- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
"One person's "victimization" is another person's "freedom of choice" and another person's erotica. One could argue that drugs (and alcohol), pornography, prostitution, gambling, and pretty much all the vices victimize someone. But, as we know, some are sanctioned, some are illegal, all are profitable.
Just for the record, I have no use for porn, but the issues I see here are twofold: one, First Amendment freedoms, and two: selective enforcement of dubious laws and the manipulation of the justice system. Nothing new under the sun, here, folks."
I think my point was, if it's a job to go get raped and abused for the glory of the porn industry and it's a job to go kill and get abused for the glory of your country. Why are you willing to defend one set of victims and not willing to defend the other? Aren't they both atrocities- regardless of who gets paid? I'm not a constitutional lawyer, so maybe there is some finer point I'm missing?
