super_nerd42
It is not just conservative that dissagree with porn. You cannot generalize a whole group of people. There are so many rights that can be taken away that may lead to a communist society or a facist society. Eiter way there could be a total control country if either liberals or conservatives go into an extremist government.
No one is going to outlaw porn and films are already edited on TV such as brief nudity and sweating. Pull yourself together and stop thinking everything is a conspiracy. Also, our entire rights and freedoms do not exist soley on the existence on porn. I do not dissagree with the idea of porn and I don't think that women pose for porn only for the money. There are other ways to make a buck or two. The existence of porn shows that there are peole sexually aware of themselves which is just fine.
Fist off I meant the nudity shown on movie channels that we pay for, such as HBO.
As for the porn industry, it is the conservative people that wish to ban it. That is a known thing.
If you listen to Howard Stern, you would know the crap the FCC is making him go through. There's a reason he has decided to go to sirius.
Also, this subject is on porn, therefore I am only talking about porn and freedoms related to porn. So whatever you are talking about with Communism and such is for another thread.
People have actually tried to outlaw porn. Ever hear of the case of Jerry Falwell verses Larry Flynt? Or how about the case of Common Wealth of Virginia Petitioner v. Kevin Lamont Hicks?
To get around the fact that Pornography, for the most part, is protected by the first amendment, people for "the common good" view have turned to the obscenity law. The Obscenity law was made to all states of America during the Miller verses California case. The Supreme Court ruled the following four things;
1. Obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment. A work may be subject to state regulation where that work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest in sex; portrays, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and, taken as a whole, does not have serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
2. The basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be: (a) whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards" would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, Roth, supra, at 489, (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. If a state obscenity law is thus limited, First Amendment values are adequately protected by ultimate independent appellate review of constitutional claims when necessary.
3. The test of "utterly without redeeming social value" articulated in Memoirs, supra, is rejected as a constitutional standard.
4. The jury may measure the essentially factual issues of prurient appeal and patent offensiveness by the standard that prevails in the forum community, and need not employ a "national standard."
So they made a law to get around the constitution.
And let us not forget the Lenny Bruce era.
Porn is just the tip of the iceberg. Once they get rid of that THEY WILL go to the next thing.
