Putin signs law banning advertisements for abortion in Russia

Sure, but it as much of a right for me to stand right in front of the person with a even bigger sign blocking it. The problem is your trying to draw this arbitrary line between what is "allowed" and what isn't under free speech. Your using the exhausted "for the kids" tactic. So how far of a reach would it be to say blocking 2nd amendment protesters in order to prevent school shootings and its all for "the kids", hell we already see this tactic practically used daily.

The reason why the "for the kids" tactic is used is because as a society we do attempt to shield our youth from certain negative exposure. I don't want to live in an environment where I have to worry about someone putting a poster in their face of two people having sex. And I am not alone, which is why society has put laws in place to punish those who do such things. Not that putting up laws will completely prevent such things from happening, but at least discourage it and punish those who do.

But of course there is indeed slippery slopes, like in the example you use above. When and where is the line? I think it is extremely relative and very hard to determine in a consensus, and what is taboo today might be acceptable and welcomed tomorrow. These are a function not of the government, but of the society. That is why Ron Paul constantly states that it is the morals of the nation which much change in order for the government to change. When you start seeing deviant behavior being tolerated and even encouraged and promoted by a democratically elected government, it is because society first has prepared the conditions for this to occur.
 
The reason why the "for the kids" tactic is used is because as a society we do attempt to shield our youth from certain negative exposure. I don't want to live in an environment where I have to worry about someone putting a poster in their face of two people having sex. And I am not alone, which is why society has put laws in place to punish those who do such things. Not that putting up laws will completely prevent such things from happening, but at least discourage it and punish those who do.

But of course there is indeed slippery slopes, like in the example you use above. When and where is the line? I think it is extremely relative and very hard to determine in a consensus, and what is taboo today might be acceptable and welcomed tomorrow. These are a function not of the government, but of the society. That is why Ron Paul constantly states that it is the morals of the nation which much change in order for the government to change. When you start seeing deviant behavior being tolerated and even encouraged and promoted by a democratically elected government, it is because society first has prepared the conditions for this to occur.
There is some truth to this, but there are instances in which regimes deliberately destroyed the moral fabric of people in order to weaken them. Regimes rarely reflect the opinion of the majority of people anywhere-just the opinions of themselves and their sponsors.
 
That's actually not true. I lived in Europe for 8 years and spent every summer there since I was a baby and never once saw a billboard with nudity.

I used to live in the UK, and can attest to this.

(Just wondering, were you born in Europe?)
 
That's actually not true. I lived in Europe for 8 years and spent every summer there since I was a baby and never once saw a billboard with nudity.

A quick Google search and I see a bunch of nakedness in European marketing ads and billboard's.
 
A quick Google search and I see a bunch of nakedness in European marketing ads and billboard's.

Never once seen a billboard or public ad with nudity in Europe and I've lived in 4 European countries and travelled to 34 countries within Europe.
 
Back
Top