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

To: thompsonsjkc; odoso; animoveritas; mercygrace; Laissez-faire capitalist; bellevuesbest; ...

Moral Absolutes.

The usual porn defenders, with their usual friendly, self-effacing, rational discussion in play.

The citizenry of this country need to seriously consider pornography. Pornography ruins lives and was never considered to be the sort of expression (actually, the Bill of Rights says "speech") protected by the First Amendment. That is, until pornographers, aided by the ACLU went before a bunch of judges who also decided killing unborn babies was a legal act. [Don't know if it was the exact same nine, so no jumping down my throat.]

Freepmail me if you want on/off this pinglist.


120 posted on 10/10/2005 3:45:31 PM PDT by little jeremiah (A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, are incompatible with freedom. P. Henry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: little jeremiah
I agree, the Constitution has been corrupted so much it is hard to see it in America anymore.

If it is child pornography, then they should be shot.

Wolf
130 posted on 10/10/2005 4:24:07 PM PDT by RunningWolf (tag line limbo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies ]

To: little jeremiah

The porn freedom decisions were a little earlier
than Roe IIRC. Probably not the exact same line-up
but a large overlap. I recall reading (on Eagle
Forum) that the porn decisions were unsigned. Robert
Bork discusses how no one, but no one, ever entertained
the notion that pornography was protected under any
Free Speech doctrine until then. See his Slouching
Towards Gomorrah.


194 posted on 10/14/2005 4:30:24 AM PDT by cycjec (doesn't teach or inspire or compel them to think things through)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies ]

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