1421: Isolated Incidents

[Cretaceous Bob]

Originally Posted by Junkenstein

Dwarrior Kaczynski actually makes a good point. Isnt banning pornography strongly unconstitutional?

There were a lot of italian (and other european) governments who tried that but used side ways like higher taxing, stonger censorship or busts. but banning would be hard to do.

If a president was to exert executive power to ban pornography, yes that would be technically unconstitutional.

But I'm guessing that's not what she means. Any presidential hopeful that says stuff like that more mean that they would use such a public position to demand a law.

Not that any of this is relevant; I doubt that woman has any serious intentions to do anything at all on that front.

And on top of that any idea of the president being restricted by a traditional idea of constitutionality is incredibly outdated, realistically speaking.

Of course, if you're talking about a broader Free Speech sense, I don't know. It seems kind of weird to apply a term like "unconstitutional" to something like pornography; the concept is just so far extrapolated from anything our base laws address.

[Blitzgal]

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

If a president was to exert executive power to ban pornography, yes that would be technically unconstitutional.

But I'm guessing that's not what she means. Any presidential hopeful that says stuff like that more mean that they would use such a public position to demand a law.

Exactly, she's signing this stuff to alert her base that she's "super duper pro-family" because she knows they'll eat it up. Meanwhile they're all in their basements jacking off to internet porn.

[Junkenstein]

yeah i mostly meant unconstitutional as in against freedom of speech (which is usually abig thing when it comes to pornography or sexually explicit stuff)

Also, i think anyone who has the elimintaion of pornography as a goal, is possibly either an obessive feminist with abuse issues (as Linda Lovelace, who seemed to be against it after exploting it all she could) or a repressed sex case who probably molests their own children in their house in the name of jesus.

not a coincidence catholics are so much against pornography, btw, their possible favourite niche is illegal.

[Blitzgal]

Yeah, it is one of those issues with strange bedfellows. There are feminists that are against porn, and some of them lead efforts to get it banned during the 80's (Catherine MacKinnon). And then the other brigade against porn is these so-called "pro-family values" groups.

I don't have a problem with porn and I watch it myself. The issues that I feel are important are from a worker standpoint -- they shouldn't be forced or coerced into it, they should be legal adults, and they should have the same right to demand safe working conditions and reasonable pay just like every other worker in this country should be able to. That's my blue collar union upbringing coming through.

[Junkenstein]

oh, the porn industry got slightly better since the seventies but its still a scumhole.

(if anyone wnats to read a good book, read "The Other Hollywood" its a bout the porn industry and is the most horrifyingseries of tales ive ever read).

Yet the worst stuff happned exactly when the goverment was trying to ban it. if it ever got back to that, it would still exist but be filled with disease, minors and horrid abuse.

I am still weirded out by how people like Max Hardcore are allowed to exist, anyway.

[Blitzgal]

I agree Junk. Banning it would simply keep it completely black market, which would leave very little safety nets for the people working in the industry. I know it's not all smiles and giggles, but at least there are some protections in place for people. It can be dangerous work.

Also, that thing Bachmann signed also has a clause stating that blacks had it better under slavery:

Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA's first African-American President.

Fucking psychos.

[Cretaceous Bob]

Originally Posted by Junkenstein

yeah i mostly meant unconstitutional as in against freedom of speech (which is usually abig thing when it comes to pornography or sexually explicit stuff)

People will bandy about the word "constitutional" about pornography, but that has more to do with constitutionality as it is contemporarily defined, not actually pertaining to the document labeled Constitution of the United States.

Concepts extrapolated in such a way are only as unconstitutional or constitutional as people want to say they are.

People talk about constitutionality and free speech in regards to pornography, and I would say, though it might be idiomatic, constitionality should not be invoked on the subject. Free speech is a concept that the Constitution references, whereas talk of constitionality regarding American laws invokes the Constitution itself, even if only nominally.

Originally Posted by Blitzgal

I agree Junk. Banning it would simply keep it completely black market, which would leave very little safety nets for the people working in the industry. I know it's not all smiles and giggles, but at least there are some protections in place for people. It can be dangerous work.

I don't like phrases like that because it sounds like you'd be all for banning it if a ban could be effectual.

Consensual porn is the only thing ever considered for bans; non-consensual porn is just rape, which is illegal.

If you want to say something like, "Well they're forced into it", then poverty or whatever is your enemy there, not porn. Depriving desperate people of a desperate solution does not their problem solve.

Edit: Also, to be fair, I think that quote is supposed to imply that Obama is worse than slavery, not that slavery was great. Maybe I'm missing the full context though.

[Blitzgal]

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

I don't like phrases like that because it sounds like you'd be all for banning it if a ban could be effectual.

Then let me be clear. I am also staunchly against censorship. And you're exactly right about the social/class aspects of it as well. I'm in full agreement.

They were definitely trying to ding Obama on that one. But, the handwringing over "single parent households" isn't new amongst their crew, either. The comment is especially crass considering that during slavery there were no black households. Blacks could not own property. They were themselves property. And their families could be broken up at any time because as property their owners were able to sell any of them off at will. It's a crass misrepresentation of the ugliness of slavery.

[Cretaceous Bob]

Originally Posted by Blitzgal

Then let me be clear. I am also staunchly against censorship.

I'm not mentioning it to be argumentative, I meant to point out that when you say that you are perhaps implying something you don't mean to.

I think that is basically arguing on someone else's terms, which has the appearance of ceding ground. It is not relevant how effective a ban on pornography is if the ban is wrong in the first place. Talking about it can only make it the object of contention, which takes focus off of the main point.

Edit:

Originally Posted by Blitzgal

They were definitely trying to ding Obama on that one. But, the handwringing over "single parent households" isn't new amongst their crew, either. The comment is especially crass considering that during slavery there were no black households. Blacks could not own property. They were themselves property. And their families could be broken up at any time because as property their owners were able to sell any of them off at will. It's a crass misrepresentation of the ugliness of slavery.

Certainly it is not taking into account the realities of slavery, that is no question. All I am saying is perhaps they kicked that bucket over accidentally in their haste to put the torch to Obama. I am remarking on is the appearance of the actual quotation; it may as well be that her followers are racists, too. If you want to speak of her voterbase, generally, then yeah, I say we have a bronze statue of George H. Thomas beat the piss out of folks until I never see a Confederate flag again.

[Blitzgal]

Yeah, it's cool. I wasn't irritated at all, just wanted to be clear.

And you're correct about ceding ground. If you let the other side frame the debate and they've done so in a disingenuous manner, then you've already lost the debate. Freaking Democrats fall for this all the time and it's why I'm always pissed at them.