I found a link to an interesting article on the 2257. It includes a section for comments. Check out the last post from an anti-porn jackass...
A link to the article:Written By:Kip Watson
On June 22, 2005 11:42 PM
Hey smut-merchants,
I know you sick freaks think that your right to free speech entitles you to spam me and my family non-stop with graphic porn, and I sure am crying that you should be expected to contribute ever so slightly to the prevention of extremely serious sex crimes (oh my, what an imposition). After all, you all tell yourselves that your disgusting and degrading product is a good thing, so the fury and outrage it engenders must be due to someone else's unreasonable hang-ups, right?
So my question is: if I decided that carving my initials in your face with a chainsaw was a legitimate form of my self expression, would it make it acceptable to you if I repeatedly told myself that on balance it wasn't causing any harm?
Cracking Down on Porn: Protecting Children or Naked Censorship?
http://www.acsblog.org/bill-of-right...ensorship.html
More proof that the "porn is harmful" crowd are a bunch of fucking sex-hating psychotics. Norman Bates is the poster child for those people.
Bookmarks