Protecting Porn but Not Politics

OpinionJournal ^ | December 11, 2003 | JAMES TARANTO

[kennedy]

Who could have imagined that the same Court which, within the past four years, has sternly disapproved of restrictions upon such inconsequential forms of expression as virtual child pornography, tobacco advertising, dissemination of illegally intercepted communications, and sexually explicit cable programming, would smile with favor upon a law that cut to the heart of what the First Amendment is meant to protect: the right to criticize the government.

[LiteKeeper]

read later

[Always Right]

I thought that came out of Thomas's dissent, but I'll have to re-check.

[Pietro]

Of course:

you can't mention Christ in school but you can discuss anal intercourse in depth

[The_Reader_David]

Now in your post does the phrase 'in depth' modify the verb 'discuss' or the noun 'intercourse'?

(Sorry I know it was cheap, but I couldn't resist.)

Seriously, though, this decision is one which better go the way of Dred Scott and Plessy and post-haste. It strikes me as the worst Supreme Court decision since Roe.

[Always Right]

It was Scalia, sorry.

[Always Right]

Seriously, though, this decision is one which better go the way of Dred Scott and Plessy and post-haste. It strikes me as the worst Supreme Court decision since Roe.

Absolutely. This decision was unbelievable. I can't believe there hasn't been more outrage. I can't believe all the liberal judges who usually wrap themselves in the first amendment, effectively voided it.

[uncbob]

It strikes me as the worst Supreme Court decision since Roe.

Trye
But it would never have gotten that far if a GOP controlled congress and a GOP president had lived up to their oath to defend the Constitution and not passed it

[Doug Loss]

WorldNetDaily has a link to a Supremes Impeachment website. I think it's time for us all to start working toward that end.

[The_Reader_David]

Alas, that's true.

It maybe we should take to refering to it as the "Incumbent and Media-influence Protection Act."

[Doug Loss]

Responding to myself; how pathetic. :-) Anyway, here's the link for Joseph Farah's Supremes impeachment effort: http://mail.worldnetdaily.com/cgi-bin/subunsub.pl?list=impeach

[Dunedain]

Simple. Liberals don't believe in freedom. The only freedom they believe in is sexual acts. Just like the Brave New World where everyone has their place but have sex with whoever asks.

Liberals would love to be able to have public orgies with members of every sex and the beasts from every continent.

They are completely deranged.

[Riemann]

"discuss anal intercourse in depth"

ROFLMAO was this on purpose?

[pgkdan]

I can't believe there hasn't been more outrage.

Outrage from whom? I've been expressing my outrage ever since the legislation was passed by our Republican Congress and signed by President Bush.

I hope your not expecting outrage from all of those Freepers who told those of us that were upset at W jettisoning his principles and breaking his promise to veto CFR, to shut up because they were SURE that the Supreme Court would overturn the legislation.

My guess is that those folks are a little embarrassed. I'm a Bush supporter. I worked on his campaign in VA and I will do so again. But I think that it is a requirement of all citizens to chastize Presidents when they screw up. Even when, and even especially when you support that President.

[Pietro]

".... was this on purpose?"

Absolutely.

[The_Reader_David]

Alas, that's true.

It maybe we should take to refering to it as the "Incumbent and Media-influence Protection Act."