Supreme Court leans in favor of state-enforced age limits on porn websites

Los Angeles Times ^ | Jan. 15, 2025 Updated 12:48 PM PT | David G. Savage

[fso301]

[reasonisfaith]

Then you have no excuse.

[Jonty30]

There is demonstrable harm with slander.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Drugs haven’t been eliminated because the government became the drug dealers.

You just swerved into the truth, as el Rushbo used to say.

Government is the greediest, most corrupt and murderous force on Earth. It is not even debatable. Governments murdered 262,000,000 of their own citizens in the twentieth century alone.

You admit that government is corrupt, but you still think government is the solution to all problems.

Some people learn from experience, others don't.

[Jonty30]

The Constitution did not limit free expression to the Godly.

[Jonty30]

It isn’t about faith.

The reason why liberals put pornography in schools is because they wanted people like you to get it banned. THey were hoping that Christians would band together to get it banned, so the liberal could use the law you wanted written to ban the Bible.

[reasonisfaith]

Here’s a simple way to understand it. The use of pornography is adultery, given what Christ tells us about looking on a woman with lust.

The founders did not intend to protect pornography.

[Engraved-on-His-hands]

There is demonstrable harm with slander.

I thought that you said that there are no "buts" in free expression.

And I feel bad for you if you believe that there is no demonstrable harm with pornography.

[reasonisfaith]

I’m not talking about people. I’m talking about principles.

The founders never separated principles from God.

[Jonty30]

I don’t look at porn. I’m not being self-serving in my arguments. Porn existed in the days of the Founding Fathers. They knew about its existence and they choose to include it by not excluding it.

[reasonisfaith]

Nobody said it didn’t, you appear to be trying to distract from the point.

[Jonty30]

If they didn’t want it protected, they would have wrote a clause to not include it. The lack of clause means they protected it.

[nwrep]

I can see Barrett writing this opinion, and the wide latina and the MumboJumbo lady writing the dissent. Don’t know how Kagan will rule.

[Jonty30]

This isn’t about me.
The liberal set really are hoping that porn gets banned, because they will use those laws to ban the Bible and you’ll have no ability to defend that.

[reasonisfaith]

Nonsense.

If you stay with logic, you won’t become confused by distorted thinking like what you say here.

[Jonty30]

The Founding Fathers did not write a Constitution for only Christians. They wrote it for everybody.

[Jonty30]

There is nothing distorted about my thinking, but yours is distorted.

[reasonisfaith]

Wow, I’ve really got some bites on this one.

The pushback is really strong, much more than usual.

[dfwgator]

Liberals have a very wide definition of “Porn”, basically they will classify any speech they disagree with as “Porn”.

[steve86]

“Here’s a simple way to understand it. The use of pornography is adultery, given what Christ tells us about looking on a woman with lust”

I think of it that way as well. And I am certainly not perfect.