3 ms·

This article attempts to draw parallels between tobacco an porn in the promotion, use, addiction, and rationalization of the "substances." I'm not moved. Toba

by russell 17y ago

This article attempts to draw parallels between tobacco an porn in the promotion, use, addiction, and rationalization of the "substances." I'm not moved. Tobacco kills and injures people even innocent bystanders. There may be a case for psychological damage, but the author herself admits that the damage may be a learned reaction. At the end she looks at the political aspects and says the the political supporters (by innuendo) are left wing liberals like Obama and Henry Waxman. Whoa there Nellie! Then I see "Mary Eberstadt is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution and consulting editor to Policy Review." Says it all.

teilo 17y ago
I think you only skimmed the article. She makes your same points, particularly that tobacco does indeed directly kill and injure people, and pornography does not. Her section on politics does not seem to have a particular slant to these eyes: "It is hard to imagine Henry Waxman, for example — one of the most voracious elected officials in pursuit of the tobacco companies — adopting any similar animus toward Big Pornography. It is equally hard to imagine the Obama administration taking much of an interest in prosecuting obscenity — if indeed its members even believe that obscenity as such can exist." Do you disagree? Do you think that Waxman and Obama ARE likely to go after "Big Pornography" or start pushing for the enforcement of obscenity laws? And if you would look more closely, you would realize that this IS the website for Policy Review, Hoover Institution, Stanford.
- russell 17y ago
  > Unlike tobacco, which was traditionally defended by a coalition of libertarians and politicians from conservative tobacco-growing Southern states, pornography’s most prominent defenders in the public sphere — including its industry spokesmen — associate themselves with the progressive wing of Democratic Party politics. It is hard to imagine Henry Waxman, for example — one of the most voracious elected officials in pursuit of the tobacco companies — adopting any similar animus toward Big Pornography. It is equally hard to imagine the Obama administration taking much of an interest in prosecuting obscenity — if indeed its members even believe that obscenity as such can exist. The recent ascension to the No. 2 slot in the Justice Department of a lawyer who in private practice had numerous times defended Playboy, Penthouse, the largest distributor of pornographic videos, and other pornographers just emphasizes the point. is the paragraph that I based my innuendo comment on. Fundamentally, most porn is protected as artistic expression, child porn excepted. It's a fools errand to spend resources on prosecution that's going to be overturned. That's probably the position of Waxman and Obama. I admit that I read the article quickly, but more than skimming. I thought the analogy was stretched, even she seemed to think so at times. But at the end linking liberals, Democrats, feminists, and porn political contributors was just a bit silly. Given that nothing can be done about it legally, the article was just political theater disguised as argument.
  - byrneseyeview 17y ago
    It's a fools errand to spend resources on prosecution that's going to be overturned. That's probably the position of Waxman and Obama. Whoa, really? If the Supreme Court said "Porn is obscenity; it is not protected speech," you think Obama would demand that RedTube be shut down? Can you imagine anything like "We must stop these purveyors of sexually debased materials" ever emerging from Obama's mouth?

by russell 17y ago

teilo 17y ago

I think you only skimmed the article. She makes your same points, particularly that tobacco does indeed directly kill and injure people, and pornography does not. Her section on politics does not seem to have a particular slant to these eyes: "It is hard to imagine Henry Waxman, for example — one of the most voracious elected officials in pursuit of the tobacco companies — adopting any similar animus toward Big Pornography. It is equally hard to imagine the Obama administration taking much of an interest in prosecuting obscenity — if indeed its members even believe that obscenity as such can exist." Do you disagree? Do you think that Waxman and Obama ARE likely to go after "Big Pornography" or start pushing for the enforcement of obscenity laws? And if you would look more closely, you would realize that this IS the website for Policy Review, Hoover Institution, Stanford.

russell 17y ago
> Unlike tobacco, which was traditionally defended by a coalition of libertarians and politicians from conservative tobacco-growing Southern states, pornography’s most prominent defenders in the public sphere — including its industry spokesmen — associate themselves with the progressive wing of Democratic Party politics. It is hard to imagine Henry Waxman, for example — one of the most voracious elected officials in pursuit of the tobacco companies — adopting any similar animus toward Big Pornography. It is equally hard to imagine the Obama administration taking much of an interest in prosecuting obscenity — if indeed its members even believe that obscenity as such can exist. The recent ascension to the No. 2 slot in the Justice Department of a lawyer who in private practice had numerous times defended Playboy, Penthouse, the largest distributor of pornographic videos, and other pornographers just emphasizes the point. is the paragraph that I based my innuendo comment on. Fundamentally, most porn is protected as artistic expression, child porn excepted. It's a fools errand to spend resources on prosecution that's going to be overturned. That's probably the position of Waxman and Obama. I admit that I read the article quickly, but more than skimming. I thought the analogy was stretched, even she seemed to think so at times. But at the end linking liberals, Democrats, feminists, and porn political contributors was just a bit silly. Given that nothing can be done about it legally, the article was just political theater disguised as argument.
- byrneseyeview 17y ago
  It's a fools errand to spend resources on prosecution that's going to be overturned. That's probably the position of Waxman and Obama. Whoa, really? If the Supreme Court said "Porn is obscenity; it is not protected speech," you think Obama would demand that RedTube be shut down? Can you imagine anything like "We must stop these purveyors of sexually debased materials" ever emerging from Obama's mouth?