[Tailgunner Joe]

We have been addressing many issues, not all of which are relevant to this case.

For example, I said I would ban all porn outright, but this case is only about the internet.

I agree with Scalia's dissent. Porn is not speech and is not protected by the first amendment.

[tacticalogic]

For example, I said I would ban all porn outright, but this case is only about the internet.

OK. How would you go about implementing and enforcing that ban?

I agree with Scalia's dissent. Porn is not speech and is not protected by the first amendment.

Fair enough. But wheather it is speech or not is irrelevant in this case if you don't subscribe to the "every blade of grass" interpretation of the Commerce Clause. If you're going to abide by the intent of the Founders, then this case should have been thrown out regardless, and the author of this article should be taken to task for thinking it should have been upheld.