whodey's happy day

It's almost as if Ohio lawmakers read the RHP debates forums, as they have legislated to legalise brothels. Whodey will be pleased, as the apparent inconsistency whereby pornography is legal while prostitution is not has seemed to cause him moral and political discomfort in the last couple of weeks. Let's hope more state legislatures follow this fine example, eh whodey? Not only is that worrying inconsistency overcome, it would also seem to be a sound libertarian policy! A triumph for coherent conservative thinking.

Originally posted by DrKF
It's almost as if Ohio lawmakers read the RHP debates forums, as they have legislated to legalise brothels. Whodey will be pleased, as the apparent inconsistency whereby pornography is legal while prostitution is not has seemed to cause him moral and political discomfort in the last couple of weeks. Let's hope more state legislatures follow this fine example, e ...[text shortened]... ould also seem to be a sound libertarian policy! A triumph for coherent conservative thinking.

Don't combine libertarianism with modern day conservatism. They are apples and oranges.

Originally posted by badmoon
Don't combine libertarianism with modern day conservatism. They are apples and oranges.

Maybe yes, maybe no - it's situations like this that make certain posters, who sometimes seem to try to have a foot in both camps, either square the circle or pick a side...

Originally posted by DrKF
It's almost as if Ohio lawmakers read the RHP debates forums, as they have legislated to legalise brothels. Whodey will be pleased, as the apparent inconsistency whereby pornography is legal while prostitution is not has seemed to cause him moral and political discomfort in the last couple of weeks. Let's hope more state legislatures follow this fine example, e ...[text shortened]... ould also seem to be a sound libertarian policy! A triumph for coherent conservative thinking.

Ohio? Don't you mean Ontario? What is your source on this.

Originally posted by rwingett
Ohio? Don't you mean Ontario? What is your source on this.

Ha! Ontario indeed, mea culpa! My only defence is that I'm on my phone, with all the faffing that involves....

Originally posted by DrKF
Ha! Ontario indeed, mea culpa! My only defence is that I'm on my phone, with all the faffing that involves....

Yes, Ontario is slightly different than Ohio seeing how it is not even the same country.

Of course, I'm no fan of prostitution, rather, I merely point out the inconsistencies of the laws against prostitution in the US as they turn a blind eye to prostitutes in pornography. The arguments from Moon that defend the status quo on the issue remain incoherent to me. Basically the argument is that if you film the sex acts and sell the film then it can be defended via the first amendment. No doubt, it makes sense to everyone but Whodey.

That aside, even though I'm no fan of prostitution, it in no way means I"m in favor of laws prohibiting it. I think the problem here is that pimps and prostitutes do not lobby Congress the way that the billion dollar porn industry does. If they did, it would be legal overnight. In that sense, you might even call those in Congress....well.....whores. 😛

Originally posted by whodey
Of course, I'm no fan of prostitution, rather, I merely point out the inconsistencies of the laws against prostitution in the US as they turn a blind eye to prostitutes in pornography. The arguments from Moon that defend the status quo on the issue remain incoherent to me. Basically the argument is that if you film the sex acts and sell the film then it can be defended via the first amendment. No doubt, it makes sense to everyone but Whodey.

They are not my arguments. Instead, I was just discussing the Constitution and the law of the land enunciated by the Supreme Court.

Originally posted by moon1969
They are not my arguments. Instead, I was just discussing the Constitution and the law of the land enunciated by the Supreme Court.

Fair enough, they are still incoherent to me. How about you?

Originally posted by whodey
Fair enough, they are still incoherent to me. How about you?

It is not incoherent to me in view of plain language without bias.

With the context of the Constitution, it is a slippery slope for the government to regulate expression, but not so slippery for a government to regulate or even outlaw private prostitution.

As for expression, what government official is going to decide what is art and what is not art? What government official is going to decide when a sexual depiction is ok or not ok? Is a health video on sex education depicting a sexual act the same as a private relationship?

The incoherence you feel would be kind of like being confused because it is ok legally and even desired to kill in war but not ok legally to kill in other situations. It is still killing in both situations but with different foundations per the plain language of the laws of the given country.

There is a distinction between permitted homicide vs. unpermitted homicide per the laws of a country. Likewise, there is a distinction between porn sex and prostitution sex per the plain language of our Constitution and our laws.

Originally posted by moon1969
It is not incoherent to me in view of plain language without bias.

With the context of the Constitution, it is a slippery slope for the government to regulate expression, but not so slippery for a government to regulate or even outlaw private prostitution.

As for expression, what government official is going to decide what is art and what is not art ...[text shortened]... n between porn sex and prostitution sex per the plain language of our Constitution and our laws.

Killing to defend yourself is understandable, but sex for money is sex for money. You can hide behind the term "expression" all you wish. In fact, what if you payed someone to kill them and put it on film and sold it? Would that be covered under the First Amendment as well? My guess is no.

Originally posted by whodey
Killing to defend yourself is understandable, but sex for money is sex for money. You can hide behind the term "expression" all you wish. In fact, what if you payed someone to kill them and put it on film and sold it? Would that be covered under the First Amendment as well? My guess is no.

First, the First Amendment is not absolute. You cannot cry "fire!" in a crowded theater. If you do not understand that killing is not protected under the First Amendment, then you are a lost cause. Second, hide behind expression? Are you kidding. Freedom of expression is a fundamental principle in our society.

Third, I can't help your limited understanding or confusion that sex for money is protected under the First Amendment if a form of expression, and is not so protected if not a form of expression. It is basic constitutional law.

Per our Constitution, freedom of expression is more important than giving the government the power and ability to outlaw acts such as paying money for sex underlying the expression. I would think you would understand that instead of trying to impose some technical esoteric logic argument that has no meaning in the real world. Freedom of expression is a fundamental principle in our country and Constitution and more important than regulating prostitution or any underlying sexual act.

Moreover, paying money for sex as expression is a very different and generally much more involved undertaking than merely paying a prostitute to have private sex. Nevertheless, and most improtantly, it is expression, and the expression is intended to reach other people and a public audience.

Expression in all forms with all kinds of content is something the government should generally stay out of regulating. Once the government steps in, it can have a chilling effect, with the government deciding what and what is not appropriate expression.

It is also chilling to think that there are people like you who would degrade the Constitution by equating expression with prostitution, or asserting that regulating/outlawing prostitution or sex for money should be just as important or more important than freedom of expression.

Originally posted by moon1969
First, the First Amendment is not absolute. You cannot cry "fire!" in a crowded theater. If you do not understand that killing is not protected under the First Amendment, then you are a lost cause. Second, hide behind expression? Are you kidding. Freedom of expression is a fundamental principle in our society.

Third, I can't help your limited unders ...[text shortened]... on or sex for money should be just as important or more important than freedom of expression.

When did I say that I wanted government to ban it all? I guess you have not been following along that closley. All I'm saying is that there is no difference between the pimp and the porn director, they are both there to make $$$$.
And the only difference for the prostitute is that she must try to "look good" while filming. It's just that one has access to greater wealth via a larger audiance.

Freedom of expression? I guess you have never seen porn actors try and act. 😛

Originally posted by whodey
Freedom of expression? I guess you have never seen porn actors try and act. 😛

So you could be the government official that decides what is expression protected by the First Amendment.

Originally posted by whodey
All I'm saying is that there is no difference between the pimp and the porn director, they are both there to make $$$$.

The intent of almost all media is to make money.

Originally posted by whodey
All I'm saying is that there is no difference between the pimp and the porn director, they are both there to make $$$$.

Freedom of expression is a fundamental principle.

Again, I can't help your limited understanding or confusion that sex for money is protected under the First Amendment if a form of expression, and is not so protected if not a form of expression. It is basic constitutional law.

I would think you would understand that instead of trying to impose some technical esoteric logic argument. Expression in all forms with all kinds of content is something the government should generally stay out of regulating. In contrast, regulating or outlawing prostitution generally has nothing to do with regulating expression.

Do you think you will ever understand the constitutional distinction.