Yes, I think hardcore porn should be illegal.

Who will make the determination as to what constitutes hardcore porn? It will end up before the SCOTUS one day.

Do you know who Judge Scalia is?

Senator David Vitter (R-LA) continues to be applauded as a paragon of moral virtue despite nearly identical circumstances.

For some reason I am having a much more difficult time visualizing Spitzer in an adult-sized diaper. ;->

Because this thread is probably moving too fast for anyone to have noticed the first time.

Can anyone give a logical reason why it is illegal and immoral to engage in one of the following, but not the other?

(a) Two people have sex, one of them gets paid for it.

(b) Two (or more) people have sex, all of them get paid for it, and it is videotaped and sold to third parties as a commodity.

This thread is burnin' like a brushfire.

Google cache of the welcome Page at Emperors' Club VIP

http://tinyurl.com/ysof8b

Model Profiles page doesn't show the graphics (pics) anymore so there's nothing to see folks.

(b) the laws (and sexist enforcement of them) tend to make life worse for women in the business.

And also the fact that in many parts of the world women are forced into prostitution due to economic circumstances.

A woman who voluntarily chooses to be a sex worker is very different than a woman who chooses to do whatever it takes to survive.

Can anyone give a logical reason why it is illegal and immoral to engage in one of the following, but not the other?

I think this reasoning has been used to try and shut down the pr0n industry before. You're the lawyer. You tell us.

Who will make the determination as to what constitutes hardcore porn?

I know it when I see it. yukyukyuk

Millions of cubicle-dwelling office workers and chain store minimum wage workers are being exploited right this second by large corporations (often helping said corporations engage in undeniably immoral actions such as polluting the air and water and denying people adequate health care) despite doing what are perfectly legal jobs.

But by your logic, we should make their jobs illegal, too, because they're being exploited, even though, technically at least, they're regulated through a host of labor, work and product safety, and environmental laws that are supposed to prevent this.

On one level, you're promoting a "throw the baby out with the bathwater" argument against professions and practices that you object to, but very, very inconsistently. But on another (and I think obviously determinant) level, this is about your imposing your moral values on others.

And I suggest that when you look in the mirror next time, look beyond mere skin level. Not so hot I think. Authoritarianism and purient moralism are never "sexy".

Except, perhaps, in YAF circles--i.e. the armchair moralist pantywaist crowd.

jmklein: In the very least he absolutely must resign for flagrantly violating the law that he swore to protect.

Glenn: Would you say the same about him -- or any other public official -- if it were revealed that he had smoked pot once, or gambled in a poker game, or committed adultery in a state where that is a criminal offense -- all acts just as illegal as prostitution?

If it were up to me, I would ask did he do this before or after swearing to uphold the law? Did he know it was a crime? Should he have known it was a crime? Should it be a crime? Where does it fall between say jaywalking and murder? Why did he do it? Was it an act of civil disobedience? How does it affect his ability to govern and lead? Are my standards coloring my judgment? And many more.

But it's not up to me because I don't get to draw the line. The law is the line? If it isn't, then who gets to draw it in any given situation? Those who don't find the behavior unethical? Those who do?

I guess you didn't notice DCLaw1 going all the way back to the 1920's to find an example of laws which created corruption and criminality when we have an ongoing example far more heinous before us every day.

I think prostitution is illegal because a woman is making money off of her body. Pornography is OK because it's usually a powerful corporation making money off of her body.

I know it when I see it. yukyukyuk

-- Mizmoon

Exactly. And the SCOTUS has been pretty good about letting local taste prevail. But this is a different court. You might not like what you get this time around.

Glenn:

You say it is surprising you that people are angry with Spitzer and think it's not consistent with what people felt about Bill Clinton's indescretions. I'm still angry with Clinton. I thought the impeachment process was absurd, but I thought he was completely irresponsible and this has nothing do with the people's personal sexual life, which as long as it involves consensual adults is not really for outside comment. But Bill Clinton was responsible to people other than a spouse--he knew people were after him--every politician should know people are after them--and conduct their behavior while in office accordingly. Since I don't live in New York, I don't care about Spitzer, but if he was my governor, I'd be mad. (I was mad anyway when I found out he was a Democrat--it seemed like such a Republican thing). Still, it's nothing compared to Clinton because the position is lesser--I think that little scene with ML led directly to George Bush--and Clinton can't be the only one who doesn't have responsibility for that. By the way, I didn't think Al Gore was just politically distancing himself from Clinton in 2000--I thought he was genuinely disgusted by Clinton's irresponsibility and I liked him better for that.

Plus. Prostitution is illegal in that state. I guess Larry Craig lowered expectations in this, but I think Spitzer should resign. And no, it's nothing compared to what George Bush has done what with the maiming and torture and bankrupting the country and all, and yes it will be covered too much because it involves sex, but just because the Bush administration has invoked moral relativism to the point that up is down, doesn't mean that everyone else has to.