|
April 09, 2007
Protecting adults from invasions
Glenn Reynolds links a TCS column by Derek Hunter -- "Liberals and Conservatives Catch the Regulatory Bug" After discussing the advocacy of so-called "Net Neutrality" by the left (a misleading concept I oppose), Hunter turns to the right: The regulation bug isn't limited to liberals, as some conservative groups would like to control what children, and by extension everyone else, are able to see on television.Actually, I have to disagree just a little bit with that characterization, because I think that children are more the ostensible issue than they are the real issue. While it's true that activist anti "pornography" groups often mention children, that's mainly because protecting children draws a much larger cross section of support. There is no mistake that the goal of these activists is much broader than merely protecting children. I think that last sentence should read: ....they want the government to regulate show content so there isn't the possibility of something they disapprove of being seen by anyone.It should also be noted that by no means are all of these people on the right. Many can be found on the left, especially the feminist left. Anyone remember McKinnon and Dworkin? I'm not even sure that it is accurate to describe the regulatory campaign an "anti-pornography movement" -- which is why I tend to put the word in quotes. As I've explained before, the goal in some circles is to go after that which is deemed "sexually explicit" -- which could mean almost anything -- including the mere mention of penises and vaginas. It's all so illogical, and it reminds me of the people who used to complain that Howard Stern was "invading" their homes. But no sooner did he move to satellite radio than there was a push to regulate satellite radio. Does that mean people are paying to be "invaded"? I think the goal here is to lower us all to the standard of children, and treat us all like children. That this is being done in the name of protecting children should surprise no one. posted by Eric on 04.09.07 at 08:41 PM
Comments
I think MikeT has a very reasonable view, i.e. that instead of trying to keep things like pornography from people who want it, social conservatives should be trying to convince people not to want it in the first place. However, even if we do become more like a nation of Christians in the future, we will always be a pluralistic society, and pornography will still have to be tolerated. P. Aeneas · April 10, 2007 02:46 PM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
April 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
April 2007
March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
"Speech code" for the blogosphere? Tell me they're just kidding!
The statistics behind the "gun violence" Don't be clowning with Iran Protecting adults from invasions The topological abduction of my unfinished post! ("The Shape of things to come?") Dali Lama Threatened By Osama Strategy , Grand Strategy, and Tactics Happy Easter! How criticizing Clinton's sexism becomes "harassment" Stand up for secularism -- or is it too late?
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Well, I think for a lot of the social conservatives, it's hard for them to admit that they really have a problem. With as many as seventy percent of the people in the church suffering from pornography addictions, it's humiliating to say the least. However, as a born again Christian myself, I'll say that this is precisely the opposite path we should be taking. No amount of anti-porn campaigning is going to negate the fact that we are a shrinking church with only 11% of the population as bonafide believers. If they want to really take the war to the pornographers, the only way is to convert America back to a nation of Christians (not a "Christian nation," big difference).