It's a "Right"---But Is It *right* to Allow Some, ..Not All ?

Hi belle, thanks for commenting.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

1) The government can't "abridge" those stated freedoms... yes. 2) We know that private business can make its own rules (or atleast try to..unless certain regulations apply to it).

However, my question was if those public venues that I mentioned with age restrictions (stores and theaters) are restricted by age requirements because that's what they want to do---or if that's what they are told to do by law?

I wasn't offering my opinion of what I thought 'should' be happening---rather, just questioning the private sector.

Ack!! I was in a hurry and mad a vocab error--sorry; I meant private as I had originally stated.

Yes, I also confirmed above that businesses can make many of their own regulations/rules, *but* my question is if the age restriction is a private regulation---or if there is a government regulation behind it. Is the age of 17 or 18 a state or Fed law?? Why would 'business' impose that age restriction when they could be making more revenue without it---as is usually the case---see what I mean?? In other words, do we all just assume that the private sector wants those restrictions?? There must be a law!

Hmmm... I always thought the viewing ratings were considered "suggested"---not enforcable law. If they were law... it would be written somewhere. I'm still thinking that 1st Amendment rights should apply to the private sector, if they so choose to sell porn to minors. Or, maybe there are state mandates involved (i.e. I think in NY? adult age is 17, but in my state, it's 18)??

I'll look for legal info, which I probably should have done before putting up this article.

Yes, there are certain laws they must abide. Yet, 'speech' of various kinds are still allowed here. It's discretionary in terms of the community and the management, as to what's acceptable.

The point still remains; should internet speech be 'more free'.. In a public venue---I say, "no."

every time a new media is introduced, do we need to write laws regarding the distribution of illegal material for that media, or is it just illegal no matter what media it is on?

I very much agree---it can't be illegal in one venue--but "free speech" in another! Government "interpretation" has been suggested to often be "bought" --with porn being a multi-billion dollar industry, there must be some financial, personal-interest used affecting these "rights" and moral decisions... and by moral, I'm implicating the long-range damage done to the individual AND the society, that can only be known or guessed at by looking at case studies and/ or forensics.

Your first comments suggest that the decisions were strictly private choice and that there might exist some county ordinances, perhaps. That actually makes a lot of sense; communities have their own voices, and store owners might easily comply.

I did think of something else. Liability. Is it possible that the private sector doesn't want to get sued for some type of damages? If so, it would be likely that the government might get sued, despite "rights," --but, a private business doesn't have the resources, quite often, that the government has, lol, so they might take more precautions by setting up guidelines, that might not be 'law' --but guidelines would give them a 'baseline' in an attempt to protect themselves, perhaps.

I also saw your post to Belle and the issue of movie ratings, that is quiet a story. It seems the movie industry decided to self regulate sometime in its early history, rather than have the government censor content.

Actually, that was one of my original thoughts when I started thinking about the free speech issue relevant to theater, rentals, sales, et al; then I thought if the public system doesn't have to worry about who's viewing what's available to the public.... then neither should the privates have to worry about it, so the government would be out-of-line in censoring them. That led me to wanting to understand the reasons for the ratings and age limits, censoring online info sometimes, but not other times (i.e. I've looked up sensitive topics, only to find that sites were censored)----if it's "all" free speech. ...So----we have one, big case of hypocrisy going on here!!

See, what I'm really getting at is that the Fed Gov could pull a *14th, due process clause* strike-down on a state or local government that tried to censor porn in certain areas, like libraries, where minors are susceptible; yet, the government censors the internet at will (I assumed those sites I visited were censored by the Government). This is just another example of where states' rights could be overridden by the Fed/Nat government. The government is using the 1st Amendment to allow something to protect itself from the community----so that we can't "close it down" ---yet, as you point out, the community 'could' close down a private business that non-compliant with any ordinances. (that's what I meant by "liability" sued or shut down)

So, in sum, the private sector 'isn't protected'----from the community, necessarily, but the Government is. That's not in our best interest.

I understand the 'regulating morals' issue that so often gets brought up in the threads. Yet, as you mention, protecting the innocent should be a concern. 'Some' specific moral legislation would seem to be a necessity, as parents of minors can't be everywhere all of the time.

ML, Yes, it is "seriously confusing"---and in the context of the sentence that precedes those two words--tells me you 'totally get' what I'm talking about.

Thanks for going over this with me, ML. I appreciated the back and forth.

Yes, it's a complicated issue, that's for sure.

this issue contradicts itself in a myriad of ways.

Yes, that's what I've been saying all along.

how can that be right?

Exactly, my sentiments. It's "freedom of speech" in some venues---but not others, apparently.

Thank you, jj.

I agree; protocol has seemingly disappeared from our communities, and in other forms of speech, as well.

No argument there!! I imagine some folks don't have PCs, and go to the library to use them; but, I have wondered if there are people that go to the library to prevent identity from the ISP. If they used several monitors during their visit (I think they only get up to 90 minutes on each one, from what I read), they could engage several sites, and no one would know who it was. My concern is that their psyche might be affected by the porn, and then they might become an online, sexual predator as a release... just speculating potential consequences.

Good point!! I wouldn't imagine those porn sites are free. Yes, how about other commercial trading, online, as you say. That's exactly right, we would, in essence, be subsidizing commercial enterprise with our tax dollars.

Yes... a huge can of worms!