I hope y'all don't mind if I sound like a conservative for a moment. My people, we act like we're all from New Hampshire, and freedom is worth dying over. OK, sometimes it is. But there's free speech, and free beer, as the open source people tell us.

Freedom of speech and expression is terribly important, but maybe a little abused. We're used to all the soft core pornography that's used to sell just about everything, and a bit of violence thrown in. We treat it like not a big deal - like a minor cold. Ignore it if you don't like it, right? Personally I think violence is a bigger problem, but if we buy into the "clash of the civilizations" idea about Islam and the West, well, to a lot of religious extremists, porn being everywhere is a big deal. That doesn't justify killing people, but it makes it a little less surprising, especially when you add up all the facets of western culture that threaten ideas worth dying for in Islam.

But the real problem, I think, is how or even if these things are affecting our society. And this is why I think violence is a greater problem. When there's so much of it in movies, on TV, in video games, and so on, it becomes more normal, people get desensitized. I'm convinced there's a (long and somewhat indirect) relationship between the amount of violence the youth in society are exposed to, and the school shootings we see. That's not to say playing Doom 4 will force a kid to shoot his school up, but I think it makes it a little bit easier. Pornography has the same effect. I think women in bikinis in AbRoller billboards, magazine covers, and everywhere else, probably has something to do with our teen pregnancy rate, and the prevalence of STDs. Again, it's not a direct cause, but it plays a role.

A century ago, capitalism became more parasitic than helpful, in the age of the robber barons. It took government, under the leadership of Teddy Roosevelt (a Republican) to deliver a shock to the system, and right this. Things got back on track for several decades, and we saw prosperity. Capitalism is a complex system, and generally works well, but every now and then it can get caught in a rut.

I wonder if something like that might benefit us today? If, say, news outlets talked about important news, instead of Brittney and Lindsey? What if Ice Cube couldn't become a millionaire off "@%$# the Police"? I'm not saying a person shouldn't be allowed to express themselves, but is there a difference between airing a genuine problem, and profiting from mainstream distribution like this? As a liberal, I do not believe in censorship, but I think we've got a bit of a problem, and I wonder if there's a solution to it?

I also think this might be a question most of us can find some common ground on. And I hope someone smarter than me has some good ideas?

The problem is that we have trained an entire generation to not think and simply absorb what they see..

Violence is far more of a problem than sex.. There are groups within both sides of the political spectrum that see the human body as something to be covered and feared..

And finally, capitalism has changed.. Again.. While it is still entirely possible for a poor person to work hard and be successful, the uber rich have a layer of protection now which makes joining them nearly impossible.. The opportunities to achieve that sort of wealth through hard work are getting fewer and fewer for a lot of reasons, from protectionist actions from those with the money (good old boys clubs) and from the other side by denying people access to the resources on their own land (yes, it was illegal for me to sit in the creek behind my house, that ran right through my property, in California and pan for gold because I was "destroying the environment with my rape of the land", not that I found very much there anyway..

Now, to throw a curve ball at you.. I see pornography as one of the few truly capitalist opportunities available.. The barrier to entry is low, require a digicam and an internet connection, and a woman willing to show her goods for a buck.. Look at all the "amateur" websites out there run by women, housewives, college girls, by themselves, for themselves, and making more money than they would ever dream for a couple hours work each week.. There are quite a few that started out as husbands posting pics of their wives only to find out that the wife was really the one in charge and the husbands on the street as soon as they thought otherwise (as it should be)..

Some of these ladies pull in staggering amounts of money.. Join my website for $9.95/month and they have 20k or 30k subscribers.. Do the math.. Capitalism baby..

Pornography is monopolizing us in every way. Every advertising nowadays to get more potential clients/customer has the theme or idea of sex with in them. For example, people selling alcohol have chosen sexy models to promote their products for more men are drinking. There is no problem with the freedom of speech and expression but they need to be restricted. in the proper way.

What's the proper way?

There is no proper way to restrict free speech.. that starts us down a dangerous road that I don't want to be anywhere near. I'm worried enough over the obscenity laws that already exist, they have the potential to be misinterpreted and abused badly.

I disagree, Russell, and I'm guessing with some thought, you do to. Let's look at an example.

"I'll pay you $25,000 to kill my wife".

Is that free speech? Obviously, it's regulated by the law. Unless it's clear I'm joking, or making a point in a conversation, actually saying that to a person would be a felony. In most countries on the planet. I don't think anyone would call this the first step on a dangerous road of destroyed civil liberties.

Free speech doesn't mean a whole lot until you look at it in context. When you see all the restricted speech in the world, and how this is used to oppress people, it takes on value. When you see this in our past, it stands out all the more. But that doesn't mean I can share trade secrets with competitors as long as I use speech to do it.

I don't think either of those are very good examples, it's not exactly the speech itself that's illegal, it's the intent to commit a seperate illegal act, speech just happens to be the method of communication in your examples.

Saying you want some one to kill your wife isn't illegal.

Seeking out a hitman and offering him money to kill your wife is illegal.

Talking about trade secrets isn't illegal.

Talking about trade secrets to a competitor for financial gain or causing harm to your company is illegal. The same could be accomplished by handing a prototype or a piece of code to a competitor without any communication at all.

I think they're good examples, actually. In either case, the speech itself is only a vehicle that enables an illegal act to be committed. And yet, for this reason, in both cases, the speech is regulated. If you prefer, a different example is shouting fire in a crowded theatre, but this is a well worn example.

In all these cases, society as a whole is willing to accept some limit to our unfettered speech, for the good of society as a whole. That doesn't necessarily mean regulating gratuitous violence and sex would be a similar case, but it does mean it's possible. And in its turn, that means we should probably give it some thought as a society.