norseman82' timestamp='1332133226' post='2403753']
OK, here is the issue that I read about and where it stands now. I was only partially correct in my recollection.

A library district in Washington state had fiddlers on its computers to block porn sites from being accessed. The ACLU sued (on grounds that non-porn sites were also being blocked), but the state supreme court sided with the library district. Now the case is in federal court:

[url="http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/03/10309475-libraries-struggle-with-issue-of-internet-access-and-porn"]http://usnews.msnbc....access-and-porn[/url]
[/quote]

And there's my home state again...

The issue there isn't that blocking is bad, it's that the library went overboard with its fiddlers and blocked too much. There's obviously nothing wrong with blocking porn itself, but the ACLU has a problem when the library restricts other information in the process of trying to block porn.

There's a false dichotomy in the article. It makes it sound like either the library blocks all porn and lots of other materials, including educational ones, OR the library blocks no porn and doesn't do anything about the sickos watching it on their computers in public. There's a middle ground here - get a better fiddler.

Just thought it might be relevant to point out. Receding back into the shadows to continue watching, again.

[add]

Why not require employees to pay for porn, if birth control is woman's right and charging a fee somehow denies this right , then porn should be free too.

How is it that child porn is bad , but adult porn is okay, both are profoundly immoral and malevolent ?

[kujo]

[quote name='add' timestamp='1332152009' post='2403798']
Why not require employees to pay for porn, if birth control is woman's right and charging a fee somehow denies this right , then porn should be free too.

How is it that child porn is bad , but adult porn is okay, both are profoundly immoral and malevolent ?
[/quote]

Dude, if you're going to participate, try to keep it sensible.

[XIX]

[quote]
[font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]I apologize if my tone seemed as though it was attacking you. That was not at all the intention. Rather, I was really addressing the statements made by Santorum this morning on the Sunday talk shows, expressing the same points of view. Until I see proof, I will continue to regard statements such as "t[/font]
[left]he Obama Department of Justice seems to favor pornographers over children and families" (Santoru[/left]
m's words this morning on CNN's "State of the Union")
[left][color=#333333]as petty partisan rhetoric, the sort of stu[/color][/left]
mpspeak that qualifies as "tough talk" during election cycles.
[/quote]

Fair enough, like I said I will concede this point since I lack the relevant info to back it up (perhaps someone knows more about pornography laws?) Besides, I doubt Santorum would actually follow through on what he's claiming.

[quote]Take out all the verbiage having to do with pornography and insert appropriate diction pertaining to cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana and any other substance or behavior that has been judged to be "immoral" at some point in history.[/quote]
Societal taboos do not make something immoral (we agree on this, amirite?) So my moral opposition to porn is not based on other people judging it to be immoral. When I say that porn is immoral, I say it as a matter of fact. At the very least, [i]my own interpretation [/i]of facts.

From the perspective of the actors/actresses, they get in because they think they have to. In many cases, it's because they were abused as kids, and almost feel at home in an abusive environment. Then they get hooked on hard drugs because they don't have self-respect anymore, and also to numb the pain (physical & emotional). They stay in to sustain their addictions. They see no way to continue their existence without their porn careers.

For the general public, it's an invasion of privacy. We have a right to avoid unwanted sexual situations, and this includes the 10 year old who gets hooked on something that he/she doesn't even understand. It is nobody's right to advertise porn at will. We probably know lots of families that have been grenaded by porn, though for obvious reasons we won't find out about most of them.

[font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif][quote] Difference of opinion. I think getting paid for services rendered =/= slavery. Perhaps indentured servitude would be a more appropriate term?[/font]
[/quote]
I'll concur on indentured servitude as a better term.

[XIX]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1332125962' post='2403629']
Sorry...but you got to be kidding! You are expressing outrage at my opinion on behalf of OLY[color=#000000]MPIANS based on your training for a couple of [/color]marathons? LOL....
[/quote]
I was more befuddled than outraged. But no, I am no Olympic athlete by any means. It's still an analogy I don't understand. You can't be a good athlete if you abuse your body through training. Overtraining is basically the same thing as sustaining a long-term injury. And while Olympians are obviously way better at what they do than I am, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss normal-people experience.

If anything, I would expect Olympic training to be less abusive, because they are so good at what they do. I pay attention to when my body needs rest--the best in the world are dead-on about knowing exactly what their limits are. In fact, rest days are absolutely the most important part of any training program, no matter how good you are.

[add]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1332164850' post='2403826']
Dude, if you're going to participate, try to keep it sensible.
[/quote]
If I need to be sensible so should you Mr[size=2]. “I’m Personally Opposed to pornography but…” Argument[/size]

[Winchester]

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2096.htm

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1332199889' post='2404191']
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2096.htm"]http://www.newadvent.../summa/2096.htm[/url]
[/quote]I guess the question now is what laws are necessary to protect society?

The bishops and I have argued that protecting the traditional definition of marriage is necessary for society (though perhaps our government does not go about this in the same way).

XIX, this might address the reason why I keep supporting the defense of marriage in our country. On top of that I believe that it is an interstate problem best addressed by the federal government for reasons like this: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2012/03/17/state/n090634D36.DTL

[XIX]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1332208053' post='2404278']
I guess the question now is what laws are necessary to protect society?

The bishops and I have argued that protecting the traditional definition of marriage is necessary for society (though perhaps our government does not go about this in the same way).

XIX, this might address the reason why I keep supporting the defense of marriage in our country. On top of that I believe that it is an interstate problem best addressed by the federal government for reasons like this: [url="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2012/03/17/state/n090634D36.DTL"]http://www.sfgate.co.../n090634D36.DTL[/url]
[/quote]
I've always understood the bishops' stance to be to support marriage as a matter of "traditional marriage vs homosexual marriage." I could be wrong.

I actually think your adoption example is your best explanation now. I don't necessarily disagree with you tbh, it's more a matter of not being able to wrap my head around your arguments. Are you essentially saying that some necessary government functions rely on a set definition of marriage? Like adoptions? And divorces?

[Adrestia]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1332125962' post='2403629']


Sorry...but you got to be kidding! You are expressing outrage at my opinion on behalf of OLY[color=#000000]MPIANS based on your training for a couple of [/color]marathons? LOL....
[/quote]

I agree w/ XIX. Comparing porn "performers" with athletes seems ridiculous to me.

[kujo]

The Olympic athletes comment was a wry joke that evidently wasn't well-received, but I was pretty serious about ballerinas. The stuff they do to their bodies in order to be "stage ready" is pretty gross and demeaning.