[Quote:
Originally Posted by boccaccop200g
The ACLU stood up for blacks when they were being lynched in the south. They stood up for Jews when there were quotas on Jewish admissions to certain colleges and universities. They stood up for Japanese-Americans when they were being thrown in concentration camps during World War II. They stood up for freedom of thought and association during they hysterical frenzy of post-WW II McCarthyism.
And they will stand up for you if the right-wing zealots in this country ever decide to go after pornographers and their readers and viewers.
[QUOTE=alex Bragi
Only, I can’t help but feel that you’re trivialising the rights of women, jews, blacks and the minority groups mentioned in this manifesto by comparing them to a bunch of blue movies, dirty pictures and sex stories. I simply fail to see the equation between someone not getting all the porn they think they’re entitled to and being discriminated against because of your race, sex, or religion.
And, of course I will always be on the front line of anyone who dares to harm or corrupt “society’s most vulnerable members”—our kids. And that’s why, to that degree, I do support a certain amount of censorship.[/QUOTE]
Alex I think Boccaccio's post has to be looked at in the context of him defending the record of ACL in its work supporting a range of freedoms.
Nevertheless I think it is right and proper for society to protect the freedoms of minors, even if that means censorship of some material especially photographic and some aspects of chat rooms, where they are used for “grooming”.
However my main point is on the question of whether snuff stories should be excluded, and I think that would be a pity, when all the dulcettt inspired ones are so sidesplittingly funny. How any one can take a story seriously, when a beautiful teen calmly discusses the finer culinary skills whilst she is the one roasting on a spit, is beyond me.
Another point is that throughout history, certain personality types, usually left brain dominant,who regard themselves as the arbitors of what is right, and being ambitious frequently get to the top of organisations and govenments, tend to pronounce on issues such as pornography, denouncing it virulently, only to be found time and again as regular users of it, along with being the authoritarian sadists that I have referred to in the thread on sadism. They were hate figures to De Sade, who held strong views against the abuse of power by the strong, long before they got him locked up as a pornographer, and liberteen, when their real purpose was revenge, that he had dared to depict their truly rapacious, and hypocritical attitudes in his novels. Nothing changes, except technology. So the very figures who are most antagonistic to porn or the like are not infrequently the greatest users, something they justify to themselves on the basis , that unlike lesser mortals, they are not corruptible!