|
Mercnbeth -> RE: Protecting 1st Amendment Rights (11/4/2005 1:14:00 PM)
|
quote:
this topic (of opposing Bush's anti-BDSM campaign)
I regret that in 2004 I was put in a position where I felt compelled to vote for the man, but for all he has done and continues to do wrong, he is not running an "anti-BDSM campaign. Not personally and not with legislation he has suggested. Although Bush more than likely is "anti-BDSM" and anti-pornography, it's never been part of a platform he ran on, any more than censorship or anti-censorship has been a platform for EITHER party.
If you want a group that does attack "porn" and has "anti porn" and specifies BDSM as "unhealthy and harmful" you need to attack the National Organization of Woman. NOW organized a protest against Clear Channel because they were offering a context prize of breast augmentation: http://www.now.org/lists/now-action-list/msg00165.html
Back in 1998, Virginia NOW enjoined a Catholic politician and helped him by backing his "anti-porn" campaign. Virginia Delegate Dick Black and Marie-José Ragab, president of the Dulles chapter of NOW joined forces against "Internet Porn". To them;
"sexual harassment through Internet pornography is an important issue.
Interestingly enough, they didn't try do do it by voting. He had and the local NOW organization to brought a lawsuit to implement his and NOW's personal agenda. Attacking unrestricted access to the Internet in public libraries.
quote:
Ragab has sent letters to 17 NOW chapters in Virginia urging them to support Black. She says that this is a "very good test to challenge their stance on sexual harassment." Her group has officially demanded the resignation of national NOW leaders because of their lack of support for this issue which Ragab says has "divided women very much."
In her letter to the other chapters, Ragab says, "While the matter is presently confined to Loudoun County, an area of Dulles NOW, the case is closely watched by public libraries across Virginia and the rest of the nation, for this has the makings of a Supreme Court ground-breaking ruling."
Both parties recognized that if pornography is provided in public places at the government’s expense, this would be a huge setback for women’s rights and a barrier to all anti-sexual harassment laws. Black and Ragab agreed that a merger on the issue there would provide "a greater political dynamic at work."
Both are convinced that if the case reaches the Virginia Court of Appeals, it stands a lasting chance in establishing permanent anti-pornography access legislation. Entire Article: http://www.catholicherald.com/articles/00articles/blacknow.htm
I deliberately sought an article from prior to 2000, just to illustrate that the attack on Internet pornography did NOT start with the election of President Bush.
I'd suggest this group, who takes on NOW directly on this issue. They site this quote from Betty Friedman; "To suppress free speech in the name of protecting women is dangerous and wrong.". Membership is only $35.00; Limited Income/Student Membership is only $10.00. BTW - Membership to NCSF is only $25. The links area on their site provides many other places to seek anti-censorship organizations.
http://www.ffeusa.org/html/statements/statements_pornography.html
I'd recommend joining and supporting any and all groups who you feel present a position that you can support. NOW is not a "bad" organization because they have an anti porn faction. The ACLU is not a "good" group because they, selectively in my opinion, champion 1st Amendment rights.
The "solution" is as simple as John Warren represents and as complicated as Soul Hunter's "self censoring". Trying to censor yourself or your website is missing one key component - censor what? Define "obscene". My guess is every website owner would love to have a defined set of rules and definitions. There isn't one. As others have pointed out, any regulatory group will attack the weak, those least likely of having the financial ability to withstand the onslaught of prosecution. Look around. Proportionally there really isn't a lot of specific cases of prosecution happening in relationship with the number of "porn" sites. But more "porn" sites are closing down every day. Why? Because of the threat. It's an effective tactic. Again, as John's said, unless you have your head on the chopping block, you can't argue against their decision to close.
I think it is easier for those active in the lifestyle in reality versus on-line, because we see and are around people and can join in and support them. John's continuing in his educational presentations is an example of what to do - LIVE. Go and support the open clubs. Go to munches. Go to events. Go to demonstrations. Maybe if this weekend everyone went and enjoined a group in real time somewhere versus logging on to some Internet site to complain about increasing censorship you'd discover a few things. Who knows - maybe we are really the real "silent" majority. At the very least you will find out this lifestyle is MUCH more fun experienced real.
|
|
|
|
