Zander
Platinum Member
I think it is far too easy for children to access porn on the internet.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
*******************************************AGreed, as everyone does, on the children. But what's your definition of obscene? Whatever Santorum says it is? Whatever his interpretation of the Bible says it is? If it's not missionary with the light off, it's obscene and should be made illegal?
Neither I, you, or Santorum need to guess the definition of obscenity.
The Supreme Court ruled on this in Miller v. California:
Obscenity
Generally, obscenity is sex-related material that goes beyond mere nudity. As the US Supreme Court said over 30 years ago, "nudity alone is not enough to make material legally obscene." The basic test used to determine if something is obscene asks:
In simple terms, it's not obscenity unless is shows "hard core" sexual conduct that's clearly and plainly offensive (also called "patently" offensive).
- Whether the average person, applying today's community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient or sexual interest
- Whether the work shows or describes, in a clearly offensive way, sexual conduct, as defined by the laws of the state where the materials are located
- Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value
I think it is far too easy for children to access porn on the internet.
AGreed, as everyone does, on the children. But what's your definition of obscene? Whatever Santorum says it is? Whatever his interpretation of the Bible says it is? If it's not missionary with the light off, it's obscene and should be made illegal?
Neither I, you, or Santorum need to guess the definition of obscenity.
The Supreme Court ruled on this in Miller v. California:
Obscenity
Generally, obscenity is sex-related material that goes beyond mere nudity. As the US Supreme Court said over 30 years ago, "nudity alone is not enough to make material legally obscene." The basic test used to determine if something is obscene asks:
In simple terms, it's not obscenity unless is shows "hard core" sexual conduct that's clearly and plainly offensive (also called "patently" offensive).
- Whether the average person, applying today's community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient or sexual interest
- Whether the work shows or describes, in a clearly offensive way, sexual conduct, as defined by the laws of the state where the materials are located
- Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value
I think it is far too easy for children to access porn on the internet.
*****************************************************I think it is far too easy for children to access porn on the internet.
Actually, joking aside, I think you are absolutely correct on that point.
I think it is far too easy for children to access porn on the internet.
Actually, joking aside, I think you are absolutely correct on that point.
I think it is far too easy for children to access porn on the internet.
Actually, joking aside, I think you are absolutely correct on that point.
While I do think it is primarily the parents responsibility to protect their own kids - they can place filters on their web browsers, talk to them, etc.- I still think we should make an effort to make it harder to access porn.
I think it is far too easy for children to access porn on the internet.
Actually, joking aside, I think you are absolutely correct on that point.
While I do think it is primarily the parents responsibility to protect their own kids - they can place filters on their web browsers, talk to them, etc.- I still think we should make an effort to make it harder to access porn.
I think it is far too easy for children to access porn on the internet.
Actually, joking aside, I think you are absolutely correct on that point.
While I do think it is primarily the parents responsibility to protect their own kids - they can place filters on their web browsers, talk to them, etc.- I still think we should make an effort to make it harder to access porn.
Actually, joking aside, I think you are absolutely correct on that point.
While I do think it is primarily the parents responsibility to protect their own kids - they can place filters on their web browsers, talk to them, etc.- I still think we should make an effort to make it harder to access porn.
And let's be real. SOME parents aren't all that good at monitoring their kids' internet access. And in such cases, even if my wife and I happen to be pretty good about it at our home, it's problematical to shield our kids from the crap the other kids do in their homes.
AGreed, as everyone does, on the children. But what's your definition of obscene? Whatever Santorum says it is? Whatever his interpretation of the Bible says it is? If it's not missionary with the light off, it's obscene and should be made illegal?
Neither I, you, or Santorum need to guess the definition of obscenity.
The Supreme Court ruled on this in Miller v. California:Obscenity
Generally, obscenity is sex-related material that goes beyond mere nudity. As the US Supreme Court said over 30 years ago, "nudity alone is not enough to make material legally obscene." The basic test used to determine if something is obscene asks:
In simple terms, it's not obscenity unless is shows "hard core" sexual conduct that's clearly and plainly offensive (also called "patently" offensive).
- Whether the average person, applying today's community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient or sexual interest
- Whether the work shows or describes, in a clearly offensive way, sexual conduct, as defined by the laws of the state where the materials are located
- Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value
so if a couple wants to make a video together, they can't because SAntorum thinks it might offend people? What's your definition of offensive? and who decided who a reasonable person is?
clearly and plainly offensive to whom? A religious zealot like Santorum?
The story from a credible source:
(CBS News) ARLINGTON HEIGHTS, Ill. - Campaigning in this Chicago suburb on Friday, Rick Santorum accused President Obama of failing to enforce an anti-Internet pornography law he worked to pass in the Senate and said that as president, he would do more to protect children from inappropriate online content.
<SNIP>
"The Obama administration has turned a blind eye to those who wish to preserve our culture from the scourge of pornography and has refused to enforce obscenity laws. While the Obama Department of Justice seems to favor pornographers over children and families, that will change under a Santorum administration," the statement on Santorum's campaign website says.
Santorum said the criticism of Obama was posted on the site about three weeks ago. "We'll enforce the law. I don't know what the hubbub about that is. We have a president who is not enforcing the law, and we will."
I see no problem here. Enforce the law, if you don't like the law, work to change it.
Rick Santorum: Pornography Not A Priority For Obama Administration
Obama is the president of the United States. He holds a completely different office than what Santorum is running for. As president, Mr Obama has no control over porn. (Santorum does not know that and he's depending on others being as ignorant as he is.)
As National Sheriff of Sex, fruitier than a nutcake Santorum will be in charge of everything that goes on behind closed doors. Needless to say, the Catholic church will be immune to any and all laws, so young boys will be no more safe then than they are now.
WASHINGTON - Rick Santorum on Sunday defended his assertion that "the Obama Department of Justice seems to favor pornographers over children and families," arguing on CNN's "State of the Union" that the department's insufficient prosecution of the industry proves his point.
AGreed, as everyone does, on the children. But what's your definition of obscene? Whatever Santorum says it is? Whatever his interpretation of the Bible says it is? If it's not missionary with the light off, it's obscene and should be made illegal?
Neither I, you, or Santorum need to guess the definition of obscenity.
The Supreme Court ruled on this in Miller v. California:Obscenity
Generally, obscenity is sex-related material that goes beyond mere nudity. As the US Supreme Court said over 30 years ago, "nudity alone is not enough to make material legally obscene." The basic test used to determine if something is obscene asks:
In simple terms, it's not obscenity unless is shows "hard core" sexual conduct that's clearly and plainly offensive (also called "patently" offensive).
- Whether the average person, applying today's community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient or sexual interest
- Whether the work shows or describes, in a clearly offensive way, sexual conduct, as defined by the laws of the state where the materials are located
- Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value
It's funny that so-called conservatives all the sudden become fans of the SCOTUS when it legislates morality.
While I do think it is primarily the parents responsibility to protect their own kids - they can place filters on their web browsers, talk to them, etc.- I still think we should make an effort to make it harder to access porn.
And let's be real. SOME parents aren't all that good at monitoring their kids' internet access. And in such cases, even if my wife and I happen to be pretty good about it at our home, it's problematical to shield our kids from the crap the other kids do in their homes.
Here we go with the double standards.
Some people aren't good at making informed decisions in the marketplace, so more regulation solves that right?
Some people aren't good at budgeting and saving for retirement, so Social Security is perfect right?
Some parents aren't good at packing nutritious lunches for their kids, so we should ban soda and candy and chips at school right?
Some people are not good at dieting, so we should ban fatty foods from store shelves right?
God damn how the fuck do some of you people call yourselves conservatives???
I think it is far too easy for children to access porn on the internet.
******************************************Obama knows he's going to be re-elected?
Why is he bothering campaigning, assbrain?
Where did any post in the thread say that "[President] Obama knows he's going to be re-elected"? The op AND the reply concerned one of the several R Clown Car Candidates.
Assbrain, indeed.
Those "R clowns" are gonna give Obama a tight race, and one may defeat him. Laugh as you wish but Obama is in trouble.
While I do think it is primarily the parents responsibility to protect their own kids - they can place filters on their web browsers, talk to them, etc.- I still think we should make an effort to make it harder to access porn.
And let's be real. SOME parents aren't all that good at monitoring their kids' internet access. And in such cases, even if my wife and I happen to be pretty good about it at our home, it's problematical to shield our kids from the crap the other kids do in their homes.
Here we go with the double standards.
Some people aren't good at making informed decisions in the marketplace, so more regulation solves that right?
Some people aren't good at budgeting and saving for retirement, so Social Security is perfect right?
Some parents aren't good at packing nutritious lunches for their kids, so we should ban soda and candy and chips at school right?
Some people are not good at dieting, so we should ban fatty foods from store shelves right?
God damn how the fuck do some of you people call yourselves conservatives???