Can We Discuss Porn Politics?

[alleyes1]

For very good reason, politics is not allowed to be discussed on the boards. I was wondering however if might be ok to discuss the "politics of porn". The reason I ask it is this. With the Supreme Court of the U.S. likely to shift to a conservative ideology in the not too distant future, conservative groups in the U.S. will be launching campaigns like never before on the right of free speech related to pornography. I have nothing at all against conservatives. I myself have voted for a couple of presidents some would say were conservative. But I think we should all be able to agree that in this one area, we should be able to agree. Frankly, if you don't like porn, you shouldn't be here.

Jane Duvall has, in the past, had a "porn in the news" column on her web site. Unfortunately, unless she's just revamped it, her site has become pretty stagnant as a new family became a priority.

I realize that since this is an Australian site, that it might seem to make a difference but I believe it does. What happens in the U.S. will effect what is allowed on the internet. For gosh sakes let's protect the one outlet where we all truly have free speech in every area.

Would love to hear what other think (after Abby give approval of course).

Alleyes

[stoneyyy]

Well it could have an effect on AW considering her site is housed in the usa.

As for what is actually allowed on the internet he USA have no say in it

[alleyes1]

I'm afraid they have more influence than you relealize.

[Abby]

Can We Discuss Porn Politics?

Sure. Go nuts.

a

[alleyes1]

Thanks Abby. I'll start posting links, etc., just so people will know what's going on. It's better to start being informed early.

Alleyes

[alleyes1]

Just thought of something I need to qualify. I know that alot of conservatives like porn. (Otherwise the porn industry wouldn't be so big!!) I also know that porn is not the most important issue for alot of people (even most people!) . I am not trying say to all conservative are bad. There is a segment of the conservatives in the U.S. however who are basically trying to make a power play in the U.S. and frankly it scares the hell out of me. And not just because of the porn issue.
But, THIS THREAD IS ONLY ABOUT THE ISSUE OF PORN. Otherwise, that big red X is going to show up quicker than <you name it>.

Thanks, Alleyes

[Tank]

<you name it>.

Victor...... 2 strokes is all it takes!!

Tank

[Martyhulk]

Abby, is the reason that the site is domiciled in the US because of the rampant conservatism of the Australian government?

In Australia, we do not have a 'right' to free speech, just what the High Court of Australia (bless Justice Kirby) has found to be 'implied rights' in our constitution. So the government can make communications laws that I am sure make it more difficult than it should be for Abby to do her thing. So very sad.

[stoneyyy]

Maybe they will bring up the porn issue in the usa to take the heat off the fucked up mess its made in iraq

[Luxman]

We're speaking about porn, not about Iraq. Respect the theme please or I'll need to...stroke-stroke

Thanks

Lxm

[Stinky]

I am proud to call myself a conservative. A conservative is not automatically a member of the religious right. I do not object to porn on the Internet or most places for that matter. I do support protecting children and those who do not want to view it from coming unknowingly upon it. I am not sure what methods such as banners or special domain names best guard against offending without unreasonably restricting free speech. As a conservative, I do not believe in imposing my views and beliefs on others and do not want theirs imposed on me. The motto of the conservative is "He governs best who governs least."

[Martyhulk]

I don't mean to be flippant, and I apologise now if I cause offence, but does "He governs best who governs least" mean that the 'convservative' governments that restrict the rights of consenting adults to free speech are really not conservative? I mean this seriously.

Of course, just to be flippant for a second, the government in Australia is a Liberal government, but they are certainly the opposite. Americans would find it kind of difficult to fathom, for a while I think!

[Luxman]

Thanks to my time machine we are back 25 minutes in the past.

Second chance.

So please no politics, just what we all want: Discussion about porn and what could happen to it.

Lxm

[Luxman]

Stoneyyy, I can't see insults in Alleyes's posts, sorry, I'm probably to silly or less sensitive.

I want to give this thread the chance to develop because it's an interesting theme.

Reading your previous post I'm not sure who's more insulting.
It's probably not possible to discuss a theme with a kind of political background without the whole thread derailing.
I'm too naive I think.

Lxm

[stoneyyy]

Ok back to where porn is going then,
If the USA decide to go the same way as australia and not allow porn to be hosted on servers there web sites such as aw will then have to find another country that will allow them to host.

I am sure with the amount of money in all this there will be many nations that will house the servers

[Luxman]

The problem I see here is that the most important part of Abby's members are located in the US, and when they one day will be able (I don't believe in that) to stop people accessing porn, the entire industry, anywhere in the world will have trouble.

Porn is a multi-billion industry in the US, so I think the risk is very low, but it's worth to be discussed.

Lxm

[alleyes1]

And, if the U.S. government contacts other governments and says "Will you help us out on this?" (discreetly of course), it's anybodys guess.

[stoneyyy]

And, if the U.S. government contacts other governments and says "Will you help us out on this?" (discreetly of course), it's anybodys guess.

Good point but how many would help?

With billions of dollars to be made I think few would, many european countries would jump at the oppotunity to have the business and many already have their own industries. for eg do you think the french would help the usa

The other danger would be if certain middle eastern nations got the business and used the money for evil purposes

[alleyes1]

stoneyyy, in all honesty, I think you and I are on the same side on this one. The only reason I brought it up was because, although it would not shut down the porn industry if stricter laws are passed in the U.S., what happens in the U.S. on this is important. I was just trying to alert everyone in advance.

Peace brother. (When are they going to make a peace sign smiley??)

Alleyes

[Luxman]

Good point but how many would help?

Probably more than we are able to imagine.

With billions of dollars to be made I think few would, many european countries would jump at the oppotunity to have the business and many already have their own industries. for eg do you think the french would help the usa

Well, the billions of dollars are mainly made in the States. I know a lot of arse-kissing governments who would do anything to please Uncle Sam.
Even in Europe (no not Luxmanland, though we are still pretty thankful for what the States have done 60 years ago).

Lxm

[Luxman]

(When are they going to make a peace sign smiley??)

Use this one instead.

Lxm

[stoneyyy]

Yes Luxman, I also live in a nation that kisses ass there, but as we seen with the French etc recently, they have forgot the help they got 60years ago, and for the reasons of making money.

Yes alleyes we are saying the same thing from different angles, my question is here is why would the USA want to move to ban porn, why would they bring this topic up, I am sure there are people that would detest porn there as there are everywhere, but as long as it is not slammed in your face then its ok

[Stinky]

as long as it is not slammed in your face then its ok

Basically, that's what I espoused in my earlier message. I don't think there's any real danger of the US going beyond that.

[alleyes1]

stoneyyy, what's happened is this. Our Supreme Court is made up of 12 justices who are appointed
for life or until they decide to resign. For the last 15 years(?) or more the court has been philosophically balanced as far as basically an equal number of coservatives and liberals. There was also a justice that was considered a "moderate" meaning she really couldn't be counted on my either side for sure. She was considered a "swing" vote because her vote could make the outcome of the courts verdict.
During the last year, really shorter than that, the court has lost 2 members. One by death and one by resignation. One was a conservative and one was the "swing" voter. She normally voted the way "you and I" think on issues like this.
The President selects new people for the Supreme Court and with the approval of congress, they are sworn in.
Because the President was under the "debt" of these religious conservatives, he has appointed one and nominated another justice that is in approval of these religious groups. These groups are like "people on a mission" and they will fight tooth and nail and will not fight fair if they think it can further their cause.
With the approval of this second justice, the Supreme Court will no longer have a moderate as the swing vote and whenever these religious groups file law suits in the Supreme Court, they are likely to win because they now have a Supreme Court that majority shares their views.

Sorry this was so long. But that basically explains what has happened.

Alleyes

[stoneyyy]

Alleyes thankyou for explaining that, its starting to make some sence now, so these Justices, do they make the laws? or are they made by the govenment, I was under the belief that laws in the us were made by congress and then passed through the senate

[alleyes1]

You are correct. The congress makes the laws. The Supreme Court hears law suits and decides cases and by doing so, determines how a law applies to a particular case. That's where it gets muddled. The issue of porn has always been decided because the court said that it was protected under freedom of speech. Theoretically, the religious groups could file a suit and the Court overturn the previous rulings by saying it is no longer protected under freedom of speech. In practice, overturning previous rulings is unusual, but because these new justices are so "extreme" in their views, they could very well overturn it. In reality they wont be able to get it outlawed but they could put such resctrictions on it that it would make it very difficult for porn to freely flurish.

[stoneyyy]

Now that is a very real issue,
I would say the easy fix to that maybe the porn industry lobbies the govenment to make laws to protect them and give them a legal standing in there own right.

I could comment of these religious groups and the power they have, and when you look at them they are far from what the preach but that would take this way off the topic.

[alleyes1]

Yes, the porn industry does have very real influence in Washington. (Remember most of the members of congress look at porn)
The thing is, in the past, the porn industry has been able to work in the background so no one really has to come out and discuss porn too much publicly and it's really not debated too much. It's always been sort of a "wink-wink", kind of issue.
This very well may change in the next few years, although I would think, again these groups will probably go to the Supreme Court first and see what damage they can do. Remember, the justices are not elected, answer to no one but themselves, and are appointed for life, so you can't just vote them out in the next election.
To put things in perspective, porn is certainly not the only thing these groups are going after by a long shot. But since this is what this site is all about that's why I brought it up.

[Luxman]

Religious groups are always very powerful. My small country is governed by the Christian-Social-Party mainly and until 15 years ago the were very conservative.

I remember in the mid 70's there was a German magazine "Bravo" for teenagers (12-16 years) that started advice in love things and published harmless pictures. This magazine was forbidden to be sold to minors. The parents had to buy it for their children. That was absolutely silly.

Lxm

[stoneyyy]

Another way of looking at this would be to revamp the systems you have there.
1 Review the terms the Justices have... should they have a life time role?
2 Is the 2 term max on the presidency working, when you have a President in his second term and can not be re-elected, so sells out to promises made and favours done in the first term.

Yes it would be time for the porn industry to come out of the closet then and be out in the open, its a real industry like any others, and many rely on it to feed their familys