Porn world eyes Pittsburgh

Pittsburgh Tribune-Review ^ | 10/20/5 | Richard Byrne Reilly

[SittinYonder]

(is there dialogue in porn?)

LOL ... Come to think of it, I've never noticed, either.

[martin_fierro]

Zicari: JAGOFF	It's a 'Burgh Thing.™
Send FReepmail if yunz want on/off BPT list, 'n'at
Learn Pittsburghese! Free Streaming 'Burgh Radio
The List of Ping Lists

[xsmommy]

OMG he even looks like a pittsburgher!

[Antoninus]

Wow, how awful. /sarc

Throw this perv in jail and throw away the key.

And for those of you who think obscenity is protected under the First Amendment, a brief refresher course in how this country used to be before the liberal courts of the 1960s decided that license and freedom were the same thing:

Chaplinsky vs. New Hampshire (1942):

"There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or 'fighting' words....It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality."

Roth vs. The United States (1957)

"Obscenity is not within the area of constitutionally protected freedom of speech or press--either (1) under the First Amendment, as to the Federal Government, or (2) under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as to the States.... In the light of history, it is apparent that the unconditional phrasing of the First Amendment was not intended to protect every utterance.... The protection given speech and press was fashioned to assure unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people.... All ideas having even the slightest redeeming social importance--unorthodox ideas, controversial ideas, even ideas hateful to the prevailing climate of opinion--have the full protection of the guaranties, unless excludable because they encroach upon the limited area of more important interests; but implicit in the history of the First Amendment is the rejection of obscenity as utterly without redeeming social importance.

And lest we forget, from the Current Communist Goals read into the Congressional Record in 1963 by A. S. Herlong, Jr., Democrat representative from Florida:

24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.

25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.

[NeoCaveman]

i am from Pittsburgh originally and just having it linked in a thread to porn was pretty mindboggling~!

Mindboggling.

I thought porn usually required it's actors to have all their teeth...

[xsmommy]

which is why you never see any Cleveland porn or WV porn.

[hobbes1]

Never heard of a gumjob?

[layman]

Porn world eyes Pittsburgh

From the headline I thought the article was going to be about the performance of our Steelers' quarterback last Sunday. To call it obscene would be an understatement.

[NeoCaveman]

The problem isn't no teeth, it's the big gap between teeth...

[beckett]

Nina Hartley is quoted in the article defending Zicari. Here's an interesting tidbit that I came across not long ago about the veteran porn star and champion of everything transgrssive: Her parents were prominent of members of Gus Hall's Communist Party USA.

[HOTTIEBOY]

I hear ya.

Don't like it?
Don't watch it.

[HOTTIEBOY]

I hear ya.

Don't like it?
Don't watch it.

[verity]

Double post. Can't control your hand? lol

[Moral Hazard]

"Obscenity is not within the area of constitutionally protected freedom of speech or press--either (1) under the First Amendment, as to the Federal Government, or (2) under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as to the States...."

I've never seen a good explanation as to why obscenity wouldn't be protected by the First Amendment. Saying it has "no redeeming social value" or whatever is just a cop-out, because the 1st amendment does not refer to "freedom of speech that has redeeming social value."

[sasafras]

"Obviously, child porn is a crime because children cannot consent."

Because we have a law that says they cant, but as society further degrades into the evil abyss why couldnt some counties or states change it and tell the govt to F off- San Francisco and MA did exactly that when the legalized homo marriage.

Society must enact and enforce standards of decency - just because legal adults do something doesnt make it right, moral or legal. I presume you are a libertarian where there are no borders.

[onyx]

FYI

[sasafras]

Give us break troll - Aug 17 2005 sign up date. Filthy scum like yourself who think that abusing kids and rape is ok should post of the DU boards where behavior like that is encouraged and supported. Not here

[Darksheare]

Wow, three posts to your name, one a double post.
Welcome to FR.

[thebaron512]

It was a shame when they closed down the seedier shops on Liberty. They are much better than those lefty art galleries and coffee shops that followed....

[traviskicks]

just because legal adults do something doesnt make it right, moral or legal.
---

So who shall judge them, God or Government? I'd side with the former.... and it was under this principle that the United States was founded. When government begins to legislate morality, instead of protecting Liberty and property, then it begins a descent into Tyranny. There are plenty of laws today that are neither just nor moral.

Child porn has no bearing on this discussion and it cannot be used in the 'slippery slope' argument because you are comparing apples and oranges.