Freedom on the Internet Wins in Court
That has Anti Porn Activists Fighting Mad
Note that people who visit porn sites are referred to as
"prey" and that the one individual whose testimony is
mentioned blamed the porn sites for his inability to resist them! He
is saying, "I'm an addict and they made me do it.". What
about his choice to find and view it? It seems that unless Uncle Sam
becomes our nanny, we imbecilic citizens will be completely incapable
of deciding what and how much to view on the Internet!
WASHINGTON 5/24/00 -- These are tough times for an anti porn activist.
A federal judge has barred the Justice Department from prosecuting most sex sites, the Communications Decency Act has been overturned, and this week the Supreme Court struck down a cable TV sex-scrambling law.
But that didn't stop anti-porn advocates from descending on Capitol Hill on Tuesday, lurid printouts in hand, to demand that something be done about raunch and ribaldry on the Internet.
"I'm here to make an appeal for you to do anything and everything that is possible to hinder this horrible industry," said Joseph Burgin, a self-proclaimed ex-porn addict who said smut was to blame for his divorce and $100,000 in legal fees. Burgin said that sex sites had made his "addiction" even more terrible.
The article and others are now fueling the religious right in their anti freedom agenda to get Congress to pass more restrictive laws to dictate our choices/
As the article concludes. "'If we had a national standard," he said, "then each community would be forced to abide" -- something that civil libertarians say would limit New York City publishers to distributing what's acceptable to Bible Belt prosecutors."
Whatever happened to the idea of personal irresponsibility and choice. If parents don't want children viewing porn, they should teach them not to go look for it. It doesn't just jump out of the computer at them, or use software like Net nanny. There is a reason porn is by far the largest money making industry on the Internet - many people enjoy viewing it. That doesn't make them prey, criminals, or terrible people. If parents want to restrict the natural curiosity of children and teach them sex is terrible obscene that is their choice but deny everyone the choice of such viewing.
We can use sex to sell, tease and titillate. We can watch all sorts of heads being blown off in movies and lots of violence and killing. Zillions of kids go to watch boxing, the only objective is to knock another person out and hurt him, or the very popular wrestling making millions of dollars on violence. But when it comes to loving sexuality a natural good human function it is "dirty"and we can't have kids see it so it has to be censored. That is sick.
When guys feel frustrated and powerless, they lash out. I think our whole society would be a lot more relaxed, mellow, and easy going if everyone had casual sex because they enjoyed it rather than feeling so bad about sex because they were trained that way.
Comment from European to my message:
Europeans are by no means perfect, and certainly don't have all the answers when it comes to sex. But on average they don't have this as ass backwards as Americans (USA). I continue to find it sad that American film distribution systems edit the (often healthy) sexual content out of European films for American release, while European film distribution systems edit the violence out of American films like "Rambo." This became most clear to me when I went to a small German electronics shop to get a power converter (from European 220v to American 110v) for playing video tapes made in the US in Eastern Europe without converting to Seacam [Eastern Europe & China TV system]. The cashier at the shop showed interest in such a system for playing uncut American films, he asked if I had access to uncut PAL [Western European TV] versions of films like "Rambo."
More About Children Argument to Repress Adult Choices
No one wants children to play with matches but sometimes they do and burn homes down. But we don't make matches illegal.
When parents, because of their religious beliefs, think that bare chests of a woman are to be hidden from view at all times, should all of society adhere to those moralistic beliefs and pass laws that all photos, art or even women should be locked away just because a religious parent can't successfully instruct their children to "not look at bare breasts?"
Children will someday be adults. Maybe we should teach them values such as tolerance that not everyone has the same beliefs regarding sexuality, sexual orientation of what is "best" for our society.
Politicians keep talking about "family values" as justification for laws and restrictions that "protect children", but deny the Constitutional rights of adults to act based on our own beliefs, not beliefs dictated as best for us based on a certain religious agenda. This was never intended to be a valid purpose of government. If those politicians think family values are so important, I suggest they become religious leaders or psychologists and find like minded folks to impose their views on, but stay out of government.
Back to the Sexwork Main Menu