But I get your point. Zoning laws are a better example of government restrictions, as are historical landmark designations, and ecological preservations.

But to get back on topic, I want outsiders out of my bedroom and hotel room, let ‘em make a buck watching people, well, you know.

“Pornography for some, miniature crucifixes for others!”

If my wife and I decide to have just one child, that’s an agreement.

If the government says I can have only one child, that’s a restriction.

And mine was that your example isn’t a restriction imposed by an outside governing body, but one enforced by agreement among neighboring property owners.

Big difference.

Long live porn!!!!!

Second, our obsenity laws have been completely bypassed by the internet. You can get anything from stuff milder than Playboy to things that would make even John Mark Karr puke, just with a few mouse-clicks (and, of course, a Visa card number!) The Supreme Court held a long time ago that the First Amendment does not protect obsenity, but never did come up with a realistic definition of obsenity, though they make several efforts. And where once the sheriff could close down the adult bookstore or the theater that was patronized by middle aged men in raincoats, there is simply no way to stop pornography (a word which will probably get this comment automatically dumped into the moderation queue) since Al Gore invented the internet.

See, I knew I could blame it on a liberal!

I’ve written a couple of times on my site about my difficulties with a basically libertarian orientation and the legalization of recreational drugs; my point of difficulty is that the harm that comes from drug abuse is so frequently not limited to the drug user, but is often visited on his children and society as well. Such collateral damage from pornography is a bit harder to see, and much harder to quantify.

By the way, Mr Willis, I found this particular article thanks to Gordo from Appletree. He’s a liberal, but not a whacked out leftist, and he’d be a good addition to your blogroll.

And if your lawyer didn’t present you with the rules before you entered into contract, you need to find a better lawyer.

You could choose to live somewhere else.

Well, not a “rule” exactly. More like a contract the property owner signed at the time of purchase.

But don’t let that get in the way of a good rant.

It’s more accurate to classify it as a “me” issue. Until you own land yourself, you may not care about what others do to other property, but I bet you’ll start caring when someone exerts eminent domain and buys your house for under market value.

Now, I’ve owned a few properties, and land rights aren’t free and unfettered. There are zoning restrictions, usage restrictions, CC&Rs…there a many rules that dictate what you can and can’t do with your very own property. Look at gated communities and how paint nazis tell homeowners the exteriors of their homes must conform to their rules or they fined.

But I digress, I think this thread is about religious organizations wasting time controlling smut, which, of course, is a huge waste of time and money, but they’re free to do it. And they’re free to draw overwhelming contempt from guys like me who demand solid porn.

What’s wierd, is I would assume a hotel that’s wired would have a significant drop in porn money, as you can go right online and get it there.

And, I don’t know, when we start ranking one right against another, we sort of diminish them all.

It’s only when they’re trying to make, well, a federal case out of it that I get annoyed.