Bozell Column: Porn, Just Another Business?

Photo of Brent Bozell.
  • Bookmark and Share

On society’s list of most shameful professions, the pornographer would be near the top. What must pornographers think of themselves? They would argue that their industry has joined the mainstream, yet for porn performers, it’s a sordid career fraught with perils of drugs, disease, and in the darker corners of porn, exploitation and abuse.

Take the case of a true pervert, Paul Little, who calls himself "Max Hardcore." The British author Martin Amis submerged himself in the sleaziest subcultures of sex on film for the British newspaper The Guardian a few years ago. He recalled the making of Little’s "Hollywood Hardcore 13." The film included a series of...excretory humiliations.

In these scenes, Little talks to down to actress Cloey Adams, who is pretending to be a child. "If you're a good girl, I'll take you to McDonald's later and get you a Happy Meal." After she submits to his disgusting desires, she then asks, "What do you think of your little princess now, Daddy?"

Just reading the gross-out titles of Little’s DVDs ought to tell the story. One of them is "Golden Guzzlers 7." Little has another series called "Anal Auditions."

Pardon the grotesque details, but they’re essential. The "mainstream" media simply omit these wretched realities in order to "mainstream" this kind of madness. Paul Little was indicted during the Bush years by the Department of Justice and convicted for distributing his pornography in the mail. He began serving a 46-month term in Los Angeles in January, while lawyers appeal the verdict.

And believe it or not, Little is now one of the sympathetic subjects of a new smut-exploiting CNBC documentary called "Porn: Business of Pleasure." On July 15, CNBC anchor Melissa Lee, the lead pseudo-investigator of the porn industry, presented Little as a First Amendment casualty.

She sat down with Little and asked sympathetically: "Are there plenty of things out there that there would be an audience for, but society says ‘Not for us’?" The line of questioning is chilling. Child pornography is something "there would be an audience for," yes. So, too, are snuff films. Would she scorn "society" for disapproving of those, too?

Little boasted in reply: "Society has spoken. There's more people buying my videos than there are people protesting my videos." Ditto, snuff films.

Clearly, not enough people have any idea of what kind of sickness reigns in Max Hardcore videos. CNBC was more interested in exploiting Little’s reputation, rather than denouncing it. "He’s the dirtiest man in America," they cooed in a promo, emphasizing the naughty fun, not the temptation to vomit.

In promoting her smutty documentary, the audaciously ambitious Lee played up the centrality of porn to American pop culture. "It’s as mainstream as [NBC’s] Must-See TV," she proclaimed on her regular CNBC show "Fast Money." NBC should have fired her on the spot for comparing their shows to "Golden Guzzlers 7."

CNBC’s porn extravaganza offered just two brief interruptions from porn critics. Pat Trueman appeared about halfway into the hour to explain how porn can be illegal. Recovered porn addict Michael Leahy appeared briefly to explain how his porn habit ruined his marriage and his relationship with his sons.

But viewers mostly saw a parade of pornographic product placement and cordial interviews with a series of porn-makers, including porn star-slash-Oklahoma mom "Jesse Jane," whose nine-year-old son doesn’t yet know "exactly" what his mother does for a living. The supposedly saddest moment is porn CEO Steven Hirsch lamenting that all the free-porn websites are killing his profits, and with the suspicion that free sites are pirating his films, "now we have to spend money policing the Internet." Cue the violins.

CNBC is the Consumer News and Business Channel, and what this has to do with news or business is beyond me. They’re trying to shore up their dreadfully low prime time numbers by celebrating all kinds of sleazy money-making schemes, and saying – and can’t you just hear this – "it’s a business like any other!" CNBC has also recently aired specials on prostitution, and on the marijuana business. This kind of special is the prostituting of journalism; this compares to "business news" about the same way that Nancy Grace’s lurid crime interviews compare to hard news.

Shame on CNBC for making no attempt to police the porn industry. Instead, viewers were urged to buy the documentary on DVD with "more [porn] star extras." If porn is just a business like any other, can we expect the next CNBC special to focus on sugar beet growers, or bicycle makers? I think everyone knows the answer.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Another example of what

Another example of what happens when there is no standard of right and wrong.  Everything is reduced to what is "legal."And if something is legal, then no one has the right to question or oppose it.

Smoking is legal, too, but the government expends a lot of effort through advertising and PSA's, anti-smoking groups rail against its inclusion in movies, depicting it as glamorous etc....in short, discouraging the practice.

It's too bad the same effort isn't expended on porn.

I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows.  -Bart Simpson

 

Other legal items the Gov

Other legal items the Gov and Liberals hate with a passion:

Guns
    Ammo for guns
        Gun owners, and right-to-carry permits
Coke, Mt Dew, and other soft-drinks
Happy meals
Large hamburgers
Oil, gas, and nuclear technology
   and coal mines
Marriage -- unless it's between homosexuals
Anyone keeping their hard-earned income
Respect for the law
Religion, and
Newborns

___________________________________ 

An optimist thinks that the glass is 1/2 full; a pessimist 1/2 empty; a realist thinks the glass is twice a big as it needs to be

Shame on CNBC for sure, and

Shame on CNBC for sure, and shame on the miserable souls who produce this horridly degrading filth.   But, uh HELLO.. shame on all who buy this crap!  The only reason this sad and sick industry exists is because there is a DEMAND for it. 

Re: shame on CNBC

"It truly is a business like any other business out there," Lee told USA Today. "Yes, the product is different and the employees are probably much more colorful, but at the end of the day, this is an industry trying to make money."

By this same notion, she could do an hour on white-supremacist record labels. (Obviously, that's not lucrative today, thank goodness.) Cover the business, fine -- but she wouldn't cover the tobacco business with this kind of gushy, sympathetic tone. Cover it, warts and all, not with an airbrush.

Tim

The White supremacist would not fly because of how racist it is and rightfully so, agreed 100 percent on the tobacco thing.

He had my vote

"Yes, the product is

"Yes, the product is different and the employees are probably much more colorful

And isn't that a lovely, inoffensive way of describing it. Now porn stars are just like George Clooney or Jennifer Aniston, only  "much more colorful."

 

I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows.  -Bart Simpson

 

Porn is a business Brent

The industry is worth more than 15 billion dollars. Personally I could not sit through the dvd your pointing out like "Golden Guzzlers, but it is not fair that your comparing that to child porn. The performers in "Golden Guzzlers" and "anal audtions" are over 18 years old. When you are 18 years old you can join the army and bear arms and fight for our country.

The porn CEA also has a legitimate gripe, their material which they paid for is offered for free on the internet and that is slowing their profits just like the recording industry.

"Shame on CNBC for making no attempt to police the porn industry.
Instead, viewers were urged to buy the documentary on DVD with "more
[porn] star extras." If porn is just a business like any other, can we
expect the next CNBC special to focus on sugar beet growers, or bicycle
makers? I think everyone knows the answer. "

I personally don't know if a viewer would want to sit for an hour with people interviewing sugar beat growers.

He had my vote

The performers in "Golden

The performers in "Golden Guzzlers" and "anal audtions" are over 18
years old. When you are 18 years old you can join the army and bear
arms and fight for our country.

 Thanks, shawn, for proving my point.

No argument that it is a positive influence or a worthwhile endeavor, just that it's legal, so shut up.

The government now wants to forbid smoking (a perfectly legal activity) by those same 18-year-olds who bear arms and fight for our country.  So your argument is bogus.

I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows.  -Bart Simpson

 

So your argument is bogus.

 "So your argument is bogus."

No it's not motherbelt. I can see your point if I believed smoking should be illegal but I do not. I believe in individual freedoms that the government should not interfere in and that includes using tobacco.

He had my vote

Yes it is

While it is abundantly clear in the post Brent's opinion of porn, which is shared by many of us as well, his post was not intended as a position on the legality of porn. The subject of Brent's post above was a criticism of CNBC for their slanted portrayel of the porn  industry that largely ingnored the deplorable aspects of the industry. 

Your argument misses the point and you attempt  to drag the debate into a discussion on whether the government should or should not interfere with "individual freedoms," as defined by your point of view. You don't have to agree with Brent's opinion, but you really should try to stay on topic.  

"If everyone is thinking alike, someone isn't thinking." - General George Patton Jr

"Your argument misses the

"Your argument misses the point and you attempt  to drag the debate into
a discussion on whether the government should or should not interfere
with "individual freedoms," as defined by your point of view. You don't
have to agree with Brent's opinion, but you really should try to stay
on topic. "
 

I am on topic because the poster was talking about the government trying to limit peoples smoking and pointing it out as a double standard,  smoking is an individual freedom that I support.

Its no secret that porn can be seedy, I am merely saying porn is a legitimate business and it deserved the spotlight on CNBC.

He had my vote

Sick, sick Max

Shawn, that was Brent's point -- that some businesses are much sleazier and sensationalistic than others. Here's Amis unfiltered on Max Hardcore:

AVN's regular "On the Set" column carries a cheerfully scandalised account of the making of Hollywood Hardcore 13. In this scene, actor-director Hardcore is having rough sex with Cloey Adams, who is pretending to be under age. "If you're a good girl, I'll take you to McDonald's later and get you a Happy Meal." Hardcore then "proceeds to piss in her mouth". Addressing the camera, Cloey Adams says, "What do you think of your little princess now Daddy?" Nor is Hardcore through with her. "Turning to the crew, he calmly says, 'I'll need a speculum and a hose' . . . One of Max's favourite tricks is to stretch a girl's asshole with a speculum, then piss into her open gape and make her suck out his own piss with a hose. Ain't that romantic?"

Tim

There is some porn I like and some that find disgusting. The scene you described is pretty gross and I would not want to see it, but I guess there is a market out there for people that would.

The Porn industry can be seedy, I am not disagreeing on that, but it is a legitimate business and it produces a ridiculous amount of money. I don't see anything wrong with CNBC doing a special about it.

He had my vote

but I guess there is a

but I guess there is a market out there for people that would. 

That's a hell of a defense shawn!

There is a market for it?????  That's your justification?  

Good grief.  I give up.

I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows.  -Bart Simpson

 

Wait

Some people still believe in liberty and a free market.

That seems to be what you have given up on.

Oh please motherbelt

I admited its nothing that I want to see, but if others want to see that type of thing it is not for me to judge. The participants are willing and no one is forcing them to do anything, so I do not see why are trying to look down on or imply my defense is insignificant.

I have always had respect for you motherbelt and I still do, but your last two arguments are ," your argument is bogus" or "I give up" without anything to back it up are not up to your usual standards to say the least.

He had my vote

And shawn, your two

And shawn, your two arguments seem to be that "it's legal" and "it's not for me to judge."

so I don't think you have any room to belittle my opinions.  

And I think we are at an impasse.  You won't convince me that porn is OK just because it's "legal" and I won't convince you that it's wrong to legalize something that is so degrading to those who participate in it and destructive to those who are "into" it.

And gosh, my whole weekend is ruined, now that I know I''ve disappointed you.

I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows.  -Bart Simpson

 

Ok motherbelt

I guess we will have to agree to disagree

 "And gosh, my whole weekend is ruined, now that I know I''ve disappointed you."

I'm sure you will get over it ;-)

He had my vote

My husband and I have been

My husband and I have been married happily for 12 years and have two wonderful girls and we have watched adult material together off and on for years. I actually feel like it has brought some fun and naughtiness to our relationship as we watch and often times laugh at it. Granted, we don't watch anything as raunchy as Max Hardcore, but to say that porn is destructive to those who are into it is rediculous. And, before you even ask, no I would never want my daughters to become involved in such an industry... just as I'd never want them to smoke.

Great post alwayscon

Just like it is nice to drink a glass or two of red wine at dinner, but people that love to make a mountain over a molehill will say, people that believe alchohol being legal, support someone guzzling a 12 pack and getting behind the wheel.

He had my vote

Shawn, you have no

Shawn, you have no legitimate argument here. Newsflash -- Society gets to decide what kind of restrictions it wants to impose upon itself -- as a society. There are limits to "legal and free", that you and others are constantly trying to tear down with bogus arguments like "it's private, so keep out". Society imposes these restrictions upon itself in order to preserve a way of life that it believes is best for itself. So while you can argue for "everything goes", we can tell you flat out -- you are wrong. Period. And we can tell CNBC -- you are wrong. Period. What CNBC is doing is trying to break down decency barriers we have set up to protect our way of life. And we don't think it advances society's goals, therefore it is wrong. As are you. And whichwing, who is trying out his totally bogus argument below.

___________________________________ 

An optimist thinks that the glass is 1/2 full; a pessimist 1/2 empty; a realist thinks the glass is twice a big as it needs to be

Actually T&T

For now American society is what has dictated that pornography is "legal and free" so I don't have to argue and petition for it, because I already have it.

Also you are putting words in my mouth, I never said "anything goes". I support "individual freedoms" that only harm an individual and nobody else. Now you can made a argument that If someone drinks and drives, that affects somebody else, or if someone smokes that affects everyone elses health care costs, but I do not agree the government should involved in that, just like I don't believe the government should be involved in the porn  business.

He had my vote

just like I don't believe

just like I don't believe the government should be involved in the porn  business.

They don't belong in the car or banking business's either, but the governments in them...Shawn you gave me a great idea to fight porn, put the government in charge and unionize it.  In no time it'll be broke beyond repair!

May I point out that Margert

May I point out that Margert Thatcher (a conserative icon and friend of Ronald Reagan) Once stated that there is no such thing as society

Then Margert Thatcher was

Then Margert Thatcher was wrong -- if she said that, and it isn't being taken out of context.

___________________________________ 

An optimist thinks that the glass is 1/2 full; a pessimist 1/2 empty; a realist thinks the glass is twice a big as it needs to be

Well, she actually said

Well, she actually said that. She was trying to break the British unions at the time..but there it is..and Reagan was right behind her .

TnT -- she did indeed state

TnT -- she did indeed state that, but it is, as you guess, all to do with context. And she was correct.

When she was elected in 1979, she had to fight against the forty year decent of Briain into a welfare-state addled socialist/unionized country -- including a recently nationalized state run car company.

(Look up British Leyland! It doesn't exist anymore, because governments can't run car companies, especially if they give them to the unions.)

The UK was a near basket-case of high-taxes, out of control entitlements, socialized "health" care... and crazy communist led unions.

A hell hole where "society" (or the state) was expected to control and pay for every aspect of a citizen's life from cradle to grave.

It was always "society's fault" and "society's reponsibility" -- and not the individual.

Her contention was that NO this is not how a country should operate. But that everything started with the indivdual and the family in a free enterprise capitalist system.

Obama Lied... Jobs Died.

Thanks, Jack. I kinda

Thanks, Jack. I kinda thought the context would be meaningful, as always. Without context, any person whatsoever can throw a quote out there and pretend that it shows the world must be upside down and backwards.

___________________________________ 

An optimist thinks that the glass is 1/2 full; a pessimist 1/2 empty; a realist thinks the glass is twice a big as it needs to be

Actually, society does get

Actually, society does get to decide what restrictions society imposes upon itself, but individuals do not get to impose what restrictions should be placed on society without concensus. Therefore, when you say someone is "flat out wrong, period." on a complex issue, what you are actually saying is "In my opinion, you're flat out wrong, period." Society and communities as a whole, not single, strongly opinionated individuals, have and continue to place reasonable restrictions on pornography.

  but I guess there is a

 

but I guess there is a market out there for people that would. 


That's a hell of a defense shawn!


There is a market for it?????  That's your justification?
 

MB, you are mocking Shawn's argument despite the fact that it is essentially the same line of reasoning used by free market absolutists who think that the environmental problems of Hummers and the personal health problems of cigarettes are outweighed by the fact that some people believe they "need" the gas-guzzling behemoths to take the kids to soccer practice (people on this very site have actually, unironically, said this) or that their carbon monoxide addiction trumps others' right not to breathe polluted air in public. 

Either market demand vindicates the dubious morality of a vice or it does not.  Whether the vice's damage is sexual, environmental, or medical is irrelevant.

I would argue that in all cases the two are wholly disassociated.  It sounds like you agree.  But let's bear in mind that what Shawn is advancing is an oft-cited distortion-of-libertarianism argument that is deployed quite often from the right.

Since Bozell's columns make me grind my teeth and want to throw things, this is all I will say on the matter.

 

No I'm not stalking you

You said: "Whether the vice's damage is sexual, environmental, or medical is irrelevant."Ok, correct. But the issue about the free market absolutes is that yes, porn is available and legal in places, no discussion there, it is as it is, ok. But the argument that it is there because of demand is, well, BS. Heroin, pot, meth, prostitution etc., etc. are also in demand, but they are illegal most places. Demand does not mean it's ok or legal or whatever. You have a valid point where the demand is ok where it is "consumed", The porn industry is legal here and there, ok, I understand. When it is, by the media, ok'd, then I have a problem. Only adults who want that kind of "entertainment" should have access to it. It doesn't need to be pushed by the media as ok. I should have broke this up into paragraphs but I am in a hurry, sorry.

Gary

Hey, Jimmah Che Obama!  I want my country back!

shawn what I got out of the

shawn what I got out of the article was that CNBC's show was biased in favor of the porn industry, and somewhat sensationalizing, thus not real journalism.  There is most definately a dark side to the porn industry that was apparantly not mentioned by CNBC.  I have no interest in the porn industry so didn't watch it. 

 

Good morning radical

I admit I did not watch the whole program and only watched bits and pieces on YouTube, but from what I seen it was an interesting documentory.

I agree it was somewhat sensationalizing, but what progams are not these days?

"I swear sometimes the self-appointed moral police are as obnoxious and demanding of big government interference as "environmentalist" gun control advocate, labor unions and trial lawyers" ~fitzfong

OMG

 I wish I'd never read that graphic detail; how does one even think of such stuff, let alone do it on camera? If there really is a sizeable market for this, we have a LOT more sickos out there than humanly imaginable.

 

I'm with you, ZZ

Reading that only proves to me that this 'Max Hardcore' guy and anyone who likes that sort of filth hates women and gets off by degrading them.  I don't care if there's a market for it or not, it's just wrong on many, many levels.

Right vs. wrong, by what

Right vs. wrong, by what standards?  Your morals are for you, not everyone else.  You are not forced to view these materials so I don't really see the complaint here.  Well, I mean I understand your disgust, but I don't know what you expect to be different.  Would you ban these things?  Would you imprison people for violating such a ban?  Would that include viewers or just producers? 

Of all people to 'police the porn industry,' why would you expect CNBC to do it?   And has anyone else noticed the excessive use of graphic material on Fox?  Maybe you'll address that in your next column, Mr. Bozell.

BTW, your repeated assertion that the porn industry is a cesspool of disease is probably not nearly as true as you'd expect.  From what I understand, testing is pretty stringent in the industry, for obvious reasons.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."  -  George Bernard Shaw

probably not nearly as true

probably not nearly as true as you'd expect.  

Another rousing argument.

Right vs. wrong, by what standards? 

Another one makes my point. 

As I said to shawn, I give up.  There's no reasoning with people who  justify pornography.

Good luck, Tim.

I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows.  -Bart Simpson

 

Was I less convincing than

Was I less convincing than the author, or were you just inclined to believe his version?

You must be opposed to the notion of freedom and liberty.  There is no reasoning with people who don't know what a 'consenting adult' is.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."  -  George Bernard Shaw

I'm just wondering why

I'm just wondering why "probably" is a valid argument.

I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows.  -Bart Simpson

 

But...

But the author offered you nothing better.  You are not being consistent.

Right vs. wrong, by what standards?

Society's standards. They exist, and are codified in laws and customs of the land. And if you or anyone else try to illegally violate those standards, you'll be prevented through arrest, fines, etc. As a society, we endeavor to protect our standards from assault, because we believe they are good. If you want to complain, fine. If you don't want to abide by them, then go somewhere else that supports "your" standards.

___________________________________ 

An optimist thinks that the glass is 1/2 full; a pessimist 1/2 empty; a realist thinks the glass is twice a big as it needs to be

What in the world are you talking about T&T

Is CNBC advocating breaking the law?  There is a difference on what "your" standards compared to what the law is.

He had my vote

Are you employed Shawn? If

Are you employed Shawn? If so, then can you browse porn sites over your lunchtime on your employer's computer? If "porn" is legal, then why not? How can an employer refuse to permit that? Is it right that an employer can impose its "standards" in violation of the good, legal, law?

Free speech allows me to say anything, right, without getting arrested? Isn't that what you and whichwing tell us? Well, how about I start cursing and calling everybody names on this Forum? Would you think NB has a right to ban me in direct violation of the law of the land? Or is NB setting standards that I, as a participant, have to abide by? If I don't abide by NB's standards, then what "law" am I breaking, and how should the two be reconciled?

Please don't lecture me on the difference between "my" standards compared to what the law is.

___________________________________ 

An optimist thinks that the glass is 1/2 full; a pessimist 1/2 empty; a realist thinks the glass is twice a big as it needs to be

Yes I am employed

My employer pays me and or the 8 hours a day I work for that person, I play by her rules. My employer also pays for the computer and internet connecton, so I would imagine my employer would not appreciate me looking at porn on his/her computer

I really don't see your point. I am not lecturing your at all, your talking about standards and what society allows and implying that I want to break the law

edit

Yes I think NB has the right to ban you if you call people names, because you are using their own website and bandwidth for which you pay nothing. However if you owned your own website you can call anyone names you want as long as you don't slander someone because you can be sued.

He had my vote

TnT, that's a ridiculous

TnT, that's a ridiculous argument; to the point of absurdity, really.

Alcohol is legal...can your employer tell you you can't get drunk on the job?  Yes.

Talking on the phone is legal...can your employer tell you to stop it with the personal calls and get back to work?  Yes.

In fact, your employer can tell you you can't do pretty much anything that doesn't pertain to your job description.

Lol Jason

Its kind of funny Jason, T&T does  not want to address the fact that he is accusing me of wanting to break the law, but he does not have a leg to stand on and it is not true, so he decides to use a silly comparision for the workplace which is comparable to the "If Jimmy jumped off a bridge would you argument"

Second, he keeps saying that I am for a "anything goes society" I never said or implied that. If you are out in public of course you can't be free to curse on top of your lungs because that would affect other people, viewing porn in your own home hurts nobody and the only thing you are hurting is your own left or right hand

He had my vote

All the way back to Shawn's

All the way back to Shawn's comment: The performers in "Golden Guzzlers" and "anal audtions" are over 18 years old. When you are 18 years old you can join the army and bear arms and fight for our country.

Shawn is saying "if it's legal, you can do it". And he's implying "no one has the right to interfere with legal activities" -- if it's legal, then it trumps moral standards . And he's especially indignant that I would dare suggest that society sets moral standards to help guide us through right from wrong. You see, that's the liberal goal -- break down everybody's standards so that each event, each decision in life can be treated as "if it doesn't affect anyone else, it must be ok". Of course, your assumption that "it doesn't affect anyone else" is based upon a very narrow prisim of experience, and is entirely wrong in most cases.

That's the argument, JasonC. The fact that you can't follow it is not surprising to me.

___________________________________ 

An optimist thinks that the glass is 1/2 full; a pessimist 1/2 empty; a realist thinks the glass is twice a big as it needs to be

No No No T&T

Your mixing up the meanings again. When did I say or imply that if it is legal it trumps moral standards? I only mentioned the legal part when Mr. Bozell compared it to child porn.

I am saying porn is a legitimate business and I am in support of CNBC showing their program. You on the other hand want to make the comparision about watching porn at work that has nothing to do with this topic

"I swear sometimes the self-appointed moral police are as obnoxious and demanding of big government interference as "environmentalist" gun control advocate, labor unions and trial lawyers" ~fitzfong

When did I say or imply

When did I say or imply that if it is legal it trumps moral standards?

Here's your answer: Is CNBC advocating breaking the law?  There is a difference on what "your" standards compared to what the law is.

Of course, as I explained to JasonC above, you try to turn it into "my" standards. That's why I used the examples I did. Society can't function if everyone decides what "his" standards are. Societies get together when they have common standards. Again, I pointed this out earlier, but you, and now JasonC, decide to try to personalize it to "my" standards -- that's a whole lot easier to attack. If you can show the world that, well, it's a battle between "my" standards vs. "your" standards, then it's a draw, and I have no "right" to do that. Well, I'm not talking about "my" standards. I'm talking about the standards that have served this country well for more than 200 years.

___________________________________ 

An optimist thinks that the glass is 1/2 full; a pessimist 1/2 empty; a realist thinks the glass is twice a big as it needs to be

TnT

"Well, I'm not talking about "my" standards. I'm talking about the standards that have served this country well for more than 200 years."

Well said!

 

I didn't try to personalize

I didn't try to personalize it.  You tried to trap Shawn by asking if his employer would let him watch porn at work.  I thought I pointed out rather succinctly how irrelevant that point was.

Lol come on T&T

Do you actually believe you are going to fool me into saying if CNBC is breaking the law was my implying if legal trumps moral standards.

I asked the CNBC question after you said this.

" Society's standards. They exist, and are codified in
laws and customs of the land. And if you or anyone else try to
illegally violate those standards, you'll be prevented through arrest,
fines, etc."

edit

You also said this

"As a society, we endeavor to protect our standards from assault,
because we believe they are good. If you want to complain, fine. If you
don't want to abide by them, then go somewhere else that supports
"your" standards."

Your the one the brought ups standards remember?

However I do agree with you that not everyone standards are the same. I also hate liberals that want to force their standards of how much soda or transfat I can eat. If you don't like porn that is fine, but your upset because a cable channel wants to do a expose on industry that is worth billions and billions of dollars?

Out of curiosity Do you just feel porn is disgusting and society should condem it, or are you saying it should be outlawed because you it does not meet your excellent standards?

Surprised Mr. Shy chimed in, considering he loves porn just as much as me, he just wont' admit. it.

 

"I swear sometimes the self-appointed moral police are as obnoxious and demanding of big government interference as "environmentalist" gun control advocate, labor unions and trial lawyers" ~fitzfong

Let me repeat, for the last

Let me repeat, for the last time Shawn because we are at the end of the discussion. You are arguing "If it's legal, do it. Legal trumps everything". That's the liberal way. That's why the ACLU and others are always looking for judges who will do their bidding.

I'm saying that our society knows best (not perfect, but best), and that we haven't had to put everything down on a piece of paper to become and remain the best country in the world. The Constitution is a small document. It doesn't say anything about abortion, pornography, and a host of other things. But we know -- and I know -- that I don't want my children exposed to such things. But, narrow-minded people are pushing for their "legal" solutions. When such things become narrowly "legal" I, and many others say, "No -- you are destroying society, and this is wrong".

And the reason I'm done discussing this with you, Shawn, is because you keep bringing this back, incorrectly, to "my" standards: are you saying it should be outlawed because [ ] it does not meet your excellent standards? I am not going to continually repeat myself, if you continually refuse to understand what I write.

___________________________________ 

An optimist thinks that the glass is 1/2 full; a pessimist 1/2 empty; a realist thinks the glass is twice a big as it needs to be

Thats just fine T&T

I have proven over an over that I never meant legal trumps everything. Your twisting words and trying to make it look like I am  the one not  willing to debate.

Nice trick trying to bring abortion into this argument. Too bad you duck my question about, if you would agree with outlawing porn or not, I guess you have more in common with liberal debating tactics that you care to admit. Adios!

"I swear sometimes the self-appointed moral police are as obnoxious and demanding of big government interference as "environmentalist" gun control advocate, labor unions and trial lawyers" ~fitzfong

Max Hardcore

Oh wow. Now there's a character. Truly a sick sense of humor.

However something cannot be depraved just because you disapprove of it. That's ridiculous. Are bikes depraved because I hate bikers? There's nothing shameful in having a career in porn. If you good at something never do it for free. With all the talk of the "dark corners" of the industry do we not forget many professions have their dark side? Professional athletes deal with drugs, booze, dog fighting, violence, gun violations. Even pop stars (Michael Jackson) have a dark side. 

Also reading these other replies I can't help but laugh. 

Good morning someloudthunder

Yup. People decry the fairness doctrine, love free speech, want freedom for everyone, freedom for all, let freedom ring, but bring up the porn industry, people are up in arms about I can't believe they let this filth in video stores hmmmph.

He had my vote

CNBC special

Didn't watch the show and have no desire to. Just curious if they mentioned how these girls really make their money these days. I've gotten to be friendly with a few girls in the industry. They're not drug addicts. The industry is so bad these days the girls I know make more money escorting than they do making movies. Their rationale: I get paid to have sex, what's the difference if it's on camera or off. And they do very well. One I know has an absolutely beautiful home in Santa Barbara. Another one on O'ahu. There's a website devoted to meeting these girls. I won't post it here.Last time I mentioned it people jumped all over me; wanted to ban me. I'm 48 years old, never married and have no desire to be. I'd be a bad husband and I know it. I know what I like and occasionally that includes associating with these girls. It can be an expensive hobby but so are my two main pursuits, traveling and playing the horses. But I worked my tail off to retire at 44; I'm out of the rat race and I'm going to enjoy the fruits of my labor. Isn't that what America's about? Something in the Declaration, I think. Just my two cents. Now I'm off to Belmont Park.

More power to you easygoer

If the people that wanted to ban you for being a um "hobbyist" and for what you do in your private life The people that wanted to ban you are prudes. However I can see their point if you link to a site that advertises prostitutes. Many people here have a libertarian attitude but are afraid to speak their minds because  of getiing flamed by the many social conservatives on this site.

 

He had my vote

shawn228

Thanks. You're right about posting the link. It wasn't like I was saying "Hey, you guys check this site out" but regardless it was inappropriate. It won't happen again. I like this site too much. It's my favorite. As for being a "hobbyist" I'd say I'm more of a dabbler.  Gotta go. First post at 1:00 PM. Later.

Snuff films?

They are a phantom.

http://www.snopes.co...

But if they strengthen your argument, then by all means.

Public vs. Private

The argument, as I see it, is one of public vs. private behavior. It is a social argument which goes to the heart of this nation's moral problems. We are human and free and everyone knows that this crap goes on, along with other dehumanizing behavior. But when we do not condemn it as a society, when we take it as commonplace and quite acceptable, we are in trouble. This has been the history of the world. Oh, excuse me, we don't read history nowadays, do we? That being said, I do feel sorry for the messages we are giving our children. Sad.

NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"

That being said, I do feel sorry for the messages we are giving

" That being said, I do feel sorry for the messages we are giving our children. Sad."

I did not realize we are teaching out children that porn is good to watch or it is a good occupation.

He had my vote

Oh please

Open your eyes.  

NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"

The downside of free market

The downside of free market capitalism is that there is a market demand to be served by products/services you find objectionable.  We have laws against the exploitation of minors, the most offensive splinter "market" of the porn industry.  So you prosecute and punish those who commit illegal acts relative to porn.  But there is a difference between your "ethical standards" and the law.  If you want to keep yourself and your children away from this stuff, you have to take the responsibility to monitor it on your own.  It's not the government's responsibility or right to step in to police and to create artificial market barriers just because a segment of society finds a legal business offensive.  I swear sometimes the self-appointed moral police are as obnoxious and demanding of big government interference as "environmentalists", gun control advocates, labor unions and trial lawyers. 

"I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered."  -George Best

Wow Fitz

I don't know if I could have said that any better myself. If you don't mind it will be my new temporary tagline :-)

"I swear sometimes the self-appointed moral police are as obnoxious and
demanding of big government interference as "environmentalists", gun
control advocates, labor unions and trial lawyers."
~ fitzfong  

He had my vote

You have my blessing,

You have my blessing, Shawn.  I'm honored.

"I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered."  -George Best

Also Hopeless

So anyone who objects to porn is the "self-apointed moral police"??? Therein lies the problem.

BTW- Civil law is not the answer.

NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"

That's a rather interesting

That's a rather interesting way for you to frame my argument...whether that's out of ignorance or dishonesty only you know (or don't know, as it were).  It's one thing to object to legal pornography.  It's quite another to carry your objection to the point of appealing to the government to regulate it further or to ban it outright.  The marketplace is filled with products and/or services that you don't want and don't use.  Does that mean that others don't have the right to use the products and services you do not value?  Vote with your pocketbook...if you don't like it, don't buy it and don't expose your family to it.  If enough people do that, it will become market irrelevant (and with Flynt and Joe Francis asking for bailout money recently, it may be becoming such).  But demanding the government to step in because you (you, as a generic term, not as you specifically) can't adequately police yourself and/or your family, establishes no less of a slippery slope towards nanny state tyranny than does the "2nd Hand" smoking ban, the union "closed shop" or the Endangered Species Act.

"I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered."  -George Best

Lectures

You point out the obvious. And please be careful when using the word "ignorant". You don't know to whom you speak.

Have to go now. Have a nice night.

NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"

I don't think I have to

I don't think I have to illustrate the difference between ignorance and stupidity for you.  The fact that you misrepresented my argument up the thread could very well be down to ignorance (once again, not synonymous with "stupidity"), or at the very least, an erroneous interpretation of what I said.  The use of the word was not meant as an indictment of your intelligence.

You don't know to whom you speak.

Or, to put it another way, I am ignorant of whom I speak.

Have a nice night, too. 

"I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered."  -George Best

fitz, I'm not sure what you

fitz, I'm not sure what you mean about "artificial barriers".  I'm against porn.  That said, I think it should be somewhat regulated.  It shouldn't be sold to people under 18, and I don't want it streaming into my house on my t.v.  Thankfully, I have it blocked on my computers and when my kids were younger I had spyware on their computers to monitor their activities.  I also object to child porn.

But, if you're over 18, don't live in my house, and want to buy it, I don't think the government should stand in your way.  I also don't smoke, but as long as you don't do it in my house, light up!

 

By "artificial barriers", I

By "artificial barriers", I mean the seeking of the establishment of more and greater restrictions on the legal distribution of such material based on the desire to "protect the public" from ever encountering such filth.  Let me give you a hypothetical to illustrate my point: a kid wanders off and happens upon a newsstand where some guy happens to be purchasing a magazine.  The parent who loses the child finds the kid watching the guy buying the pornography and now wants to further restrict the distribution of these materials because her son has been unforseeably corrupted.  Had she been paying attention, the kid would never have wandered off and he never would have been exposed to such offensive visuals.  The newsstand and the purchaser are engaging in a legal transaction (relative tastefulness of the product bought notwithstanding), yet because an individual has been "damaged", calls for new regulations are made.  That is what I mean by "artificial barriers".

I'm against porn.

Good for you.

That said, I think it should be somewhat regulated. 

It is.

It shouldn't be sold to people under 18, and I don't want it streaming into my house on my t.v. 

It's not legal to sell to people under 18, so the established law has taken care of that issue.  You have the ability to prevent pornography from streaming into you house on your TV.  Unless you order a channel that carries pornography, you purchase it via pay-per-view or rent/own a pornographic video, I don't think it's possible for that material to mysteriously stream into your living room.

Thankfully, I have it blocked on my computers and when my kids were younger I had spyware on their computers to monitor their activities. 

Overall, you've got the right idea, Radical1979.  You're responsible for yourself and all who live under your roof, and you accept that responsibility.  You object to the material, and while you may think less of someone who sells/purchases pornography, you don't stand in the way of someone making a legal transaction.  That's fair and it's all that can be asked of you. 

I also object to child porn.

We all do.  That's why it's illegal. 

"I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered."  -George Best

What a joke

I also object to child porn. We all do.  That's why it's illegal.

So, Society can set and enforce standards, eh? You should try to explain that to worshiper Shawn one day.

Yet, you mock anyone who objects to porn -- not child porn, just regular ol' porn. You say "it's your reponsibility, not the public's, to keep your children away from porn".

There's a big hole in your credibility there, fitz. And you can't paper it over by using the word legal. There really is a reason people are recognizing and are worried about the breakdown of society. Much of it has to do with the liberal desire to use "the law" and special judges to tear apart society's fabric.

___________________________________ 

An optimist thinks that the glass is 1/2 full; a pessimist 1/2 empty; a realist thinks the glass is twice a big as it needs to be

Unfortunately This&That won't offer his own solutions

interesting on your comment above to me with your false indignation  about people talking about "your standards" that you refuse to answer the question.

Do you want porn banned in the legal sense? It will give me an idea on if you don't agree with something or want to take something away  from somebody if you don't agree with it.

Hopefully you have recoverd from your "hurt feelings" because I did the ghastly thing of saying "your excellent standards"

"I swear sometimes the self-appointed moral police are as obnoxious and demanding of big government interference as "environmentalist" gun control advocate, labor unions and trial lawyers" ~fitzfong

Yet, you mock anyone who

Yet, you mock anyone who objects to porn -- not child porn, just regular ol' porn. You say "it's your reponsibility, not the public's, to keep your children away from porn".

Now if that isn't hysterical overstatement, I don't know what is.  It's absolutely fine for you to object to porn, it's another thing entirely for you to insert yourself in a private, legal transaction just because you find the material subject of the transaction offensive.  I find it interesting how easily people will shift from being free marketeers to Gladys Kravitz-big government busybodies once their personal pet oxen are gored.  And it is your responsibility, not the public's, to keep your children away from porn.  It's also your responsibility, and not the public's, to keep your children away from matches, bleach and your pharmaceutical cabinet.  On second thought, maybe we should ban those, too, just in case you can't keep your children away from them.

There's a big hole in your credibility there, fitz.

Gee, TNT, why don't you explain where this "gap" in my credibility is?  Or is that just a non-sequitur you've employed because you have nothing substantive to say?  And, please, spare me the "breakdown in society" rhetoric, it's really trite and meaningless.  If you perceive that others are lacking in "values", it is up to you to convince them of the errors in their ways so that they can make the conscious decision to make change...it's not your business to have a third party step in and enforce your values on others, using "society's fabric" as your shield of "justification".

"I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered."  -George Best

"If porn is just a

"If porn is just a business like any other, can we expect the next CNBC special to focus on sugar beet growers, or bicycle makers?"

I would watch a special on sugar beet growers if it was Dwight Schrute at his family's Schrute Farms.  (Dwight Schrute = The Office TV show)

:-)

The Continuing Culture Wars

I think the MSM does stories like this every so often for two reasons:

1.  To show how open, free, liberal, progressive and down with free expression they are...open-minded in other words.

2.  To elicit a negative reaction from Christians and conservatives.

I don't think they like this kind of stuff either, but it's a little jab at the Christian right.  If they complain, then they can show them to be stodgy, sexless busy-bodies who are out to take away your freedoms.

If said Christian rightists are caught in an orgy then they're portrayed as hypocrites and perverts rather than getting a thumbs up as in they're really "with it" after all.

They're just trying to generate a controversy so they can get some ministers or grass roots types on their shows to debate with, throw up emails in opposition and debate the merits of free speech from a high moral ground...blah blah blah.

It's an old game and one we should be familiar with by now.

One of the 34% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 61% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory (yep...approval for Congress now at 39%...do you believe that!?).

Nekkid women

And not a single NewsBusters.org reader or commentator has ever looked at porn, eh?  Virgins all.  Nice.

I'll admit it.  I

I'll admit it.  I have.

But I didn't think there needed to be a special, hour-long TV investigation about it.  Nobody needs to see adult film makers wringing their hands about how their industry is losing money because of piracy software.  

By the way, if they want Socialized HealthCare, they need to put a $1 tax on every porn film.  They'll pay for it in about six months and have enough left over to fund a trip to Mars.  

Point?

wjneill:

What's your point?

NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"

He has no point. Except for

He has no point. Except for the standard liberal playbook -- make it personal (e.g., I am a member of NB); attack on a one-on-one basis; ignore the broader consequences (e.g., "regular" porn today -- child porn tomorrow) or (isolated hard-to-get to purchasing points yesterday -- your responsibility to set up 100 roadblocks today); and declare victory. Liberal standards are a day-to-day experience, so any time one of them gets to go one-on-one with anyone else, it's a declared victory.

___________________________________ 

An optimist thinks that the glass is 1/2 full; a pessimist 1/2 empty; a realist thinks the glass is twice a big as it needs to be

Funny...

...how the press always complains about the (percieved) suppression of First Amendment rights, but never seem to give two shits about Second Amendment rights.