I'll bet he/she is celebrating the death of Anna Nicole Smith.
She may not be a porn star but she is a..star in other ways. haha.

__________________

Yeh. that word "Accidentally" is a might big word. HEH HEH

Well, if pornography were a civil offence it would mean that a private citizen or corporation would have to sue a possessor to claim damages for themselves, but that doesn't work because they weren't harmed by it. The police would not be able to prosecute possessors for the same reason they can't prosecute over overhanging trees - its not a criminal offence, just a civil dispute.

I demand samples of this "Porn" you speak of in order to... uh, better understand what we're talking about...


As I recall one of the few, if not the only case where evidence was shown to the supreme court was over pornographic materials being sent through the mail, the defending attorney came with a box full of materials that needed to be kept out of the mail system by the law. But the interesting part isn't that the Justices accepted the evidence, but that they kept it for over a month before returning the box, with a number of items missing from it.

lmao

I wasn't quite sure what sort of porn we're talking about.. it's kind of a large genre. So to play it safe I chose "Pornography is harmful and should be regulated to the darkest corners of the free market" just in case we're talking some of the more severe porn that involves violence, or unconsenting folks.

I'd choose "Pornography is harmless and should be easily accesible on the free market", if it's the more soft-core or even mid-core stuff, not involving violence and that only involves consenting people.

Sorry to be so exacting but man, it's kind of a huge breadth of a topic - so that makes it somewhat difficult to choose a poll answer easily.

Don't feel bad, all of Devyl's polls were vague and poorly worded because he had an agenda to promote. He could very easily have confined it to legal pornography.

__________________
The apocalypse is coming... we're gonna need more ammo.

You make no distinction between pornography and obscenity. Obscenity is not protected speech; porn is. For those who need definitions check out Miller v. California./ And whatever you do, pay no attention to the Christian fundies' rants on the subject. What they consider "porn" is anything that causes an erection, from ads for Victoria's Secret to the speeches of Adolf Hitler.

if you start putting restrictions on pornography (as in nude humans engaging in coitus or other sexual acts, or even posing) then it seems to me you must put similar restrictions on ever fetish that exists.

after all, isn't the reason we restrict porn because of its sexual nature? it's too difficult to control and limits our freedoms, besides. just keep it under the same lock and key that alcohol, cars, voting, cigarettes, and r-rated movies are under. we've functioned fine with porn for the last eternity and we'll be fine in the eons to come.

What makes pornography bad is the Puritan mindset of Christian Americans. As if masturbation, or watching porn with your spouse is a sin or morally reprehensible. According to who?

Child pornography, images of rape, and bestiality are definitely wrong. Pornography that does not harm anyone (one or more consenting adults) is perfectly fine and in fact, healthy.

I love the female body. I admire it everyday. Do I cheat on my wife? Never. We share our interests and fantasies.

Funny isn’t it. I cringe more when my 11 year old sees a simulated sex scene between a man and a woman on TV and heaven forbid a pair of tits than when he watches violent war movies and the like. Results of the interfering religious know alls and their own sexual hang-ups no doubt. As long as those involved in producing it are willing and being treated fairly in an employment sense and people are emotionally equipped to see it for what it is it can’t be harmful. But there will always be people who are affected in a negative way. No different form anything else really.

__________________
An exhaustive review of more than 600,000 Iraqi documents that were captured after the 2003 U.S. invasion has found no evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime had any operational links with Osama bin Laden's al Qaida terrorist network.