True that... he'd prolly flip at because her name is Sex Slave Six too.
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.
If pedophiles merely thought about molesting children it would be a different story. Those of you who are supporting pornography in the name of "freedom" are transparent and shameless, you care nothing for the well being of children and others who are victims of sick freaks who rape and molest.
You refuse, apparently out of your own addiction to pornography, to see the correlation between watching porn and acting it out. If what people absorb their minds in had no effect on their behavior, the advertising industry would not exist.
Saying "well, don't let your kids watch it if you don't like it" is like saying "well, don't have abortions if you don't like them". Supporters of libertinism in general, and porn in particular (since that's the topic at hand) are creating a sewer. When others complain about the stink, you advise us to stop breathing in.
It's not possible to live at the town dump and not be affected by the stench, rats, and flies.
Who you gonna get to do that dirty work, Joe, considering the number of US Military folk who view porn on a regular basis? I KNOW you won't be doing it yourself, or even with a group of your minions.
Bring it, Sport. There's a LOT more Liberty-loving Americans than jackbooters, and many of us are pretty good shots.
Is it the part about how Niedermeyer got fragged by his own troops?
I do agree the U.S Supreme Court's reasoning about free speech is all bollixed. I mean political speech can be subject to legal restrictions but pornography gets the highest level of judicial protection. I defy a single person on this forum or in the country to tell me that makes for sound jurisprudence in the First Amendment area.
A voice of reason. What will the response be?
Nonsense. Anyone who forces sex upon a child or an unconsenting adult should be punished to the full extent of the law. However, it should not be a crime to look at images of consenting adults engaging in sex.
You refuse, apparently out of your own addiction to pornography, to see the correlation between watching porn and acting it out.
As the old cliche goes, correlation is not causation. I'm sure 100% of child molesters and rapists have drunk water. That doesn't mean the water caused their crimes. In any event, what do you care if people act out porn, so long as they only do so with other consenting adults?
Saying "well, don't let your kids watch it if you don't like it" is like saying "well, don't have abortions if you don't like them"
Apples and oranges. Someone who watches porn in their own house harms no one but themselves (if that). Somebody who gets an abortion ends another human life.
Supporters of libertinism in general, and porn in particular (since that's the topic at hand) are creating a sewer. When others complain about the stink, you advise us to stop breathing in.
What stink? Again, how does an adult viewing porn in the privacy of their own home in any way harm you?
You're wrong. Historically, obscenity and slander/defamation have both been areas of exceptions carved out of the First Amendment for obvious reasons. Externalities that harm communities and individuals have the potential for gravely damaging effects to their integrity and character. Of course the U.S Supreme Court has thanks to the flood of obscenity rulings, defined the term out of existence. To tell people to just not go there when they turn on their computer is like a telling someone who notices a drunk to pretend he doesn't exist. In both cases, damage can still be don't cause the potential for harm has still been left unattended. Freedom of speech was never mean to be absolute. Then again we live in a culture in which any goes is the standard of the day.
You're wrong. Historically, obscenity and slander/defamation have both been areas of exceptions carved out of the First Amendment for obvious reasons. Externalities that harm communities and individuals have the potential for gravely damaging effects to their integrity and character. Of course the U.S Supreme Court has thanks to the flood of obscenity rulings, defined the term out of existence. To tell people to just not go there when they turn on their computer is like a telling someone who notices a drunk to pretend he doesn't exist. In both cases, damage can still be don't cause the potential for harm has still been left unattended. Freedom of speech was never mean to be absolute. Then again we live in a culture in which anything goes is the standard of the day.
SCOTUS's decision on CFR is one of the worst calls on their part in the last 50 or so years.
That being said, how would SCOTUS allowing the banning of pornography in any way make the CFR decision easier to swallow?
You also recognize the futility of protecting our borders.
You might as well join the anarchists who want to legalize prostitution. You can be the Grand Pimp-bah.
You might as well join the leftists who say it's futile to try and kill all the terrorists.
No matter what the law, Poohbah is around to say we shouldn't enforce it because people will break it anyway, so why bother?
Pimps deserve to die.
True that... he'd prolly flip at because her name is Sex Slave Six too.
Are you defending slavery?
If you want porn to be legal that makes you a social liberal.
There are over a hundred other top level domains that aren't under the control of the U.S. courts. But then you get to try to define porn/smut. Can a granny who doesn't like this picture or this one complain? I think they're hot, they appeal to my "purient interests." Maybe she doesn't think it's artistic so it's not protected. But what about others who think Playboy is artistic? How about the myriad artistic B/W nude photos out there? An exception for art in a bad law is stupid. The last thing we want is the government defining what is art.
The idea of applying community standards to something not tied to any one community is rediculous. The idea of applying to the Internet the standards of some stuck up old hag who hasn't been laid in 40 years is rediculous.
So, legalize prostitution and the pimps go away and are replaced by professional, legal agents.
Or it means you're somebody who doesn't want the state playing nanny to grown-ups (i.e., a conservative).
Highly inconvenient for both the right-wing and the left-wing.
Good point. What community gets to judge porn produced in Los Angeles, stored on a server in Nebraska and sold to somebody in Alabama?
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.
