[Pukin Dog]

I would miss tonight's debate if I took the time to point out all the strawman arguments in that post. When the word 'Obscenity' gains a definition beyond opinion, then a free society can have this argument. Until then, any attempt to rid society of something that some find offensive will fail.

Only because things like Gay-Marriage are easily defined, can they be judged or deemed objectionable. This argument is akin to beating one's head against a wall; just a painful waste of time.

[Tailgunner Joe]

"No government ... should be forced to choose between repressing all material, including that within the realm of decency, and allowing unrestrained license to publish any material, no matter how vile. There must be a rule of reason in this as in other areas of law, and we have attempted ... to provide such a rule." - Chief Justice Earl Warren, 1964 Jacobellis v. Ohio

[Tailgunner Joe]

The Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected vagueness challenges to the obscenity definition. For example, in its 1957 decision Roth v. United States, the Court said that the Constitution "does not require impossible standards; all that is required is that the language [of the law] conveys sufficiently definite warning as to the proscribed conduct ... [W]e hold that these [obscenity] statutes ... do not ... fail to give men ... adequate notice of what is prohibited."