U.S. Senate vs. pornography

Earlier this month, 42 U.S. Senators (7 Democrats & 35 Republicans) signed a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder complaining that the Dept of Justice has neglected to prosecute "major commercial distributors of hardcore adult pornography." The full text of the letter can be read here: http://www.politico.com/static/PPM153_obsc.html

I think these politicians might be surprised to learn that most of their own constituents use pornography. My personal opinion is that societies which tolerate porn (USA & Europe) tend to have less violence against women than societies which ban porn (Saudi Arabia) but these politicians are the experts on smut, not me.

What do you think?

Obviously they should go after child porn but after that I don't really care what someone is into. I really don't need to know that Rex Ryan and the Wizard are into foot fetish videos etc. The Senate and the AG both hopefully have more important things to do.

Quote: reno

Earlier this month, 42 U.S. Senators (7 Democrats & 35 Republicans) signed a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder complaining that the Dept of Justice has neglected to prosecute "major commercial distributors of hardcore adult pornography." The full text of the letter can be read here: http://www.politico.com/static/PPM153_obsc.html

I think these politicians might be surprised to learn that most of their own constituents use pornography. My personal opinion is that societies which tolerate porn (USA & Europe) tend to have less violence against women than societies which ban porn (Saudi Arabia) but these politicians are the experts on smut, not me.

What do you think?

Other than child porn I don't see them having anything to prosecute. I don't buy your correlation of violence against women and porn prohibitions. I think the fact that say Saudi Arabia has a religion that teaches violence against women cannot be discounted. Japan has heavy porn restrictions and no violence against women. Male chauvanism yes, violence not so much. Women run the households in Japan.

Japan has heavy porn restrictions? Really? I've been there twice and porn seemed more in the open than in the U.S.

Quote: AZDuffman

Other than child porn I don't see them having anything to prosecute. I don't buy your correlation of violence against women and porn prohibitions. I think the fact that say Saudi Arabia has a religion that teaches violence against women cannot be discounted. Japan has heavy porn restrictions and no violence against women. Male chauvanism yes, violence not so much. Women run the households in Japan.

42 members of the United States Senate couldn't figure out that no matter how much they dislike it, the distribution of pornography starring adult actors is legal? Really?!? I have not read the politico article, but I'd bet that I can name 25 of the 42 dumbf...er...Senators off the top of my head.

Islam does not teach violence against women, and Japan has some very widely available and depraved sexually-themed shit going on. If Japan really has heavy porn restrictions, then they almost certainly have to have the effect of elevating the Japanese porn industry (there's no way that culture would consume MORE porn without restrictions...)

Quote: AZDuffman

Other than child porn I don't see them having anything to prosecute.

The U.S. Supreme Court determined in 1973 (Miller v California) that "obscenity" is not protected by the 1st Amendment.

In 2007, George W. Bush's Justice Department indicted Paul Little (stage name Max Hardcore) with 5 counts of mailing obscene matter. All of the performers in the videos were over 18, but the videos were declared "obscene" because they depicted urination, vomiting, and fisting. He was sentenced to 46 months in prison. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Hardcore#cite_note-20

Quote:

U.S. Senate vs. pornography

A tough choice. The Senate has been around for a long while. But porn has been around longer, so if we have to choose between the two, I vote for porn.

Instead of drawing the line at "child porn", let's make it at "informed consent". That will cover whole classes of people who are incapable of stopping their being abused used for profit, and include children at the same time.

Then I can confidently answer, porn, but only with informed consent.

Quote: Mosca

Instead of drawing the line at "child porn", let's make it at "informed consent". That will cover whole classes of people who are incapable of stopping their being abused used for profit, and include children at the same time.

I'm afraid that should be "child porn" and "informed consent.

What if pedophiles obtian infomred consent from children? Oh, I know children cannot give it, legally, but what if their parents do? Then it should be illegal for the aprents to do so, yes? So we're back at child porn and infomred consent.

If that's how it has to be worded to include both, I'm all for it. If my way could have vagueness, then let's take it out.