SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Libertarian Discussion Forum
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Neocon who wrote (2646)5/8/1999 7:18:00 AM
From: Mama Bear1 Recommendation  Read Replies (2) of 13056
 
Neocon, I'm not one of the folks that believes that pornography leads to violence. I rather think that pornography is more likely used an alternative outlet to violence. Just because all rapist look at porn does not mean that all who look at porn will become rapists. To me the test should be one of containment, i.e. if the activity takes place completely contained within the walls of a private residence there is no right to suppress it. Those that act on impulses and move outside that boundary become legitimate targets for prosecution. But it is reprehensible to punish those that would not move their activities outside of these boundaries. Drunkeness is a great example. I see nothing wrong with punishing a drunken driver, or putting an abusive drunk in the 'tank' to sober up. Both have moved their activities outside of being self contained. But it would be reprehensible to punish someone for drinking, because they might drive drunk, or cause a public disturbance.

Barb
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News