Should there be more regulation of pornography? - Page 12 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 05-26-2005, 09:40 AM   #166
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 08:50 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest
The definition of obscene is "offensive to modesty, indecent, filthy".
Actually, that's far too simplistic.

Quote:
The required guidelines for determining obscenity are set out in the United States Supreme Court's decisions in Miller v. California, 4l3 U.S. l5, 24-25 (1973), Smith v. United States, 431 U.S. 291, 301-02, 309 (1977), and Pope v. Illinois, 481 U.S. 497, 500-01 (1987), comprising the following three-prong test:



Whether the average person, applying contemporary adult community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest (i.e., an erotic, lascivious, abnormal, unhealthy, degrading, shameful, or morbid interest in nudity, sex, or excretion);

AND


Whether the average person, applying contemporary adult community standards, would find that the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct (i.e.: ultimate sexual acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated; masturbation; excretory functions; lewd exhibition of the genitals; or sado-masochistic sexual abuse);

AND


Whether a reasonable person would find that the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.



NOTE: ("hard-core sexual conduct" vs. "hard-core pornography")

In Miller, the Supreme Court stated that any material which depicts or describes "hard-core sexual conduct" can be found obscene. The Court's examples of such "hard-core" conduct were set out in Miller (413 U.S. at 25) as "ultimate sexual acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated", and "masturbation, excretory functions, and lewd exhibitions of the genitals".

In a legal sense, therefore, "hard-core pornography" can be either simulated sex or it can be actual, explicit sex and either type can be found obscene in any given community.

However, the term "hard-core pornography" is used in the pornography industry for films and magazines which show penetration clearly visible. This explicit type of "hard-core pornography" has been held by the courts as material which clearly fits within the definition of obscenity and lacks First Amendment protection.
"Indecency" is not "obscene." It's a whole separate category.

Melon
__________________

__________________
melon is offline  
Old 05-26-2005, 09:42 AM   #167
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 08:50 AM
I think if conservatives don't like television--and they clearly never will--then they can do us all a favor and throw away their television sets.

Melon
__________________

__________________
melon is offline  
Old 05-26-2005, 09:48 AM   #168
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 08:50 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon


Actually, that's far too simplistic.

"Indecency" is not "obscene." It's a whole separate category.

Melon
Tell that to Webster's. That's where I got the definitions.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 05-26-2005, 09:50 AM   #169
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 08:50 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon
I think if conservatives don't like television--and they clearly never will--then they can do us all a favor and throw away their television sets.

Melon
Well, now that they cancelled Joan Of Arcadia, I would do that if I didn't have satellite and could enjoy the Hallmark Channel, Disney, Nick, TV Land and the Game Show Network.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 05-26-2005, 09:53 AM   #170
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 08:50 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by joyfulgirl


Yeah, I read it, and I can't relate to it. So if it you're too modest to see women in bras and panties then by all means avoid it as much as possible but understand that our society is unlikely to revert to the levels of modesty that you personally are comfortable with.
I understand that scoiety is unlikely to return to that, but that doesn't mean I like it. Ityalso doesn't mean I should just give in.

As a side note, I thought you said you weren't going to comment any further?

I understand, though, how FYM pulls a person in. 2 years ago, I made a vow to myself to never return here. As you can see, I broke my vow.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 05-26-2005, 09:53 AM   #171
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 08:50 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by joyfulgirl


Yeah, I read it, and I can't relate to it. So if it you're too modest to see women in bras and panties then by all means avoid it as much as possible but understand that our society is unlikely to revert to the levels of modesty that you personally are comfortable with.


nor should society have to bend to one individual's needs and tastes.

your tastes, 80s, might infringe on my personal rights in my personal spaces -- if i wish to look at porn on my computer in my bedroom, and the porn is of the legal standard that we have decided as a society is acceptable (no children), then you have no right to remove that from me.

this is the slippery slope i find. if you find porn obscene, what are your feelings on oral sex? on mutual masturbation? on sex before marraige? you might find all these things obscene, and it's your right to feel that way, but you do not have the right to take these activities away from me because they do not meet your specific standards of what is obscene and what is not.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 05-26-2005, 09:56 AM   #172
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 08:50 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest
Tell that to Webster's. That's where I got the definitions.
Well, I should. Throwing "indecency" into "obscenity" is blatantly incorrect.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 05-26-2005, 09:57 AM   #173
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 08:50 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
First, I've never stated that we require government regulation. Second, I think I stated that the harm may occur in subtle ways (not the clear and measured danger you require).

It certainly would be easier to give you a porn = but I don't think that is helpful.


you're always so vague. you suggest, you plant hugely loaded sentences (as has been noted in other threads), and then walk away from what you just suggested.

and your second statement is meaningless -- helpful to whom, to what, to which argument?

i am asking you point blank: you've stated that you see porn as having the potential to do harm in subtle ways. you've said that we regulate other vices. you've said that you don't believe individuals are necessarily the best judges of the harm that some vices might do to them.

connecting the dots, this is clearly an argument you're constructing for the regulation of porn, if not it's outright banning. and then you step away from this and say that you didn't say it.

please, say something. i'd love to hear it and then have a discussion with you on the merits of the argument.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 05-26-2005, 09:58 AM   #174
Blue Crack Addict
 
joyfulgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 16,615
Local Time: 06:50 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest



As a side note, I thought you said you weren't going to comment any further?

I understand, though, how FYM pulls a person in. 2 years ago, I made a vow to myself to never return here. As you can see, I broke my vow.
You asked a question, I answered it. I didn't mean I was never going to speak to you again!
__________________
joyfulgirl is offline  
Old 05-26-2005, 10:01 AM   #175
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 08:50 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon


Well, I should. Throwing "indecency" into "obscenity" is blatantly incorrect.

Melon
Again, tell it to Webster's.

I must ask, melon, and I mean this without malice...why do you think you are more qualified to know the definition of "obscene" than those who put together the dictionary?
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 05-26-2005, 10:41 AM   #176
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 05:50 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
connecting the dots, this is clearly an argument you're constructing for the regulation of porn, if not it's outright banning. and then you step away from this and say that you didn't say it.

please, say something. i'd love to hear it and then have a discussion with you on the merits of the argument.
I'll step a side from the patronizing statements and go to the heart of your comments.

My arguments are as follows:

many here believe there should be no regulation of porn (child porn aside)

I believe that porn does cause some harm to indviduals vis a vis relationships with people who view porn (and to the viewer). I recognize that it is more of a psychological and emotional harm, not a direct physical harm.

As a society, we have innumerable regulations on nearly every aspect of life. Many of these regulations are designed to protect the general health and welfare of the public.

I am simply challenging the status quo of many here. Obviously, there are different standards of what constitutes harm and different standards of what we are willing to see as harm. I see it as a little more dynamic than painting the argument as liberty loving porn watchers vs. take control of society conservative Christians.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 05-26-2005, 10:49 AM   #177
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 08:50 AM
firstly, i'd see the argument as more socially conservative folk (joe liberman would agree, and he's not christian) vs. everyone else. if you saw the argument developing in here as Christians vs. Porn lover libertarians, then i think you should read the posts a little bit more closely. hardly anyone in here was advocating a love of porn, but that porn in and of itself does not require regulating unless we are to take conservative views espoused by you and others as fact. you're clearly anti-porn -- which is distinct from advocating regulation, at this stage -- and that's fine, but you've taken this belief several steps further than you claim above.

secondly, i did not mean to be patronizing, but i felt i had to call you out on this because, again, you've offered little in the way of actual suggestions or arguments on what porn is, how it hurts people, how it harms society, which then begs the question, since you do believe taht harm is caused, what then should be done to protect people from said harmful effects (again, what are they?) of porn. and you've also used a personal belief -- "i believe that porn does harm" -- that really cannot be the basis of proving harm either physical or psychological.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 05-26-2005, 12:22 PM   #178
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,332
Local Time: 05:50 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest

Did you read the definition of "obscene"? Offensive to modesty. And yes, I think anything offensive to modesty is wrong.


What definition of modesty do you like to use? Yours? Mine? I doubt that they're the same.


Self-righteous assertions about what others do in their bedrooms is the height of immodest behavior in my opinion, yet you're completely comfortable making them.
__________________
martha is online now  
Old 05-26-2005, 12:32 PM   #179
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 08:50 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha




What definition of modesty do you like to use? Yours? Mine? I doubt that they're the same.
the definiton of Webster's:

Modest: unassuming, RESTRAINED, decent, RETIRING IN MANNER, NOT EXCESSIVE

Quote:
Originally posted by martha


Self-righteous assertions about what others do in their bedrooms is the height of immodest behavior in my opinion, yet you're completely comfortable making them.
Martha, you're being hypocritcal; I've called you on it before and I'll call you on it again:

You whine about me making judgments upon what people do in their bedrooms, and yet you made the judgment that people who believe the way I do about porn "end up miserable".

That shows me that you don't really think that making a judgment is wrong, just so long as the judgment is in agreement with your beliefs.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 05-26-2005, 12:58 PM   #180
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 08:50 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest

Martha, you're being hypocritcal; I've called you on it before and I'll call you on it again:

You whine about me making judgments upon what people do in their bedrooms, and yet you made the judgment that people who believe the way I do about porn "end up miserable".

That shows me that you don't really think that making a judgment is wrong, just so long as the judgment is in agreement with your beliefs.


but you're still not answering her question.

and she's not proposing that you do anything different; you are, however, proposing that some behavior behind closed doors is better or worse than others. other than strictly illegal behavior (pedophilia), are you willing to say that heterosexual intercourse is better than homosexual intercourse? are you willing to say that sexual intercourse is better than oral sex? are you willing to say that people shouldn't kiss with any tongue?
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:50 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com