There’s this thing called the first amendment, and even sickos get the benefit of it. At least they should.
A California-based company that produced and distributed obscene materials and its owners were sentenced in U.S. District Court in Pittsburgh today for violating federal obscenity laws, U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan announced.
U.S. District Judge Gary L. Lancaster sentenced Extreme Associates, Inc., co-owners Robert Zicari, aka Rob Black, 35, and his wife, Janet Romano, aka Lizzie Borden, 32, both of Northridge, Calif., to one year and one day in prison. Extreme Associates, Zicari and Romano pleaded guilty on March 11, 2009, to a felony charge of conspiracy to distribute obscene material through the mails and over the Internet. Through their plea agreements, the company and its owners acknowledged responsibility for the conduct charged in Counts 2 through 10 of the indictment – distributing three videos through the mail and six individual video clips over the Internet to Western Pennsylvania. In addition, they forfeited to the United States the Internet domain name, extremeassociates.com, which was used to commit the violations. The company is now defunct.
‘Extreme Associates produced and distributed sexually degrading material that portrayed women in the most vile and depraved manner imaginable,’ stated Ms. Buchanan. ‘These prison sentences affirm the need to continue to protect the public from obscene, lewd, lascivious or filthy material, the production of which degrades all of us,’ she added.
Did any of the recipients of those three videos or viewers of those six clips not deliberately ask for them?
Did any of the recipients of those three videos or viewers of those six clips get prosecuted?
No doubt the answer is no to both questions.
Talking about prosecuting people for “obscenity”, can we prosecute the Republican Bush Principals for their war crimes and torture crimes now?
The better question is why Mary Beth Buchanan still has a job in the US Government.
Why is the vileness of the videos (and they are vile) an issue? If Western PA doesn’t want to watch filthy videos, just don’t watch them. But you shouldn’t get to force other people to conform to your standards. Total B.S.!
IOW, no body complained about the “offensive” materials until someone who wanted to be offended (undercover inspectors) went out of their way to expose themselves to them.
Lord save us from the morality police and those who would save us from ourselves.
“Mary Beth Buchanan”? Any relation to Patrick?
The people who raise hell about S&M videos are frequently the same people who have no problems whatsoever with waterboarding…
Hope and Change!!
The Taliban and the Iranians have morality police that enforce public morals with a stick.
Right wing social conservatives and the Taliban have a lot in common.
I’m still annoyed that the right wing doesn’t see torture and war crimes as obscenities that need prosecuting.
Someday, “Newsy” will find a posting that doesn’t feed into his Bush Derangement Syndrome.
Hey, here’s a hint, “Newsy” — this conviction came about under an Obama Justice Department. They coulda pulled the plug on it at any time — just like they did to the Black Panthers in Philadelphia.
Guess it’s all a matter of where their priorities lie…
J.
Of course we need to be protected from obscene material that portrays women in a vile and depraved manner. It degrades us all! That one lady said so! Besides, someone might watch one of those videos and get the idea that women deserve to be degraded, and he (or she, technically, but you know it’s gonna be a he) might just be inspired to go out and degrade the next woman he sees. Because filthy pornography makes people do filthy things.
Just like heavy metal makes people commit suicide and gangsta rap makes people kill cops.
Just like Bill O’Reilly and Jonah Goldberg make people assassinate doctors and liberal churchgoers.
Oh, wait — actually, that’s nonsense. It’s nonsense when the left does it and it’s nonsense when the right does it. Censorship is not just anti-American, it’s stupid. The best defense against bad ideas is better ideas, and that goes for political speech, pop music, and definitely pornography.
Why Are We Still Prosecuting People For “Obscenity”?
I don’t know, because we still have some standards of decency?
As to the First Amendment, as I understand it, it never has protected ‘obscenity’ for the same reason it has never protected shouting fire in a theater, the First Amendment is not an absolute and unfettered right.
What the Supreme Court has done over the last 60 years is narrow the definition of obscenity to the point where virtually nothing is considered obscene per se. The key limitation is the community standard test. That has resulted in a very fragmented state of play. What is not obscene in LA and NY may be obscene in Podunk. And that is the game the Feds played here. They went to Western Pennsylvania, conservative, traditional Western Pennsylvania where a judge and jury was far more likely to find the material obscene by that community’s standards.
If I have a problem here it isn’t as much the forum shopping as it is the entrapment. The lawyers may not have been very happy about their defenses because they cut a deal.
In closing – is there anything out there you would find so appallinig that it would meet your idea of obscene (i.e. not covered by the 1st Amendment)? Can we agree on pedophillia?
Anything else? And FWIW – I think this stuff must have been way out there for it to pass muster even in Western Pa. so before we jump the gun on some outrageous attack on the right to bare arms (or bare asses) a fuller explanation of the content may be in order. I don’t think anyone here should be overly concerned that their bestiality porn supply will be shut down.
“I don’t think anyone here should be overly concerned that their bestiality porn supply will be shut down.”
What about Strowbridge?
There are a number of things that I consider obscene, but it would be unreasonable to expect anyone else to agree with me — and much, much more unreasonable to expect the laws of the land to prevent others from accessing those things.
It’s interesting that you should bring up pedophilia; as I was browsing 4chan a few days ago, I came across the first (and hopefully the last) image of child pornography I’ve ever seen — and I’m not talking Barely Legal, I’m talking toddler. It turned my stomach. It horrified and sickened me. It was probably the most evil thing I’ve ever had the misfortune to witness. I’m the father of two young girls who I love dearly, and even to contemplate the context of abuse surrounding the photograph I saw was — is — almost unbearable.
But that’s not a matter of obscenity. That has nothing to do with freedom of expression. That’s sexual abuse, which is a crime. And as long as we’re getting our terms straight, pedophilia is not a crime; it’s a mental disorder which all too often, alas, leads to crime. You can’t, and shouldn’t, go to jail for what you’re thinking — or for what you say or write. That’s why Lolita is legal to read and The Woodsman is legal to watch. And in my opinion, if you draw a sexually explicit cartoon involving children, you’re guilty of very, very bad taste — but nothing more.
Lonya, it’s not a matter of how far “out there” something is. Some people are furries; some people like to dress up like Picard and Troi; some people are into DVDA; some people just like to, as Ice T once acronymed, GBNAF. Different strokes make the world go ’round, and no one has the right to legislate against another person’s taste. The line to be drawn is very clear: the province of imagination, fantasy, thoughts, opinions, words, art is and must remain ungovernable. What needs to be regulated is reality, the world of actions, the place where actual people sometimes do bad things to each other. This is where laws can sometimes prevent or discourage those bad things from happening, and, when that doesn’t work, can hold evildoers accountable for their actions.
Um … all this argument about obscenity is sort of beside the point.
MBB is one of Bush’s appointees. Look up her slightly colorful history at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Beth_Buchanan#Controversial_Cases
Among others, she was the one in charge of the crusade against Tommy Chong from a few years back.
Her prosecutions have nothing to do with public propriety but everything to do with the corruption of the US Attorney’s office, present case included.
In closing – is there anything out there you would find so appallinig that it would meet your idea of obscene
Sure, just about everything that comes out of the mouth of Rush Limbaugh, for instance.
I don’t know, because we still have some standards of decency?
Hear, hear!
I shudder every time I hear, “It’s 2009 … ” because I know what follows is an assault on a community standard.
The left, as usual, takes a “Why can’t I do what I wanna?” stand like some petulant adolescent being told they can’t take the family car out alone until they are more trustworthy.
Have you ever seen a slide show on the Internet depicting the number of people in the Porn Industry who have died from AIDS, suicide and drug overdoses?
Has no one ever noticed that no sooner had the community given up on disapproving of unmarried teenage pregnancy, that there was a hue and cry to approve of abortion for pregnant teen girls, without the approval of their parents?
Someday soon, the average person, and perhaps even a few liberals, will learn what I learned long ago: You don’t find out what purpose a tradition serves, until it is gone.
Instead of asking how it is that a community standard survives to this day (the simple answer is : “Because the community that set that standard has no desire to abandon it.”), one should ask, has the community standard become unnecessary?
DV: So what?
I’ll repeat: The Obama administration pulled the plug on the Philadelphia Black Panther case THEY HAD ALREADY WON and let them go. If they wanted to, they could have done the same in this case.
So they own this conviction.
J.
Frank DiSalle: The left, as usual, takes a “Why can’t I do what I wanna?” stand like some petulant adolescent being told they can’t take the family car out alone until they are more trustworthy.
Except that the car, in this ridiculous analogy, is the First Amendment…and the keys don’t belong to Daddy. Never did.
I’m fascinated by this nebulous “we” you speak of, this “community” of “average people” setting this “standard”. Community is a highly variable concept. I’d venture to guess that my community here in Northern California is rather different from yours, wherever you live. Even within my community, which trends more liberal than most places in the country, there are subcommunities of conservatives and libertarians and various other folks who don’t see eye to eye on matters political, spiritual or aesthetic. So what?
There’s nothing inherently good or valuable about tradition, just as change is not an automatic win. I’m glad “our” standards evolve. I’m glad that Ginsberg’s “Howl” is in bookstores everywhere. I’m glad that pornography is so easy to find (though I wish the great bulk of it weren’t so insipid). I’m glad that women and people of color can vote. I’m glad that homosexual people will soon be able to marry legally.
Yes, Frank — quite a few “community” standards have become unnecessary, and now they’re gone. That’s life in a democracy, where we can indeed do what we wanna.
I look forward to “Frank DiSalle’s” discovering his conscience and his subsequent condemnation of Republican Bush’s obscene war crimes and torture crimes.
I won’t hold my breath, after all, “Frank DiSalle” is still trying to force his will on women and girls.
Now that’s an obscenity, an old guy like “Frank DiSalle’s” trying to force his will on teen girls.
Sick thug.
Some day, Oliver might start a thread where “Newsy” doesn’t try to turn to his pet obsessions and fixations.
But I ain’t holding my breath.
What a “Johnny” “One-Note” the “pedantic,” “strident,” “repetitive,” “sophomoric,” “shrill,” “repetitive,” “self-important,” “priggish,” “Newsy” is.
If someone wanted to shut him/her/it up, just take away the quotation key from his/her/its keyboard. They’d be utterly lost.
J.
“Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle” asks the right question, why is Republican Bush appointee Mary Beth Buchanan working for the Obama administration?
How many of Republican Bush’s scandalous US Attorneys is Obama still stuck with?
Is this part of the Republican’s “slow walking” confirmation of Obama’s appointees?
And of course it gives idiot right wingers a double-bonus by being able to blame Republican Bush’s obscene policies on Obama…
The Obama admin could have pulled the plug on this. They didn’t.
The idea of anything between 2 or more consenting adults being labeled as “obscene” by the government is the height of absurdity. I think Rush Limbaugh is obscene. I think the things some members of the Republican party are obscene. I think the Dallas Cowboys are obscene.
The point of America is that I can think this stuff all I want but the government gives the accused the freedom to be obscene.
I don’t know what pedophilia has to do with any of this. That’s a sexual assault against a minor, and something I personally think you should get the death penalty for.
This stuff is crazy extreme porn and the best I can see is that it was engaged in by grown ass adults and purchased by same. Why the hell is the government the arbiter of what that is or isn’t?
Answer: It shouldn’t be. The first amendment doesn’t say “with the exception of sicky porno movies” for a reason.
Have you ever seen a slide show on the Internet depicting the number of people in the Porn Industry who have died from AIDS, suicide and drug overdoses?
This is also ridiculous. Nobody is being forced into porn. Just like nobody is forced to drink. I’m pretty sure the percentage of drunk driving deaths is higher than pornstars dying from AIDS. And even if that isn’t so, this is about choices individuals are free to make for themselves.
I think the feds engaged in selective enforcement and are dangerously close to or over the line of entrapment on this case. I do note with amusement that as usual liberals here are quite selective in which parts of the Constitution are important and which parts are a bit of a nuisance. Oliver seems a bit more incoherant than normal on this late night posting.
” I’m pretty sure the percentage of drunk driving deaths is higher than pornstars dying from AIDS”
What the hell is that supposed to mean?
Or this little gem; “I think the things some members of the Republican party are obscene.”
And then we have this example of ignorance; “The point of America is that I can think this stuff all I want but the government gives the accused the freedom to be obscene.”
The government doesn’t give us any rights or freedoms. Napping in jr. high civics class? But you did get the part right about Obama’s administration owns this conviction. Think about that, a willful violation of civil rights on Obama’s dime. Not the first corruption of the rule of law on his watch either. It would be funny if it wasn’t so sad. Obama can’t be trusted, his word is no good, his loyalty non existant. But hey that’s the Chicago way.
It’s a scary, scary day when Oliver and Amused are neck and neck for “most reasonable” on a topic.
Fortunately, we have “Newsy” to keep things normal with his babbling idiocies…
J.
babble, babble, babble…
While it doesn’t seem appropriate for any President to be interfering with the US Attorneys unless there is cause, a new President coming in is something I would consider “cause” enough to let the old US Attorneys go as each President should have the authority to hire who they want representing them in such high-level jobs.
But if there are some arcane rules as to why the US Attorneys should be held over from one President to the next, I’d expect those rules to be consistent from one President to the next.
As I understood it, Republican Bush made a clean sweep of Democratic Clinton’s US Attorneys (please correct me if I’m wrong).
That being the case, Obama should have the same right to make a clean sweep of Republican Bush’s US Attorneys.
And if this isn’t more Republican slow walking of the confirmation process, then why are Republican Bush’s scandalous US Attorneys still working for the Democratic President almost a half a year after he’s been sworn in?
I’m glad to see that you don’t think the government always know what’s best for us.
OK Lonya, here’s why your argument doesn’t hold water:
The acts depicted in those videos were not of a criminal nature. And you do not have the right to tell me what is obscene because taste is subjective. End of story.
Pedophilia, bestiality, and rape are all non-consensual acts and any distributor depicitng such material should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. The videos in question depicted none of these acts. The actors were all legal age and there of their own volition. (Yes, that porn actor or actress actually signed off on doing a milk enema on camera.)
Do I think BDSM is obscene? No, I don’t. Do I think watching 2 planes crash into twin towers and kill thousands of people before my eyes is obscene? You’re goddamn right I do. Do I think a madman with a gun shooting a doctor because he provided a much-needed service to women across the country is obscene? Yup.
Sex is not obscene. Evil is. And THAT is what the law should be prosecuting.
“As I understood it, Republican Bush made a clean sweep of Democratic Clinton’s US Attorneys (please correct me if I’m wrong).
That being the case, Obama should have the same right to make a clean sweep of Republican Bush’s US Attorneys.”
News Reference: That is typically the case but only at the level of AUSA (Asst. U.S. Atty) level. That position – basically the attorney in charge of each federal district – is considered basically a political appointment and they do serve at the pleasure of the president. This is because their position involves policy decisions as much as case management. The staff attorneys are not considered political appointment and are not expected to leave upon a new administration.
Typically every President will designate new AUSAs as he/she sees fit. They’ve all done in to some degree. It is expected and no mark of shame for it to happen. Reagan did it, Clinton, Bush41 all did it. The storm that arose when Bush43 did it was because of how they did it. Rather than just acknowledge it was a typical administration policy decision – they got their knickers in a twist and argued these attorneys were let go ‘for cause’. This is simply not done. It puts a black mark on these folks, makes their transition to the private sector very difficult and simply is not done. But yet it was done. The AUSAs I’ve talked to (both Rep. and Dem. appointees now in private practice indicate this devasted morale at DOJ around the country and was a really really dumb thing to do.
Well Ivy, I wasn’t telling anyone that anything is obscene nor telling anyone what conduct they should or should not engage in. What I am saying that our law as presently structured specifically makes the definition of obscenity subjective. The whole community standards test is nothing if not subjective and based on some ephemeral idea of what any given community finds obscene. If that community (as represented by a jury in that community) makes a decision the material in question is obscene it is not protected by the 1st Amendment. That is simply the way it is. That is why I said the feds went forum shopping to a conservative community. That is also why I suggested that the defendants’ best defense was not the 1st amendment but, rather, entrapment.
Talk to the Supreme Court about this because they are responsible for this subjective mantra that governs the law.
And no, I don’t think sex is obscene btw. But I do think this case, rightly or wrongly prosecuted, raises an interesting question as to whether there are any behavioral societal lines and if so, where are they. You’ve answered the question and the line for you seems quite clear. That’s fine. I’m just not entirely convinced one way or the other.
(PS – Felix – good post by the way. Lots of food for thought there.)
SaveFarris: Hope and Change!
The morals of the right, ladies and gents.
They have no objection to things like this as long as they can use them to mock.
Lonya: Why Are We Still Prosecuting People For “Obscenity”?
I don’t know, because we still have some standards of decency?
As to the First Amendment, as I understand it, it never has protected ‘obscenity’ for the same reason it has never protected shouting fire in a theater, the First Amendment is not an absolute and unfettered right.
You can’t shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater because other people may be damaged by your actions. In this case nobody was exposed to the “offensive” materials who didn’t actively seek them out.
Laws should be designed to protect us from other people, NOT from ourselves. Laws which stop us from doing those things which have no clear and immediate effect on other people are unacceptable restrictions on personal liberty.
If the defendants in this case had handed out the videos on street corners, or spammed the clips or otherwise thrust the material in front of people who didn’t want it then, yes, they are to an extent yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater.
But they didn’t do that. Someone said “There are people doing things over there that I don’t like. I can’t see what they are doing unless I specifically do look. If I didn’t take specific action to see it I’d never know it’s going on and it would have NO affect on me. But I don’t like that they are doing it so they should be made to stop.”
The exact same “complain” could be leveled against someone visiting this board in the privacy of their own home, for example. Should OW’s site be made illegal?
… “Frank DiSalle” is still trying to force his will on women and girls…
… an old guy like “Frank DiSalle’s” trying to force his will on teen girls…
Sick thug.
At last. At long last.
“News” “Reference” has surrendered the field. Bereft of ideology, philosophy, common sense, thought, and even (could it possibly be?) verbiage, he has resorted to calling me an “old man” who preys on “teen girls”, and a “sick thug”.
I have won.
There can not possibly be anything of worth left for you to say, ever again, if you consider this comment a worthy contribution to political discussion, to this blog, this thread.
You, “news” “reference” (sadly, neither possessing nor dispensing either) are a cowardly, despicable, contemptible piece of trash. Were I to step on you, I should feel compelled to throw away my shoes.
Except that the car, in this ridiculous analogy, is the First Amendment
No, Felix, it is your misunderstanding of the analogy that is fit for ridicule. The “car” is ‘free speech’, which was the clear meaning of the Founding Fathers [please don't bore me with subsequent Supreme Court Rulings -- I am not interested in how nine folks in Washington interpret the US Postal Code] — and don’t tell me that the Founding Fathers either misunderstood “obscenity” or were unaware of the existence of “pornography” – The word “pornography” itself comes from two Greek words meaning “wall writing”, and refers to the “graffiti” found on the walls where prostitutes stood plying their ‘wares’, even as Pompeii was covered with lava.
Boccaccio’s Decameron (ca. 1350) is replete with sexual references. Every one of the Founding Fathers was, no doubt, familiar with it, and may even have read it in the original language.
The First Amendment was meant to protect political speech, else it would have dispensed with libel and slander laws earlier on.
Community is a highly variable concept. I’d venture to guess that my community here in Northern California is rather different from yours
That being the case, why should the Federal Government, in the form of nine folks 400 miles from me, and 3000 miles from you, determine what is fit material to be dispensed and sold within our own community’s standards?
If I enter a candy store that sells newspapers and magazines, and notice, up on a top shelf in the back of the store, magazines bundled up in shrink wrap with concealed covers, indicating that they are for sale at “3 for $10.99″, is that not clearly different from “Cheri” and “Hustler” magazines for sale right next to the Starbursts and PayDays?
That, too, represents a “community standard”, for “community standards” are not necessarily coercive, let alone repressive. Most of us writing on this blog take great care to use terms like “f*ck*” and “f’n” and a$$, with the notable exception of those two scriveners crying out for entry to Anger Management Groups — mambochicken and C S S. Why would we do that, other than because we seek not to offend others, as well as hoping we do not present ourselves negatively?
Nobody is being forced into porn Sorry, that’s a non sequitur in this case. Were there no porn, there would be no porn stars. Can you say that if all these people had become “butchers, bakers and candle stick makers” they would have had the same rates for contracting AIDS, committing suicide, or overdosing from drugs? Of course they wouldn’t. And that is the point.
That’s life in a democracy, where we can indeed do what we wanna.
No, it is not. That is life without civilization, without boundaries. That is life in its primordial “splendor”, where the strong rule the weak. That is a life we live in fear, not knowing what harm will befall us or our loved ones, as they attempt to live lives without security or comfort — the security and comfort provided by traditions and standards.
‘distributing three videos through the mail and six individual video clips over the Internet to Western Pennsylvania.’
OMFG; and they WEREN’T executed for this?
Justice indeed.
What a Puritan load of shit.
‘ just like they did to the Black Panthers in Philadelphia.
Guess it’s all a matter of where their priorities lie…
J.’
So now Obama is a Black Panther/Socialist/Muslim terrorist?
Are you guys ever gonna run out of bs labels?
‘I don’t know, because we still have some standards of decency?’
Try shouting that in a Baghdad market.
‘Obama can’t be trusted, his word is no good, his loyalty non existant. But hey that’s the Chicago way.’
Unlike Bush, who never lied, always kept his word, and was one of the most popular Presidents in history.
Oh……wait a minute…..
‘No, it is not. That is life without civilization, without boundaries. That is life in its primordial “splendor”, where the strong rule the weak. That is a life we live in fear, not knowing what harm will befall us or our loved ones, as they attempt to live lives without security or comfort — the security and comfort provided by traditions and standards.’
That is the Bush administration.
I sit here amazed that Mr. Willis and his fellow travellers will, justifiably, lambast the government officials involved in entrapping adults providing goods and services to other willing adults, but remain clueless about why it is that anyone might object to giving very similar government officials an even greater say in our lives through a government-run health care program. If you think the way the government treats obscentity is terrible, wait until you see how they treat obesity when they control your access to a doctor.
Correction: the word “pornography” itself comes from two Greek words meaning “wall writing”, and refers to the “graffiti” found on the walls where prostitutes stood plying their ‘wares’, even as Pompeii was covered with lava.
should read: the word “pornography” itself comes from two Greek words meaning “prostitutes’ writing”, and refers to the “graffiti” found on the walls where prostitutes stood plying their ‘wares’, even as Pompeii was covered with lava.
Hey, I’m the biggest supporter of free speech you’ll ever meet, but these are the people who did 2 girls 1 cup, hanging’s too good for them.
*if* these are people…
‘I sit here amazed that Mr. Willis and his fellow travellers will, justifiably, lambast the government officials involved in entrapping adults providing goods and services to other willing adults, but remain clueless about why it is that anyone might object to giving very similar government officials an even greater say in our lives through a government-run health care program.’
Porn and health care; separated at birth.
It’s time to get government off our backs and into our neighbors’ pants where it belongs.
I live in SW PA, and I’m still at a loss on why our US Atty brought two cases against two California suppliers (Extreme and Tommy Chong). COunldn’t prosecutors in California handle those cases? Oh wait, I forgot! Buchanan is a grandstanding showboater! Loyal Bushie Buchanan also broght charges against prominent local democrats (Cyril Wecht and Pete Defazio) while ignoring similar allegations of political improprity by prominent Republicans (Jeff Habay and Tim Murphy)
No SFC B,
I don’t think you should be amazed at all. Liberals understand almost nothing of cause and effect. Nor can they see the downside to a government big enough to supply your every need. Not understanding what liberty is they put no value upon it and won’t lift a finger to preserve it. They protest and march to invent new rights but encourage the trampling of our natural rights. If only they would get what they deserve it would be one thing. But sadly our freedoms and liberty are at stake too.
Thank you for providing proof supporting what I said.
preview is my friend
That is the Bush administration.
So, tell me , JR: What were you afraid of during the Bush administration? The Draft? Losing your eligibility for Financial Aid?
“Porn and the Bush administration – separated at birth?”
I remember reading, in one of Gore Vidal’s essays, his recollection of an interview in which the interviewer pointed out that his (Vidal’s) argument could be construed as supporting the publishing of pornography. Vidal replied blandly that, of course, he supported the publishing of pornography. At which the interviewer began questioning, in complete and honest bewilderment, how someone of Vidal’s education and background copuld support porn.
Surprised, Vidal explained that he was by no means in favor of porn – most of it was bad, and all of it was unnecessary. But _publishing_ it was something that could not be opposed without traducing the First Amendment.
Curious how people who fulminate about the ‘nanny state’ are perfectly comfortable with things like _this_.
Militant right wing extremist “Amused Observer” ominously suggests “If only they [liberals] would get what they deserve it would be one thing.”
Affordable health care?
A competitive corporate-medical-industry instead of the fixed-monopoly that the right wingers are protecting?
The repudiation of the illegal domestic surveillance committed by Republican Bush?
The repudiation of war crimes and torture crimes by Republicans?
Freedom of speech?
The freedom to choose our own partner?
The freedom to choose our own reproductive decisions?
A Republican-Bush-Government-Agent that doesn’t intrude their narrow community standards on interstate commerce?
Yes, those are things that liberals definitely deserve.
And just think, LIBERAL IS THE ROOT OF “LIBERTY” AND THE HEART OF FREEDOM, and despite the right wing’s repressive totalitarian nature, they get to share in the liberty and freedom forwarded, fought for, and protected by liberals.
Frank DiSalle:No, it is not. That is life without civilization, without boundaries. That is life in its primordial “splendor”, where the strong rule the weak. That is a life we live in fear, not knowing what harm will befall us or our loved ones, as they attempt to live lives without security or comfort — the security and comfort provided by traditions and standards.
Laws should be designed to protect us from others, not from ourselves. Allowing the oxymoronically self-proclaimed “morally superior” to disctate what we can read/see/do in private is an example of the strong ruling the weak, of the bully dictating the actions of the others. Actions which, absent the bully forcefully inserting themselves into, would have no effect on the bully’s life.
When our neighbors can decide they don’t like our lifestyle, be it the religion we’ve chosen to follow, the politician we’ve decided to support, or the things we’ve chosen to read/view in the privacy of our own homes, then we’re living “lives without security or comfort”
[And you're right about News Ref's recent post, including the link he attached to your name, stepping over a limit.]
When our neighbors can decide they don’t like our lifestyle
But our neighbors do decide if they like our lifestyle, and, unless we are sociopathic, we care about that. You must understand by “community” I mean the community that we consider surrounds us. For example, I am not a member of the goth community. I do not care if I conform to their standards; neither do I deliberately seek to offend their sensibilities.
But I do belong to a community of parents. What happens to children — what may happen to children — concerns me. There is a good chance that my concern for children is greater than that of those people who do not have children. When they permit things that harm my children, then they offend my sensibilities. When they permit tobacco companies to encourage my children to smoke, then non – parents side with me. When they refuse to disapprove of children having sexual relations, because “they are going to do it, anyway”, then we are not on the same side.
I hope that helps you understand two things : My concept of community, and my firm belief that I am not discussing the ability of one individual to dictate to another what they can and can not do.
Thank you for pointing out that link to me, Sean — I had not bothered to look at it before I posted my comment. Words cannot express the contempt I now feel for the spineless, hypocritical, scumbag who calls himself “News Reference”.
You know what I think, News Reference? Not only are you so gutless that you could never say the things you do to my face — not hiding behind a keyboard far away from me, but you don’t even have the courage to print your real name.
You are a waste of oxygen and tissue, “News” “Observer”. Now, tell me : What great and noble purpose was served by posting that link? The girl that runs that website is far more courageous than you could dream of. You can see her name and picture right there. She is not hiding behind a keyboard far away. She is a personal friend of mine. We have never met, but we have talked on the phone many times, and communicated by email, and on many bulletin boards and forums.
You, “News” “Reference”, what have you ever done to earn even the label, ‘human being’?
You call yourself a liberal? Indeed you are — the new, arrogant, intolerant, hateful liberal — the kind we conservatives have despised since the late ’60’s. Raised in privilege, convinced you know more than everyone, judging everyone, and yet never finding anyone worthy.
You are disgusting in every possible way.
Are you now ready to reach into your bottomless font of adjectives to slander me yet again? Have you more names to call me? More repulsive things to suggest about me?
All of you here have just received, courtesy of “News” “Reference” , a lesson in what happens when there are no standards, no boundaries, no decency.
Still think we should all “do whatever we wanna”?
“You call yourself a liberal?”
No.
I’ve repeatedly said that I’m an independent with a conservative streak.
I’m more conservative than you will ever be, “Frank DiSalle”.
“Frank DiSalle”: “the new, arrogant, intolerant, hateful liberal — the kind we conservatives have despised since the late ’60’s.”
You hate anyone that doesn’t submit to your demands and you get threatening when you don’t get your way.
You don’t even have the self awareness of how “arrogant, intolerant, [and] hateful” you are, “Frank DiSalle”.
What you hate is yourself, “Frank DiSalle”.
“Frank DiSalle” that link is the strongest thing that illustrates your humanity, “Frank DiSalle”.
It shows you care about someone other than yourself and it shows you care about people both different from yourself and different from the old-fashioned, conservative, ‘traditional’, expectations.
You’ve never expressed that in any of your writings.
Worse, you’ve expressed a belief that your narrow standards should be enforced on others, particularly women, even children.
You’ve been quite explicit about enforcing your will on women, even linking to a militant right wing extremist that asserted that our American Supreme Court Justices were a “tyranny” and that their actions would “ultimately be answered with bloodshed.”
Why? Because he was violently angry that our American Supreme Court’s actions granted women the right to make their own reproductive decisions.
And so he called them ‘tyrants’ whose actions would lead to “bloodshed” and you linked to the guy after being confronted about your own unsubtle support of violence to attain your ends.
You’ve even cited a militant right wing extremist this week who thinks that a “military coup” may be the only way for the right wing to take power in America.
You approvingly cite extremists who talk of “bloodshed” and a “military coup” in America, “Frank DiSalle”.
Where are your standards? Where are your boundaries? Where is your decency, Sir?
You’ve previously said you were “dangerously close” to doing something and I ask again, “Frank DiSalle”, what are you “dangerously close” to doing?
Frank DiSalle: But our neighbors do decide if they like our lifestyle, and, unless we are sociopathic, we care about that. You must understand by “community” I mean the community that we consider surrounds us. For example, I am not a member of the goth community. I do not care if I conform to their standards; neither do I deliberately seek to offend their sensibilities.
I’m not getting a clear view of your view here, Frank. Unless we are sociopathic we care about what our neighbors think of us, but you don’t care to conform to the standards of your Goth neighbors. Don’t you care what they think of you?
I’d disagree that our neighbors decide out lifestyle. You decide your lifestyle. And if you’re concerned about what the neighbors think, then you modify it because fitting in is more important to you than whatever it was you would do otherwise. If giving up whatever is more painful than dealing with neighbor’s opinions then you learn to live with their disapproval. But you choose. They don’t get to come over and say “We don’t like these magazines you subscribe to so you can’t get them anymore. We don’t approve of the movies in your Netflix queue so we will take them out and put in instead those we decide you get to watch.”
One point here is: Why would your neighbors be in any position to approve or disapprove of something you do in private that they are completely unaware of? You’re not screening porn movies in your front yard, you’re discretely watching them in private in your own home. How are they affected?
When they permit things that harm my children, then they offend my sensibilities. When they permit tobacco companies to encourage my children to smoke, then non – parents side with me.
They offend not only my sensibilities, but when they harm children they in all likelihood have broken a law. But we’re in the “causing harm to others” territory here. Who is harmed if I choose to view something you would find “offensive” in the privacy of my own home?
When they refuse to disapprove of children having sexual relations, because “they are going to do it, anyway”, then we are not on the same side.
But would you make it illegal for them to have that opinion?
When they refuse to disapprove of spanking or allow their children to put TV before homework they aren’t on the same side as me, either. But there are laws that come into play, laws designed to protect children from abusers (to protect one from another), if the physical becomes too much. But I wouldn’t want to make it illegal for them to hold an opinion of homework that differs from mine.
I hope that helps you understand two things : My concept of community, and my firm belief that I am not discussing the ability of one individual to dictate to another what they can and can not do.
But why should a community be allowed to dictate what I can or cannot do in the discrete privacy of my own home?
Again, back to the start of this. There was no complaint that someone had recieved offensive materials that they didn’t want to get. Nothing was being stuck in front of folks who didn’t want to see it.
Still think we should all “do whatever we wanna”?
No. And (while not going back and reading every posting in this thread) I don’t think anyone is really advocating for that.
However, “Do whatever you wanna that doesn’t hurt someone else.” “Do whatever you wanna in the privacy of your own home.” Yeah, those I do support.
Still think we should all “do whatever we wanna”?
So long as what you’re doing doesn’t infringe on my right to life, liberty, or happiness, I really don’t care Frank. Also, I don’t know of anyone who “refuses to disapprove of children having sex.” Teens (but not all teens) are going to experiment with sex, and what we, as liberals want, is for them to be aware of whats out there so they can make correct decisions on protecting themselves from disease or unwanted pregnancy should they choose to have sex. That is not the same as approval.
Given what the original post was about, I can’t tell if you’re being serious or if you’re joking. I’m sure the Obama Justice Department was just too busy back in early March trying to cover their asses regarding their boss’s pledge to shut down the Guantanamo Bay detention facility to notice this whole “First Amendment” thing going on in western PA.
Okay data point 1 for “joking”. Obviously President Obama is too busy being concerned about Iran to bother trying to do anything about DOMA or DADT. Of course, it would be highly unpopular for him to try to fight for equal rights and it’s not like he’s got the political capital to risk or that the American people would support such things. Nope.
Man, it’s a good thing Bush left office since his administration was so powerful it managed to get a grand jury to indict, and then convince a couple of members of the judiciary to allow the case to go forward, and support an appeal. And then Bush was even able to, six months after leaving office, get a Clinton-appointed judge, who was confirmed by a Democratic Party-controlled Congress, to accept this obviously bogus plea agreement.
I think you’re missing a very important qualifier there SDM. “When our neighbors can decide they don’t like our lifestyle, be it the religion we’ve chosen to follow, the politician we’ve decided to support, or the things we’ve chosen to read/view in the privacy of our own homes, and can use the power of the state to force us to change…”
News Ref: “[Frank DiSalle,] You hate anyone that doesn’t submit to your demands and you get threatening when you don’t get your way.”
I must have missed that. Can you point me to where in this thread he’s made a threat?
I can see where you responded to his post about community standards with the insult that he is “forc[ing] his will on women and girls”. And I saw where you called you contemptible, cowardly and disgusting for doing so. But no sign of him making a threat.
“Frank DiSalle” that link is the strongest thing that illustrates your humanity, “Frank DiSalle”.
Is that why you used that particular link? Because you wanted to point out how caring and compassionate he could be?
I must have missed that, too, what with the link being surrounded by your claims that he “force[s] his will on women and … teen girls”.
I guess it’s like all those folks who make a point of using Barack Hussein Obama’s full name and claim they mean nothing by it. They, um, just want to celebrate the Muslim part of his heritage. Yeah, that’s the ticket.
SFC B: I think you’re missing a very important qualifier there SDM. “When our neighbors can decide they don’t like our lifestyle,… and can use the power of the state to force us to change…”
Sorry. Thought that part was implied. But, yes. My neighbors are free to decide they don’t like my lifestyle. They may hold whatever opinions they like. But as long as I’m not harming anyone else (and what I read/view in private has no affect on anyone else) neither as individuals or through the power of the state should they be allowed to force me to change it.
News Reference : Once again, you are lying about me , and, you seem unprepared to stop. I did not say I was dangerously close to doing anything.
Another lie.
You are still despicable, cowardly and hypocritical — and a liar.
I kinda figured, but in any thread where NR or AO is an active participant I don’t think you can assume that anything is implied.
So he’s a self-hating……… Frank DiSalle? I think we’ve reached the absurd limit of Identity Politics.
I’d be willing to bet that it’s one of those connections that only exists in NR’s mind. You’d think that, with NR’s link fetish, he’d have been more than happy to go posting the link to Frank making a threat. Honestly, I think it’s far more likely that Frank managed to make NR’s brain try to shift without using the clutch when he noticed that Frank seems to support LGBT issues, and yet is against abortion. We all know that independents-with-a-conservative-streak like NR can’t fathom how a liberal like Frank can be for LGBT but against abortion. Close-minded cons.
“SFC B”, you are confusing Obama’s conservative centrism with the left wing.
Again: Obama is a conservative centrist.
That’s still a radical shift from Republican Bush’s right wing extremism.
As many have said, there are a lot of Republican Bush policies continued under Obama that have been extremely disappointing.
But if you would like to help push Obama away from his conservative centrist approach to governing and into a more liberal approach, I’m sure you would find many who would be grateful for your support.
For instance, the Republican President Bush US Attorney in Pennsylvania that tried this case should have been let go and replaced by an Obama appointee five months ago.
You went too far there, News Ref.
Whatever you may think of Frank DiSalle’s opinions and politics, that was uncalled for.
I usually enjoy your schtick. Stick to insulting people about what they say here. Leave their personal business out of it.
So conservative Democratic leaders in Pennsylvania followed a Republican President Bush’s US Attorney’s legal argument…
… and that’s Obama’s fault?
I’m still puzzled as to why Republican Bush’s scandalous US Attorneys are still working in Obama’s administration.
Sure, my first impulse is to see Obama as responsible, but after a second look, the Republicans are “slow-walking” so many of Obama’s appointments that it’s clearly unfair to lay Republican obstructionism at Obama’s feet without knowing more about what’s going on.
“Frank DiSalle”, note that that’s two liberals* that are sticking up for you.
But that’s what good liberals do, stick up for those they see are being unfairly attacked.
* (that’s assuming that “Sean D. Martin” and “Bruce Henry” self-identify as “liberals”)
“Frank DiSalle”, June 16th:
“I think you better get a handle on that language, bub.
You are getting dangerously close to my last nerve …”
I am sick of “Frank DiSalle’s” threats.
In this thread he’s called me “gutless” because, clearly, he thinks that if he could face me his presence would be intimidating.
Thuggish.
Yesterday “Frank DiSalle” wrote almost 400 words defending the assertion by right winger Thomas Sowell that a “military coup” might be “the only thing that can save” America.
Treasonous.
And previously he cited right winger Andrew Klavan’s assertion that the Supreme Court Justices were a “tyranny” that “will ultimately be answered with bloodshed.”
Violent.
So, again, what is “Frank DiSalle” dangerously close to doing?
See, now that’s fine.
” … you don’t care to conform to the standards of your Goth neighbors. Don’t you care what they think of you?”
If they think less of me because I don’t wear black makeup and the like, there is nothing I can do about it. If I spit on them when they walk by, then they have a right to do something about. I may not care to conform to some of their standards, but we agree to conform to certain standards we have in common – when I get a newspaper, I pay 50 cents. When we’re in the library, we share computer time according to Library rules. And we, most times, obey local laws.
“I’d disagree that our neighbors decide out lifestyle. You decide your lifestyle. And if you’re concerned about what the neighbors think, then you modify it because fitting in is more important to you than whatever it was you would do otherwise. If giving up whatever is more painful than dealing with neighbor’s opinions then you learn to live with their disapproval.”
You are misusing the term “neighbor” as I would use it. My “neighbors” include the people who live where I live, the people who hang out where I hang out; the people who comment on the bulletin boards, forums and chat room I belong to.
I am not limiting my definition of neighbor to the people who live down the hall, or across the street.
So my neighbors include the guy who owns the restaurant where I go for breakfast and lunch, often enough for us to address each other by our first names. If I charge a meal, the charge is covered – I don’t cheat him because I don’t feel like paying. And he doesn’t throw me out for laughing out loud.
“One point here is: Why would your neighbors be in any position to approve or disapprove of something you do in private that they are completely unaware of?”
If my neighbors disapprove of my possessing child pornography, and express that disapproval by making it illegal, then I am violating the law, thus earning their disapproval in that way, even if certain of my neighbors have no knowledge of what I do, they are protected by those people who do discover what I have done
“They offend not only my sensibilities, but when they harm children they in all likelihood have broken a law.”
So, when they encourage children to smoke, how are they harming them? By your definition, they have choice.
“But would you make it illegal for them to have that opinion?”
If it is illegal for tobacco companies to encourage children to smoke, then why is it not legal for parents to disapprove of their children having abortions?
“When they refuse to disapprove … ”
“But there are laws that come into play…”
And those laws are expressions of community disapproval.
“But why should a community be allowed to dictate what I can or cannot do in the discrete privacy of my own home?”
As I said before, it is not whether they should — they do. There is ample evidence that pornography is harmful to individuals in not – only – obscure subtle ways. There are also strong indicators that the younger someone is when they are exposed to pornography — as it is commonly defined — the more likely they are to exhibit other pathologies later in life. Similarly, there is a huge amount of evidence that marijuana, alcohol and tobacco are “gateway” drugs — drugs that lead to other pathologies later in life.
When some poor shmoe is tearing up a losing ticket at the Race Track, or leaving a Casino with barely enough money to get home, what apparent harm is being done to anyone but him?
However, “Do whatever you wanna that doesn’t hurt someone else.” “Do whatever you wanna in the privacy of your own home.” Yeah, those I do support.
First of all, I hope you are not suggesting that either of these is OK.
The reason why there are community standards at all is because you may not be in any position to determine if what you do “hurts anyone else”.
Have you ever heard the slogan, “Parents who host, lose the most”?
In many states, if you host a party, in your own home for underage children who while there consume alcohol or drugs, YOU, the parent, can be held responsible for whatever crimes are committed or whatever damage is done, by any children who leave your home intoxicated, or impaired — from broken windows to car accidents to murder.
That is a recent development, and it is not the work of fiery – eyed Fundamentalists. I belong to an organization called F.O.C.U.S. – Families Organized to Curtail the Use of Substances. It is a “coalition of coalitions” of youth organizations that work to discourage underage children from underage experimentation with tobacco, drugs and alcohol. It includes ministers, the PTA, Police youth services, the District Attorney’s office, parents and guidance counselors and they receive a large federal grant from SAMHSA. We passed out thousands of flyers around Prom Time, warning parents that they live in a state where “Parents who host, lose the most”. My home state is one of the most liberal in the Union.
In this thread he’s called me “gutless” because, clearly, he thinks that if he could face me his presence would be intimidating.
A lie.
Yesterday “Frank DiSalle” wrote almost 400 words defending the assertion by right winger Thomas Sowell that a “military coup” might be “the only thing that can save” America.
A lie.
And previously he cited right winger Andrew Klavan’s assertion that the Supreme Court Justices were a “tyranny” that “will ultimately be answered with bloodshed.”
A lie.
So, you remain despicable, cowardly and hypocritical — and a liar.
What is your name, “News” “Reference”?
That or he thinks you’re gutless. The two aren’t mutually inclusive.
I would love to see the context for that. Why the heck you’ll link to a whole lot of crazy on Havenworks, but not to Frank’s threat is beyond me.
I guess it’s about time I ignore N R…
Read this carefully, News Reference…
You are a serial liar …
You can’t stop lying…
I don’t like liars …
I don’t like you …
I will call you a liar every time you lie about me …
Otherwise, your ridiculous assertions, your entirely fictitious assessment of the American political spectrum, and your wild – eyed inflammatory characterizations of people and events (unless you mean me) will be ignored.
Now, interpret that as you will. I know exactly what I mean.
Someday soon, the average person, and perhaps even a few liberals, will learn what I learned long ago: You don’t find out what purpose a tradition serves, until it is gone.
So tell me, what important purpose did slavery, witch burnings, refusing women the right to vote, and gay bashing serve? Tradition for tradition’s sake doesn’t lead to anything good.
Has no one ever noticed that no sooner had the community given up on disapproving of unmarried teenage pregnancy, that there was a hue and cry to approve of abortion for pregnant teen girls, without the approval of their parents?
Because abortion and teen pregnancy didn’t exist until those dirty Liburals(TM) came around. M I RITE?
[please don't bore me with subsequent Supreme Court Rulings -- I am not interested in how nine folks in Washington interpret the US Postal Code]
I’m sorry you hate an integral part of our country.
They protest and march to invent new rights but encourage the trampling of our natural rights.
What “rights” are we “trampling”? The right to kill gay people? The right to throw toxic waste into a river? The right to light people on fire if you lose an electon? I’ll say gun control and get it over with. What now?
In this thread he’s called me “gutless” because, clearly, he thinks that if he could face me his presence would be intimidating.
No, he calls you “gutless” because when pressed about a the consequences of a political position you hold, you bitch and moan about how it’s unfair that you should be expected to see this views out in full.
Zython, I watched that Glenn Beck video you linked to.
For one, it’s water, not gasoline.
For another, that’s Bill Shultz from RedEye getting drenched. I’m not quite certain he qualifies as “people,” considering what Greg Gutfeld routinely says about him.
After watching that clip, Zython, you’ve convinced me that Beck is a drama queen. Of course, I’d known that long before then, so I didn’t really learn anything new, but it was mildly entertaining. Thanks.
J.
News Reference: But that’s what good liberals do, stick up for those they see are being unfairly attacked.
Closest I’m guessing we’ll see to an acknowledgment from News Ref that his attack was unfair.
Vidal replied blandly
Is there any other way?
Frank DiSalle: You are misusing the term “neighbor” as I would use it. My “neighbors” include the people who live where I live, the people who hang out where I hang out; the people who comment on the bulletin boards, forums and chat room I belong to.
I am not limiting my definition of neighbor to the people who live down the hall, or across the street.
I don’t think anything I said confined the idea of “neighbors” strickly to those within spitting distance (so to speak) of home. BUt we’re really getting off into the weeds, here. The point remains that what any consenting adult does in private should be nobody else’s business. As long as what I do has no clear affect on others then there should be no restrictions placed on my doing it. And in the particular case at hand, the prosecution of Zicari and Romano, NOBODY was an unwilling participant and it was a gross miscarriag of justice and asault on personal liberty for this case to be brought at all.
If my neighbors disapprove of my possessing child pornography, and express that disapproval by making it illegal, then I am violating the law, thus earning their disapproval in that way, even if certain of my neighbors have no knowledge of what I do, they are protected by those people who do discover what I have done
You’re specifying child pronography here. Something in which the participants are NOT consenting, are NOT adults, ARE being harmed. There should be laws against it and any who support it (such as by buying it) should be prosecuted. But where all of the participants are consenting adults (as is the case here) then there should be no restirictions or punishments.
As I said before, it is not whether they should — they do.
Huh??? I though we were discussing what people should/shouldn’t be allowed to do. Certainly, being flawed humans, people will disapprove and act on that disapproval to stop what they don’t (for whatever reason) like. But just because they DO that doesn’t mean they should be allowed to.
People do commit murder. Doesn’t mean that just because the vocal members of a community see no problem with stringin’ up folks they don’t like that we should accept that as any sort of allowed “community standard”.
There are also strong indicators that the younger someone is when they are exposed to pornography — as it is commonly defined — the more likely they are to exhibit other pathologies later in life.
Which is why there are laws prohibiting the sale or even giving of pornography to minors. Why should there be laws against giving pornography to consenting adults?
When some poor shmoe is tearing up a losing ticket at the Race Track, or leaving a Casino with barely enough money to get home, what apparent harm is being done to anyone but him?
None that I see. Yeah, the family the poor shmoe supports is going to be in for hard times and that’s unfortunate. And I’ll support the groups that exist to help him kick the habits that are making life harder for him. And PSA’s publicizing the pitfalls of gambling. And legislation which requires race tracks and casinos to post the real odds of winnning. All so the shmoe is informed and is best able to make an informed choice. But I won’t support the idea that we should make gambling illegal because we don’t like the choices he makes.
In many states, if you host a party, in your own home for underage children who while there consume alcohol or drugs, YOU, the parent, can be held responsible for whatever crimes are committed or whatever damage is done, by any children who leave your home intoxicated, or impaired — from broken windows to car accidents to murder.
Which is why, should any such parties be held in my home, there would be a very noticeable adult presence and clear rules. Nobody allowed in who wasn’t on the guest list. Nobody who leaves will be allowed back in. Parents who fail at these do bear a responsibility for the consequences.
But again, you’re involveing children in the discussion and where minors are concerned we do (in most cases appropriately) have rules designed to take care of them under the idea that they are not yet responsible enough to take care of themselves.
Tell me what that has to do with consenting adults engaged in an activity in private?
SDM: However, “Do whatever you wanna that doesn’t hurt someone else.” “Do whatever you wanna in the privacy of your own home.” Yeah, those I do support.
F DiS: First of all, I hope you are not suggesting that either of these is OK.
Yes, I obviously am suggesting that. Again, the standard should be “is there any clear, direct harm being done to anyone else?” I’m not talking about whether becoming a porn star is the only avenue available to a struggling woman or whether the existence and availablity of porn leads to lower opinions of women among the general population or whether listening to heavy metal music drives people to kill or whether right-wing radio hosts are able to incite folks to soot up the Holocaust Museum. The standard should be a clear and immediate danger. It’s why we limit free speech and say you can’t shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater.
But lacking that clear, present, demonstrable harm being done to someone else then I don’t see any justification for putting restrictions on what consenting adults do in private. And this case was an example of people doing just that.
Think about that, a willful violation of civil rights on Obama’s dime. Not the first corruption of the rule of law on his watch either. It would be funny if it wasn’t so sad. Obama can’t be trusted, his word is no good, his loyalty non existant. But hey that’s the Chicago way.
Oh would you fucking just stop it? This case has been going on since 2007.
Shoot, it had been going on since like 2003. Apparently there isn’t a whole lot to do in Western PA.
“Frank DiSalle”, note that that’s two liberals* that are sticking up for you.
Count me in too.
Frank & I go back. I’ve known about that stuff for years now, but I never, ever bring it up. It’s just not cool. Sure, in the heat of the moment, it’s tempting, but my morality trumps it. You know, that morality that Frank thinks I lack.
Shoot, it had been going on since like 2003.
Which makes AO’s assertion that it’s all the EEEBIL Obama that much more ridiculous.
For one, it’s water, not gasoline.
I wouldn’t put it past him to use gasoline and say it’s water.
But lacking that clear, present, demonstrable harm being done to someone else
What kind of a world would be living in if someone had to demonstrate to you “clear and present” harm, before you could be prevented from committing a dangerous act.
And why should any, or all of us, have to wait until you are satisfied that there is clear, present, demonstrable harm before we stop you from doing harm as we see it?
Are we now to live under the “tyranny of Sean Martin”? Shall our standards of behavior be judged by “What Sean Martin Would Do”? Of course not. And while the argument seems to be reductio ad absurdum, it is precisely why we have “representative democracy”. We choose representatives who then pass legislation by consensus.
Were it any other way, millions of McCain voters would be taking to the streets to protest Obama’s win, simply because there was, in their estimation, “clear, present, demonstrable harm being done” to the United States.
As I said, it is not about whether there ought to be “community standards” – there are community standards.
And why should any, or all of us, have to wait until you are satisfied that there is clear, present, demonstrable harm before we stop you from doing harm as we see it?
Because if we react to anything new with fear and hostility, we won’t make any progress as a society.
Were it any other way, millions of McCain voters would be taking to the streets to protest Obama’s win, simply because there was, in their estimation, “clear, present, demonstrable harm being done” to the United States.
You say that as though it weren’t already happening.
Frank DiSalle: And while the argument seems to be reductio ad absurdum
That covers just about everything in you posting.
As I said, it is not about whether there ought to be “community standards” – there are community standards.
And I’ve not argued against community standards. But they should apply ONLY to public actions that affect the community.
The point you keep moving off of and I don’t think you’ve opined directly on: Should someone else have the right to limit what I can do in the privacy of my own home just because it isn’t something they approve of?
Should someone else have the right to limit what I can do in the privacy of my own home just because it isn’t something they approve of?
The direct answer to that question is, “No”. What you are evading is why people disapprove, and who disapproves. You keep saying “neighbor” and “someone else” like it is one person’s opinion, authority, and judgment.
I repeat: “I am not limiting my definition of neighbor to the people who live down the hall, or across the street.”
The community that sets the standard does so after justifications for and opposed are presented, after deliberation, after a vote. If the standard already exists, then the same process will used to determine if the standard should be kept or abandoned. The “Community” can be a town, village, or city; a state; a country; or a regional collection of countries (NATO, the European Union).
The answer to the question: Should the Community have the right to limit what I can do in the privacy of my own home just because it isn’t something they deem harmful to the life and future of the Community?
Of course, the answer to that is yes (and no, it is not “fear and hostility”; it is prudence and foresight).
Frank DiSalle: The answer to the question: Should the Community have the right to limit what I can do in the privacy of my own home just because it isn’t something they deem harmful to the life and future of the Community?
Generally I don’t think we’ve actually been too far apart on this, Frank. But assuming that wasn’t a mistype in that last bit I may have to rethink that. The community gets to limit what I do in private, which isn’t something they deem harmful? Then on what basis, for what reason should they have any right to make any limit on it at all?
That was a mistype: The community should be able to limit any behavior they deem harmful after reasonable input, deliberation and a vote .
Frank DiSalle: That was a mistype: The community should be able to limit any behavior they deem harmful after reasonable input, deliberation and a vote .
Fair enough, but I’m wary of the majority getting to determine what is harmful. I’d be more willing to accept it if it didn’t just take a vote but an actual showing of harm. That is wasn’t just the opinion of a majority that gets to determine what I get to do or not (again) in private.
In many communities the presence of minorities was (is) considered harmful by the majority. In some communities it was an event not that different from a Memorial Day barbecue (bring the kids, it’s a spectator sport) to string folks up. Fortunately the US has a balance against the tyranny of the majority.
Thanks, Frank. An interesting and enjoyable discussion on a most appropriate weekend.
Thank you, Sean for the courtesy and civility.
Fortunately the US has a balance against the tyranny of the majority.
I believe it was more than “fortunate”. The Founding Fathers were well versed in the classics, and knew the dangers inherent in many forms of government from antiquity to the Glorious Revolution. We are the beneficiaries of their (I believe, God – given) wisdom and foresight.