Originally Posted by ChefJeff

I hear what you are saying. I listed your site totally at random.

But what about your signature? You link to it yourself. What is the difference? Just making a point.

Yes I could have listed any one of hundreds or thousands of other sites. Which is why I started my thread by stating that the sites listed are simply random examples for this debate.

From my point of view, this moral crusade, and that's what it is, is a disgrace and is fueled by the religious right just as it was in the 70's. They are trying to impose their view of morality on the entire country. And that's not freedom. That can't be what all those who have fought and died in wars defending America died for. They sacrificed so that we can enjoy our freedoms. Freedoms!

There was a GREAT study done by the Stanford School of Law, there was a link to it from the FSC site a while back not sure if it's still there, but the findings of the study showed that as internet use went up in specific geographic areas, the number of sexual crimes went down. That makes total sense.

And what about the 1968 Presidential report on pornography? It found that not only was porn not bad, but it was actually beneficial and healthy in many cases. But the administration buried the findings. This was the only scientific study commissioned by the government to see what the effects of porn were. They buried it because it didn't conclude what they wanted. And they went ahead with their crack down anyway.

And the Meese Commission report wasn't even a scientific study, that report was based soley on testimony by a hand picked group of right wingers. 2257 came out of that.

There has to be some way to stand up for our rights. Shit, I would even settle for them being specific about what is and isn't obscene.

You know how you know you're speeding? Cause the sign says what the limit is.

No one knows if they've broken obscenity laws until a jury says so. How can that be constitutional?