"To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing,
if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?"
-- Chief Justice John Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, 1803

Tuesday, July 01, 2008

The LA Times has a debate today between Barry McDonald and John Stagliano on obscenity statues.  Stagliano is the accused in the case that the Ninth Circus had to mistrial because of the stupid Horny Judge nonsense.  Needless to say, he cleans McDonalds’ clock:

Barry, your point is that people must be forced to not think things that you don’t like, and for that you’d have me put in jail. Your comment that it “seems” to you that viewing images “to obtain sexual pleasure cannot be the healthiest way of experiencing sex” seems not a good enough reason to imprison me for 39 years. In fact, using a proper concept of morality based on individual rights, it is you and those who would put me in jail when I did not infringe on anyone’s rights who are behaving immorally.

From a political point of view, this is just another extension of the nanny state trying to control an individual’s life. Essentially, the government uses its power to stop people from smoking, eating trans fats, consuming drugs or gaining sexual gratification without hurting anyone else. No person can decide for himself; the feds know better

...

We don’t need the 1st Amendment to protect the people who go along with the majority in a community. We need it to protect those who would question the accepted wisdom, which is what I am doing. I do not think like you, Barry. I believe that my sexuality should not be defined and judged by the words of the Miller decision. My concept of art and sex differs from others’. Am I to be condemned to jail for this? That is essentially what you are advocating. To a community, something may be “morbid,” but to me, an individual in that community, it is not. To me, the pleasure I get from viewing such material is simply a wonderful expression of my biological nature.

Let’s be clear.  I don’t like the stuff Stagliano is producing, which is pretty far out of the mainstream.  And I don’t object to laws that keep this stuff out of the hands of kids—ineffective as those laws are.  I’ve been a nerd for a long time and had porn access well before the internet.

But in the end, the arguments for keeping adults away from “obscenity” boil down to vague hand-wavy assertions about how it corrupts morals, disrespects women, promotes violence, removes men’s interest in real women, grows hair on your hands and/or makes Baby Jesus cry. That’s not a basis for system of law. It’s the basis of an episode of Oprah.

Update: Watch this amusing 60’s era video about the menace of porn.  Last I checked—and to be honest, I’ve been a bit busy lately so maybe I’ve missed something—the country still appears to be intact.