RSS
Twitter
Oh No! People Might Watch Porn In Hotel Rooms! Oh, The Horror!
from the spanktravision dept
While it's true that our current administration has been pushing to make obscenity laws stricter, there are some things that just come across as silly. Take, for example, the efforts of a "former porn addict" activist who is so worried about the possibility that he might fall back off the wagon, that he's starting up a national campaign to ban pornography pay-per-view in the privacy of your hotel room. Why? Despite absolutely no evidence to back it up, he's positive that hotel porn leads to sex abuse cases in hotels. Of course, it's not as if anyone who really wants to view porn won't have plenty of other options to do so as well, even if the hotel isn't offering pay-per-view movies. You know, a bunch of hotel rooms I've stayed in recently have also offered video games. Perhaps Jack Thompson needs to start stirring up some interest in getting hotels to knock it off, before kids start running through the corridors shooting everyone. Most decent hotels now offer internet access as well, which can allow just about anyone to access porn there. Might as well ban in-room internet access as well. Also, I understand that when men and women share a hotel room, sometimes they've been known to get naked. Perhaps hotels should be forced to ban co-rooming of members of opposite sexes. Yeah, that'll protect the innocent. There is, of course, an easy answer: hotels should not be allowed to offer electricity. No TV. No internet. No light. We'll all be safe again.
Reader Comments (rss)
So many bases to cover...
and none are belong to me. :.(
I agree with you that limiting porn is absurd. However you're going in the wrong direction. You are saying that it's absurd on the standpoint of enforcement. "How could they ever be able to do that?" you say. The point, however, is whether or not they should do that. The answer, in my opinion, is no.
We're not a democracy. We're a republic. If we were a democracy, then every single vote would be counted instead of the "averaging" Electoral College system we have.
We can hope.
Aside: please learn to type full words. I don't care that much about spelling (hell, if it weren't for spell check, I might as well be typing in a different language). But if you are going to type in your cutesy little leet-speak, at least pay for my aspirin.
Of course they're going to say that the hotel porn made them do it. Gods forbid that anyone take responsibility for their actions. If you ask enough pedophiles, I'm sure one of them would say that the talking kazoo made them do it.
Thank you! Well said!.
That's the root problem at such "for the children", "for the people", and "for common decency" rallying cries. There is always a channel button, a mute button, an off button. No one has forced you to watch anything. Stop trying to save us from ourselves damnit. If we hurt ourselves, kill ourselves or what have you, then fine. Our choice. We're helping prove Darwin right. Who are you to get in the way of evolution? And don't start trying to save my soul either. If I'm so twisted and perverted, why would you want to spend eternity in the same afterlife as me anyway? To quote a great (albeit, fictional) man, "Why don't we just ignore each other until we go away?"
Yes, it is unfortunate, but if the group wants to disassociate itself, it needs to make sure people understand that the person is not affiliated. Similar to what the National Institute on Media and the Family did with Jack Thompson.
Wrong. If it's aired on TV as commercials during kids shows, then the parents need to find the aforementioned off button. Period. It is not, nor should it be, the media's or the media-regulation's responsibility to safeguard our morals.
It is not a right to be able to watch television. That's a luxury. It's not a right to have television programming that's clean of anything you find objectionable. It is your right to not have someone tell you what you have to watch, then force you to watch it. Since I don't see anyone being held at gunpoint or coerced into watching porn, I'd say that our rights are safe here.
The only rights in danger are the rights of those who wish to view porn and wouldn't be able to because it's outlawed. In my opinion, the law against porn to minors is a violation of rights. It's a law based on "moral decency" that removes the responsibility of child-rearing from the parents. It's a law founded under the pretense of "preventing the development of perverts and predators".
Since that law was conceived so long ago, I submit that it was done so without the benefit of studies to support this assertion. I would like to see evidence that viewing porn before a certain age could lead to perversion in any substantial numbers, especially if that viewing were offset by proper parental education.
Add Your Comment