New World Net Article Slamming Pornography: "Not Free Speech"
This article makes it clear that the World Net editors are not friends of free speech. Ron Paul votes consistently against ALL attempts to regulate the Internet and, IMHO, the author of this article is the kind of person who needs to be kept far from any government position:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59724
Notice how, in the typical Neocon/Liberal/Evangelist fashion, he consistently intertwines adult pornography with child pornography and even says that those who look at adult pornography will be brought along the slippery slope toward molesting a child.
The author is a "like-minded male" member of the right-wing feminist group called "Concerned Women for America":
The very fact that the Bush Administration has utterly failed to stop the porn industry shows that the Republican Party base does not want it stopped and is not in line with the viewpoint discussed in the article. Bush did not run in 2000 and 2004 on a platform that said that adult porn is not free speech and must be stopped.
If I had known otherwise, I would not have voted for Bush in 2004, despite my fervent support for the 2nd Battle of Fallujah at the time.
I don't like other people telling me what I can look at, especially when they use the dishonest excuse that "psychologists have found that these images make men turn into offenders" and bring phony witnesses to court trials (reminds me of the Scopes Monkey Trials in the 30s).
The leaders of the porn industry tend to be Democrats, but they do not understand that Hillary Clinton is the kind of Democrat who intends to shut them down as well. I called the editor of one famous magazine yesterday and he said: "Ron Paul is dangerous because he wants to gut Social Security".
That leaves a massive amount of Americans, men and women, Republican and Democrat, who would vote for Ron Paul on this issue alone....but the actual editors of these porn magazines will tell their readers to vote Democrat for other reasons.
Ron Paul is the ONLY Congressman who consistently votes against all forms of Internet regulation.
Slippery Slope.. it might be banning porn today, but what next..
The real problem, in my opinion, is that today it will be the gov't banning porn "because of the children." But tomorrow it will be banning homeschooling "for the sake of the children". Germany just did that - if you homeschool, the government will take your children away.
It is a slippery slope that we do not want to go down.
read article on Germany banning homeschooling:
http://digg.com/politics/Homeschooling_a_Crime_in_Germany
I may be a vegetarian, but I'll defend to the death my right to eat pork!
I may be a vegetarian, but I'll defend to the death my right to eat meat!
This is Part of the Problem
Liberty doesn't mean license to do or say anything you want at any time. If something is genuinely harmful to others there is a responsibility to refrain from it. Do you think it is a good idea to let people yell "FIRE, FIRE" in the middle of a crowd inside an auditorium during a concert? Is your freedom of speech more important than the results of panic that will no doubt cause harm to many people? Should we work for abolishment of speed limits on our highways? How about let's do away with requiring driver's licenses and while we're at it, voter registration might be a constraint on freedom of speech too. Liberty requires responsibility. Pornography is a huge industry that is part of the greed and lack of concern for the well being of others. And it's a great tool to keep masses of people entertained and preoccupied with their eyes between their legs while the bottom is dropping out of our economy and our nation itself. A brilliant strategy!
I like
your idea about abolishing speed limits. I would just love that! While we are at it let's get rid of drivers licenses too and license plates as well.. and all those little cameras get rid of those too!!!!
And in no way am I being sarcastic! Ron Paul; he isn't an anarchist but I don't see a more viable choice.
The Revolution Continues at http://nationbuilder.org
So you are saying Ron Paul was wrong for voting against COPA?
COPA would require the use of a credit card to confirm age before looking at even a sample clip from an erotic website (or reading the material of a website that discusses sexuality).
Of course, confirming age means confirming identity which is what the CFR wants from us all online.
The same thing is happening with dating website laws that require background checks on all members who initiate contact, except the excuse there is that women might get raped by an ex-convict (I keep saying that the government and Fox News uses "fear of terrorists" a lot less than "fear of the man next door").
The federal courts have COPA under restraining order, but not because of the identity issue (only because the definition of porn was thankfully too broad). Ron Paul was outnumbered by a Congress when they voted for it.
RP even voted against the morphed child porn law COPPA which deals with Japanese animes more than anything else.
It is interesting that even the men's rights movement (MRM) has a significant number of members who are against porn.
This will consistently split the male vote because a ton, and I mean a ton, of men will continue to vote Democrat as long as they think the Republicans will take away their right to view what they want and vote against their wishes on this issue or, just as bad, blow hot air about this issue in public (while visiting massage parlors in DC themselves).
Bush had an Anti-Prostitution Czar who blackmailed the various countries of the world with a withdrawal of foreign aid if they did not ban prostitution. In 2007, this man was himself caught frequenting a massage parlor in DC and Bush promptly turned his back on him.
Like I said, it's a tool for
Like I said, it's a tool for keeping people preoccupied, and I would be willing to bet that it's not a healthy thing for anyone in the long run. It certainly does do a lot of damage in many respects that causes more breakdown in our society. People didn't used to need the government to tell them this. It's my understanding that Ron Paul is all for keeping the federal government out of things like this, and returning issues to the realm of the States so it can be dealt with by the people. I don't understand his message to be that he is in favor of no laws anywhere at anytime.
The First Amendment
While I don't believe that the First Amendment protection of free speech is about pornography, I am dead set against any government intrusion of the Internet. The idea that government has any jurisdiction over the Internet is much more dangerous than any type of pornography that might be displayed on the 'Net.
The forces that use government to gain what they are unable to gain in the market place, would love to be able to prohibit information that is readily available on the Internet. Tyranny always gives some noble purpose to violating the rights of the people.
You can't have it both ways. You can either have freedom, or you can let government destroy the Bill of Rights, to make you feel secure. That's what the "War on Terrorism" is all about. The same interests are trying to bring back the "Fairness Doctrine" that would stop much of the discussion of "controversial issues" on talk radio. And now, our politicians are suddenly concerned about pornography.
Well, the truth is that these lying thugs couldn't care less about pornography unless it could help get them elected. What they want to stop is information about the North American Union. Information about the Federal Reserve scam. Information about what the Constitution really says about the proper role of government. Information like this is dangerous to those interests who are using government to enrich themselves at our expense.
Plus the lying thugs all have concubines in Washington DC
One of the reason why the Republicans are voting with the Democrats more often these days is because technology has made it easier to blackmail them. Those who got elected by evangelicals are subject to being told by ABC News or other organizations "we have evidence that you frequented that massage parlor" or "what should we do with pictures of you with that 19 year old? Don't you have a wife back in Tennessee?"
This is why Republicans MUST start getting elected for reasons other than being "good family men who are against premarital sex and porn".
Because that just sets them up for blackmail when they behave like....men.
This is the way it was in the past. Grover Cleveland got a young woman pregnant out of wedlock and you know what he said publicly?
He said "Well, it must be good for you to know that your president isn't impotent".
You can say that this was a crass statement...it sure showed that he could not be blackmailed on anything involving heterosexuality. And, it it would be crass to say that today, why was it OK then, when society was supposedly closer to the mindset of the Victorian Era than we are now?
I am a firm opponent of political correctness, especially in politicians who are open to blackmail if they try to be more "moral" in public than they really are.
I went with my dad to a local veterans hospital
I was not a big supporter of pornography until I went with my dad to a local veterans hospital where one veteran had invested his savings into a porn store and was talking about what the government was trying to do to shut him down. This mans life depended on the porn industry and they were gonna put him into the welfare basket along with so many other people. Why should not this man and his wife have a right to make a living in the way they choose?
the problem with porn
Is that it can't be defined (and no, "I know it when I see it" is NOT a coherent definition). The more a person wants to define what pornography is & isn't, the less I tend to trust him/her to do so. We've seen a tremendous censorship double standard from the obese FCC when it comes to Howard Stern, and then we've seen the delicious blowback of his salary. Leave me alone. I'll decide what and who I'll listen-to without busybody-bluenose help financed by my too-high taxes.
JMR
Speaking of Stern: His listeners would not like comments here
I am amazed by some of the comments here.
Although 99% of porn is, IMHO, in poor taste, the 1% of porn that is good is really good. There is a paradox in that, if the actors in such films look like they do such things all the time, it is a turnoff to watch.
I, and most American upper middle class, highly educated women I have dated, would gladly look at a good porn film.
There are a ton of young male (and female) voters out there who would vote for RP on this issue alone.
But they will vote for Obama if RP does not stress Internet Regulation as an issue.
The Democrats, with the possible exception of Hillary (who is bitter about Bill's dating habits), can keep millions upon millions of young people voting for them if they are not aware that RP has their back on this issue even more than Obama and Clinton.
This treads into dangerous territory
In an ideal world, pornography wouldn't exist. Not because it was banned or outlawed, but because no one would buy it or seek it out. It would have no place and wouldn't exist because people would realize exactly what it took from them and how.
We should not, however, mandate that pornography be unavailable. By doing so, we impinge on our own liberties. What would be next? Censoring of the Venus de Milo, for example? Who gets to draw the line on what is or isn't offensive, specifically in reference to the display of the human body? Would medical publications be exempt? Where would it stop, and more importantly, once the censorship is underway, would it stop before it had consumed every image & thought contrary to 'public' opinion?
This is another of those critical issues that highlights the struggle between maintaining the balance between individual freedom and rights, and the public good. I'll side with Dr. Paul on this issue too. I want it to be my right not to buy or view pornography. I think that speaks a lot more clearly to my position than to be forced not to buy or view pornography by law.
I think the pornographic
I think the pornographic industry should put their money towards building giant phallus's and statues of naked American heroes.
Ever Been To Washington, DC --?
Vote RON PAUL 2008
Vote RON PAUL 2008
Okay, Now We're Gonna Take On Pornography -- Is That Right?
Vote RON PAUL 2008
_____________
Freedoms, rights -- everyone has them // Until they are taken away. But what gives any of us the right to take another person's rights (freedoms) away? A false sense of superiority, that's what.
We are all people in this world, even those that act like animals -- they're people too. And yet some among us are quick to step forward and say what's best for the rest of us. I say leave the rest of us the hell alone and go worry about protecting your own rights (freedoms) from the like of other people just like you. Those that think themself superior to you in some false sense of choice. Leave people alone. And keep religion out of this. That's another thing that seems to get in the way when it comes to what YOU (some of you) feel is right for me (for us) to be doing, to be thinking.
Stop it.
As I have come to understand it, RON PAUL has this basic concept mixed among his issues for running for president. I support that (him) 100-percent.
If you don't choose pornography, that's fine. Don't. I don't either, but that should be our individual choice to make. Some folks do support it, it's not up to me to say they can't. Not until such time as it gets into my world, into my face, until that time it is theirs to deal with: good, bad, otherwise.
Freedoms, rights -- stop supporting taking those away from the people, it should be their individual right to choose what they feel is best for them. Same goes for you, same goes for me, same goes for everybody.
Stop it.
Vote RON PAUL 2008
Pornography is no more free speech than . . .
. . . crack cocaine or methamphetamines can be called food.
Pornography is poison for the soul. It debases the people who make it, who purvey it, and who view it. I'm convinced that pornography harms society.
But . . .
I don't see how you can regulate against it.
I don't use crack cocaine or meth, and I wouldn't use them even if I had free access to them. Dangerous, highly addictive drugs don't force me to take them. If I take them, it is because I make a very foolish choice to do so. I don't make that choice, and therefore those substances are no threat to me.
Pornography is a spiritual problem and it requires spiritual solutions. People who are governed by God's Holy Spirit don't have to be governed by addictions and pathological behaviors. But such a solution is not something that you can achieve through legal regulation.
God is the LOVE in the Ron Paul rEVOLution: "Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. This is how God showed his lo
Vast majority of Americans consider this critical free speech
This has long been a reason why so many men are in the Democratic Party and only switch to being Republicans in times of war. Before 1968, the Democrats were mostly male.
This is blowing my mind to see people who consider this "pathological" supporting the one candidate who consistently votes against regulating this.
But there is nothing fascist about the statement "not something to achieve through legal regulation" and the one below that says that people should "please voluntarily remove all porn from the Internet".
Yeah, I'm sure my pastor's view is the same as mine
I'm a 6-day creationist Bible thumper, the whole nine yards. Strongly against regulation of the Internet. I support all of Ron Paul's policies and my only real disagreement with him is over homosexuality, which he is reluctant to call a sin (and he's reluctant to say the Bible calls it a sin). I have no such qualms. But I still support Dr. Paul's whole approach to the marriage issue, which is to get the government out of it, especially the federal government.
God is the LOVE in the Ron Paul rEVOLution: "Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. This is how God showed his lo
PORNOGRAPY IS POISON: IT DOES NOT ENJOY PROTECTION OF LAW
Pornography s poison: it has NEVER enjoyed the protection of law - not under the 1st Amendment, not anywhere. To the extent it is allowed, it is only because of the government's choice not to prohibit it.
Pornography will be the excuse to bring the internet under government control and the loss of this media to stage a peaceful revolution.
Please voluntarily remove pornography from the internet out of respect for us all.
You and I Belong to Entirely Different Political Philosophies
In general, pornography DOES enjoy protection of the law and, no, nobody will voluntarily take it off the Internet.
But you are right that it will be used as an excuse to take our freedoms away.
Hillary is anti-porn and her kind has allied with the religious right and neocons to create a huge force that is gunning to take freedom away. That is why I consider Internet Regulation to be the number 1 issue that RP should be talking about, and why he needs to specifically mention how our domestic enemies are going to use the "protect women and children" mantra to take our rights away.
I may be a vegetarian but I will defend to the death my right to eat meat.
I don't subscribe to these porn websites, but I will look at their sample photos now and then as 84% of men do, plus a huge number of women.
Ron Paul voted against COPA which the rest of Congress voted for but the courts, thankfully, put on restraining order.
The next President will choose 3 Supreme Court justices and I am confident that Obama and Paul would make the right decisions there (but Obama will screw us over on other Internet regulation). The others, especially Huckabee, Romney and Clinton, scare me.
WRONG!
I am a lawyer; I studied Constitutional law in law school. We covered the whole issue of pornography. I don't care what your political philosophy may be, the history of law in American has ALWAYS excluded this poison from protection. It has NO social value and destroys those that debase themselves with it. It has NEVER enjoyed protection of law.
Please voluntarily remove pornography from the internet lest the government use it as an excuse to regulate this forum.
History Network begs Ron Paul to Hone Message
Here is a new article criticizing the RP ad campaign so far:
http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/46476.html
It does not mention Internet Regulation either. I feel people are turning a blind eye to what most RP supporters see as a need to protec civil liberties.
Meanwhile, RP tries to get SC voters on the 2nd Amendment Issue
Meanwhile, the latest blog posting is a woman in South Carolina who says she is voting for Thompson and says she got a call from the Ron Paul campaign "blabbing something about the 2nd Amendment":
http://jscafenette.com/2008/01/17/political-calls-in-south-c...
The problem is that several other candidates (Huckabee and Thompson) will get the votes of people who care about their gun rights.
I do not want my money wasted campaigning on issues that other candidates can shine on as well.
I have tried to say that libertarians are not likely to win by discussing the following:
1) War
2) Immigration
3) Gun Rights
4) Drug Rights
5) Gay Rights or Women's Rights
6) Smokers Rights
Concentrate on Privacy, No Internet Regulation, Free Speech
Immigration ,Economy,War
these three issues are the biggest
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent" Thomas Jefferson
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent" Thomas Jefferson