Replies

Ayatollah Rick can take his Sharia mentality and choke on it. It isn’t the Federal government’s job to police obscenity—if you think it is, please show me a Constitutional precedent for it.

You porn hounds haven't changed in the 14 years I've been on FR. Same old arguments that are just as easy to shoot down now as they were then. For your information, for the first 180 years of our nation's existence, the was no problem banning obscenity:

Chaplinsky vs. New Hampshire (1942):

"There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or 'fighting' words....It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality."

Roth vs. The United States (1957)

"Obscenity is not within the area of constitutionally protected freedom of speech or press--either (1) under the First Amendment, as to the Federal Government, or (2) under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as to the States.... In the light of history, it is apparent that the unconditional phrasing of the First Amendment was not intended to protect every utterance.... The protection given speech and press was fashioned to assure unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people.... All ideas having even the slightest redeeming social importance--unorthodox ideas, controversial ideas, even ideas hateful to the prevailing climate of opinion--have the full protection of the guaranties, unless excludable because they encroach upon the limited area of more important interests; but implicit in the history of the First Amendment is the rejection of obscenity as utterly without redeeming social importance."

You people have confused Larry Flynt with the Founding Fathers.

Aha, but who gets to define what’s ‘obscene’?

Of all the issues our nation needs to address, Santorum thinks this one is the one that needs addressing?

I’m sorry, but this one is not a winning strategy. There’s going to be plenty of mainstream Christians who vote against him for this one issue.

You don’t try to mess with people’s sex lives.

You people have confused Larry Flynt with the Founding Fathers.

Amen to that.

Those who would defend evil in the name of rights, will one day find their children and Grandchildren consumed by the very evil they demand has a right to exist.