Replies

Fine. Ban the creeps, then. Causing a public nuisance is not protected speech.

Neither is pornography--at least it wasn't for the first 180 years of our nation's history:

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."

Furthermore...

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."

This is not a First Amendment issue. The First Amendment was never intended to protect nude dancing, crotch-shots, kiddie porn, etc.

This is a separation of powers issue. Do local municipalities have the right to restrict certain behaviors or not? If you say they don't based on a flawed interpretation of the national constitution, I would say that YOU are the one espousing tyrannical national control over local self-government.

I don't know what point you mean to make, precisely. As I pointed out, if someone's being a jerk, you can ban them. It doesn't require that filtering software be put in on taxpayer expense so that the government can play nanny to otherwise responsible adults.

You may be perfectly happy to live in a world wherein sites like Free Republic are easily deemed "hate sites" by content filters in use by the State. I personally will never allow it nor abide by it.

And furthermore, the next time anyone claims these content filters will somehow "protect the children," then they should try letting kids loose on computers with these idiosyncratic content filters in place and be amazed at how quickly the kids defeat the content filters, thanks to the fine work of the folks at PeaceFire.