adult video laws in Oklahoma
Bill
banned in all of Oklahoma. On a recent trip South I found that is not the
case (or at least it's not enforced.) In Heavener and Sallisaw at least you
can rent and buy hardcore porn. I also remember that a few years ago you
could get such tapes in Tahlequah but I don't think you can anymore.
Now I wonder if the ban is by county. If so, does anyone know what counties
this applies to?
just curious.
KRC
Any video, magazine, book, etc. that shows penetration is
technically illegal under Oklahoma law. However, that doesn't mean
you can't find it here - it's really up to the DA or the cops in a
given area to enforce the law. The only thing that varies from county
to county are the zoning laws regarding the location of adult stores -
actually, that can vary from city to city.
KRC
The Lyman Family
The ban is indeed state wide. Are these chain rental stores?
Also, what purpose does this law serve and how do you rally against it with
out looking like a giant perv?
Tigger X
Bill <bi...@wemc.net> wrote in message news:8ct3l...@enews3.newsguy.com...
> I was always under the assumption that adult video sales or renting was
> banned in all of Oklahoma. On a recent trip South I found that is not the
> case (or at least it's not enforced.) In Heavener and Sallisaw at least
you
> can rent and buy hardcore porn. I also remember that a few years ago you
> could get such tapes in Tahlequah but I don't think you can anymore.
>
> Now I wonder if the ban is by county. If so, does anyone know what
counties
> this applies to?
>
> just curious.
>
>
>
>
KRC
>
> The ban is indeed state wide. Are these chain rental stores?
> Also, what purpose does this law serve and how do you rally against it with
>out looking like a giant perv?
By turning back on those that oppose you. They want to make it a
moral issue - I don't see it as a moral issue, but rather as a freedom
of speech issue, as it is not my place to judge anyone's morals..
Keep on to the high ground and don't discuss content itself, but the
philosophy of Puritanical fear and denial which creates such laws.
The people who strive for these laws ant to gross you out (witness the
NEA-Mapplethorpe debacle a decade ago) in order to anger the general
populace. By fanning the flames of outrage, these laws get passed.
As long as you're a consenting adult, who cares what goes on in the
privacy of your own home? The key word here, however, is "consenting"
- so that rules out child pornography and the like. In my experiences
with censors, they will ultimately try to boil everything down to
child pornography, which nobody in their right mind would find erotic.
By going to extremes, they can win - fear, plain unbridled fear is
what they are preying upon, and it's up to more rational people to
continue to point out he folly oftheiir claims whenever possible.
KRC
mp24
speech? The more you look into issues the more you find laws that
dictate what some politician thinks controlling your lives. Help
someone, free us.
KoB...@home.com
wrote:
I'm for free speech as much as the next, but looking at society today,
I have to refer to a quote from George Washington who saw over 200
years ago what kind of society we have once we disallow religion and
allow every other sort behavior.
"reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national
morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
Medieval Knievel
<KoB...@home.com> wrote in message
news:391785bc....@news.tulsa1.ok.home.com...
> On Mon, 01 May 2000 03:44:05 GMT, mp24 <lightb...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> I'm for free speech as much as the next, but looking at society today,
In other words, you're only for free speech when you agree with the message.
--
***********************************************
Medieval Knievel
ICQ #26667824
Remove the FOILHAT to reply by e-mail
aa# 1552 ULC Ordained Minister
sig file is purposefully annoying. do not eat, do not get in eyes.
If sig file is accidentally swallowed, give root beer enema and seek
psychiatric attention
EAC Commissar of Covered Dish Dinners
**************************************************
The Lyman Family
Took the words out of my mouth... or in this case off of my fingers.
Tigger X
Medieval Knievel <malcolmxfi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:shgk3u...@corp.supernews.com...
KoB...@home.com
Well I guess if we have to have an "all or nothing" answer to every
issue I would have to say yes.
Just because we in this great country have every sort of freedom
should we choose to excercise them, doesn't necessarily mean we
should.
The longer we say it's ok for everyone to do and say anything they
please without any moral boundries (forget religion, they are not one
and the same) the more we allow the degradation of the american
thread.
This is exactly what the Washington quote in the original post meant.
This country was built on certain moral and "god forbid" religous
principles that, once abandoned, opens the door to everything in the
world that is ugly. Once we say it is okay to that, we become ugly.
The exposure of our children to increased instances of violence,
pornography, drugs and general "disconnected" behavior is a direct
result of the lax...read "liberal"... views on these issues. If we
continue to push the idea that as long as something isn't illegal it's
ok to do then we are selling ourselves and our children short.
If you can't give me a better argument to your free speech question
other than the ability of someone to buy pornographic material in
Oklahoma I'm not going to be convinced. I do take a stand on each
issue I'm faced with based on a formula of greater good, common sense
and ooooh, morality.
I may seem liberal on some issues and staunchly conserative on others.
The point being that there is room for negotiation on all issues and
we cannot have an all or nothing attitude on either side of the
political arena
I'm more afraid of what will happen to this country if we say it's ok
to do everything we want. More than I am if we say certain things
aren't ok.
OKCMetroWeb
I am raising 3 children and I agree with the general statement you are
making but I believe parents should take more responsibility for what their
children are subjected to. I have cable TV but it has parental control
blocking all but the PG movies, I review or watch any movie with them that
is PG13 or above.
You can not control the people of any country (for long), our personal
freedom is also one of the founding principals that this country was built
upon. If government starts censoring our speech it does not know when to
stop. Just about everything is objectionable to someone.
I am not advocating porn by any means but if you allow it at that level ,
or at any level at what point do you draw the line. You can't. There is
only one line that will stay and that is not to limit free speech in any
way. If you limit it by censoring porn then what is next? The news gropes?
It does get a little steamy in here sometimes, what if a child is reading
it?
It is the parents responsibility to censor what their child watch not the
governments. Most parents today want someone to blame for their short
fallings. If their kids do terrible in school it is the schools fault not
their own. I wonder how many parents out there actually work with their
kids on schoolwork anymore. I actual heard one parent respond to that
question by saying "That is what I pay taxes for so I can send my kids to
school"
I guess what I am trying to say in my long winded fashion is that we as
parents are responsible for the moral downfall of our country. If we do a
better job of raising our children the children will make better decisions.
This is a little off subject but I tend to ramble sometimes. One example is
taxes. They always start with the least popular grope to tax and slowly
move to the larger groups to tax once a precedence is set.
One example of this is the tobacco tax. 2 or 3 years ago a $1 per can tax
was passed on smokeless tobacco, only smokeless mind you. Small grope of
people with not nearly as much opposition as passing it on cigarettes but
you know exactly where it was headed next. Then it was a .50 cent tax on
cigarettes with a scheduled rise within a certain length of time. The cost
for smokeless tobacco has almost doubled in the last 4 years and I am pretty
sure cigarettes has too. (not 100% certain of the accuracy of dates and
monies but it is pretty close to the best of my recollection)
The whole point I am trying to make is that this is our government and if we
tell them to take our freedom away they will. If we tell them to censor
what we can see or say they will. They will not do it because they are a
bad government they will do it because we tell them or let them do it. Most
of the restrictions of our freedoms have come about because laws were passed
fueled by emotions rather than facts.
If we were to outlaw guns all together it would not get rid of crime or
murder, people would just start using sticks and knives or bombs made from
brake fluid and chlorine. Or small underground machine shops would be set
up to illegally manufacture guns. I personally know one person who murdered
another with a pistol and served less than 9 years. Personally I think that
penalties should be harsher, if a person knew that if he shot another he
would spend the rest of his life in prison no questions, no pardons, no
paroles, I bet that might be a deterrent. Stricter gun control is not, we
don't effectively enforce the laws that we do have. Making more restrictive
laws is not the answer nor is restricting free speech the answer to our
countries moral dilemmas.
If we limit the individuals freedom of speech in any way it will get worse.
It is our rights as US citizens and that right can not be limited in any way
or the whole principal will crumble.
I am nor quite sure where all this came from but I'll step down from my
soapbox and I am open to listening to any opposing views, who knows you
might sway me. I hope I have not offended anyone, as I said just my 2
cents.
>
> This country was built on certain moral and "god forbid" religious
Eric Pendergrass
Go whine to someone else about the government trying to keep idiots like you
from getting people including yourself killed.
OKCMetroWeb wrote:
--
kma|RoCkY (Eric Pendergrass)
Clan KMA - http://www.clankma.com
OKCMetroWeb
I guess I would expect someone who runs a website named "kiss my ass" to
respond this way. People die every day by drowning, why not outlaw
swimming, boating and all other related water sports in the name of saving
lives? I'm not trying to kill myself or anyone else and I don't need
someone else to tell me how not to do it. If you can't come up with a more
intelligent response than shut your face your opinion doesn't really concern
me anyway.
--
Jerry Hutchens
Complete website development for
the greater Oklahoma City area.
Lots of great Oklahoma links also.
http://www.okcmetroweb.com
"Eric Pendergrass" <er...@vigoris.net> wrote in message
news:391B7461...@vigoris.net...
> Hey here's an idea, how about you shut your face?
>
> Go whine to someone else about the government trying to keep idiots like
you
> from getting people including yourself killed.
> kma|RoCkY (Eric Pendergrass)
Medieval Knievel
<KoB...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3919f9d9...@news.tulsa1.ok.home.com...
>
>
> Well I guess if we have to have an "all or nothing" answer to every
> issue I would have to say yes.
>
> Just because we in this great country have every sort of freedom
> should we choose to excercise them, doesn't necessarily mean we
> should.
What good are rights if not to be exercised? To put in a museum so our kids
can look at them one day and we can tell them "hey kiddos, these are your
rights. Now, don't touch 'em, they're just for purty"?
>
> The longer we say it's ok for everyone to do and say anything they
> please without any moral boundries (forget religion, they are not one
> and the same) the more we allow the degradation of the american
> thread.
Freedom of speech was the issue. You're taking some huge leap from that
into a description of absolute license.
> I'm more afraid of what will happen to this country if we say it's ok
> to do everything we want. More than I am if we say certain things
> aren't ok.
And here you are again with your slippery slope, saying that free
speech=anarchy. Sophistry.
Medieval Knievel
"OKCMetroWeb" <webm...@okcmetroweb.com> wrote in message
news:RXJS4.115$za3....@nnrp3.sbc.net...
> Just my 2 cents.
> I am raising 3 children and I agree with the general statement you are
> making but I believe parents should take more responsibility for what
their
> children are subjected to
Thank you very much. I am a firm believer in the parental right and
responsibility to monitor their own children's TV, movie, music, etc. I
don't understand how it is that people can yammer on about government
intrusion in other matters, but want some agency such as the library to
intervene in this area.
KoB...@home.com
in this rather lengthy thread. Yes, the topic is and was pornography
laws in Oklahoma. I am not here to attack one persons views but to
state mine and when asked, explain.
So now in response to what I think is a question from you,
>What good are rights if not to be exercised? To put in a museum so our kids
>can look at them one day and we can tell them "hey kiddos, these are your
>rights. Now, don't touch 'em, they're just for purty"?
........Well, you do have the right to chop off a toe, or jump off a
building. You could take a baseball bat to your own vehicle.Should we
excercise those rights? Common sense would say not.
You wrote:
>Freedom of speech was the issue. You're taking some huge leap from that
>into a description of absolute license.
I think the leap that is being taken on pornography in relation to the
intent of the first amendment is a much bigger leap
Once again give me any argument for free speech other than
pornography. Free speech is not an all or nothing idea. How does
soliciting pornography REALLY fit into this description?
"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."
This amendment was written soley with the intent of protecting the
American people from the same persecutions that were rampant in
Europe. For people to be able to question their governments actions,
To worship as they please, to get the news without the threat of
government propaganda or censorship and, if this first amendment
failed, the second was created to back it up.
It was never intended to protect every foul, self concerned
narcissistic flesh peddling distastful Tom Green watching idiot out
theres ability to contribute to the spiraling cesspools in our
society. Once again the "all or nothing" argument is the response and
accountability is out the window
BTW... The Tom Green comment was out of line, but he has no decency or
respect for his parents.
PHHH! Sophistry?
Sesquipedalia verba. Quot homines tot sententiae...Res est magna
tacere.
Possible but wrong huh? If this were the case would these debates
still be going on after all these years?
This is not an issue of truth vs. fallicy but of ideology.
Medieval Knievel
<KoB...@home.com> wrote in message
news:391fd543....@news.tulsa1.ok.home.com...
> All I was doing was responding to a question raised by another person
> in this rather lengthy thread. Yes, the topic is and was pornography
> laws in Oklahoma. I am not here to attack one persons views but to
> state mine and when asked, explain.
>
> So now in response to what I think is a question from you,
>
> >What good are rights if not to be exercised? To put in a museum so our
kids
> >can look at them one day and we can tell them "hey kiddos, these are your
> >rights. Now, don't touch 'em, they're just for purty"?
>
> ........Well, you do have the right to chop off a toe, or jump off a
> building. You could take a baseball bat to your own vehicle.Should we
> excercise those rights? Common sense would say not.
Do you always have to go with the most absurd examples to make your point?
It makes me think you really don't have a cogent argument when you have to
go around constructing strawmen.
>
> You wrote:
>
> >Freedom of speech was the issue. You're taking some huge leap from that
> >into a description of absolute license.
>
> I think the leap that is being taken on pornography in relation to the
> intent of the first amendment is a much bigger leap
>
> Once again give me any argument for free speech other than
> pornography. Free speech is not an all or nothing idea. How does
> soliciting pornography REALLY fit into this description?
Pornography laws put the government in the position of telling publishers
what content they can print (bradcast, etc.). When the government has the
power to define what is obscene or not, they have a potent weapon.
My concern is more with the rights of privacy. It chills my bones to think
that there are people in the state of Oklahoma who have nothing better to
concern themselves with, given the state's myriad social and economic
problems, than whether or not their next door neighbor is looking at Hustler
in the bathroom. It gets even worse when you realize these people are
gaining political power.
I'd also like to remind you that many great works of literature, art, and
film have been deemed "obscene" when there was actually nothing of prurient
interest. That alone should tell you that obscenity definitions can be used
to silence politically meaningful speech.
Don't worry, when they come to take away your right to free speech, I'll be
behind you. That is, if they haven't already shut me up.
KRC
<KoB...@home.com> wrote in message
news:391785bc....@news.tulsa1.ok.home.com...
> On Mon, 01 May 2000 03:44:05 GMT, mp24 <lightb...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> I'm for free speech as much as the next, but looking at society today,
> years ago what kind of society we have once we disallow religion and
> allow every other sort behavior.
>
> "reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national
> morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
I'm more partial to what Larry Fkynt said about 20 years ago: "The First
Amendment was put there to defend people like me."
KRC
KRC
<KoB...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3919f9d9...@news.tulsa1.ok.home.com...
>
>
> Well I guess if we have to have an "all or nothing" answer to every
> issue I would have to say yes.
>
> Just because we in this great country have every sort of freedom
> should we choose to excercise them, doesn't necessarily mean we
> should.
Okay, then take the time to explain this to me. I recently played guitar
for a Tulsa-based band that had an overtly sexual overtone. The band is
called Cat O' Nine - I can let your mind figure out just what sexual
overtonnes are conjured by that name. Now, what our music was about may not
interest you - it may even disgust you. And that would be fine by me, your
cup of blood may not be mine. However, if what I enjoy or wish to exhibit
offends your senses, where do you you feel that you have the right to
prevent me or anyone else from partaking?
I would argue that the line should be drawn at your front door - if you
don't want it in your home, then it's your right to keep it out. However,
that does not, by extension of ensuring that your home will never have the
opportunity to be soiled by such depravity, allow you to prevent me from
allowing it in mine.
A public forum is a different matter - I don't think you'll be seeing
fetish rock bands being invited to Mayfest anytime soon - but what's wrong
with the same band playing a private club where the only people in
attendance are those who choose to be there?
> The longer we say it's ok for everyone to do and say anything they
> please without any moral boundries (forget religion, they are not
>one and the same) the more we allow the degradation of the >american
thread.
How so? Care to provide me with specific examples, or are you going to
offer me the same tired anecdotes I have heard 1,000 times over?
> This is exactly what the Washington quote in the original post meant.
>
> This country was built on certain moral and "god forbid" religous
> principles that, once abandoned, opens the door to everything in
>the world that is ugly. Once we say it is okay to that, we become
>ugly.
Again, cite me some examples and how these "principles" are being
abandoned. My watching "Debbie Does Dallas" in the privacy of my home isn't
causing the nation to decline, no matter how much you wish it would.
> The exposure of our children to increased instances of violence,
> pornography, drugs and general "disconnected" behavior is a
>direct result of the lax...read "liberal"... views on these issues.
As I see it, it is nor my responsibility to tailor everything I create to
the possible effect it might have on a child. It is your job, as a parent,
to protect your child from things you feel are inappropriate. There are
many things that I might read, listen to, or watch, I would never show to a
child. It's very simple - some things are for kids, and some things are for
grown-ups. And, as a parent, it's your duty to decide that, not mine.
>If we continue to push the idea that as long as something isn't illegal
>it's ok to do then we are selling ourselves and our children short.
There are many things that were once legal that were wrong - salvery comes
to mind. However, it's one hell of an ideological leap to go from a
consenting adult viewing a "dirty" movie to slavery, and it's one that I
will not make. Here's why: One is an act in which all parties involved
consent to the action - the other is not. Care to take a guesss which one
is which?
Now, to the crux of your point. There are things out there that you feel
are not "ok" to endorse, even though they may be 100% legal. Hey, that's
fine with me, also. It all boils down to this - there are things that you
see as right and wrong. These things may or may not differ from what I feel
is right and wrong. However, neither of us reserve the right to tell each
other what we can and cannot do in a private, consensual situation. You
don't want your kids watching "dirty" movies - don't let them. I'll support
your right to do that 100% Ironically, I doubt you'd offer me the same
courtesy if it came to my watching the same film in the privacy of my own
home.
> If you can't give me a better argument to your free speech question
> other than the ability of someone to buy pornographic material in
> Oklahoma I'm not going to be convinced. I do take a stand on each
> issue I'm faced with based on a formula of greater good, common
>sense and ooooh, morality.
I think you need to look at the whole picture. If someone says "X is
obscene, you cannot have it." it sets a precedent. Once that door has been
opened who's to stop anyone else from trying to ban things that you'd
consider harmelss. You remember a certain purple cartoon character about a
year ago that had the right wing all riled up because somebody arbitrarily
thought it represented a "gay" person? Trust me, I am not being a Chicken
Little when I say that you give some nuts an inch they'll take the
proverbial mile and then some. Gay teletubbies - you probably would have
thought that impossible before some nut actually went and ran with it.
> I may seem liberal on some issues and staunchly conserative on
> others. The point being that there is room for negotiation on all
> issues and we cannot have an all or nothing attitude on either
> side of the political arena
In terms of the freedom of the mind - whcih means the freedom to put into
that mind whatever you wish to - there is no middle ground. You choose what
you want, and so will I.
> I'm more afraid of what will happen to this country if we say it's ok
> to do everything we want. More than I am if we say certain things
> aren't ok.
Oh, this is getting old. Give me examples, this anecdotal and clouded
logic is waering on me...
KRC
KoB...@home.com
What's this? No comment about the second half of my response.
Am I to understand that I may have made a valid point so there is no
inane remark from you?
The second explains exactly why they won't "come and take my rights
away" Phhh. Psycho-babble
>I think the leap that is being taken on pornography in relation to the
>intent of the first amendment is a much bigger leap
>
>Once again give me any argument for free speech other than
>pornography. Free speech is not an all or nothing idea. How does
>soliciting pornography REALLY fit into this description?
>
KoB...@home.com
>don't want it in your home, then it's your right to keep it out. However,
>that does not, by extension of ensuring that your home will never have the
>opportunity to be soiled by such depravity, allow you to prevent me from
>allowing it in mine.
Hey, as long as your depravity stays in your home with your kids I'm
fine with it.
>A public forum is a different matter - I don't think you'll be seeing
>fetish rock bands being invited to Mayfest anytime soon - but what's wrong
>with the same band playing a private club where the only people in
>attendance are those who choose to be there?
well I guess you win that was a pretty good argument for the minions.
I've changed my mindset and political affiliation and am now retiring
from this thread.
Eric Pendergrass
Ben Randle wrote:
> On Thu, 11 May 2000 22:34:28 -0500, OKCMetroWeb set forth to
> proclaim!:
>
> >I guess I would expect someone who runs a website named "kiss my ass" to
> >respond this way. People die every day by drowning, why not outlaw
> >swimming, boating and all other related water sports in the name of saving
> >lives? I'm not trying to kill myself or anyone else and I don't need
> >someone else to tell me how not to do it. If you can't come up with a more
> >intelligent response than shut your face your opinion doesn't really concern
> >me anyway.
>
> Well in case you didn't know the illustrious Eric is a teenager. And
> of course, he knows everything.
>
> Ben Randle
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> I'm desperately trying to figure out why
> kamikaze pilots wore helmets.
> --Dave Edison
--
Cobb
conversational skills in there. In case y'all are curious, Vigoris is THE
BEST dial-up ISP in Tulsa. I just like to spread the word because I've had
nothing but a good experience with them.
Eric Pendergrass wrote in message <391E0F7B...@vigoris.net>...