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.
Sorry, Buchanan is not getting elected in Nov.
I don't think he has an election in mind so much as a putsch. Of course, he may be thinking that they'll make their move when the extreme left goes on the warpath after losing the election.
No sweat. Right-wing totalitarian fanatics die as easily as their left-wing counterparts.
No. But you are. A person has absolute ownership of their flesh. They can lay no claim to anothers life, nor can they ethically lay claim to anothers property.
That you questioned the Foudners intent in that regard showed how much of an idiot you were being. You Nanny Statists are all alike even though you come at the issues from opposite ends of the political spectrum.
Once again, your fantasies are just that.
You are the one making common cause with a bunch of anarchists who'd rise up against the government for taking away their precious porno mags.
Yes they do.
Ah. We have the porn equivalent of the Drug Warrior. If you agree with the SC's decision, you must be a porn addict?
You freaks can't stick it to conservatives forever. Eventually the shoe will be on the other foot.
Get ready. Your only hope is to vote for Kerry and keep the "jackbooted" Christian Right out of the White House.
WTF are you talking about? President Bush has been in the office? Are you lost?
Kind of like how the homos say if you are against sodomy, you must be a closet sodomite.
Just like the left, when they have nothing to say they just attack and smear.
Have you not noticed that Bush has been president?
Whom has he appointed to the Supreme Court?
Shall Not Be infringed.
Says it all.
You're holding up well.
THIS is the net result of worshipping at the altar of Secular Humanism's moral relativity.
Good luck in the Thunderdome 25 years from now.
bump
So slaves are not mere property.
You are not property either. You are a person.
There are many things the law does not permit you to do to your own body.
I understand that you think this unjust, but the law is on my side.
Like a thief in the night.
Perhaps you missed the point. Your dishonesties will be exposed in time.
I am ready to meet my judgement.
Nah. Like all the rest, he wants OTHERS (cops, military) to do it for him. You'll NEVER see him on the front lines of his "war". He and his will never put THEMSELVES on the line...they're too "important", don'cha know.
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.