Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court Sides With Pornographers Again
eagleforum.org ^ | July 14, 2004 | Phyllis Schlafly

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.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: copa; culturewar; demeaningwomen; eagleforum; hedonism; hollywoodmorals; hollywoodvalues; immoralwomen; lawlessness; lustoftheflesh; mockinggod; moralrelativism; mtvculture; oligarchy; phyllisschlafly; popculture; porn; pornography; protectchildren; romans1; secularhumanism; secularstate; sexualperversion; smut; supremecourt; tyrantsrule; vulgar; whateverfeelsgood
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 421-440441-460461-480 ... 501-518 next last
To: malakhi
IOWS, damn them all, they deserve it, and who the hell cares for that trash anyway....

I get it now...

and children?....are they sucked into it too?...

441 posted on 07/13/2004 7:53:11 PM PDT by cherry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 440 | View Replies]

To: cherry
People who abuse children for their own perverse pleasure, be it on or off film, should be hung.

Those who view it for their own perverse pleasure should be put in stocks and branded with a bright red P on their foreheads.

442 posted on 07/13/2004 8:03:43 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 441 | View Replies]

To: cherry
And here is a fine example why.
443 posted on 07/13/2004 8:06:08 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 441 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07

Just read it...Sad.


444 posted on 07/13/2004 8:11:09 PM PDT by Lady Eileen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 443 | View Replies]

To: cherry
IOWS, damn them all, they deserve it, and who the hell cares for that trash anyway....

That's not what I said. I said that people make choices, and they are responsible for them.

and children?

I'm not talking about children.

445 posted on 07/13/2004 8:13:14 PM PDT by malakhi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 441 | View Replies]

To: F16Fighter
Yes, today "murder, rape, and threats of violence violate the rights of individuals." But even all THIS is relative upon who is the arbiter, the "eye of the beholder" so to speak. Ever hear of the psychiatric "profession"?

No, there is a pretty clear standard of what murder, rape, and threats of violence consist of. Murder is killing an innocent person against their will. Rape is having sex with someone against their will. Threats of violence are promises to cause physical harm against someone who does not comply to your will.

Perhaps you can explain how these actions will be interpreted differently in the future, or what the psychiatric profession has to do with them.

Just how long before they recommend murder, rape, and threats of violence" be deemed "expressions of free speech"?

If someone was ever foolish enough to recommend that, all we have to do is point out the violation of rights inherent in all of those acts.

Do sensibilities count?

They shouldn't. Otherwise, almost no speech would be permitted, because almost anything meaningful you can say can be interepreted as offending the sensibilities of someone.

Shall we also suppose neither does public prostitution, public obscenity, public drug use, public sadomasochism, or public defecation/urination "violate no one's rights" either?

Public displays of pornography or other vices are one thing, but that doesn't really pertain to the topic of discussion, which is internet pornography.

446 posted on 07/13/2004 9:12:25 PM PDT by timm22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 433 | View Replies]

To: Modernman
"On this, if nothing else, we completely agree."

lol Finally.

447 posted on 07/13/2004 9:25:49 PM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 432 | View Replies]

To: Modernman
There is a certain sub-culture of "conservatives" who secretly believe that America is so corrupt, it deserves to be destroyed and replaced by some sort of Fundie Theocracy. These were the same people who were secretly delighted to see so many godless, liberal New Yorkers die on 9/11.

Yeah, I know. Mental illness is sad.

448 posted on 07/13/2004 9:30:39 PM PDT by Bella_Bru (It's for the children = It takes a village)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 431 | View Replies]

To: Melas

So maybe I'm being a little faceteous.

I don't really want to take the law in my own hands. But I really want a way to stop the porn from coming in my mailbox. And yes I have Symantec and blocks an awful lot of it, but tons still get through.

And I am willing to vote for laws and even constitutional admendments to restrict your right to foister this stuff at me in public domains.

You've got the black belt. Either get off your butt and go stop these jerks or watch me vote to end the abuses by ending your rights.


449 posted on 07/13/2004 9:31:12 PM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 422 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
Alas, I've got a black belt, and I own a few guns. Still, I'm mortal as they come. I'm grown up enough to know that black belts can lose fights (I wouldn't fight Duncan), and that good guys don't always win the shoot out.

I don't get any spam in my mailbox at all btw. I think it's because I'm very selective who and where I give my email address to. I have a Yahoo account that I use for all "registering" . I suggest most do the same.

450 posted on 07/13/2004 10:21:05 PM PDT by Melas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 449 | View Replies]

To: Bella_Bru

LOL Great response :-)


451 posted on 07/14/2004 2:58:47 AM PDT by Fleer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah

Right on, brother!


452 posted on 07/14/2004 3:00:54 AM PDT by Fleer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord

LOL He can change it to Lone Gunner Joe, as it looks like he is pretty much alone in his socialism.


453 posted on 07/14/2004 3:02:28 AM PDT by Fleer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Modernman

LOL You greedy capitalist pig! ;-)


454 posted on 07/14/2004 3:04:35 AM PDT by Fleer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: StoneColdGOP

Well said, StoneCold. You Da Man!


455 posted on 07/14/2004 3:11:21 AM PDT by Fleer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: tdadams

Phyllis is just a bored housewife with nothing better to do than complain perpetually about the modern state of things.


456 posted on 07/14/2004 3:14:31 AM PDT by Fleer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: Long Cut

LOL Very funny!


457 posted on 07/14/2004 3:22:46 AM PDT by Fleer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah

Are you implying that TailGunner Joe has stopped having sex? LOL


458 posted on 07/14/2004 3:24:58 AM PDT by Fleer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies]

To: Bella_Bru

Notice how he's never denounced the Taliban in any of his responses? He must be a fan LOL


459 posted on 07/14/2004 3:30:58 AM PDT by Fleer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 298 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

Oh yeah. You are very pure. Where are you writing from, a monastery? LOL


460 posted on 07/14/2004 3:38:40 AM PDT by Fleer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 354 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 421-440441-460461-480 ... 501-518 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson