Posted on 06/14/2007 6:16:09 AM PDT by jacknhoo
Hillary and Porn By Sarah Rode June 13, 2007
In Hillary Clinton’s America, pornography would be legal, accessible and protected. That’s the way it was while her husband was president, according to a woman who would know.
Jenna Jameson is a multi-millionaire feminist businesswoman who has endorsed Hillary because under the Clinton administration her industry flourished. She is very critical of President Bush because his administration has not been kind to her line of work — the production and sale of pornography. Despite branching out into some mainstream projects, Miss Jameson is still considered one of the most famous porn stars around. She said in a recent interview, “The Clinton administration was the best years for the adult industry, and I wish that Clinton would run again.” I suppose she would know.
President Bush has been routinely critiqued for not doing enough to crack down on obscenity. According to Miss Jameson, however, it has been an uphill battle for her pornographic business:
When Republicans are in office, the problem is, a lot of times they try to put their crosshairs on the adult industry, to make a point. I look forward to another Democrat being in office. It just makes the climate so much better for us … and I think that getting Bush out of office is the most important thing right now.
If Attorney General Gonzales’ lenient policies have been harsh on the adult industry, one can only imagine how tolerant Hillary Clinton’s administration would be of spreading pornography throughout our country.
Former President Clinton ignored the issue of obscenity, and it is safe to assume that Senator Clinton would do the same. According to an article in the Baltimore Sun, “Obscenity cases came to a standstill under Janet Reno, President Bill Clinton's attorney general … The ensuing years saw an explosion of porn, so much so that critics say that Americans’ tolerance for sexually explicit material rivals that of Europeans.”
Fortunately, under the Bush administration, Attorney General John Ashcroft renewed the fight against obscenity, making the prosecution of obscenity a priority under his leadership. He stated in a speech in 2002, “Obscenity invades our homes persistently through the mail, telephone, VCR, cable TV and now the Internet. This multimillion dollar industry has strewn its victims from coast to coast.” Although he fought against the proliferation of pornography in America, his successor has been silent on the issue, just like Clinton’s attorney general.
It is unfortunate and inconsistent that Hillary and her “feminist” endorsers not only tolerate but also promote pornography. If they were true feminists, they would reject the objectification of women. It is interesting that in their fight to liberate women, they have instead endorsed the image of women as sexual objects. Pornography exploits women’s sexuality for money. That’s liberating?
I'm still only going to deal with the first bit for now becuase you're dodging.
At the time we constructed our Constitution there must have been laws against obscenity in every state and probably local stautes to boot. The Framers did NOTHING to eliminate or even limit those laws, and I'm not aware of any court ruling in the Framer era that overturned an obscenity law on free speech grounds. So, it would appear that the Framers considered these things which are "thought nothing of today" to be outside the bounds of protected speech. So, how can you claim that the First Amendment covers porn when the people who wrote it and ratified it did nothing to include it under First Amendment protection?
The Framers did NOTHING to eliminate slavery either ... nor laws which dealt with what to do with slaves, slave ownership, punishments for runaway slave, etc.
At the time the Constituition was drawn up and ratified, African slaves were not deemed to have rights ... and there were myriad laws on the books which dealt with slave ownership. The Framers did nothing to eliminate these laws and slavery isn’t explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.
There were many laws on the books in the various states that were NOT challenged under the new Constitution.
By your logic, all laws the Framers “did NOTHING to eliminate or even limit” (your words) could still be laws today within the Constitution.
Porn is a stealth demoralizer, like marijuana. The porn industry is located in California, in “porn valley.” The women appear, retire after one “appearance,” or stay on for a bit. The usual course is to go into stripping after the “film career” is over. It’s a mysterious process, and a bit like sausage making sausage or passing laws. One is better off in the dark.
Not even under Bush has it been impractically difficult for a free American of majority age to get legal pornography. Nor has it been impractically difficult for any free American of majority age who wants to make a tidy sum selling such materially legally to do so. I don’t see a legal or money issue with the big porn pushers; I see an ego issue. They know that in some manner it’s cheating and so, like the gay agendites, they have a desire to recruit society into their cheering section.
Great, so just show me the Constitutional amendment that says "Porn is now considered protected speech" and I'll be glad to admit I'm wrong and be on my way. There is one, right?
Also, one other thing...I am sure I can find a few expressions of disgust with slavery’s legality on the part of the Framers. Can you produce any quote that has them disgusted with the fact that obscenity laws exist? Any writings that indicate they felt these laws clashed with the First Amendment? Can you even find me one that says all forms of self-expression qualify as free speech?
I’m sorry, but that is a very weak argument ... it’s proving a negative. There are billions of things the Framer’s did not say or address specifically in detail.
The Constitution is/was a broad framework. The objective of the Constituion was not to catalog every conceivable law for eternity.
whatever you need do to justify it........my first post said the queers are coming for the children......did you have an opinion about that too ?
I have three children so of course I have a problem with programing on TV. I just watch the my children don’t get watch that type of TV. Most parents might not do that.
We amended the Constitution to ensure equal rights for all citizens, regardless of his color. Will you please quit making that silly argument?!
Please stop equating political speech with pornography since there is NO proof that the latter deserves constitutional protection. The biggest problem you are making is that you have fallen for the liberal-created notion that certain things are “speech” even though there is no constitution basis for them. I don’t know how many more times I can say the same thing - I’m not sure if you just don’t care about judicial activism or just don’t understand it...
“The Constitution is/was a broad framework.”
Ruth Bader, is that you??? Seriously though, you are right - it was a broad framework. But the Supreme Court isn’t free to fill in the gaps.
“The objective of the Constitution was not to catalog every conceivable law for eternity.”
No it wasn’t. That’s the reason the legislative branch exists.
bfl
YOU and Mr. Silverback brought up the Framers and the time period of the framing of the Constitution. The Constitution at the time of its adoption (1791) did not have all the Ammendments we have today. The ones dealing with slavery women, etc were added much later.
So it's not a silly argument, it's directly rebutts YOUR and Mr. Silverback's points vis a vis situations at the time of the of the framing of the Constitution.
If you don't want to discuss the Constitution at the time of its framing, then don't bring it up!
And again, YOU (not me) are promoting the categorical view of the Constitution, which leads directly to judicial activism. It is your stance, not mine, which underlies judicial activism of all kinds.
Slavery is wrong and should be illegal —> Constitution doesn’t explicitly speak to it —> amendment
Porn was not protected under 1st Amendment —> Supreme Court decides it should be and legislates from the bench
The Constitution, including the 1st-9th Amendments, was ratified in 1791. If you are going to argue on the basis of what was/was not specifically addressed in the Constitution in 1791 and if you’re going to argue the “intent” of the Framers circa 1791 then you have to acknowledge that LOTS of things were not included/addressed specifically in the Constitution of 1791.
Your line of argument that “Porn was not protected under 1st Amendment” could be said about infinte other issues NOT specifically addressed in the Constitution. Whether these issue were addressed later after the Framers were long dead is not material to your argument about what was included/intended at the time (your and Mr Silverback’s line of argument).
Your exact line of argument is the basis of activism intent on weakening the 2nd Ammendment and also the line of reasoning finding abortion to be largely extra-judicial ... right down to recent arguments that the Constitution never intended to protect “hate speech”.
It is your categorical approach that is being used right and left these days to undermine our freedoms ... under the guise of “the framer’s never intended ... (fill in your pet item)”
Well, that's another dodge, because the limits of obscenity has been a contentious point of debate throughout human history. It's not as if I'm saying "Prove to me the Framers didn't like blue stuffed bunny rabbits."
But OK, yes, it is a broad framework. And it apparently was a broad framework that left obscenity laws alone. Yet you want to make it a broad framework that would eliminate obsecnity laws. Sorry, that's not asking you to prove a negative; that's showing you why you're wrong.
Found the "porn is now free sopeech" Amendment yet?
The Framers did nothing to protect porn, free slaves or give women the vote. Like they say on Sesmae Street, "One of these things is not like the others..."
So where is the "We now protect porn" amendment?
Any proposed Amendment should elaborate on what is specifically NOT protected speech.
And as I said at the beginning of this discussion, be careful what you wish for. It’s not far-fetched that “hate speech” will be included in that list. That’s where we’re headed.
Thanks.
“And as I said at the beginning of this discussion, be careful what you wish for.”
I just wish the Supreme Court would follow its constitutional role and stop legislating from the bench. Oh and I also wish that conservatives were against judicial activism all the time - not only when they disagreed with it.
Jenna Jameson is a complete moron other than the fact she’s savy enough to know how to make money.
It has NOTHING to do with the Clinton presidency since porn was alive and well and doing just fine since, oh, forever.
The reason for the explosion during the nineties is THE INTERNET bringing the product straight into the home rather than in brown wrappers in the mail or under coats coming out of sleazy stores with blackened windows.
I hate liberals...they are so full of crap.
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.