[SSchultz0956]

Lately I have been reading about effects of pornography on society. Conclusively research says that an increase in pornography increases domestic crimes, specifically those of sexual type. Obviously we all know that the industry hides behind the first amendment, however in Article 1 section 8 of the constitution Congress retains the right to regulate interstate and international commerce. Further in article 4 section for the national government is required to protect all states and their citizens from a variety of things, including domestic violence. It's apparent that two things in the constitution can conflict, the question is, in our federal system, what's more important: the people's rights, or the protection of the people. Should this or should this not lead to stricter regulations on the pornography industry, not exclusive too just child porn, but to all forms, both soft and hard core?

[fredg]

Hi,
Peoples' Rights are more important; if viewed in light of the Majority.
The Majority should have the right to say what will be, not just minorities making laws. Everyone should be considered, but when the Minority over-runs the rest of us, it's time for some changes.
Congress will NOT do anything to any group, if there is much money floating around, such as lobby, contributions, whatever. It's a way of life in DC; and has gotten completely out of hand.
The best thing that can happen to the Senate and the House, is to get rid of those who have been there for 20 yrs, wipe the slate clean, and start over with new senators and representatives.
Surely, everyone knows they will not vote to have only 1 or 2 terms; they have to be voted out by the Majority.
Porn is controlled (whether legal or not) by Congress. It they want it changed it will be changed. If they don't want it changed, it's time they were kicked out.
Best wishes,
fredg

[tjr]

I would say no,free speech is to important to be hacked apart.
There are already far to many restrictions on what you can say and where.
To say that you can't say something because it offends someone,is to say that you can't say anything because there is always a dissenting voice on any subject.
What would you think about stopping all children's TV because child predators like to watch the kids on barney,or stop all forms of fire on TV because it excites pyromaniacs.
Also were your stats on America?Because most of Europe has more porn than us and less crime.What's up with that?could it be that our nation is more disturbed?

[SSchultz0956]

The idea is not to ban porn based on the fact that it's offensive to some people. The idea is the domestic violence that results from it. In states that have a higher population of subscriptions to porn magazines have a higher commission of sexually based crimes, whereas the oppositte for those who don't. So the question isn't what's up in Europe, or whether it's offensive. The question how do we further protect the American citizens from domestic violence here based on American statistics. In the Philippines you'll find it more prevolant than in Europe, and they have the same stats as America. Obviously we can't base this on other areas of the world due to cultural and environmental circumstances. Example: the PATRIOT act. Though now revised, this act obviously disrupts to some extent the freedom of the American people, but it's for our better good. Finally, the question is whether it's constitutional to increase regulations on something like porn.

[tjr]

Is there a coelation between subscriptions and population?
I also feel that the patriot act is unconstitutional,to react to terrorist
By ignoring the constitution is to allow them win

[psi42]

Conclusively research says that an increase in pornography increases domestic crimes, specifically those of sexual type.

Oh really. Conclusively, huh? Where is this study? Who funded the study? Who was studied? How were the statistical correlations made?

There are _obviously_ too many variables here to make that kind of conclusive correlation.

Obviously we all know that the industry hides behind the first amendment,

No one "hides" behind the first amendment. The First Amendment is the ideological foundation of this country, and anyone who thinks that using it as a defense is not honorable has serious priority problems.

however in Article 1 section 8 of the constitution Congress retains the right to regulate interstate and international commerce.

Okay. Even so, that would only allow them to regulate pornography sold across state lines. And, even so, this does not allow them to impose some sort of arbitrary "community values" constraint for no concrete reason.

Further in article 4 section 4 the national government is required to protect all states and their citizens from a variety of things, including domestic violence.

Try again:

Section. 4.
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

Notice the use of the word "State."

It's apparent that two things in the constitution can conflict, the question is, in our federal system, what's more important: the people's rights, or the protection of the people.

Do you really need to ask?

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Should this or should this not lead to stricter regulations on the pornography industry, not exclusive too just child porn, but to all forms, both soft and hard core?

First off, you've failed to prove pornography causes violence.
Second, child pornography is significantly different from what the legitimate "pornography industry" creates.

The Majority should have the right to say what will be, not just minorities making laws. Everyone should be considered, but when the Minority over-runs the rest of us, it's time for some changes.

Okay. The government based on the U.S. Constitution is not, and never was, a government of "the majority." It's a government of The People.
In a simple "mob rule" government, if 70% of people wanted 10% of the population burned alive, that 10% would die. It's (not supposed to) work that way in the U.S. today.

Second off, you seem to think that a "majority" thinks pornography should be banned. From where do you base that assumption?

In states that have a higher population of subscriptions to porn magazines have a higher commision of sexually based crimes, whereas the oppositte for those who don't.

Really now. Well, from the way you phrased it, it doesn't look like your "study" took into account ANY other factors, including such things as population density, personal wealth, unemployment, education. In fact it looks like you didn't even consider that some states have higher populations than others.

I'd like to see your "study." Again, who is behind it?

the PATRIOT act. Though now revised, this act obviously disrupts to some extent the freedom of the American people, but it's for our better good.

Oh really. Is that what FOX News (TM) told you?

Never, ever, ever let your rights be taken away for ANY reason, because it will be very hard to get them back. Fear is the most potent method of controlling large groups of people. You've fallen into the fear trap and will do anything to make that horrible feeling of irrational fear in your mind go away. Snap out of it and realize that if there were really tens of thousands of "sleeper cell" "terrorists" in our country, we'd all be dead by now.

Finally, the question is whether or not it's constitutional to increase regulations on something like porn.

Of course not. There's nothing wrong with pornography, as long as all participants are consenting adults.


psi42

[tjr]

Hear! Hear!

[SSchultz0956]

The studies done have mainly been lead by Dr. James Dobson, you can Google him if you so desire.

Quote Ted Bundy (the serial killer that was executed):Listen, I'm no social scientist, and I haven't done a survey. I don't pretend that I know what John Q. Citizen thinks about this. But I've lived in prison for a long time now. And I've met a lot of men who were motivated to commit violence just like me. And without exception, without question, every one of them was deeply involved in pornography Quote

Dr. Dobson:There's no question about it. The FBI's own study on serial homicide shows that the most common interest among serial killers is pornography. Well-meaning, decent people will condemn the behavior of a Ted Bundy, while they're walking past a magazine rack full of the very kinds of things that send young kids down the road to be Ted Bundys. But I'll tell you, there lots of other kids playing in streets around this country today who are going to be dead tomorrow, and the next day, and the next day and month, because other young people are reading the kinds of things and seeing the kinds of things that are available in the media today.

Dobson further said, I witnessed the most graphic illustration of pornography’s cancerous curse in 1989 when I interviewed convicted serial murderer Ted Bundy, just 17 hours before he was executed in the Florida State Prison. He described for our video cameras how he had stumbled onto several pornographic magazines in a dump near his home. He was just 13 years of age at the time, yet he was instantly addicted to violent images that eventually fueled his brutal fantasies. He murdered more than 28 women and girls in cold blood, one of them a beautiful little 12-year-old girl named Kimberly Leach. After assaulting her, he killed her and then dumped her body into a pigsty.3

You will also remember little 7-year-old Danielle van Dam who disappeared from her home in San Diego in 2003. Authorities seized thousands of computer files containing child pornography from the murderer’s house. They included a cartoon video depicting the rape of a young girl. The prosecutor in the case said, "The video represented [the defendant’s] sexual fantasies and inspired the abduction, rape and murder of Danielle."15
Similarly, the man who confessed to kidnapping, raping and killing 8-year-old Jessica DeLaTorre in South Dakota earlier this year told detectives he had viewed child pornography at an Internet café and in his home prior to committing the crime.16 Dennis Rader, the so-called "BTK killer" who savagely took the lives of 10 people, has offered very little information about his private life, but from the available evidence, it appears clear that pornography played a part in his past.17

An article in the Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, Sun Sentinel last year noted the sharp increase in sexual assaults among grade-schoolers in the area, including a 10-year-old and 11-year-old accused of raping a 5-year-old girl; a 9-year-old accused of sexually assaulting a 2-year-old and a 6- and 7-year-old accused of simulating rape by rubbing up against a playmate.21 Sheila Rapa, a child psychologist interviewed for the story, noted how rapidly violent sexuality has infiltrated the world of children. "When I started doing these psychosexual evaluations in ’94, it was a different child I was evaluating than I’m evaluating now … [today’s children] talk about adult sexual behavior, they talk about oral sex, anal sex, things that children even 10 years ago didn’t have knowledge of."22 The article highlighted several reasons for this downward spiral among young children, chief among them being sexual abuse at home and exposure to pornography. While it’s true that every person who delves into this seedy world will not necessarily turn into a criminal, one thing is certain: Exposure will warp the minds of not only children, but men and women as well. Inevitably and invariably, God’s gift of human sexuality becomes corrupted when individuals become wrapped up in unrealistic and immoral depictions of sex. The worth of men and women is reduced to a matter of mere utilitarian purpose. [To read more about this theme, you might want to visit one of our Web sites, www.pureintimacy.org.]

I had an FBI source but I'll have to keep looking where for where it was. Is this enough for you or do yo uwant more? I suppose I could list the number of people raped and murdered by Ted Bundy alone. It's only around say 50 to 100 because he never disclosed how many it was, and only somewhere in the 30's were identified.

[SSchultz0956]

Tell me, is it OK to smoke marijuana if we are all consenting adults? Many adults in the deep south would also consent to segregation laws, does that make it OK?

[tjr]

"God's gift of human sexualiy..."There's the whole problem in one word,GOD
You speak of children in years past compared to today's as being exposed to more and more ponography,and on this we agree today is the information age and for better or worse it is here to stay.
Technology has done something strange to us,it use to be that children were
Young adults they had responsabilities they were held accountable for their actions.A hundred years ago a 13 year old getting married and having a family was the norm, but today in our MODERN society we see that as putting too much pressure on an immature person,and I agree
But instead of teaching our children that SEX is Natural and your not going to hell if you mastrabate,we preach abstinence.Now how can we expect a child hopped up with hormones to say no if our own priest can't?
You say that we can't compare our stats to other countries because of this
And that but what you are really saying is that were not like them,why are they not human are they so sexually deviant as to be less than us
Why don't we teach sex ed. In a more realistic light ? If you are going to have sex,and we Know that you are,then use protection show them the whole picture not just your jaded view
P.S.Whats your point with dope?

[SSchultz0956]

There's nothing wrong with pornography, as long as all participants are consenting adults This is what psi42 said which brings the connectinoto dope. Not specifically dope, but the principle of the statement.

You cannot use information from different countries because it's unstable and varies. NOT because they aren't human, so don't twist my words.

[tjr]

I did not mean that you thought they weren't human,no offense meant.
But your response leads back to the same ? Are you saying that other countries can't be trusted to tell the truth?Their stats are unstable and vary?
Are you saying their stats change from year to year in respect to themselves or us?

[SSchultz0956]

Comparitivly all our stats are unstable. Granted there are some things that can be consistent from country to country. There are also things that change depending on where you are. Maybe it's in the water. Thus, I mean to say that Europe's stats on this topic are oppossitte ours. The Philippines is consistent with ours. Surely there's other places that are consistent with Europe. This is why it's too complicated to say we should compare ourselves to just Europe which someone did in a previous post. We can do that, but not limit it to just that continent.

[psi42]

The studies done have mainly been lead by Dr. James Dobson, you can google him if you so desire.

I did. He looks like your basic religious fundamentalist, with a lot of influence.

Quote Ted Bundy (the serial killer that was executed):Listen, I'm no social scientist, and I haven't done a survey. I don't pretend that I know what John Q. Citizen thinks about this. But I've lived in prison for a long time now. And I've met a lot of men who were motivated to commit violence just like me. And without exception, without question, every one of them was deeply involved in pornography Quote

So, OBVIOUSLY pornography was the _only_ factor in the development of Bundy's character? There are _so_ many other variables in this situation.

This is the same sort of logic used in the following argument:

1) A black cat crossed my path today.
2) I had a horrifically bad day today.
3) I must have had a bad day because of the black cat.

Let's compare that to what you're saying.

1) Ted Bundy looked at porn.
2) Ted Bundy was a serial killer.
3) Looking at porn makes you a serial killer.

Many adults in the deep south would also consent to segregation laws, does that make it ok?

This is a _completely_ different case. It's very clear that all participants in that segregated society were _not_ consenting, and were being segregated against their will.

comparitivly all our stats are unstable. Granted there are some things that can be consistent from country to country. There are also things that change depending on where you are. maybe it's in the water. Thus, i mean to say that Europe's stats on this topic are oppossitte ours.

So, basically, what you are saying is that we should only consider statistics that agree with your argument?


Face it:

There's nothing wrong with pornography involving consenting adults.
There's nothing wrong with consentual sex.

[fredg]

Hi,
Some answers here have obviously taken the writer a long time to put together and type out.
Politics and Religion are two subjects one can talk about for quite a long time.
Interpretation of the Constitution is up to the Supreme Court of the US, and will change with each new generation.
I do sincerely hope that Porn on the web will become illegal, as time goes by. Free speech is important, but at some point, becomes ridiculous. That's when changes will be made.

fredg

[SSchultz0956]

It's not a question of just looking at my stats. You wanted evidence, I produced it. You said that there are many variables in a situation, which is true. Example, drugs can be a variable in crime, but there are many other factors, so why should we prohibit drug use since it's not necessarily or always THE factor. Further, your idea of "consenting adults" has no foudnation whatsoever. Consenting Senators, maybe, but not adults. The mere fact that adults may consent on a matter isn't sufficient enough. Frankly, not all adults do consent on the matter at hand. I personally know many who are strongly against it. Also you stated my source is obviously some chritian religious zealot. Who else is going to do the research? Ted Kennedy? Bill Clinton? No! It's going to be someone strongly opposed to it. No one else would do it because they don't want to know the outcome. Just like the argument used for gay marriage. Many say that it should be prohibited because it's not a good environment to raise children. In America there are hundreds of thousands of children living in households with gay couples. That's plenty for a study. But neither side wants to investigate because they are both worried that the outcome will not be politically what they want. It's the same principle here, so the mrer fact the doc is a religious fundementalist, can't be used against him.

[psi42]

Further, your idea of "consenting adults" has no foudnation whatsoever. Consenting Senators, maybe, but not adults. The mere fact that adults may consent on a matter isn't sufficient enough. Frankly, not all adults do consent on the matter at hand. I personally know many who are strongly against it.

I was referring to the adults participating in the pornographic production, not the fundamentalists afraid to see _themselves_ naked.

If you don't like porn, don't look at it. It's that simple. I don't understand what the problem is here. It's not like you're being locked in an adult bookstore every day.

As a side note, I think we need to put this "moral majority" myth to rest. If there was really a "moral majority" of Christian fundamentalists, you _would_ control Congress and the executive, and be able to amend the Constitution to make this a theocracy. So if you really think there is a fundamentalist "majority," why don't you go run for office, with pure fundamentalist theocracy as your platform. See how many votes you _really_ get.

Also you stated my source is obviously some chritian religious zealot. Who else is going to do the research? Ted Kennedy? Bill Clinton? No! It's going to be someone strongly opposed to it.

You mean someone strongly opposed to it for religious reasons?

Have you considered that this "study" hasn't been done before because it's common sense that there is little or no correlation?

No one else would do it because they don't want to know the outcome. Just like the argument used for gay marriage. Many say that it should be prohibited because it's not a good environment to raise children.

Heh. So we should ban gay marriage because of the couples that do raise children, you think the children may not "turn out right?"

Sorry to break this to you, but there are many heterosexual couples that do not provide a healthy environment for their children.

In any case, this can't be used against gay marriage, because marriage does not imply having children (although I'm sure the children will be just fine).

It's the same principle here, so the mrer fact the doc is a religious fundementalist, can't be used against him.

But it's just so obvious that his "evidence" is baseless.

[SSchultz0956]

First of all, I never took a stand on gay marriage so you're putting words in my mouth. Second, I never based this argument on religion. Third, isn't it my right to be concerned even though I don't view such filth. What happens if I have a child or wife who gets raped because some punk needs "real" attention outside of his closet and computer room. Self-stimulation isn't enough for him so he rapes other people. Look at the facts. Everyday on the news we hear of more and more people being raped and killed from any age group. It wasn't like this before. This summer a tun on the TV and it seemed almost weekly that some poor childe has been molested and tortured by some crazy man. It just happened in my home town Des Moines last week. The guy raped a 20-MONTH OLD BABY!!!!! There actually have been people in congress that have tried and are trying to stop this stuff, but there are people like you who feel it violates your first amendment right of speech. Well what about the rights of my family and every other vulnerable person out there to live safely? I'm not saying you and everybody that looks at porn is sick and demented. But, not everyone that uses crack or marijuana committs henous crimes either, it doesn't make it OK. They're still illegal.

[psi42]

What happens if i have a child or wife who gets raped because some punk needs "real" attention outside of his closet and computer room. Self-stimulation isn't enough for him so he rapes other people.

Well, then he has a serious psychological problem, but that doesn't mean that his problem was actually caused by viewing pornography.

Once again, we have the same issue:

1) Ted Bundy looked at porn.
2) Ted Bundy was a serial killer.
3) Looking at porn makes you a serial killer.

It just doesn't make sense.

It wasn't like this before.

Do you have authoritative evidence of how many rapes and murders were committed "before"? Have you considered how other factors that make the present different from "before" may have affected crime rates?

Do you really think if pornography disappeared overnight, these crimes would as well?

This summer a tun on the TV and it seemed almost weekly that some poor childe has been molested and tortured by some crazy man.
It just happened in my home town Des Moines last week. The guy raped a 20-MONTH OLD BABY!!!!!

Don't think that I'm not appalled by that news.
However, why should we think pornography was responsible for his actions?
Personally, I think he is responsible for his actions.

There actually have been people in congress that have tried and are trying to stop this stuff, but there are people like you who feel it violates your first ammendment right of speech.

Well, some of us actually like the Bill of Rights.

Well what about the rights of my family and every other vulnerable person out there to live safely?!

Okay. Well then why don't we expand the government's surveillance powers so that no matter what you do, every moment of every day you are being watched by someone whose job it is to "keep you safe." That way, these horrible, scary, evil people whould never have a chance to commit their crimes, and you and your family would live without fear of harm. Would you like that?

I'm not saying you and everybody that looks at porn is sick and demented. But, not everyone that uses crack or marijuana committs henous crimes either, it doesn't make it ok. They're still illegal.

Cocaine is a mind-altering drug. Pornography is not.

[LifeUndefined]

tjr,

Considering your presupposition that every "child hopped up with hormones" is going to either masturbate or have sex I would have to argue that your statement that "If you are going to have sex,and we Know that you are,then use protection show them the whole picture not just your jaded view" stems from a rather jaded point of view.