[PLUG-TALK] Porn on the Net...

Michael Robinson plug_1 at robinson-west.com
Tue Oct 27 21:16:43 UTC 2009


On Tue, 2009-10-27 at 13:38 -0700, Paul wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-10-27 at 10:56 -0700, Michael Moore wrote:
> 
> 
> > Obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment.  See:
> > 
> > http://www.findlaw.com/01topics/06constitutional/cases.html
> > 
> > for a good list of Supreme Court rulings in obscenity cases.
> ...
> 
> > Such a law could be enforced, if it applied to websites that met the
> > legal definition of obscenity. Since obscenity has no First Amendment
> > protection, there's nothing to stop any legislative body from passing
> > laws restricting access to it or banning it altogether.
> 
> This is *Portland* LUG talk list and the Oregon Constitution, Art. I §8
> says: 
> 
> "No law shall be passed restraining the free expression of opinion, or
> restricting the right to speak, write, or print freely on any subject
> whatever; but every person shall be responsible for the abuse of this
> right."
> 
> and the Oregon Supreme Court has ruled:
> 
> 
> ''In this state any person can write, print, read, say, show or sell
> anything to a consenting adult even though that expression may be
> generally or universally 'obscene,' ''
> 
> (see:
> http://www.nytimes.com/1987/04/15/us/oregon-court-broadens-free-speech-rights.html)
> 
> This was in regards to an attempted prosecution to selling obscene
> materials so there very much are restrictions on the legislature
> attempting to outlaw it, in fact it would be unconstitutional here in
> Oregon.
> 
> Paul M

I take objection to the consenting adult part.  An alcoholic does not
consent to the abuse of alcohol.  A pot head doesn't consent to the
abuse of marijuana.  Addiction is not consent.  Most states have laws
against polygamy and polyandry which should apply in the case of Net
porn because this content after all targets a large group of people.

I take objection to the free expression point.  In producing pornography
is everyone involved in it's production free?  Is the viewer truly
free?  Is the model truly free?  Pornography doesn't work if everyone
is a consenting adult.  Pornography can be produced and is produced
using force.  Porn is addictive, it lowers the nature of the viewer.

Oregon is out to lunch if the justices think that obscenity is free
speech.

Concerning the not everyone who looks at porn is addicted comment, most
people who do are or it wouldn't be a billion dollar industry.  Noone
in their right mind would blow thousands of dollars on porn if they
weren't addicted to it, especially considering that there is so much
"free" porn.

There are laws against prostituting oneself on the street, why not on
the Net?  The Oregon Supreme Court will have to answer to God one day
and before that it may have to answer to the Supreme Court.  For any
person to defend porn on the Net suggests to me that that person is
somehow directly involved in it and making money.




More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list