<
Posted on 07/13/2004 10:11:42 AM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
Do you ever wonder why the internet is so polluted with pornography? The Supreme Court just reminded us why: it blocks every attempt by Congress to regulate the pornographers.
From its ivory tower, the Court props open the floodgates for smut and graphic sex. Over the past five years, it has repeatedly found new constitutional rights for vulgarity, most recently invalidating the Child Online Protection Act (COPA).
This latest judicial outrage happened on the final day of the Supreme Court term, after which the justices headed out for a long summer break. Lacking teenaged children of their own, the justices closed their eyes to electronic obscenity polluting our children's minds.
For decades, pornographers have enjoyed better treatment by our courts than any other industry. The justices have constitutionally protected obscenity in libraries, filth over cable television, and now unlimited internet pornography.
The flood of pornography started with the Warren Court when it handed down 34 decisions between 1966 and 1970 in favor of the smut peddlers. In mostly one-sentence decisions that were issued anonymously (the justices were too cowardly to sign them), the Court overturned every attempt by communities to maintain standards of decency.
The judges' obsession with smut is astounding. Even though five Supreme Court justices were appointed by Presidents Reagan and the first Bush, graphic sex wins judicial protection in essentially every case.
Woe to those who transgress an obscure environmental law, or say a prayer before a football game, or run a political ad within two months of an election. They find no judicial sympathy, as courts now routinely restrict private property rights and censor political speech.
But the pornographers can do no wrong in the eyes of our top justices. The most explicit sex can be piped into our home computers and the Supreme Court prevents our democratically elected officials from doing anything about it.
COPA was enacted by Congress in response to the Court's invalidation of the predecessor law, the Communications Decency Act of 1996. But decency lost again when six justices knocked out COPA in Ashcroft v. ACLU.
COPA was badly needed, as filth plagues the internet, incites sex crimes, and entraps children. COPA banned the posting for "commercial purposes" on the World Wide Web of material that is "patently offensive" in a sexual manner unless the poster takes reasonable steps to restrict access by minors.
You don't need to look very far to find a tragic crime traceable to the internet. In New Jersey in 1997, 15-year-old Sam Manzie, who had fallen prey to homosexual conduct prompted by the internet, sexually assaulted and murdered 11-year-old Eddie Werner, who was selling candy door-to-door.
COPA did not censor a single word or picture. Instead, it merely required the purveyors of sex-for-profit to screen their websites from minors, which can be done by credit card or other verification.
But minors are an intended audience for the highly profitable sex industry. Impressionable teenagers are most easily persuaded to have abortions, and homosexual clubs in high school are designed for the young.
Justice Kennedy declared it unconstitutional for Congress to stop porn flowing to teens, shifting the burden to families to screen out the graphic sex rather than imposing the cost on the companies profiting from the filth. His reasoning is as absurd as telling a family just to pull down its window shades if it doesn't want to see people exposing themselves outside.
In a prior pro-porn decision, Kennedy cited Hollywood morals as a guide for America, but this time he relied on the prevalence of foreign pornography. "40% of harmful-to-minors content comes from overseas," he declared in holding that the other 60% of obscenity is wrapped in the First Amendment.
The Supreme Court insisted that individual internet users should buy filters to try to block the vulgarity. Should those who do not like air pollution be told to buy air masks?
The Supreme Court protects pornography in books, movies, cable television, and the internet, real or simulated, against all citizens' clean-up efforts. The Court is no longer the blindfolded lady weighing a controversy, but is dominated by media-driven supremacists forcing us down into a moral sewer.
This latest pro-porn decision was too much even for Clinton-appointed Justice Breyer. He said, "Congress passed the current statute in response to the Court's decision" invalidating the prior law; "what else was Congress supposed to do?"
The solution to these ills foisted on us by judicial supremacists is for Congress to exercise its constitutional powers to remove jurisdiction from the federal courts over pornography. The Court has abused its power, and it's Congress's duty to end the judicial abuse.
Upside down, inside out.
The exact opposite of what the framers intended.
Hey Phyllis, you can do something about it. There is no law that states a computer with an internet connection in your home is mandatory.
There are FReepers who would like to have some political speech banned.
Do you ever save to a print file? I could see a few problems arising from making .prn a porn suffix.
Just do what you did with the JWs...answer the door naked with your cat o' nine tails. That'll stop 'em, sure enough. :^)
But ... but ... but ... its for the children!!!
<
"What part of "Shall not be infringed" and "Congress shall make no law" is so hard for porno bigots and gun grabbers to understand?"
It's all based on the flawed Marbury v Madison case, which established the extra-constitutional concept of Judicial Review.
I would dearly like to see this decision reversed!
"Do you ever save to a print file? I could see a few problems arising from making .prn a porn suffix."
Apples and oranges.
PRN is a Windows device, not a file extension.
.COM is a binary executable extension, and a file extension.
All depends on the URI type... FILE:// vs HTTP://
er,
.COM is a binary file extension, and a top level domain.
Were you to tell the Founders what has happened to their attempt to Protect Political Speech they would be appalled.
They would be the first to crash these sites permanently.
All the rationalizations the Court has used are totally out of line with the thoughts of the Founders.
Yes... I know that, but we could at least try and get them to think about it.
I bet that Tailgunner Joe would find Chode's mate to be porn due to the way she dresses, not to mention the sexual acts they engage in.
The Constitution protects porno just as much as it protects abortion.
I have no problem admitting that the porn companies are run by predatory sleazebags. However, those sleazebags know that it's not worth the risk to make kiddie porn. They can make tons of money filming consenting adults knocking boots. Why bother breaking the law?
Make all porn illegal and you guaranty that only the worst scumbags will remain in the underground porn industry and that they'll have no reason to not use 12 year-olds in their films.
Plus, if you make all porn illegal, you would need to hire thousands of new police officers and prosecutors on the federal, state and local level.
Also, let's not forget that porn isn't like cocaine or heroin- you don't need someone to smuggle it over the border. All you need is a Swedish or Dutch or Russian company with its own stash of porn and a modem.
Am I not entitled to a little creative license for humor's sake?
And all a cop would need is a "throw-down memory stick" to make "probable cause."
It's very disenguous to compare Romeo and Juliet to kiddie porn. As young teenagers of that era, it was perfectly normal for them to have a love affair. Lolita is sick s**t. Who cares if it's "well written" or not.
The problem with child pornography is not just that "real" children were or were not involved, although obviously that is of a greater magnitude of evil. But to allow sick freaks such as pedophiles the fantasies, whether reality based or not, so they can fan the flames of their very evil attraction to children, is not only psychotic, but the founding fathers who wrote the Constitution would not believe how the right to pornography has been tortured out of it.
Some speech should be censored, and already is, such as slander, libel, and so on.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.