Rick Santorum wants to ban hardcore pronography - agree or disagree (POLL)
- Thread starter zeroturbulence
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
T
It seems that we are of one mind on this issue. It's true that you can't force Christian values on homosexuals, who have absolutely no reason to accept our worldview and our beliefs. Can you blame them?
We can share our values with them. WE can share with them the love our Heavenly Father has for us.
We can share our values with them. WE can share with them the love our Heavenly Father has for us.
ULTRA-LIBERAL Iceland wants to ban online pornography. It is just the latest step in its attempts to eliminate the sex industry entirely. In 2009 it introduced fines and jail terms for those who patronise prostitutes (whom it treats as victims). In 2010 it outlawed strip clubs. In February the government decided to take on the glut of smut online and floated the idea of banning violent or degrading pornography, which some Icelanders take to mean most of it. No country has yet wholly succeeded in controlling commercial sex, either through legalisation or criminalisation. But all over the world, particularly in rich democracies, policymakers are watching to see whether Iceland succeeds—and may follow in its footsteps if it does.
Banning the sex industry: Naked ambition | The Economist
Banning the sex industry: Naked ambition | The Economist
World map of pornography (18+) laws
Pornography legal
Pornography legal under some restrictions
Pornography illegal
Data unavailable
Pornography by region - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The National Legion of Decency was an organization dedicated to identifying and combating objectionable content, from the point of view of the Roman Catholic Church in the United States, in motion pictures. For the first quarter-century or so of its existence, the legion wielded great power in the American motion picture industry.
The Legion was founded in 1933 by Archbishop of Cincinnati John T. McNicholas as the Catholic Legion of Decency (CLOD) in response to an address given by apostolic delegate Archbishop Amleto Giovanni Cicognani at the Catholic Charities Convention in New York City. Cicognani warned against the "massacre of innocence of youth" and urged a campaign for "the purification of the cinema."
Though established by Roman Catholic bishops, the Legion originally included many Protestant and even some Jewish clerics. It was renamed in April 1934, substituting National for Catholic.
National Legion of Decency - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U.S. 495 (1952)[2] (also referred to as the "Miracle Decision"), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court which largely marked the decline of motion picture censorship in the United States.[1] It determined that provisions of the New York Education Law which allowed a censor to forbid the commercial showing of a motion picture film it deemed to be "sacrilegious" was a "restraint on freedom of speech" and thereby a violation of the First Amendment.
The paragraph allowing the repeal of "sacrilegious" films' license read:
The director of the [motion picture] division [of the education department] or, when authorized by the regents, the officers of a local office or bureau shall cause to be promptly examined every motion picture film submitted to them as herein required, and unless such film or a part thereof is obscene, indecent, immoral, inhuman, sacrilegious, or is of such a character that its exhibition would tend to corrupt morals or incite to crime, shall issue a license therefor. If such director or, when so authorized, such officer shall not license any film submitted, he shall furnish to the applicant therefor a written report of the reasons for his refusal and a description of each rejected part of a film not rejected in toto.
Joseph Burstyn, Inc v. Wilson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Landmark decision brought freedom to films
Inside the First Amendment
By Kenneth A. Paulson
Senior vice president, the Freedom Forum
Executive director, First Amendment Center
06.16.02
Hollywood loves anniversaries. This year alone has seen the 20th anniversary release of “E.T.,” the 20th anniversary edition of “Tron” and the 25th anniversary edition of “The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh.”
But America’s filmmakers are overlooking their most important anniversary: It was 50 years ago that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that movies are protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution.
In a remarkable 9-0 decision, the Supreme Court decided that the New York Board of Regents could not ban Roberto Rossellini’s “The Miracle” under regulations barring “sacrilegious” films.
Until that moment, the nation’s courts viewed the movie industry as just another business, fully subject to government regulation. The decision changed American film forever.
Rossellini’s film was about an unstable young woman who is seduced by a bearded wanderer. The girl becomes pregnant, and in her deluded state concludes that the man was in fact a saint and that the imminent birth is a miracle.
Initially the New York Board of Regents granted a license to the film but withdrew the approval after angry protests from the Catholic Church. The Legion of Decency called the movie “a sacrilegious and blasphemous mockery of Christian religious truth.”
freedomforum.org: Landmark decision brought freedom to films
The Legion was founded in 1933 by Archbishop of Cincinnati John T. McNicholas as the Catholic Legion of Decency (CLOD) in response to an address given by apostolic delegate Archbishop Amleto Giovanni Cicognani at the Catholic Charities Convention in New York City. Cicognani warned against the "massacre of innocence of youth" and urged a campaign for "the purification of the cinema."
Though established by Roman Catholic bishops, the Legion originally included many Protestant and even some Jewish clerics. It was renamed in April 1934, substituting National for Catholic.
National Legion of Decency - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U.S. 495 (1952)[2] (also referred to as the "Miracle Decision"), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court which largely marked the decline of motion picture censorship in the United States.[1] It determined that provisions of the New York Education Law which allowed a censor to forbid the commercial showing of a motion picture film it deemed to be "sacrilegious" was a "restraint on freedom of speech" and thereby a violation of the First Amendment.
The paragraph allowing the repeal of "sacrilegious" films' license read:
The director of the [motion picture] division [of the education department] or, when authorized by the regents, the officers of a local office or bureau shall cause to be promptly examined every motion picture film submitted to them as herein required, and unless such film or a part thereof is obscene, indecent, immoral, inhuman, sacrilegious, or is of such a character that its exhibition would tend to corrupt morals or incite to crime, shall issue a license therefor. If such director or, when so authorized, such officer shall not license any film submitted, he shall furnish to the applicant therefor a written report of the reasons for his refusal and a description of each rejected part of a film not rejected in toto.
Joseph Burstyn, Inc v. Wilson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Landmark decision brought freedom to films
Inside the First Amendment
By Kenneth A. Paulson
Senior vice president, the Freedom Forum
Executive director, First Amendment Center
06.16.02
Hollywood loves anniversaries. This year alone has seen the 20th anniversary release of “E.T.,” the 20th anniversary edition of “Tron” and the 25th anniversary edition of “The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh.”
But America’s filmmakers are overlooking their most important anniversary: It was 50 years ago that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that movies are protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution.
In a remarkable 9-0 decision, the Supreme Court decided that the New York Board of Regents could not ban Roberto Rossellini’s “The Miracle” under regulations barring “sacrilegious” films.
Until that moment, the nation’s courts viewed the movie industry as just another business, fully subject to government regulation. The decision changed American film forever.
Rossellini’s film was about an unstable young woman who is seduced by a bearded wanderer. The girl becomes pregnant, and in her deluded state concludes that the man was in fact a saint and that the imminent birth is a miracle.
Initially the New York Board of Regents granted a license to the film but withdrew the approval after angry protests from the Catholic Church. The Legion of Decency called the movie “a sacrilegious and blasphemous mockery of Christian religious truth.”
freedomforum.org: Landmark decision brought freedom to films
