It's funny how true 'democracy' is constantly at odds with our Constitution, isn't it?




What twisted hyperbole. I'm saying LET THE MARKET DECIDE, which essentially means EVERYONE DECIDES FOR THEMSELVES what's 'obscene' within the context of the law, and forces their opinion ON NO ONE ELSE.

You suggest LETTING THE COMMUNITY DECIDE what's obscene FOR ME.
*bleat* *bleat*

Wouldn't many movies be banned with that too? Just change the word "arouse " to "enterntertain".

If this is such a big deal maybe you should consider moving to Amsterdam.

So far we're letting the market decide what to do about the upcoming energy crisis. Markets seem to be your sacred cow when it comes to porn, is the market always right? Do you believe that the almighty markets will save us from the upcoming energy crisis?

Hey maybe the market will decide that snuff will sell enough copies to be profitable? So are you saying you want that to be legal? There is a market for simulated rape, that's ok, right? There's a market for animal movies and child movies. Let the market decide right? Or do you have to draw the line somewhere? How do you draw the line? Apparently you want it both ways - you want people to have the freedom to make the movies you think are ok for them to make (even if you personally don't care for them), meanwhile you don't want anyone else to be able to pass judgement on what should be allowed because it doesn't pass your personal lithmus test.

Meanwhile you insult the average juror who would potentially decide on the prospective cases as righ wing morons. I personally think that jurors are a lot smarter, tolerant, and more aware of the issues then you give them credit for.

Yes. And banning children and animals like Elijah suggestscould, if interpreted literally, render illegal that cute famous old Coppertone print with the dog pulling the little girl's bathing suit off. That's why these things have to be decided on a case-by-case basis.

Emerson, you really need to drink less coffee. This is nowhere near the big deal that you're making it. Do you overreact to the extreme like this all the time?

*Sigh*

Is it not enough that you subsidize cocaine, hemp and poppies? Do you neccesarily have to start subsidizing porn also? The marvelous profits from illegal drugs comes only from the fact that they are criminalized.

It's not so much the 'market' that I believe in, but rather that government intervention rarely solves problems, especially when it comes to legislating a certain group's moral agenda. See government drug policy for example.



Now, who's talking absolutes? As I've stated *often* before, if one's rights are infringed upon, then prosecutions should follow, no questions asked. That being said, no one has a right to *not be offended*, rather it be by a seedy fetish tape or an idiotic Eminem tune. The 'market' can turn the TV off or turn the radio to another station, one that's more 'in line' with their tastes and sensibilities. Might I point you in the direction of George Carlin for more wisdom on this matter?



Yeah, soccer moms don't often base their opinions on what they wouldn't want their children to see...

They want a world sanitized for a 5-year old's consumption. And, by and large, they have one via the nanny state.

Porn is good. More porn to the people.

A porn site with no pop ups or ads. Who would of known 5 years ago that the average news site would eventually have more ads then a porno site? The world has changed a lot in 5 years.

BTW whoever came up with the silly name for the new armored vehicles being sent to Iraq "Stryker Vehicle" probably hasn't been to this site:



WELCOME TO THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF JEFF STRYKER