...for the wrong reasons.
The First Amendment means nothing if it doesn’t mean the right to show people things they don’t want to see.
...is this really what the founders intended?
Yeah, the downside of their ruling—and a scenario these judges may well have had in mind—is that this same logic could give a bunch of flaming homos the right to parade around schools doing gosh knows what.
Nonetheless, I always expect anything amoral to be allowed while a moral message gets squelched, especially given the history of this panel, so I will still celebrate.
BTW, CBR is the pro-life movement I’ve chosen to financially support. I believe that it’s waaaaaayyyy past time that we learned how to get blunt and in the face of liberals, and CBR is doing EXACTLY that in a huge way.
MM
I STRONGLY concur. I am staunchly pro-life, but the reasoning of the court is just plain wrong.
The First Amendment means nothing if it doesn’t mean the right to show people things they don’t want to see.The same reasoning could be used to demand pornography on the sidewalks or in the schools. They inadvertently provided a defense for every lewd flasher, sick artist and racial bigot.
I’m all about original intent, but do you think the Founders would ever think the nation would take the Constitution they gave us to mean “Kill 40 million children?”
One wonders wht sort of horrible things people would have been shown that they didn’t want to see if Kodak-style photography had existed during the slave era.