I don't have a lot of passion about the fact that Lodgenet pipes pornography into their hotel rooms. I'd rather they didn't, but I can't say it preys upon my mind. But Todd Epp makes some arguments against the Family Policy Council types who are all worked up about this. I must say Todd, pretty weak arguments. And that does prey on my mind! Let's look at those arguments.
1. The old "if you don't like it turn it off."
My Republican friends always like to lecture people about "personal responsibility." And renting a grinder flick from Lodgenet is the ultimate in personal responsibility. I'm in my own room. I'm not in the public. I'm paying for the service.
This is a classic case of question begging. Todd's argument assumes that pornography in hotel rooms (or elsewhere perhaps) is benign and therefore a matter of indifference to the public. If Lodgenet was piping in films of children getting raped, Todd, I think, would object. By why is that not a matter of personal preference? There are things that are done in private (drugs for example) that are harmful to the public. Maybe viewing pornography is one of them. And maybe not. But Todd assumes a benign nature to pornography without proof.
By the way, in civil rights law, isn't a hotel a "pubic accommodation," not a private abode?
2. The first amendment:
It is legal (though the wackos at Truth About Lodgenet say otherwise). You know, there's that little thing called the First Amendment.
Perhaps the "Truth About Lodgenet wackos" are trying to use the law against Lodgenet, but it seems more so they are trying to use publicity and shame. Perhaps their energies are misdirected, but Lodgenet has no First Amendment right to be free from shame and ridicule for being a purveyor of pornography.
3. If you are going to stop porn in hotel rooms you must ban...
I think the bigger issue is where will groups like SDFPC stop?
Ban drinking? Drinking probably harms far more people than porn.
Ban cigarettes? They too are legal and bad for you. The health costs to our society are enormous.
Ban adult stores like Olivias and Anna Belles? What, they have something against rubber goods and low cut French maid outfits?
Ban dancing? It can lead to sex or at least blisters on your feet.
Ban couples who marry but can't procreate? Isn't that why you're supposed to marry, to be fruit fly and multiply?
This is the old "slippery slope," which is still a fallacy, if I am not mistaken. Of course the "wackos" want to ban none of these things and Todd knows it. But it serves his purpose to to say, "If you want to ban this, you must ban all of these things," thereby treating all sorts of apples as if they are oranges.
As I say, I don't really have a lot of passion about Lodgenet. But I can't stand by and let Todd get away with lazy thinking. I suspect that Todd's real arguments are A) he can't stand these right-wing Christian types, so their enemies are his friends, and B) he doesn't really see anything wrong with pornography. If I am wrong, I am sure Todd will correct me. Either way, watch your back Todd. You might get Chuck Norris going Biblical on your ass, you godless anti-American Communist.
Update: Crap. Now I see that Todd has been throwing me kudos. I take back all the bad stuff, Todd!
Recent Comments