I noticed that a couple of my adult ppv channels say unavailible in your area. Do local laws dictate the programming i watch? Sorry if this seems like a dumd question but i'm still new to satellite television.
adult programming ?
- Thread starter 66mustang
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 40
- Views 9K
Not a dumb question at all. I have wondered that myself. I would say that you probably even answered your own question.
Thanks guys. Still makes me wonder why elected officals care what i spend my 10 or 11 dollars on.
You and I both are in the Bible Belt.
When I had Charter. They showed very hardcore porn in our area.
why can those in the bible belt who care for porn sue the bible belt states saying their constitional rights are being violated by not being able to purchase porn if they want to on their video provider? Too expensive of lawsuit or states can't be sued?
You wouldn't sue for wanting porn. You'd sue against the censorship the state is exercising against your video carrier.
If you want real porn, not edit versions.... try FryeTV or buy the video. You do not have to worry about any stupid laws in your area, you can see what you want.
I thought America was the home of the free? If it was, then there wouldn't be laws limiting access to items like porn. Coming from an actual Wicked Pictures model, What you do behind closed doors, is your business.
I thought America was the home of the free? If it was, then there wouldn't be laws limiting access to items like porn. Coming from an actual Wicked Pictures model, What you do behind closed doors, is your business.
They care for the same reason that the following are illegal in many states.
States where it is illegal to engage in oral sex:
: (includes wife or gf in the privacy of your own home): Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Georgia, North and South Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, Virginia and Washington D.C.
There are even more strict laws out there than that many that intrude into the privacy of your own home. Likely this is the reason that most are not enforced, but could be used as a basis to encourage one party to win during a divorce or other domestic issue.
In any case, is there any surprise over the desire to control your viewing habits, when they are trying to enforce what you may or may not do in the safety of your own home in a committed relationship with another consenting adult?
Hopefully less states than more, hmm? As per the specific states, those listed did have the laws on the books within the last decade. And illustrates the fact that it's still suprising some would question the governments need to censor what we view.
Afyer the Texas case most of those states hanged their laws.
I am not in favor of censorshp. Just also noin favor of disseminating info that is not up to date.
I am not in favor of censorshp. Just also noin favor of disseminating info that is not up to date.
Oregon is still a vaginal sex only state. I guess it depends on what your definition of "is" is.
Since lawrence vs. texas Sodomy and oral sex laws are generally considered to be unenforceable. in the case of orefon most of the web sites I found said the laws changed years ago. the only way it seems to be illegal there is if one or more parties is a minor.
Arizona repealed those laws around 2000, I remember reading about upset church leaders but mostly it was a non-event
I know better than to weigh in on this topic but at least one other point of view needs to be expressed.
I cannot condone 100% unrestricted airing of any old thing you want under the guise of freedom of expression. Not necessarily restricted to sex. And we all would agree (I hope) that for instance laws against say kiddie porn are a good thing and that it should not be allowed anywhere, while ironically in Canada since the age of consent is 14 there we even have some disagreement on when those such limits should be applied just within North America. Yet that content is within our technical means to receive. So one could subscribe to Canadian porn and yet be prosecuted within the US for having kiddie porn.
The local banning of content is based on the concept that the local community should have a say on morality. At least in theory the morality of a town in Wyoming would tend to be quite different than LA. If you do not agree with the community's standards you are free to relocate or challenge the standard or it's application.
I believe much of this community standards censoring stems from years ago before TV when it perhaps made a bit better sense for a community to deem a film unacceptable than today where we tend to go with more national and global standards.
While I do understand the arguments in favor of a less restrictive national standard I can also value a local community or a state wanting to establish it's own definition of moral acceptability. And overall I think there should be this constant tug of war between free expression and morality to help keep things in balance so that we as a society don't get pulled too far one way or the other. I feel this is actually healthy! Because if we allow freedom to entirely run amuck at what point then
have we gone too far? Do we have an absolute right to fall into total depravity with no moral compass whatsoever?
Freedom is not absolute, nor should it be. A line needs to be drawn somewhere. And without citing many sickening examples of things that should never, ever be allowed to air in any form (sex with animals comes to mind) I think that we can all agree that if a line is not drawn by someone it probably come to that eventually.
I cannot condone 100% unrestricted airing of any old thing you want under the guise of freedom of expression. Not necessarily restricted to sex. And we all would agree (I hope) that for instance laws against say kiddie porn are a good thing and that it should not be allowed anywhere, while ironically in Canada since the age of consent is 14 there we even have some disagreement on when those such limits should be applied just within North America. Yet that content is within our technical means to receive. So one could subscribe to Canadian porn and yet be prosecuted within the US for having kiddie porn.
The local banning of content is based on the concept that the local community should have a say on morality. At least in theory the morality of a town in Wyoming would tend to be quite different than LA. If you do not agree with the community's standards you are free to relocate or challenge the standard or it's application.
I believe much of this community standards censoring stems from years ago before TV when it perhaps made a bit better sense for a community to deem a film unacceptable than today where we tend to go with more national and global standards.
While I do understand the arguments in favor of a less restrictive national standard I can also value a local community or a state wanting to establish it's own definition of moral acceptability. And overall I think there should be this constant tug of war between free expression and morality to help keep things in balance so that we as a society don't get pulled too far one way or the other. I feel this is actually healthy! Because if we allow freedom to entirely run amuck at what point then
have we gone too far? Do we have an absolute right to fall into total depravity with no moral compass whatsoever?
Freedom is not absolute, nor should it be. A line needs to be drawn somewhere. And without citing many sickening examples of things that should never, ever be allowed to air in any form (sex with animals comes to mind) I think that we can all agree that if a line is not drawn by someone it probably come to that eventually.
Do a google search and you will find several references to Lawrence v. Texas and the aftermath.
As mothers have pointed out most states had already repealed or modified the laws but that case led to many laws being nullified . Some states have gone to restrictiosn but they are much less "restrictive' than the original.
As mothers have pointed out most states had already repealed or modified the laws but that case led to many laws being nullified . Some states have gone to restrictiosn but they are much less "restrictive' than the original.
