Trump’s Top Prosecutor Sessions Considers Pushing Christian Fundamentalist Laws

[Cyber Liberty]

Its not really hard to define obscenity in such a manner that most people can agree.

The 'who's morality?' question is sophistry simply intended to make the attempt to define impossible. I always wonder to what purpose.

Watch a video of a Gay Pride parade in San Francisco some time (if you can stand it), you'll see the purpose.  That's why the concept of "morality" must be so picked to death by semantic arguments...to "normalize" immoral behavior.  SOP on the left, so easy they don't even know they're doing it.

[musiclady]

Its not really hard to define obscenity in such a manner that most people can agree.

The 'who's morality?' question is sophistry simply intended to make the attempt to define impossible. I always wonder to what purpose.

Excellent points.   There is obscenity that most people will agree on, and it is not that difficult to define.

No one is talking about "in olden days a glimpse of stocking was looked on as something shocking" kind of definition.

The obvious is obvious.

[roamer_1]

I wondering how one can define obscenity?

Aw, cmon. We could start with Carlin's list, eh? Would that be so bad?

[Cyber Liberty]

Excellent points.   There is obscenity that most people will agree on, and it is not that difficult to define.

No one is talking about "in olden days a glimpse of stocking was looked on as something shocking" kind of definition.

The obvious is obvious.

And the obvious must be denied.  That's how we normalize dirty old men using little girls bathrooms.  It used to be pretty darned obvious that was aberrant behavior, now it's a Federal Mandate.  Bob Hope had a joke about that he used to do at his USO shows.

[r9etb]

Its not really hard to define obscenity in such a manner that most people can agree.

The 'who's morality?' question is sophistry simply intended to make the attempt to define impossible. I always wonder to what purpose.

You don't actually wonder, of course ... it's so that they can look at their own particular version of dirty pictures.

That said, the old "do you really want some stranger doing this in front of your kids?" rule is a pretty good discriminator, albeit a subjective one.  It's a form of the "reasonable person standard" that's commonplace in legal actions.  (e.g., http://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/reasonable-person.html)

[skeeter]

You don't actually wonder, of course ... it's so that they can look at their own particular version of dirty pictures.

That said, the old "do you really want some stranger doing this in front of your kids?" rule is a pretty good discriminator, albeit a subjective one.  It's a form of the "reasonable person standard" that's commonplace in legal actions.  (e.g., http://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/reasonable-person.html)

Of course.

The only distinction that would need be made would be between, say, Michaelangelos David and a guy displaying his private parts on public transit. I don't think such distinction would be too difficult for a jury to grasp.

No pun intended.

[musiclady]

And the obvious must be denied.  That's how we normalize dirty old men using little girls bathrooms.  It used to be pretty darned obvious that was aberrant behavior, now it's a Federal Mandate.  Bob Hope had a joke about that he used to do at his USO shows.

The left has been very successful in boiling the proverbial frog in water.

Little by little they've defined deviancy down, turning aberrant behavior into "normal,"  and then gradually moving toward making those of us who maintain the obvious standard of what obscenity is the objects of ridicule.

Why just today on this very forum, I was told that I was laughed at by many on this forum for my consistent moral standards, only one of whom apparently has the courage to ridicule me publicly........ the one who tattled on his cowardly, laughing friends.

The left has been very successful in redefining clear, non-"fundamentalist" values and mocking those who still hold them..........even on conservative internet forums....

@Cyber Liberty

[HonestJohn]

There is a significant difference between "immodest" or "inappropriate" and "obscene."

The cultural difference in clothing isn't really germane to the discussion of obscenity, IMO.

It shows the relative nature of the topic.

[musiclady]

It shows the relative nature of the topic.

But there is material that isn't OK 'relatively' by any objective standard.

There is an area where nearly everyone can agree, and that is where the conversation needs to be centered.

NOT in Asian miniskirts.

It's diversionary, and not related to actual obscenity.

[Cyber Liberty]

It shows the relative nature of the topic.

It was a good way of illustrating the point without drawing the ire and edits of the Moderators, I thought.  Was it the best way?  Maybe not, but I thought it was a good way without being obscene in the process.

[HonestJohn]

But there is material that isn't OK 'relatively' by any objective standard.

There is an area where nearly everyone can agree, and that is where the conversation needs to be centered.

NOT in Asian miniskirts.

It's diversionary, and not related to actual obscenity.

And some people find penis/vagina lollipops to be obscene.  Yet they are sold in public to all (children included) at the Kanamara Matsuri Festival at the Shinto shrine in Kawasaki, Japan.  Heck, you can buy cartoon tentacle rape porn at bookstores throughout Japan, sold in the open for all to see.  Salarymen read the books on the subways and trains for all to see, as well.  Schoolgirls sell their used panties for to companies for spending cash, who turn around and resell them in vending machines for other salarymen to purchase.

That's all normal.  Is that normal to you?

Obscenity, at best, is a local issue.  What's obscene in Japan is different than what's obscene in San Francisco, and that's different than what's obscene in Peoria, Illinois.  And that's different than what's obscene in New York or Miami or Dallas or Mecca.

Making this a federal issue means that *ONE* standard will be used.  *ONE*!

Are you comfortable with that?

[musiclady]

And some people find penis/vagina lollipops to be obscene.  Yet they are sold in public to all (children included) at the Kanamara Matsuri Festival at the Shinto shrine in Kawasaki, Japan.  Heck, you can buy cartoon tentacle rape porn at bookstores throughout Japan, sold in the open for all to see.  Salarymen read the books on the subways and trains for all to see, as well.  Schoolgirls sell their used panties for to companies for spending cash, who turn around and resell them in vending machines for other salarymen to purchase.

That's all normal.  Is that normal to you?

Obscenity, at best, is a local issue.  What's obscene in Japan is different than what's obscene in San Francisco, and that's different than what's obscene in Peoria, Illinois.  And that's different than what's obscene in New York or Miami or Dallas or Mecca.

Making this a federal issue means that *ONE* standard will be used.  *ONE*!

Are you comfortable with that?

First of all, we are not talking about Japan.  They can have their own standards of obscenity, so your bringing them up (again) is not really germane to American law.

Also, we are not "making it a federal issue."  There have been mutually agreed upon standards in the past until the left began eroding them.

As a conservative, I would prefer this to be a state issue, but the internet makes that difficult.

Let me ask you this........ can we both agree that showing a child being raped by an adult male on TV is too obscene for everyone?  Is that a standard we can all agree on?

[Wingnut]

First of all, we are not talking about Japan.  They can have their own standards of obscenity, so your bringing them up (again) is not really germane to American law.

The damn Germans got nothin' to do with it!
 

[musiclady]

The damn Germans got nothin' to do with it!
 

 

[Cyber Liberty]

Let me ask you this........ can we both agree that showing a child being raped by an adult male on TV is too obscene for everyone?  Is that a standard we can all agree on?

I'm a third-party interloper, but I can vote "aye" on that.  I think there are villages in Africa where natives run around stark naked who would agree with that one.  Openly rutting in the street, too, which notably is OK in San Francisco. 

[roamer_1]

Making this a federal issue means that *ONE* standard will be used.  *ONE*!

Are you comfortable with that?

What's so bad about it? Since cable slipped the bonds of the FCC, language has done nothing but grow more coarse. Polite society is all but gone. Is the need to be obscene that important?

It amazes me that folks balk at saying the n-word... You can literally be banned from sites for espousing conservative principles... But anything obscene is just fine, and must be retained because... freedom.
What a joke we have become. No wonder we don't know which bathroom to use.

[Cyber Liberty]

What's so bad about it? Since cable slipped the bonds of the FCC, language has done nothing but grow more coarse. Polite society is all but gone. Is the need to be obscene that important?

It amazes me that folks balk at saying the n-word... You can literally be banned from sites for espousing conservative principles... But anything obscene is just fine, and must be retained because... freedom.
What a joke we have become. No wonder we don't know which bathroom to use.

The problem I have with it can be boiled down to three words:   "Lowest Common Denominator."

A Federal definition of "moral" would be set by the definition that can pass muster everywhere.  Ultimately this would mean the definition of "obscene" in Iowa would be set by the desires of people in Los Angeles and San Francisco.

I foresee difficulty.. 

Edited to add:   I watched a showing of "Blazing Saddles" on a standard tier cable channel the other day.  "Shit" and "bleep" was allowed, "bleep" was not.

[musiclady]

I'm a third-party interloper, but I can vote "aye" on that.  I think there are villages in Africa where natives run around stark naked who would agree with that one.  Openly rutting in the street, too, which notably is OK in San Francisco.

Exactly.   There are things that are just objectively obscene.  But what results from removing the obvious from the equation, is that we have no standards whatsoever.

Is that what is being advocated here?

It reminds me of rebellious children saying, "You can't tell ME what to do!" to their parents.

(btw, I'm not a libertarian.  I believe that some standards apply to everyone).

[musiclady]

What's so bad about it? Since cable slipped the bonds of the FCC, language has done nothing but grow more coarse. Polite society is all but gone. Is the need to be obscene that important?

Apparently it is....   

It amazes me that folks balk at saying the n-word... You can literally be banned from sites for espousing conservative principles... But anything obscene is just fine, and must be retained because... freedom.
What a joke we have become. No wonder we don't know which bathroom to use.

That's what happens when you allow leftists to make the rules.

Nothing makes sense.

[Wingnut]

Edited to add:   I watched a showing of "Blazing Saddles" on a standard tier cable channel the other day.  "Shit" and "bleep" was allowed, "bleep" was not.

purely out of curiosity..  what was the "Bleep" word?

Ass hole?

[Cyber Liberty]

purely out of curiosity..  what was the "Bleep" word?

Ass hole?

Tw*t.  Ridiculous, huh?

[Wingnut]

Tw*t.  Ridiculous, huh?

Ah. "Teutonic"  I know the line well! 

[Cyber Liberty]

Ah. "Teutonic"  I know the line well!

Yup!   

[Wingnut]

Yup!   

Side Bar Cy.  Back when I 1st landed here, I called someone that name, (as it was unfiltered at that time here at TBR).  His reply was I had no understanding of the word "Teutonic".  I agreed with him but I knew a Tw*t when I saw one. 

Oh well!

[TomSea]

Fundamentalist Laws,

No dancing, No swearing, No liquor sales.