What about the fact (as I understand it) that the First Amendment doesn't include pornography?

 

I think that is a grey area. Justice Potter Stewart's comment on pornography is indicative of this.

 

Personally, I do not believe a person should be restricted in what they produce, but at the same time there should be restrictions on its display. I shouldn't have to view something similar to what was described in the article driving down Main St., but at the same time, if I choose to of my own volition it is a different story.

I think that is a grey area. Justice Potter Stewart's comment on pornography is indicative of this.

 

Personally, I do not believe a person should be restricted in what they produce, but at the same time there should be restrictions on its display. I shouldn't have to view something similar to what was described in the article driving down Main St., but at the same time, if I choose to of my own volition it is a different story.

 

So you would be against any laws banning pornography? Regardless of content?

So you would be against any laws banning pornography? Regardless of content?

 

I'm not willing to say that in absolute terms. There are certainly some tricky areas. But, simply because something might offend someone is not reason enough for the government to step in and prohibit it.

I'm not willing to say that in absolute terms. There are certainly some tricky areas. But, simply because something might offend someone is not reason enough for the government to step in and prohibit it.

 

I don't see how you can support the writer I mentioned but not then support pornography. What are the differences in your mind?

I don't see how you can support the writer I mentioned but not then support pornography. What are the differences in your mind?

 

I didn't intend to give that impression, and I don't support that writer. More accurately, I refuse to support the government prohibiting art due to offensiveness. The difference I intended to note is that certain aspects that involve real people present different issues, which then involves shady areas of consent and what does or does not constitute rape or assault and battery, for instance.

 

I'm anxious to hear your thoughts on this issue, Clyde.

I've read 28 of those books. :lol:

 

I've also read the book Clyde references, A Time to Kill. I consider it the best of all John Grisham's books.

 

I've read a boatload of them as well. Must be why I'm such a radical, left-wing nut job...

I've read a boatload of them as well. Must be why I'm such a radical, left-wing nut job...

 

:lol: I'm right there with you, then! :lol:

I didn't intend to give that impression, and I don't support that writer. More accurately, I refuse to support the government prohibiting art due to offensiveness. The difference I intended to note is that certain aspects that involve real people present different issues, which then involves shady areas of consent and what does or does not constitute rape or assault and battery, for instance.

 

I'm anxious to hear your thoughts on this issue, Clyde.

 

I guess my thoughts are that if its a story(ie words where no actual person is harmed) I don't think the govt should be involved in any way. I see it as being no different than the KKK putting out hateful literature.

 

That thinking also applies to pornographic written material.

 

I don't see how one can be for one but against the other.

I've read 28 of those books. :lol:

 

I've also read the book Clyde references, A Time to Kill. I consider it the best of all John Grisham's books.

 

A Time to Kill is my favorite (hands down) Grisham book.

Good setup to the debate Clyde! I must say I wondered where this one was going.

Good setup to the debate Clyde! I must say I wondered where this one was going.

 

My thinking was that the answers may have been different from some (not all) had I simply started with the real case.

 

As I've posted on here before, I'm more interested in the logic people use than what their real position is. Their position is truly irrelevant to me. I simply love the debate as long as its logical. Some are good at it. Some simply ignore logic.

I've read 28 of those books. :lol:

 

I've also read the book Clyde references, A Time to Kill. I consider it the best of all John Grisham's books.

LOL, I'm at 26. What does that say about us?

Here are my thoughts on it the best I can explain it. The everyday Joe wouldn't get off reading what this person has on her website. It takes a sick minded person to want to read this and get excited by it. These people will eventually act on these urges as just reading about them will no longer be enough. She is doing nothing but fueling the fire. That said I am not sure where I stand on whether she should be censored or not.

That said I am not sure where I stand on whether she should be censored or not.

 

What about being charged?

What about being charged?

In my all my thinking about how I felt I forgot the actual question. No, in no way should she be charged. For me the bottom line will always be responsiblity for ones actions. That is why I don't buy the music/video games/movie made me do it crap.