What about porn?

Yael T. Abouhalkah’s column calling for Congress to act against drivers of “gas guzzlers” is the latest in a longstanding tradition of The Star inviting more government control over private citizens (8/2, “Time for Congress to take on the gas hogs”).

In recent years we’ve heard The Star call for enacting tough gun laws, taking away citizens’ right to bear arms concealed, banning pit bulls, prohibiting the smoking of legal substances in public places and limiting legal gambling. The Star speaks out as the authority on these and many other subjects it thinks are “bad” for us citizens.

Where is The Star’s outrage when it comes to Internet pornography? This is the vilest and most undermining thing in our society and in particular to our youth. In a time when pedophiles and other perverts have only to turn on their computers to get their jollies, The Star is silent.

Anyone who owns a computer knows we are being assaulted by this garbage unsolicited. I’ll venture to say Internet porn is more of a danger to our values and way of life than a concealed weapon, cigarette or breed of dog could ever be.

Paul Gumbel
Kansas City

Comments

[solomon]

to whispering....no, i haven't spent alot of time studying the subject matter, neither am I wanting to have government "protect" us from eveil doers.....I like that picture of Monroe in Playboy, but it is a far cry from whats available for young people to experience in 2007....

and to everyone else who discussed my letter, thank you for your opinions, they go to show how much we care for our freedom of self determination, any call for control over what we can or cannot view (EVEN THOUGH THATS NOT WHAT I WAS ASKING FOR), certainly gets us riled up....I respect each and everyone of your "opinions", whether I agree or not.

[stone]

don't let the comments end here! My response to Paul's letter, which the star is printing for some asinine reason (probably because they like my letters, which is another asinine reason) will be printed within a few days, so said the star on the phone this morning.

NOTE: I WROTE THE LETTER ON WEDNESDAY NIGHT, BEFORE ANY OF THIS CONVERSATION TOOK PLACE. Although, I do still think that Paul did a terrible job of proving his point, and the star did him a FAVOR by not printing his addition to his letter, the first blog comment (which the two Harvard alum sitting by me came up with the favor part...and I think that is a respectable school...not sure though...), but my letter refutes what seems to be implied in the letter, which is apparently not what paul was actually trying to argue for. Now, I am too lazy to reread or proofread this post, so I am sure that it is full of rambling (like this part) and may be confusing or not even make sense at times. but that is beside my point.

Anyways, I look forward to reading the next thread about this, possibly starting with my letter in a few days. Til then, have a wonderful weekend and keep the arguments coming...it really helps kill the time at work. I would join in, but the computer there is old and wont let me sign in for some reason (probably due to network restrictions at the WB)...
and Buddy (T), I am NOT filling in for Bugs Bunny, or Daffy, or Elmer Fud. I am a film distribution analyst, a job they reserve for people whose brains still function, and function well, with strong mathematical knowledge, which is something yours has shown that it does very little of (the functioning part, because your analytical abilities, well, were just never there in the first place)

[whispering_to_kc]

Until tonight, my notion of "porn" was the contents of a simple Playboy magazine.

Ah, Marilyn Monroe.

From the porn descriptions presented here, my life is thankfully more cloistered than I'd ever imagined.

The letter writer has obviously put much study into the subject matter, purely in the interest of protecting society from degenerate, sex crazed evildoers - I'm sure.

Don't let the wife catch you ... "studying".

[CRD]

"CRD....if you do not see internet porn being a danger to our society there is nothing I can say to change your mind, nor would I attempt to. "

I merely voiced my interest in hearing an answer to Openmind's question.

I will state that I think there's a greater danger posed by kids becoming inured to violence than by them seeing a sex act with a donkey -- and even with the prevalence of internet porn, violence is much more easily accessible by our kids (mainly via television) than is explicit sex.

As I said earlier, I'd emphasize the importance of active parenting and frank communication with children over censorship.

[solomon]

CRD....my response kept getting kicked off because I made it too graphic (I guess)....the watered down version below was accepted. Obviously even this forum considers description of what is out there dangerousor if not dangerous, inappropriate.

I've really enjoyed all the conversation today, but please keep in mind, one does not have to be a prude or a religious person (of which I'm neither) to see the
numbing of people to this garbage as a danger

[solomon]

CRD....if you do not see internet porn being a danger to our society there is nothing I can say to change your mind, nor would I attempt to. Contrary to what many people have said today I am not for government control of Internet porn, nor am I trying to tell anyone what they can view. Jack even tried to equate and defend porn by comparing it to immigrants having sex in crowded living spaces. Thats apples and oranges. It is just my "opinion" that children watching porn, much of it way beyond the scope of " normal sexual" behavior is dangerous in that watching it is acceptance of it. If someone feels watching sex with animal, brutality and degradation of men and women is not dangerous in young people forming their sexual attitudes is not dangerous that is their opinion.

I do know that when the automobile became popular with dating teens early in the last century teen pregnancies exploded, It is naive to think that having all types of sexual behavior right at their fingertips will not have an affect on sexual activities and proclivities early in this one.

This is my "opinion", I don't care who agrees, but the only way people can criticize mine is with their own "opinion", which I don't have to agree with.

[CRD]

"To me, the insistence on "non-smoking" bars indicates motives far beyond concerns about workplace conditions."

Yes, the insidious specter of public health raises its ugly head yet again. Such a base motive it is.

I'll say it again, I see no rational basis to treat enclosed workspaces that happen to be restaurants different than any other enclosed workspaces. Tobacco smoke is a known health hazard. It's simply good policy to ban it in enclosed workspaces.

I've been to California and New York since the bans there were enacted -- know what? Bars and restaurants are still packed, with people eating and drinking and having fun.

[Engineer]

CRD
Bars represent a very, very small part of the places where people can work. No one has to go there or work there. If the owner desires, the bar can be "non-dmokeng". But in most bars and based on the comments they have made, the owners seem to feel that the smoking environment is part of what they are making available and selling. To me, the insistence on "non-smoking" bars indicates motives far beyond concerns about workplace conditions. As to gun control laws, no one objects to "resonable" gun control laws. The rub is how "reasonable" is defined. There are those, such as Sara Brady's group and the Citys of NYNY and Washington,D. C. who would and do deny the right to have a gun, even in your own home. They are denying to people the right to protect themself and their family. To my mind, that is a very serious intrusion on the rights of those people.

[Engineer]

CRD
Bars represent a very, very small part of the places where people can work. No one has to go there or work there. If the owner desires, the bar can be "non-dmokeng". But in most bars and based on the comments they have made, the owners seem to feel that the smoking environment is part of what they are making available and selling. To me, the insistence on "non-smoking" bars indicates motives far beyond concerns about workplace conditions. As to gun control laws, no one objects to "resonable" gun control laws. The rub is how "reasonable" is defined. There are those, such as Sara Brady's group and the Citys of NYNY and Washington,D. C. who would and do deny the right to have a gun, even in your own home. They are denying to people the right to protect themself and their family. To my mind, that is a very serious intrusion on the rights of those people.

[JUNGLE JIM]

Gang bongs for Jesus.

[CRD]

"What exactly is in danger?"

I noticed that you responded to Openmind's query above, Gumbel, but to be fair, you didn't really answer his question.

[solomon]

hey Jack.....you are a very argumentative individual who has obviously given porn alot of thought....you even presume to know what my personal "values and morals " are......your assessment of me is baseless and way off the mark.....i never called for government controls on porn or anything else, i just believe it is harmful to the future of our society....if you don't , fine.....so lets agree to disagree and you can go back to touching yourself

[jack]

So, let me get this straight. Because some one might (probably) will be irresponsible regarding their children's ability to see porn on the internet. And it might cause some amount of harm to some of them. All internet porn should be outlawed and the government should closely monitor to make sure that no one puts anything on the internet that might be defined by someone (maybe you) as "pornographhic. Does that about cover it?

And the motivation is a simple "we must protect the children". Is that also correct?

Let's assume my understanding is correct. To follow this to the logical conclusion we need to outlaw several other things.

I think we can all agree that use of alcohol is harmful to children. And some adults are irresponsible in their handling of this dangerous and deadly drug. It should be outlawed.

We can also agree that all guns are dangerous. And we can agree that some people are irresponsbile regarding the use and storage of these weapons. Children are harmed becausse of this on a regular basis. So all guns should be outlawed.

This list of things that children need to be protected from is endless. Where does it end? Steak knives, if stored inappropriately can cause death, blindness and many other serious injuries to children. Should we outlaw them?

Every time someone says, "It is to protect the children", they don't have to mean what they say. Most of the time the demand to "protect the children" is only about what the individual making the claim finds personally offensive. Otherwise we would have a movement to outlaw, or at least tightly control, access to steak knives.

How about children seeing sexual activity between adults? Is that always harmful? No.

FACT: It happens all the time. Many recent immigrants (legal or illegal has nothing to do with this), and other extremely poor people, live multiple families to small apartments. Mom, dad and the children all sleep in the same room. There is no "total privacy behind closed doors". If they have more than one child, chances are they have had sex in a room with children present.

Before you stick your nose too far in the air, try to keep in mind that this is pretty much the norm through history. Lots of children born to parents who live(d) in one room. Geuss what happened.

Sadly, my personal geuss is that the attitudes toward sex as a natural and normal part of life were much healthier in those societies.

[CRD]

"But your insistence on smoking bans in bars would seem to be a determination to force dissenters to your will."

I'm sorry, but I don't see how requiring employers to adhere to standards of workplace safety by requiring smoke-free indoor workplaces infringes anyone's liberty. There's no "right" to have unsafe workspaces.

As for having reasonable controls on weapons, there's no unqualified right to bear arms guaranteed by the Constitution.

Try carrying a pistol into a federal building sometime and making that argument to the federal marshal (and to the judge).

[Engineer]

Libertarian
If you reread my post that was addressed to you, you will see that it says "would seem to indicate". This is not exactly stating a conclusion. None the less I will apologize if you were offended. As to the rest of your current post, there is nothing in it with which I would take strong exception. As to dogs, I would say that their treatment and training has a great effect on their behavior in most cases so there is a human element. As to smokong, it is my opinion that a workplace is one thing and an area, optional for patrons, is another.

[solomon]

openmind....my children are all grown and responsible individuals, not perfect but good people....that is my contribution to society....I say that because i hope not to hear any "police your own" type comments regarding my opinion....

If you honestly feel that sites that unsupervised young people (once again, none of you guys kids)go on daily, and there are polls and studies that show a majority of teens and younger have visited, which feature pornography off all types does not affect the kind of adults they will become you are living in a dream world. If you can honestly say you believe these things do not have an affect on children, and they go towards the betterment of our society say so now. I'll defend your right to say it, but will never believe a rational person would say it

[Engineer]

CRD
"My rights end where yours begin. It’s such a simple but powerful concept, yet it is anathema to some conservatives, because it necessarily excludes their desire to control and force their dissenters to succumb to their will." But your insistence on smoking bans in bars would seem to be a determination to force dissenters to your will. Both the US Constitution and the laws of Kansas affirm my right to be armed, yet you would deny it. My opinion remains unchanged, these opinions are not those of a true libertarian.

[jack]

Okay, I get it now. Most people are so dumb, and of such low moral fiber, that the "good" people must A) Protect their children from the dumb folks inability to parent and B) Protect the dumb people from themselves.

Or is it just your personal "morals & values" you believe should be written into law? Who is going to enforce these...what should we call them........I know, how about "bedroom laws"?

[Moral City USA]

Engineer, you dont allow much time to respond before drawing a conclusion.

I am not in favor of gun controls. I simply point out that guns and porn are secondary elements to crime.

I am not in favor of dog breeding bans either, but I point out that dangerous dogs are not secondary. A dog can act independently and attack without the owner's action/command (which is how most of the biting incidents happen). A gun cannot kill without someone causing it to fire, thus the comparison of dogs to guns and porn is not the same.

I am in favor of indoor smoking ban because the rights of smokers ends at nonsmoker's noses.

[openmind]

What exactly is in danger?

[solomon]

bangs, CRD, bangs....as I am new to this forum i did want want to cross some line where someone might be offended by the words.....I am enjoying this exchange of opinions

[CRD]

"b*ngs"?

bongs? bings? bungs? bengs?

[CRD]

"You haven't replied to this post which would seem to indicate that your beliefs are not libertarian. How about it?"

I can see valid libertarian arguments for each of those stances.

My rights end where yours begin. It’s such a simple but powerful concept, yet it is anathema to some conservatives, because it necessarily excludes their desire to control and force their dissenters to succumb to their will. It's a concept that scribes a line of demarcation between libertarian and conservative politics.

[solomon]

jack...most of us grown folks have had experiences with pornography, and it is your right to do what you please....but with a quarter billion or more web sites, many featuring brutality, beastiality, gang b*ngs, etc., all of these easily accessed by children (of course not you responsible peoples kids), it seems to me an obvious danger....

[Kate]

TMI, jack, TMI . . .