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.
You made the assertion that it is harmful. It is incumbent on you to support that assertion. In any case, it is viewed by literally millions of people who never commit any crimes, and who lead normal, healthy lives.
"Certainly not your moral relativist definition."
Strawman, with ad hominem. Ignored.
"Government is force."
And you would use that force against people who are harming no one, and divert resources from the fight against those who do. I take it you LIKE the idea of government force, if it is applied in the manner YOU prefer. What OTHER Liberties would you use that force to supress?
"Morality is the basis of all laws."
Tax laws? Speed limits? Environmental laws? Gun control laws? Repeating this old saw makes it no more true than ever. MORAL laws only clarify behavior which the overwhelming majority recognize as good, such as laws against murder or rape. The vast majority of people would never think of engaging in these behaviors. On the other hand, to proscribe, based on morality, behaviors which are NOT so recognized, is another matter altogether.
You're not helping your cause.
They can be disproven by proving the opposing positive assertion.
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. Kindly do so.
The replies are informative, too. Those that are coherent, that is.
But does that make the concept of "privacy rights" as asserted in Griswold v. Connecticut and Roe v. Wade federally enforceable, especially when weighed against the 10th Amendment?
LC, your comments, arguments, and responses have been uniformly fantastic. Thank you for making the case in the only effective manner: Logically, cogently, and reasonably.
Apparently this one has you stumped, and I have some welding to do so I'll leave you to think about it.
It is dishonest to advocate or support violating the individual rights of a person. It is particularly vile to enlist a person or agent of government to violate a person's individual rights on your behalf. That you have demonstrated your dishonesty and that I pointed it out is not an ad hominem, it is the identification of contextual facts brought to light.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.
That said, much more important to the primary issue of this thread is the following:
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
After some time here, separating the wheat from the chaff is easy.
Seek help Joe, please.
Unfortunately the INTERNET is a broadcast medium and as such is constitutaionaly difficult to regulate.
Kudos. Most of us here support Bush as well. I have noticed though, that he doesn't seem to make policies that would thrill your little psycho world.
make should be support.
[Malicious Mopery being punishable by removal of the mopes tongue, of course.]
LOL! Good one.
When the injustice system (in its present form it produces far more injustice than justice) gets inverted to its proper role of dispensing honest judgment the "case" would never be put to trial. TJ brought up the pendulum swinging in the other direction and I then joined the thread to point out that the pendulum is marked by fully integrated honest that eliminates all bias -- religious and political bias.
Same arguments used by the moronic prohiv\bition supporters. Oh, and most were women.
Reagan didn't seem to have any problems overcoming commies in the USSR and there was porn in the 80s. Guess you don't have much faith in Bush.
Nevermind my kids, I can't even protect ME!!!
I have to be on the internet, I have use e-mail. And there is no way to avoid an inbox stuffed with porn, beastiality and penis enlargement ads.
Most of us here support Bush as well. I have noticed though, that he doesn't seem to make policies that would thrill your little psycho world.
Hilarious!...
Little psycho world, policies that thrill -- news at eleven.
But does that make the concept of "privacy rights" as asserted in Griswold v. Connecticut and Roe v. Wade federally enforceable,
The USSC can't enforce their decisions. No power. But ALL of us are supposed to support Constitutional rights. Let your conscience be your guide.
especially when weighed against the 10th Amendment?
States have always been free to reasonably regulate criminal activities, using due process.
Fiat prohibitions on 'sin', or on 'evil objects' are not due process.
I would pay good money to see that exchange.
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.