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.
Well, not really. Porno protection is considered under free speech rights. Free speech rights were clearly enumerated in the Constitution. Abortion is considered under privacy rights. Privacy rights are nowhere to be found in the Constitution, instead, the Court read them into the document.
Okay, how do you propose to resume this state of affairs, and how do you plan to enforce it, particularly outside the US? I'd still like a response the the second point regarding the court's decision in this case, and the author's opinion that it was wrongly decided.
Indeed, you have called me dishonest. This is an ad hominem. Even if I was dishonest, this would be irrelevant to the validity of my argument.
==> When Solomon is warning his son about the dangers of an immoral woman he teaches that there are economic consequences to immorality:
"And now, O sons, listen to me, and do not depart from the words of my mouth. Keep your way far from her [immoral woman], and do not go near the door of her house, lest you give your honor to others and your years to the merciless, lest aliens take their fill of your wealth, and your labors go to the house of a foreigner."[Proverbs 5:1-10]
God judges nations economically and he does so because of sin, particularly sexual sin. We are instructed to stay away from loose women because if we don't aliens will acquire our wealth and our labors will go to the house of a foreigner. Consider the pornography industry and the entertainment industry and how much is devoted to this wickedness. See how much are we spending on this wickedness. The issue is not just that it is wicked and that it will affect our standing before God. We also need to see there are economic consequences to our folly. If you have a piece of gold that you squander on some sensual pleasure, if like the Prodigal Son you take all your inheritance and squander your wealth on prostitutes, the wealth doesn't just go away the wealth is rearranged. It doesn't evaporate; the wealth does not vaporize -- it simply is not yours anymore.
Now, if someone drops an atomic bomb on a city it would destroy wealth absolutely. But in ordinary transactions where people are trading and selling, wealth is not eliminated; it is redistributed. It will either accumulate in some pockets because God is blessing or flee from a particular pocket because God is chastising. And one of the reasons we have so many economic problems in are culture today and so many people are struggling is because, our culture is devoted to the kind of sins that lead to economic chastisement.
As it says Proverbs 6:26, "For by means of a harlot a man is reduced to a crust of bread."
Men are reduced to poverty because of immorality. The Prodigal Son was looking at the pig food and the pig food looked pretty good because of his immorality. How had he managed to squander it all?
While reading a great book on the French and Indian War and the American War for Independence by Marvin Olasky called Fighting for Liberty and Virtue. One of the things he points out in that book that is not commonly known that there was a real cultural divide between the English establishment and the American establishment at the time of that war. The English establishment was hopelessly decadent and corrupt. The Americans were culturally Christian and many were genuinely Christian.
The decadence of the English affected the course of the war. The reason for mentioning this is that one of the higher-level English officials at this time received a promotion and received a lot more money -- I think five thousand pounds. Hearing this, one of the madams in a local brothel said this to her girls: “Five thousand pounds deary and all for us”.
This man is reduced to poverty. He is dissipating his wealth in just the manner that Scripture is describing. He is throwing it away. Now it doesn’t just go away when he throws it away. It simply relocates and goes to people who themselves are immoral. It will then be dissipated again and dissipated again, but it is going to land somewhere.
What does all this mean to us? Well, as long as Americans continue to blame our economic woes on someone else -- those clowns in Washington, or those foreigners or the Mexicans coming across the border illegally and providing cheap labor or whatever it is -- we will not escape our troubles. Until we recognize the sin is our own love of luxury, frivolity, sex (as a cultural obsession) we will not understand what God is doing to us.
As the Scripture says, "Whoever loves wisdom makes is father rejoice, but a companion of harlots wastes his wealth." [Proverbs 29:3] <=
And yet it was a prostitute who washed the feet of Jesus, and dried them with her hair. Go figure.
Unsupported by evidence, and unprovable.
"We will never win the War on Terror if we are an immoral, indecent, degenerate people who pimp their daughters out, and we won't deserve to. We cannot confront enemies abroad when our Republic is undermined by enemies within."
We're winning it now, or maybe you haven't noticed? However, to go on some anti-porn crusade will divert scarce resources from the fight. As for the "deserve" part, get this: some pictures of attractive people having sex is NO justification for the murder of our citizens, and the war the Islamists have launched to enslave the survivors. Porn producers and actors did NOT commit mass murder on 9-11, nor have they ever.
" Pimps deserve to die. I think there are many non-religious people who share my opinion in this matter."
Since your definition of "pimps" includes producers of legal porn, this is highly dubious. The call for execution of such "pimps" is wildly extreme, as well as being another unsupported opinion.
"The cost to this nation will be much greater in the long run if our moral culture is completely destroyed at the hands of porn-pushing pimps and social liberals than it will cost to stop the problem now."
Whose definition of a "moral" culture are you using? In any case, another assertion without any basis in logic or reason.
"Those people afflicted with the terrible pathology pornography inflicts will be much better off having been stopped in their tracks and given a chance to change their lives."
First, porn is not a pathology, nor is its use a sickness, other than in your opinion. Second, it is not up to you or the government to determine what is "best" for an individual adult. Third, the only way for you or the government to do this is through the power of a gun barrel. "Morality" enforced by fear and force is false, and temporary.
Your sense of logic and reason are wanting. Just the "kill the pimps" comment demonstrates this, but the rest is just as telling.
You seem to be right in line with those who think this country deserves to be destroyed because it doesn't comport to your beliefs. You have far more allies among our enemies, and on the Left, than those of us who wish to preserve Liberty for ALL citizens. Like them, you appear to believe that YOU know better than others what is best for them, and would force them to do it.
God is merciful :)
This one speaks for itself.
Are you serious with this statement? If you are dishonest, ANYTHING you say is called into question, as is your credibility.
He's gone off his chump.
Whose definition of a "moral" culture are you using?
Certainly not your moral relativist definition.
the only way for you or the government to do this is through the power of a gun barrel.
Government is force.
"Morality" enforced by fear and force is false, and temporary.
Morality is the basis of all laws.
This should be interesting.
I'll boil it down: Adult pornography, produced and consumed by consenting adults, harms no unwilling person. it has existed since people first scratched pictures on cave walls, and societies have come and gone regardless.
Okay, Joe...let's hear your rebuttal, and let us all see what you call logic and reason.
374 Long Cut
______________________________________
Pimps deserve to die. I think there are many non-religious people who share my opinion in this matter.
377 tailgummer joe
_____________________________________
You were right Long Cut. Interesting reply.
You'd have to have made an argument for me to make an ad hominem attack on you. You made no argument. All you did was call me names, so calling you names was not an ad hominem attack.
Which is good, because we are foolish and ignorant about His ways.
Go, and sin no more, He told her.
Negatives are not logically provable.
That is the reason why who asserts must prove. You assert that "[p]ornography is a moral cancer which destroys the minds and hearts of those who are exposed to it." Therefore, it is incumbent on you to prove the assertion.
Start with 382, then we'll move on to that one.
Maybe one shouldn't go around asserting negatives they know can't possibly ever be proven.
More important, the primary issue of this thread:
No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him. -- Thomas Jefferson
TJ, suppose you know a person -- could be your neighbor, a coworker or anyone -- views pornography. If you think you have been harmed by that person viewing pornography you should take the person to court and present your case to an impartial jury. Do your best to prove your claim to an impartial jury that the person caused you harm by viewing pornography so that you can gain restitution for your loss and suffering.
I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution. -- Thomas Jefferson
Free speech rights were clearly enumerated in the Constitution. Abortion is considered under privacy rights. Privacy rights are nowhere to be found in the Constitution, instead, the Court read them into the document.
381 BBFH
______________________________________
-- See the 9th. -- Our rights to a private life, liberty or property are not to be denied or disparaged, just because they are unenumerated.
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.