Organized religions these days are hardly benign, and while some may be a positive force in the world others seek to control their fellow human beings with their beliefs. Throughout history there were times when people have lost their rights due to someone else's religious beliefs, and our society is not meant to be a theocracy.

Perhaps I am incorrect in believing that is a free speech/expression issue, but the problem I have lies in the fact that the government does not need that kind of power over the citizens, the power to come between the decisions consenting adults make. I don't deny that engaging in sex work can down the road cause depression and low self worth, but of course I could also say the same about other professions as well, and being a strictly religious individual does not guarantee a life free from depression and substance abuse. I won't go into specifics here (not for the time being anyway), but when I was in my early twenties I had entertained at some hen parties (I'm sure you could figure out what that means), and all these years later I certainly do not regret my decision to engage in such nor have I ever dealt with depression or addiction.

You answered your own question there in regards to watching porn affecting everyone's relationship, it doesn't affect everyone and not all men want to copy from porn fantasies.

Like I said earlier, perhaps I am incorrect in thinking that issue falls under the free speech/expression category, my concern is giving the government too much power over people's personal decisions. You did make an assumption there though, personally I don't care for porn. In my youth I looked at naked pictures here and there, but never was into videos or any sort of depiction of couples engaging in orgies etc. Simply put, I think if someone wishes to indulge in such they should be free to as long as everything is agreed to by all parties involved. I get what you're saying about what the First Amendment states, but all the same if the citizens are not free to make their own decisions of which that would be agreed upon mutually, then what good is free speech? If government can control one, they can find a way to control the other.

I can agree with you on conservatives and liberals being a collective. While I do tend to lean more to the right, I find such terms to be too confining, and also I'm not exactly a fan of identity politics. These days no shortage of "ists", "ives", and "isms" all of which in my opinion serve to divide people. I'm too free a spirit to take seriously the collectivisms in this world.

Who said I wanted the government to be able to service some essential operations? Again, in my opinion there's hardly anything the government can do that private citizens couldn't do the same or even better. If we go by what you mentioned above, then dare I say virtually every human being on this planet could be considered a hypocrite then. Over the years I've done alot of studying on politics and identity movements, and I've yet to find a better balance of things than what libertarianism has to offer. So in conclusion, my main concern directly is giving the government too much authority over personal decision making. Remember, the same government that could make sex work illegal can also make illegal other things such as lgbt or reproductive rights. As for me, Libertarian is the best word to describe my overall views, but at times don't feel like I particularly fit in with any identity-based group. Thank you for your feedback.

@SpikeTalon I used to think organized religion was lame but recently I've seen it become less threatening to my health and freedom than the social justice movement. To be a gender critical radical feminist means having people send you messages like "I hope someone rapes you with a nail spiked bat". Transactivists use rape a lot in their threats to you. So my most recent experience from religion is my neighbors calling to see if I need anything during the quarantine and the local minister setting up a fund for people who lost their jobs while on the other hand I'm getting threats to my physical person for speaking my mind. Two older lesbians got beaten with the signs they had that said "Woman - Adult Human Female" and put into the hospital by a group of transactivists and leftists.

@ThomasinaPaine I think both organized religion and the far political left are lame. When I criticize religions though, it is not the religious individuals I take issue with but rather some of the beliefs that arise from religion, beliefs they subscribe to. Same is true for the political left. I have both plenty of religious and left-leaning friends and family, and they are fairly harmless.

Depends on where you look too. There are decent and evil people from all walks of life. No shortage of religious terror groups in the US if you know where to look. Abortion providers, clinic staff, and patients are and have been subjected to constant harassment threats of harm and acts of vandalism to name a few at the hands of religious radicals, and such could not be blamed on left wingers.

@SpikeTalon I'm not an angry 20 year old anymore. I've worked in aid overseas and by far religious organizations donate more to feed, clothe, and inoculate the poor of this world than government or secular nonprofits. That's not to be dismissed when you're tallying up the value of religion in 2020. It's been a few hundred years since Christendom invaded anyone and if we want to tally up death totals Islam & Christianity would have to get nuclear weapons to compete with governments of the 20th century. Mao killed 58 million, probably more, of his own citizens in the name of creating equality.

As a radical feminist I'm not overly fond of patriarchal religions but I'm honest enough to know as a radical feminist the ONLY people sending me death threats in the last 3 years have been male to female transgender persons. My area churches rebuilt a porch for an old black gay couple while I was told I should "die in a fire"' and "get raped" with a bat by multiple atheists SJWs because my dating preferences are trans-exclusionary. My lesbian friend had someone stalk and dox her because she refuses to date a female to male transgender person and got several emails about being raped with his lady dick.

As a female I have been raised to assess threats to my person and I'm not getting them from religion right now. However, in the event that they start hanging witches in the US once more please notify me so I can put them back on the list.

@ThomasinaPaine I wasn't totally disagreeing with you there. How many people over the years died as a result of religion wasn't my point, my point was that religion does have the capability to discriminate against others and put scientific studies on the back burner. There was a short documentary out a few years back about how atheists and other secular individuals get treated poorly at times from the religious, including threats of death, and with that in mind I have little to no doubt that if the religious were able to have their way they would do away with all secular people. Perhaps if people stopped hating on the secular charities, they would be more successful. When it comes to Christian charities and in particular missionaries over seas, sure they help out those in need but at a price though, the price being those who are helped are pushed to convert to Christianity in the process. When it comes to governments, keep in mind I don't believe bigger government is ever the answer, and I regard both religion and government to be dangerous towards individual liberty. If you trust in and or work with religious groups, good for you, I wish you well on that.

And what about the Collected Works of Marx or Lenin?

You're right about that, but speech pretty much goes hand in hand with expression(s). If you don't have freedom of expression, chances are you won't have free speech either, and vice versa.

@SpikeTalon That may very well be true, and I'll leave it to smarter people than myself to decide, but I can think of a lot of "expression" that is not legal no matter the message. I can't express myself with my fists, or by lighting something on fire, or by taking something that is not mine . . .

The best case example is, of course, pornography. We can talk about pornography, come to a decision about whether it's good or bad, needed or not needed, with out doing pornography.

Somehow I just don't think pornography is what the framers had in mind.

First amendment protects not only "speech" but also "protest" and also "press." So it's far more than just verbal words. And the Supreme Court has consistently ruled as much (ie flag burning).

@WingedRyno I believe the word you are looking for is "assemble." Not seeing "protest." Flag-burning, if that's your thing, well, it is illegal to light a fire in most places where any protest would be noticed.

Speech is the most powerful, and the most dangerous, if you actually have something to say.

@ChrisTemple you're right, I shouldn't have put "protest" in quotes.

"the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

IMHO it is not the responsibility of gov't to protect your children from "porn" or anything else really. It is the responsibility of parents to teach, protect their own children

I believe the term he used was theocratic fascists, and theocratic fascists are not exactly the same thing as a nazi is. What he said would be accurate given the story.

@iThink exactly. The folks wanting these laws seem to reject the efficacy of strong child parental relationships. I grant kids can still see this stuff, but a parent who pushes their children to look for friends who don't want to be part of that kind of life will help. Life is tough and their are no guarantees, but taking the liberty of people to look and enjoy porn away from many to protect people who don't want to spend the time to raise children the way they want them raised.

@SpikeTalon maybe, depending upon on you define christofascim. I think fascism, being a socialist thing, means the government taking control over religion and which religions could practice. Christofasclst would imply christianity as the only acceptable religion. Granted gas chambers may not be involved, but it overly casts aspersions on the group as looking to ban other religious views, when they are only attacking porn, right now.

@JimbobNE @spike talon

I find it intriguing and telling that folks on the left try to define fascism and a component of the "extreme right" while folks on the right say "not so fast, fascism is a component of socialist dogma".

I have always maintained that fascism is neither left nor right. Fascism is like the wooden paddle a parent or a teacher might have used to punish bad behavior.

It is but a tool which is used to discourage dissent by intimidation regardless the ideological dogma being reinforced and imposed.
Imposition of ideologies or dogma is intrinsically "fascist" IMHO

@iThink That's true, fascism knows no side, it can be wielded by both the political left and right.

@SpikeTalon Fascism is pretty right leaning, considering it usually involves hunting down commies. Additionally it also calls to mind a time of past glory or "good old days" when men were real men and women were real women and all that nonsense. Also a lot of companies seem to jump on the fascism band wagon for some reason. Point is, fascism is specifically right wing, not liberal or leftist.
Now on the other hand a single party taking power can be of either side, and that is dangerous.

@criminey359 look at nazism, government healthcare, government control of industry government control of everything. Pretty left wing. If you accept right wing meaning people like Pinochet et al, then you could say right wingers can use it to.Wikipedia and other left wing institutions like to say fascism is right wing but their definition of it describes every Marxist government in the world. "Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and of the economy which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe."
I guess it would be fair to say that the term fascism really has no meaning and is just a useless slur which does nothing to advance debate.

Webster defines it as "1often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition"

A dictator that uses nationalism to advance nationalism? So Idi Amin, Joseph Stalin and Muammar Gaddafi are all fascists? I think this term is really poor and useless in the article then, as the author of the article can not point to any signs of the groups pushing the speech bans as trying to get a dictator in place. Trump, like Obama and all of the rest of the presidents had to get voted in and deal with Congress. This term is a poor one and the article is better off without it. Stick with actual points about the freedom of speech and stay away from childish slurs.

This just means