Welcome to the moral morons, we in the US do this type of thing all the time. Those that make themselves the moral groups of the contry take away choice's for everyone else. its not right, expecally for the US, how ever its how we are... (shamed) all i can say is stop your leadership from continueing this before it becomes too late, by too late where you leadership gains the support of the masses. If you fail to do so anything that they deam unfit for the public will be band, and you for watching it reduced to a criminal.

The choice to do harm to another is the indaviduals, they have chosen to harm people, if they feel they have no other choice then to harm people they still have but one, suicide. i say this as i do not know if your country helps people whom identafies themselves as possible criminals and seek help before commiting the act. Here in the US you just about have to kill someone before you will get any help. (again shamed) So i implore you, stop you leadership tell them that you want the choice to watch or not,dont let them take the choice from you.

As one of the United States greatest leaders once said. "those that give up a little bit of freedom for a little bit of securety, will lose both and desirves nether."

The US Justice Department is going after a bunch of hard core video companies on obscentiy charges. I really want to see how they define "community standards" in federal court.

The vagueness may be the hole to drive the truck through. It is vague, but it has unfortunately been upheld. this SC is conservative, so it will be interesting to see what happens.

it exemplifies the problem. It can apply to anything or nothing, depending on where you are, so the legal system in the U.S has given up trying to come up with one that applies to everyone.

"Obscenity" usually is prurient, has no redeeming societal or artistic qualities, and is therefore exempt from free speech concerns and allowed to be regulated. Alfred Hitcock's work has artistic value, as does "Lolita". Most of what we ar talking about has no literary or cinematic value.

Violent porn HAS been linked to criminal behavior as a trigger by academic research. Non-violent, "consensual" porn is NOT linked by research to violent acts against people or animals (yes, that's right, animals). Depictions of degradation and pain appeal and reinforce mentally ill people, "normalizing" the behavior. You have to be mentally ill to look at this stuff. What normal person would get off on causing an unwilling person pain? Remember, serial killers get off on the pain.

We can regulate obscene materials. This stuff is obscene.

there can never be a definition of this fact, at least regarding sex between adults, which can ever be meaninfully comprehensive. To start with lots of women believe that any heterosexual intercourse, or any shown on film, is inherently violent. If you use a reasonably narrow definition there won't be enough difference between what is banned and what isn't to matter to anyone. The only reason for attempting it would be as a foot in the door strategy towards the ultimate Dworkinist goal of banning everything any women feel bothered by.

I think this matter should be examined within the context of hate crimes. There are certain kinds of material that are so fundamentally reprehensible they deserve to be placed in a unique category. Material explicitly promoting or implicitly condoning violence toward women, children, gays and racial groups should be held by law to some standards of social responsibility and basic decency. Regarding the lack of evidence linking violent behavior to the viewing of such provocative material, I do not believe there has been enough research conducted into this subject yet (hopefully there will be more in the future), however, I strongly suspect that studies of persons vulnerable to such material (ie having a propensity to link their sexual identity with violent acts) would find this material to be inciting and exacerbating of their tendency to fall into a negative spiral potentially leading to acting out on their fantasies. Like the tobacco industry, there is huge money in porn. The use of addiction facilitation techniques to encourage consumption in both of these industries is unclear only to those who wish not to see. Consider the fact that scientific evidence showing the link between cigarette smoking and cancer has been overwhelming for decades, yet those who benefit from it financially or who seek to justify their own behaviors continue to question the soundness of the evidence. Must we always wait for the disingenuous to submit to the evidence?

can't we BOTH suppress "violent" porn, i.e. sexual imagery that feminists find "degrading" to women AND teach men that they are inferior, not superior, er... I mean that they are equal to women. By equal I mean that men and women are innately the same and that the way women are is the way everyone should be.

I happen to think organized religion is more dangerous for women than violent porn. Men are taught from an earlier age, by churches, that they are better than women and are suppossed to lead while women are suppossed to be their servants. This is dangerous thinking. I grew up in a low-income, economically deprived area where all the men had going for them was their suppossed superiority over women. If a women or girl proved them wrong, and started to speak and was obviously far more intelligent or educated than the man was, this tended to bring on male rage. How dare the uppitty bitch not stay in her place. If a women outperformed men in any arena: musically, artistically or mathematically, there was hell to pay. We need to stop brainwashing men with archaic religious views about their suppossed superiority because that leads to much violence against women. I can't image how an intelligent women in oppressive islamic societies fare. They probably have to hide their intelligence or artistic gifts behind a burqua, along with their bodies, especially against larger but dumber male morons, or risk a good beating.