I don't want to see any more 'interpreting' or 'the founders really meant' on the first amendment, than I do on the second Amendment.
What part of "Shall not be infringed" and "Congress shall make no law" is so hard for porno bigots and gun grabbers to understand?
So9
pornsidio9 ping.
Besides, the free market has already responded to the porn problem - there are plenty of filters that parents can buy or download, such as NetNanny. Plus the porn sites have adult age verification checks. A lot of these parents just aren't doing their jobs and are letting their kids go online to meet who-knows-what.
Those who purchase, distribute or recieve pornography are aiding and abetting a crime.
All pornography should be siezed as contraband and destroyed once it is no longer needed as evidence.
Apparently common sense and common decency are too much to expect.
I defy anyone w/ children to protect them from the rampant filth and deviancy flooding our culture today.
The 1st amendment was not written for the protection of pornographers.
Hate to break the news to you, but the "interpreting" is done by those who claim that pornography is "speech".
"What part of "Shall not be infringed" and "Congress shall make no law"
The problem is this Court has no problem allwoing people to publish porn or burn the flag, but they support a law restricting campaigning which, in effect violates the very essence of what the Founding Fathers were thinking when they drafted the First Amendment.
Just as they were not thinking about hunting or target-shootng when they drafted the Second Amendment, they weren't thinking about erotic literature and pictures when they drafted the first.
You're so cute
"What part of "Shall not be infringed" and "Congress shall make no law" is so hard for porno bigots and gun grabbers to understand?"
It's all based on the flawed Marbury v Madison case, which established the extra-constitutional concept of Judicial Review.
I would dearly like to see this decision reversed!
Were you to tell the Founders what has happened to their attempt to Protect Political Speech they would be appalled.
They would be the first to crash these sites permanently.
All the rationalizations the Court has used are totally out of line with the thoughts of the Founders.
considering that pornography is one of the principal reasons the internet came into being, I find it awfully naive of some folks to think it ought to be banned from the net outright.
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.
not accusing you, but its a reach for anyone with any common sense to equate freedom and the constitution with what passes for male entertainment....
I always say, let it happen to someone you know, and your tune will change right quick....
by that I mean, let it be one of your dtrs or granddtrs that are sucked into the business, and it will suddenly open your eyes...
I read a statistic once that about 80% of porn "artists" and stripers are drug addicts...
Why does the First Ammendment only protect pornography and not political speech? I can't figure that one out.