The porn industry is rather big. The problem is simple economics. Men are watching it, and hotels makes big bucks off it.

That being said, I’m for banning pornography outright. As much as I hate it as a conservative libertarian, the government must step in and get rid of it.

There are reasonable limits to free speech. Pornography is outside these limits so it must be banned.

Oh are you for banning it completely. I didn’t realise that any men would be.

As a woman it is really hard to get your head around pornography. Most of it just looks quite off-putting and vulgar. It doesn’t help that most of the actresses aren’t exaxctly the most charming people…

But as a woman you eventually realise that for whatever reason this has an enourmous attraction for men.

Personally I’d like to see it banned too. But I imagine that would simply lead to a huge underground market instead?

Saying that, I don’t think hard core porn was around prior to home VHS sets…? I saw a documentary about it once that showed some early 20th century “porn” and I thought it was pretty cute really. It didn’t offend me at any rate.

It would drive it underground, that is definitely true. The problem as I see it isn’t the existence of porn on it’s own but the opinion of porn.

I don’t know about how it is in the UK but down here in Oz it’s “okay” to watch porn. There’s no stigma attached to it.

More importantly, the ordinary man who simply watches it because he can, as I myself was (embarrassed). If it were illegal and there were some hoops to jump through to get it and the fact one maybe arrested to acquiring will put most men off. This will result in less influence of the genre upon their psyche.

As for the appeal of porn, you must first realise that men are very visual creatures. It really doesn’t matter how charming the actress is. In fact personality doesn’t matter an ounce. The entire point of it is to get men sexually excited and to masturbate. It’s a much easier thing to simply do this than meet a girl, get to know her and enjoy the act as an expression of feeling toward the woman.

Finally, I’m not up on my pornography history, but I know that a lot of the more extreme pornos out there are relatively recent thanks to the legalisation of the genre, and the expansion of the Internet. As soon as you have competition in any market you have to have points of difference with your competitors. That’s why you’ll get lots of role-playing, snuff, and the rest.

I gather that it was the porn industry that made the selection of VHS over Betamax in the end. They needed wider distribution therefore it was better for them to run with one videotape standard and they plumped for VHS.

They’re also leading the way with anonymous micropayments for the Internet.

So, whilst we have NASA to thank for the nonstick pan, ’tis the porn industry we should thank for adopting VHS

But that aside, there aren’t and cannot be any “reasonable” limits to free speech for the simple reason that we would then need someone to decide what was “reasonable”. For example, in Nazi Germany, it wouldn’t have been “reasonable” to criticize the regime, naturally, and that would of course apply to similar regimes today.

It wasn’t so long ago that the USSR required every typewriter to be licensed simply in the interests of reducing the ability to produce brochures and whatnot with views contrary to the state view.

Also, “porn” is notoriously difficult to define. Here in France right now, there’s a great big poster advertising campaign for something or other with a woman full frontal. Is that porn? It’s certainly not permitted under British advertising standards.

Most definitions of “porn” end up banning a large chunk of what other people would call art. And, of course, the definitions vary widely from country to country.

But then what about someone objecting to, say, the president of America? Is it “reasonable” to stop such a person burning an image of the president? the flag?

Say, for the sake of argument, that we consider it’s not reasonable to burn the image of the president or anyone else. That then means that we must ban the November 5th celebrations in the UK which feature the burning of Guy Falkes.

Or, in short, no, you can’t impose “reasonable” limits to free speech if you want free speech.

Yes, you can impose reasonable restrictions.

Determining what are reasonable limits is done by the society that is governed by those laws.

Nazism was an extreme example that arose out of a special circumstances and more importantly its restrictions were first and foremost restrictions on political free speech. Western Civilisation is predicated upon free political expression, and the Nazi example is clearly in contradiction with this.

There are basic freedoms that are guaranteed for the functioning of a liberal democracy. Nazism was the complete and diametric opposite of this these basic freedoms.

I fail to see how small natural restrictions on free speech is actually morally equivalent with a totalitarian socialist attitude.

Moreover, this is clearly different from social restrictions. There’s plenty of empirical evidence to support the role than the nuclear family plays in the well-being and resilience of a society.

Pornography attacks this because it debases a sacred act, between husband and wife, into something entirely physical and therefore meaningless.

Anyway, if, for example, a person shouts “FIRE!” in a theatre and causes a stampede, don’t they hold some culpability of generating the ensuing chaos? Isn’t this then the assertion of the truth of this culpability a restriction on free speech itself?

Finally, “You can’t impose “reasonable” limits to free speech if you want free speech.” is purely theoretical and the apparent contradiction is actually liveable. The real world rarely conforms to theoretical norms and limits. Natural boundaries arise and paradoxes abound.

“Yes, you can impose reasonable restrictions.

Determining what are reasonable limits is done by the society that is governed by those laws.”

No, you can’t impose “reasonable” restrictions. You have freedom of speech, or you don’t. There is no such thing as “society”, there is just a collection of people and one person’s “reasonable” is another persons “unreasonable”.

Yes, there is an assumption of “political free speech” these days, but who is to say what is “political”? For example, some things which I and probably you would say come under the freedom of speech (or, more specifically, of the freedom of the press) are denied in France. It is expressly forbidden for election polls results to be reported in the days just prior to the election for example. Many newspaper articles published as a matter of course in the rest of the world are illegal here courtesy of the privacy laws which are also used to suppress “unwelcome comment” on public figures.

In a number of cases these “suppression acts” are used to suppress information which could and would be published elsewhere (indeed the poll results were published elsewhere). Yet, in your terms it is “reasonable” to forbid this freedom of expression because it falls inside the laws of this society (although, in a number of cases, clearly being contrary to the interests of that society).

“Small, natural restrictions” are a problem because they, over time, become somewhat larger restrictions. That’s happened in France. The privacy laws were passed for good reasons but are not used simply to suppress “unwelcome free speech”.

The definition of pornography is the problem. What you call a “sacred act” is considered in different ways in different societies. As a simple example, some magazines which are published in Sweden are illegal in the UK because of the acts that they portray. So you have two democratic countries with conflicting laws. It’s actually a growing problem as obviously there are Swedish websites which are perfectly legal yet viewing them in the UK would be a criminal act.

The usual basic definition of freedom is that “you can do anything so long it doesn’t affect me” ie freedom with responsibility. Shouting “FIRE” in a theatre clearly breaks the “with responsibility” part of that in that it may harm others.

There may be some boundaries but they need to be self-imposed. To do otherwise is asking for trouble in the long run.

My example of burning the American flag for instance: it was originally ruled unconstitutional but that ruling was later overturned as it clearly breached the freedom of expression parts of the US consititution.

For that matter, what about the suppression of the ideas of Copernicus by the church? The establishment of the time just didn’t like them and went out of their way to bury them. There are many similar examples throughout history and that’s why it’s safest to run with no limits to free speech, whilst fully accepting that it will produce things that you personally might detest.

Another example: Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses.

Not only did assorted countries ban the book but they put a price on his head.

Their reason? It was blasphemous.

Well, I’ve read it and I’d say that it probably is blasphemous. Now, whether it blasphemes against Allah I don’t know as I’m not of that faith but I felt that it was against the Christian faiths.

Do I object to him publishing it? No, because I fully respect his right to do so.

Yet, not so long ago (under 50 years back) it would have been banned in the UK.

1st Amendment rules here. Porn is protected under it like it or not. Having said that, our Constitution here in the States along with the Bill of Rights were Drafted by men of High Moral character. In other words, such freedoms were meant to be tempered by a moral society. Its not Porns fault for existing, its society’s fault for accepting it openly. This doesn’t have to be a religious debate either. It has to be about whats good for our children and society.
All societies benefit from debating in the arena of ideas, none benefit in the long run from bans, censorship and book burning.

Back to the Gideons in the hotel: In the United States (in most states that I’m aware of), a hotel is a public accommodation. However, that merely means they have to let you sleep there unless there (unless they have good cause to turn you away) if you can pay. They don’t have to give you a non-smoking room; they don’t have to provide you with a TV; they just have to give you a room.

Beyond that, the hotel is privately owned, which means the owner can stock his rooms with what he wants within the strictures of the law. He can stock holy books of any sort, or not.

Someone earlier said it’s a matter of economics. It’s true that porn generates revenue of its own, but its true value is as a value-added item (like having a hotel gift shop). Bibles, on the other hand, are provided to the hotel for free by the Gideons and may generate good will (future business).

An end-note: As an agnostic with an atheistic bent, I find the Bible an interesting work of mythology. If people can draw comfort from it, that’s fine by me. No one is forcing it on them, which is increasingly not the case with religious conventions.

No, you can’t impose “reasonable” restrictions. You have freedom of speech, or you don’t. There is no such thing as “society”, there is just a collection of people and one person’s “reasonable” is another persons “unreasonable”.

That doesn’t mean anything, and it’s simply vacuous sophism. The fact that you discount society is very surprising. I had no idea that traditions, ethnicity, religion, history, myths can be non-existent or boiled down to abstract collection of objects and their competing interests.

People disagree all the time, but they also agree. In politics this phenomenon is known as “centrism”.

Additionally, this in the end is a bit of a red-herring. Perhaps it’s my training as an engineer but I think the scientific method can be applied quite widely and successfully.

In this respect, we have plenty of empirical evidence that the restriction of rights incertain, specific, and limited ways work. Limiting licence to libertine pursuits clearly contributes to a curbing of that behaviour.

Let me use the specifics of divorce for a moment. Divorce used to be ridiculously difficult to get. One had to show that partners did something heinous, and actually sue for divorce. Nowadays, divorces can be executed at a No-Fault.

Cause.

When it was introduced divorce rates sky-rocketed, and now people are getting married far less often and co-habitation without obligation is on the increase.

Effect.

A corollary to this has been the breakdown of family structures.

Yes, there is an assumption of “political free speech” these days, but who is to say what is “political”? For example, some things which I and probably you would say come under the freedom of speech (or, more specifically, of the freedom of the press) are denied in France. It is expressly forbidden for election polls results to be reported in the days just prior to the election for example. Many newspaper articles published as a matter of course in the rest of the world are illegal here courtesy of the privacy laws which are also used to suppress “unwelcome comment” on public figures.

Clearly that is political. Stop looking for ontologies and use some common sense.

In a number of cases these “suppression acts” are used to suppress information which could and would be published elsewhere (indeed the poll results were published elsewhere). Yet, in your terms it is “reasonable” to forbid this freedom of expression because it falls inside the laws of this society (although, in a number of cases, clearly being contrary to the interests of that society).

“Small, natural restrictions” are a problem because they, over time, become somewhat larger restrictions. That’s happened in France. The privacy laws were passed for good reasons but are not used simply to suppress “unwelcome free speech”.

But what are the effects then? It’s all well and good to argue that but what has this resulted in?

And to play your game what is “unwelcome free speech”.

The definition of pornography is the problem. What you call a “sacred act” is considered in different ways in different societies. As a simple example, some magazines which are published in Sweden are illegal in the UK because of the acts that they portray. So you have two democratic countries with conflicting laws. It’s actually a growing problem as obviously there are Swedish websites which are perfectly legal yet viewing them in the UK would be a criminal act.

The “sacred act” view has been proven to work over the years. Stability and some restriction vs Libertine Licence and no restriction. You pick which you like.

Heh, I’d hardly call Sweden democratic these days. They may go through the motions but they are in essence a socialist state.

But on point, if can’t see what pornography is then no one can tell you.

Beyond this definition:
“the explicit representation of the human body or sexual activity with the goal of sexual arousal”

you cannot be more specific.

Why look for definitions? Why bother with specific ontologies if they are not useful?

The usual basic definition of freedom is that “you can do anything so long it doesn’t affect me” ie freedom with responsibility. Shouting “FIRE” in a theatre clearly breaks the “with responsibility” part of that in that it may harm others.

Well under your definition pornography, being irresponsible, qualifies itself for restriction.

There may be some boundaries but they need to be self-imposed. To do otherwise is asking for trouble in the long run.

What then if they are not? Allow the result of the this lack of restriction to continue so as to die on some airy principle? Puh-lease.

My example of burning the American flag for instance: it was originally ruled unconstitutional but that ruling was later overturned as it clearly breached the freedom of expression parts of the US constitution.

And what of it? What kind of effect did this burning have apart from pissing off a few wankers? It went nowhere beyond causing offence. Causing offence isn’t equivalent to the change of institutional foundations that build society, is it?

For that matter, what about the suppression of the ideas of Copernicus by the church? The establishment of the time just didn’t like them and went out of their way to bury them. There are many similar examples throughout history and that’s why it’s safest to run with no limits to free speech, whilst fully accepting that it will produce things that you personally might detest.

Another example: Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses.

Not only did assorted countries ban the book but they put a price on his head.

Their reason? It was blasphemous.

Well, I’ve read it and I’d say that it probably is blasphemous. Now, whether it blasphemes against Allah I don’t know as I’m not of that faith but I felt that it was against the Christian faiths.

Do I object to him publishing it? No, because I fully respect his right to do so.

Wow I had no idea that two societies where there are far more restriction and bigger at that, that are totalitarian in nature are equivalent to civilised Western Morals in a liberal democracy that still allows far more than it disallows.

Those two examples, are pretty much irrelevant.

Yet, not so long ago (under 50 years back) it would have been banned in the UK.

Under what law? I don’t think blasphemy in Britain extended to Islam.

There is an excellent book (The Macho Paradox) recently released (by Jackson Katz) that discusses the porn issue, among others. I’ve got his website and book links here:

http://isledance.blogspot.com/2007/04/theres-no-excuse-for-abuse.html

Interesting post! Oh, I am agree with you, about the porn channels much better to be removed! Nice job girl.

Chat with live girls for free…

…

Really interesting article!

The only one of your statements I’d question is where you doubted that there might be Islamic organizations involved in distributing the Koran in Western countries.

I’m not Muslim, but as far as I know there are many Islamic non-profits and charities which seek to distribute copies of the Koran, or other Islamic literature, in the West.

I would think that in certain countries or regions (especially in places like Germany or France, where there are lots of Muslim immigrants), such Islamic groups have probably noticed the ubiquity of Bibles in hotels, and that it’s occurred to them to approach hotel chains to place Korans in the rooms, as well.

And I think the reason you don’t see Korans in any hotel rooms in Western countries (I live in the USA and travel a lot in Europe, and I’ve never seen one), is because the hotels probably refused such offers.

Why? It would probably alienate or offend many of their majority clientele, who are of course Christian. The hotels know this, and don’t want to scare away potential customers, so they keep the Korans out.

I’m not saying there’s been a large-scale campaign by Islamic groups to do this; what I am saying is that some groups probably have already approached hotels on a rather small-scale basis, and have probably been refused.

Nor am I saying I have an opinion about this one way or another. I see both sides, but I’m a lawyer very conscious of civil rights and so perhaps I see it a bit more from the perspective of of Humanist Society.

To discriminate in favor of one religion, or group of religions, while discriminating against others, is, on its face, odious.

Rather than resort to the ridiculous (and your thought experiment of a room filled with religious texts was a good thought experiment in “reductio ad absurdam”), I would then have to side with those who favor removing all religious texts from the rooms, and instead, letting the guests sort it out themselves.

If a guest wants to bring a Bible, a Koran, a Torah, the Baghavad Gita, or a book of Zen koans, into his/her hotel room, well, that is their prerogative.

But associating a hotel with a particular religious belief is bound to offend someone, and I’d rather hotels stick to what hotels should do, like providing a comfortable place to relax and sleep.

best free game slots gambling game slots…

Any number of texas holdem game visa credit card application status…

canada cash advance online cash advance online no faxing online cash advance…

Those texas holdem flash non profit credit card debt help…

partie poker net…

Am 7 card stud spielen poker bonus 1000…

poker texas hold spielen…

Aqui estan poker spielen um sonst realistische spielbank…

roulette spielanleitung…

AlsSiesehen everst poker net video poker gratuit…

casino download free casino game download no download casino…

As casino games downloaden das beste casino online…

poker dinero gratis…

Do casino on line winners online casino…

regolamento gioco poker…

Withiin www poker net com poker spiel…

jugar a poquer…

Tan lejos five card stud come giocare a poker…

jeux casino sans telechargement…

These bonus casino playtech alltel free ringtones…

online casino com…

That is the casino games pro internet craps…

credit card debt payment calculator calculator card credit debt payoff…

Lots of consolidate credit card debt consolidate guaranteed acceptance credit card uk…

texas holdem gratis online…

Entonces casinos descargas paginas internet texas holdem combinaisons casino gamble cartas de poker gratis juegos de poker gratuitos…