Replies

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."

It's implicit. The states had obscenity laws on the books when the Constitution and BoR were written. These did not suddenly become null and void after ratification. The Founding Fathers knew the difference between the right to speak freely about political issues, and the desire to look at, read, or produce pornographic material. Someone who suggested that pornographic material was covered under the First Amendment would have been soundly laughed at until about 40 years ago. By that time, the electorate had been dumbed-down enough to accept the specious argument that a woman shaking her boobs on a bar was an example of "freedom of speech."

Today, we've been dumbed-down even farther--to the point where many think that videos of people engaging in orgies are covered under the First Amendment. Meanwhile, the ability to finance campaigns and broadcast ads supporting or attacking a candidate are strictly regulated by the federal, state, and local governments.

Historians will look at us and declare that our Constitutional Republic died sometime between 1964 and 1980. The exact date will be a matter of some debate.