Federal Judge Strikes Down Law Protecting Children from Porn as Violating Free Speech

LifeSiteNews ^ | 3/22/07 | Peter J. Smith

[wagglebee]

However, Justice Department attorneys argued the government has a duty to help parents protect their children from viewing online pornography.

And the left thinks that pornography is as a valid method of indoctrination.

[wagglebee]

Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.

FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

[keepitreal]

I knew this would evenutally happen. Pornography is king and its promotion through the guise of free speech continues. Protection of children is meaningless if a buck can be made. The ban on child pornography will be next.

[Integrityrocks]

I may have free speech rights, but this renders me totally "speechless."

There ARE different levels of Hell and this judge is not going to like his.

[Zionist Conspirator]

I suppose if someone were to try to expose children to racist porn liberal judges would explode like those computers Captain Kirk used to talk into logical suicide (Landru, Nomad, etc.).

[Mark was here]

Most likely a good decision, to protect out individual rights. I fear many will say that those interested in protecting our individual rights are just child molesting perverts. It is not true, but it will be said any way. How sad.

[RunningWolf]

What a corruption of the Constitution/intent, equating porn with free speech.

[traditional1]

"I may have free speech rights"

You ONLY have free speech if you speak in politically-correct terms:

Try using the "N-word" or faggot or dyke or fudge-packer, etc. and see if you can avoid prosecution for hate speech and/or "offensive" behavior.

Unfortunately, exposing a child freely to pornography is considered non-invasive and non-offensive, compared to other things the Liberals endorse......

[operation clinton cleanup]

Penalties included a $50,000 fine and up to six months in prison, however the ACLU representing a cadre of "sexual health" sites, Salon.com,

Salon.com? Isn't Salon.com more propaganda than pornography?

[Right Cal Gal]

And these are the same people, of course, who lobby for the enactment of "hate" crime legislation, so that you can be prosecuted for your thoughts.

[Jeff Gordon]

Imagine that!

Parents are supposed to become responsible for their kids. What is the world coming to? The next thing you know we will be making everyone be responsible for themselves.

[Eastbound]

First thing you know the judges will be using penis pumps under their robes while presiding.

Oh, wait! Too late.

[Responsibility2nd]

The ban on child pornography will be next.

I agree.

With idiots like the ACLU, it won't be long before child porn laws are softened.

Then next we will see child sex predator laws being repealed.

As things are now, pedophiles receive a slap on the wrist and are in and out of prison so quick, it makes your head spin.

[adorno]

Try using the "N-word" or faggot or dyke or fudge-packer, etc. and see if you can avoid prosecution for hate speech and/or "offensive" behavior.

Perhaps then, someone needs to challenge the perception that those words can't be used. Any volunteers? And if you do volunteer, see if the ACLU will take on your case to defend your freedom of speech.

You'll get the standard response from the ACLU folks about how you do have freedom of speech, but you don't have the right to yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater, unless of course there really is a fire.

[Dante3]

Does the Judge belong to NAMBLA?

[California Patriot]

Rudy -- please, please, please GET ON THIS, NOW. It's PERFECT for you.

[Oztrich Boy]

Parents are supposed to become responsible for their kids. What is the world coming to? The next thing you know we will be making everyone be responsible for themselves

Oh dontcha know: "It Takes a Village"

[keepitreal]

And, we are. I don't think it is asking a lot that graphic pornography not have at least the internet equivalent of a brown wrapper over it.

[madprof98]

The next thing you know we will be making everyone be responsible for themselves.

Only a libertarian lunatic would claim that the wider society has no responsibility whatsoever to help parents protect their children from danger.

[Redcloak]

Forcing parents to act like parents?!? That's OBSCENE!!

</sarcasm>