Posted on 01/19/2006 10:36:33 AM PST by flashbunny
There is a hierarchy of protections for speech. Politcal speech enjoys the most protection while crying fire in a crowded theatre enjoys no protection. In between those two resides pornography in general while child pornography should enjoy no protections.
The problem is that things get ugly real fast when you try to define "political speech", though...
Well what can be said for this logic?
I agree with what you say and hope you understand that child porn had nothing to do with the analogy I was responding to or with the action of the DOJ described in the main article.
I have no problem with adults doing what they please in their own homes or in private venues. I have major problems when children are involved. So my vote would be to allow the porn viewers to view until their hearts are content and to allow the hanging of those who use and abuse children.
Enlightened, no?:-}
I never meant to imply that at all. Just laying the cards on the table TE.
Give it to Fat Teddy - I'm sure he'd love nothing more than to tax you per post for your FR activities. And since it's "commerce" and definitely not "speech", no sirree, we know someone who will just be fresh out of counterarguments, don't we?
On second thought, let's not give them any ideas. :)
Quite so. In which case, the argument is, as always, about where to draw the line.
So my vote would be to allow the porn viewers to view until their hearts are content and to allow the hanging of those who use and abuse children.
I find your platform sound and have no objection. Let me know if you need a campaign manager :)
Porn and sex are guaranteed a long thread life.
Of course not. The founders believed in reasonable regulations by the smallest government possible.. Local governments can best regulate public aspects of porn, and, if necessary, States can reasonably regulate intra/interstate aspects.
The commerce clause issue can be argued as a limit on Federal power, but that is simply a debate about WHO controls it (state or feds), not WHETHER ANY government should control it.
Not true, in that fed & state ~abuses~ of the control power to regulate porn, - without infringing on individual liberties, - are exactly what the debate is about.
You seem to be saying that NO government should control it, including states.
Hype.. - I've seen no one here make that point. -- We're objecting about over-controls that infringe on other liberties.
I believe that pornography does great direct harm to our citizens AND to our nation.
I passed on the first try, and graduated with honors from a top 20 law school.
Your inability to 'see' the true debate about our commerce clause undermines your 'honors' credibility..
Not bragging...just refuting your infantile comment.
In a way, calling those comments 'infantile' also shows us your braggadocio.
You obviously haven't read all of the threads.
I read enough of your remarks to refute the ones above. -- Obviously, you don't intend to rebut my comments, so you're gonna blow some smoke, then retire from the field.
There have been two debates that I've participated in on this thread:
1. Whether the commerce clause permits federal government -- as opposed to state government -- regulation of internet porn. (Some have agreed that states may regulate porn without being in violation of any Constitutional rights, but that there is no FEDERAL authority to do it. This is a respectable, although I believe incorrect, position.)
Getting smoky in here.
2. Whether the First Amendment to the federal constitution prohibits regulation of internet porn by feds AND STATES.
As you can see above, - I made that same point to you.
(Some have made the preposterous argument that internet porn is somehow "protected speech" under the First Amendment.
Hasn't the USSC made the argument that most 'porn' is "protected speech" under the First Amendment?
The necessary correlary to this is that EVEN STATES would be prohibited from regulating internet porn,
More hype. -- Are you sure you've been trained in logical debate? I don't know anyone rational that argues "STATES would be prohibited" from reasonably regulating porn..
at least according to the questionable (but entrenched) doctrine that says that the first amendment applies to state legislation via incorporation into the 14th.)
The free speech clause of the 1st applies to fed/state/local levels, - just like all of our BoR's and all of the Constitution applies, -- "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
You really should get a refresher course on Constitutional principles. - Or read some good books.
I highly recommend Barnett's book on 'A Presumption of Liberty'...
Alrighty! ; )
That's a shame since the real issue is overreaching warrants based on bogus aims. But, then, plain vanilla Constitution trashing is only worth a couple of dozen posts. You probably couldn't find one in twenty FReepers who could tell what the Law of the Sea Treaty is.
Again, you obfuscate the issues. (I see that you also wish to side with liberal supreme court justices, but that's another issue, Mr. Breyer.)
Again, there are two issues:
1. Do pictures of two libertarian fellas boning each other fall under the category of "protected speech" such that the silly SCOTUS-manufactured incorporation doctrine prevents state governments from regulating the pictures as they see fit?
2. If they do not, then does the federal government have the power, via the commerce clause, to regulate as they see fit, or is it solely a state power.
I've simply assumed that you would understand that I wasn't concerned with the EXTENT of the restriction. That's not the issue at all for me in this thread, and never has been. To make it clearer, I have added the words "as they see fit" above. Now if you have anything on-point to say, go for it. However, I'm not interested in any more dodges.
You really should get a refresher course on Constitutional principles. - Or read some good books.
I highly recommend Barnett's book on 'A Presumption of Liberty'...
Again, you obfuscate the issues.
What issue have I, - or do I, "obfuscate"? -- I've just raised some Constitutional issues that you refuse to even face.
(I see that you also wish to side with liberal supreme court justices, but that's another issue, Mr. Breyer.)
I side with the Constitution, Mr 'honors grad'..
Again, there are two issues:
1. Do pictures of two libertarian fellas boning each other fall under the category of "protected speech"
Do you have a right to prohibit their possession of such filthy pictures? Ask your fellow lawyers on the USSC, who have said you do not.
such that the silly SCOTUS-manufactured incorporation doctrine prevents state governments from regulating the pictures as they see fit?
The 14th protects our rights to life liberty or property, - and even filthy pictures are property. -- States can reasonably regulate public aspects of dealing in such property, but they can't prohibit possession, as you well know.
2. If they do not, then does the federal government have the power, via the commerce clause, to regulate as they see fit, or is it solely a state power.
No level of government in our republic has the power to enact fiat prohibitions that infringe on our rights to life liberty or property. Get it?
I've simply assumed that you would understand that I wasn't concerned with the EXTENT of the restriction. That's not the issue at all for me in this thread, and never has been. To make it clearer, I have added the words "as they see fit" above. Now if you have anything on-point to say, go for it. However, I'm not interested in any more dodges.
What am I dodging? Certainly not anything you've said..
Now, seeing you have nothing on-point to say... Give us a break.
Try some Prozac before you post....
You seem to be confusing the issue of the current state of the law (e.g. what the liberal activist SCOTUS has said about the 14th Amendment incorporation doctrine and the First Amendment) with what the Constitution itself actually means on these issues. I don't care about what a bunch of judges have said, I care what is correct.
Just what constitutional issues have I "refused to face"? I've "faced" the supposed incorporation of the BoR into the 14th and every other point you've made. Its you who "refuse to face" the fact, for instance, that government does indeed have the right to "enact fiat prohibitions" of many types of property, such as narcotics. By the way, you keep mentioning that states may impose "reasonable" restrictions on the public aspects of pornography...but this is irrelevant to the issue of whether a state may constitutionally take ANY means to stop the public trafficing of pornographic images. The issue is simply whether individuals have the constitutionally-protected right to display pornography, regardless of whether the state's action is "reasonable". That is why the two issues I originally stated are still THE two significant issues.
Your emphasis on adult porn indicates you must have a problem with it. There are some good resources out there to help you with yor problem....
Is the punishment matrix a continuum or bright line? :)
To you, Flasher Bunney, and Mighty Eigth Inch, below is an exact quote from the articel, and you dunderheads say I can't read?
"The government contends it needs the data to determine how often pornography shows up in online searches as part of an effort to revive an Internet child protection law that was struck down two years ago by the U.S. Supreme Court on free-speech grounds.
The 1998 Child Online Protection Act would have required adults to use access codes or other ways of registering before they could see objectionable material online, and it would have punished violators with fines up to $50,000 or jail time. The high court ruled that technology such as filtering software may better protect children.
The matter is now before a federal court in Pennsylvania, and the government wants the Google data to help argue that the law is more effective than software in protecting children from porn."
"The 1998 Child Online Protection Act would have required adults to use access codes or other ways of registering before they could see objectionable material online, and it would have punished violators with fines up to $50,000 or jail time. The high court ruled that technology such as filtering software may better protect children."
Of course the access codes will cost $$. Gee anyone but me think the government is in bed with the porn industry and internet providers?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.