We agree porn is bad, but should it be banned?

  • Thread starter Thread starter XndrK
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Must not have been that pointless if it got your and @GoingRogue s attention…😏
 
Define “simulated.” I am not trying to be obnoxious, but rather to point out just how specific and detailed laws have to be.
 
I take that to mean appearing to be engaging in a sex act. So having a man and woman in bed moving in a certain way would be pornography, even if they are covered by a sheet or if the frame does not show the whole body. Also cartoons representations of sex acts would be covered under this.
 
True. Some of the anti-obscenity and sexually-oriented business regulations can make you feel dirty just reading them. It’s gross.
 
Okay, then that has to be the definition in the law. Any ambiguity in the law benefits the defendant.
 
Of course it should be banned. It is evil, even from a secular point of view. It pollutes peoples minds and makes them into perverts who only think of sex sex sex.
 
Well I don’t think it can be banned even if we wanted it banned. It should however be legislated. Example revenge porn should be criminal and people jailed for it. Also the actors (if we can call them that) should have full rights to their image so that they can reclaim thee images if they in the future change their minds. Another example should be that one should have to physically search for the websites. and they should have to stay on their own .XXX I don’t want my daughter to be doing research on zoo animals for a school project and find out what the world of depravity is all about at her age. NO advertisements on on any .com or normal search should come up. THis is just a few bits of legislature that should be easy to pass if politicians had a spine.

Porongraphy is a scoorge on society and is as deadly and addictive as heroine or gambling. Please do your research. It affects both male and females differently but both with devasting results.

Please Pray for all those involved in Porn as either a direct participant or a consumer!
 
Oh, good. We can lawyer this (although thinking back to 1A law hurts…)
 
pnewton said:
Making matter of morals that affect the good of society illegal is still the only purpose of even having a government, as opposed to anarchy.
Click to expand...
While I agree with your response to the OP I was curious about your view on the purpose of Government.

I would think the State does much more than just decide what matters of morality should be put into law. Surely it also administers welfare, education, the public good, manages industry, commerce and finance for the greatest efficiency, growth and benefit to the commonweal.
 
The Church has already taught long ago that its a purely prudential question as to the extent that the moral code (or codes) of religious groups within the State should influence criminal law. Criminalisation of prostitution for example is not compulsory. Clearly a society cannot survive for long if it is so lawless that the basics are not agreed (eg murder, significant theft).

Personally I believe pornography should be restricted.
However outright universal banns never work because a point comes when fallen human nature (which large percentages of the population are working through to varying degrees) is being tackled directly head on which never works. A population must be largely willing to be disciplined for a bann to work. There simply isn’t enough resources available to inhibit, police, detain and punish illegal industries if such issues do not have active personal backing from large sectors of the public.

It is the role of religion and teaching of personal morality to cover off on these matters that the law cannot practically control. That is why the State used to provide financial incentives to approved charities and religions.

If the State no longer does this then it is up to committed Christians and other religions to be a leaven to society by other means. The days of Christendom are long gone. The Church flourished and leavened society very well in the West for its first 380 years as an unsupported minority group. Obviously we are doing something wrong if we have reverted back to that situation and lost the patronage of the State.

The somewhat head in the sand, temporal authoritarian, one true Church type attitude of the long distant past seems to haunt us still.
 
Last edited:
Cimachol said:
Catechism of the Catholic Church: 2354

Pornography consists in removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them deliberately to third parties. It offends against chastity because it perverts the conjugal act, the intimate giving of spouses to each other. It does grave injury to the dignity of its participants (actors, vendors, the public), since each one becomes an object of base pleasure and illicit profit for others. It immerses all who are involved in the illusion of a fantasy world. It is a grave offense. Civil authorities should prevent the production and distribution of pornographic materials,
Click to expand...
Yes, pornography should be banned- it is stated directly by the Catechism of the Catholic Church! How do we as Catholics make that happen? One soul at a time starting with ourself.
 
The days of Christendom are long gone? According to who? The West was systematically attacked starting in the mid-1960s. I was there. I watched the preachers enter our neighborhoods, I watched corruption seep into the Supreme Court in 1973 and strangers opening Adult Bookstores, strip clubs and topless bars. We needed this? No. 100 times no.

And God always leaves a faithful remnant. In the Bible, no matter what the Israelites did, God left a faithful remnant. And so it is today.
 
exnihilo said:
Those aren’t sexual situations. Rape used there comes from the Latino raptio, which means to carry off. Do you have any specific classic art that would be indecent?
Click to expand...
Oh, heavens yes. There is art being dug up from the Greek bathhouses that would curl your hair! There is no doubt it is art in terms of the skill of the execution, but if that isn’t indecent, nothing is. It is bawdier than bawdy.
 
Yup, I know. Nothing there suggests that pornography in general is illegal under federal law. Not all (or even most) of what Catholics would consider pornography is “obscenity” legally speaking.
 
Let’s take a look:
Code: 
Whether the average person, applying contemporary adult community standards, finds that the matter, taken as a whole, appeals to prurient interests (i.e., an erotic, lascivious, abnormal, unhealthy, degrading, shameful, or morbid interest in nudity, sex, or excretion);
Whether the average person, applying contemporary adult community standards, finds that the matter depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way (i.e., ultimate sexual acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated, masturbation, excretory functions, lewd exhibition of the genitals, or sado-masochistic sexual abuse); and
Whether a reasonable person finds that the matter, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
Where do you not read “erotic”? That is the classic case of obscene material (i…e porn.)
It’s also Patently Offensive:

Patently offensive is a term used in United States law regarding obscenity under the First Amendment. The phrase “patently offensive” first appeared in Roth v. United States, referring to any obscene acts or materials that are considered to be openly, plainly, or clearly visible as offensive to the viewing public.

For if the acts were done in public outside of a magazine or what’s out there on the internet, then people would cover their children’s eyes, or their own eyes. And since children are apart of the public. And, yes, there’s no stipulation on age on the three prong argument (it says a person.) Which is inclusive.to every person. It then does stipulate it’s still criminal. The internet is a public domain. The magazines are in the public eye. And yes they are offensive by people in the public. It’s not a matter of whether or not some think so. Or a majority. It’s whether someone finds it offensive. And yes there are people who do. And therefore results as criminally offensive in law. In fact if someone in Federal law see’s it, and counts it as offensive. Then he or she can take it down. That’s a minimal requirement/qualification.
 
Last edited:
I don’t think pornography should be as easy to buy as a pack of gum- it certainly shouldn’t be available at Toys-R-Us! but banning it seems a bit extreme.

Already 100 replies, so I have no clue if the conversation is even on track.
 
There’s a lot here to respond to, but suffice to say that’s not how courts interpret statutes generally (or this one specifically.)

I hate to do the “trust me, I’m a lawyer” thing, but trust me: “pornography is illegal under federal law” is not an accurate statement.
 
It is. My friend not only served out warrants. But he was in Federal law enforcement. He stated it’s still illegal. How narrower or broader the terms of justice may have lessened or allowed that material, still can have the case made before a court of law. And yes, that three prong does fit the test of what my friend stated.

Any ordinary person can look at what you are looking at. And say it’s obscene. That’s all it takes. It falls under the same premise of indecent exposure. All the person has to do is see you are obviously looking at this, and judge it as obscene. And yeah, that is outlined there.

A lawyer isn’t always right either. If lawyers knew the law so well, then there would be fewer. And it wouldn’t take a vast amount of lawyers to run a case. But, because lawyers are human, fault as any ordinary human being does. And since they are not all cut with the same thread, it therefore can be brought up before the court of law. And cases can start being made of offensive material by any ordinary by-stander. In fact, if you look at porn in public, you are still guilty before the law. For if someone see’s you looking at it, say in a library or an airport. They can still report you. because, if fits the three premises in the three prong argument. And if government see’s that you are looking at it online. They can perceive it is offensive and prosecute.

I am just pointing out yes it is still illegal. Because it can still be interpreted that way. And, I am saying to people who are on here with a President who signed an agreement with some Conservative constituents, during his campaign, to fight against that kind of material. So, if he works with the AG to shut down something like the works of Hugh Hefner, he will then do it as the three prong argument still is valid/can be upheld to take down that kind of imagery and material. And yes, if kids are able to get to that kind of material online as there are no limits, then Mr. Trump will/can take them down. And I hope he does.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top