[Tailgunner Joe]

Obscenity is not protected by the first amendment.

[SubGeniusX]

Obscenity is not protected by the first amendment.

Define "Obscenity" please ...

and who gets the final call on that?

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Obscenity is not protected by the first amendment.

Define "obscenity."

In that case Mademoiselle and Cosmopolitan magazines should be banned.

[mbraynard]

Obscenity is not protected by the first amendment.

Right, right.

Here's the issue as I see it. Pr0n is incredibly corrosive to culture. Not so different from drug abuse. It works almost virally. I'm not going to call it an 'addiction' - its bad character.

A nation worthy of the kinds of freedoms we enjoy can't survive being populated by a bunch of porn-addicted pot heads like subgeniousX. It will inevitably sink into totalitarianism - unfortunately, or the better.

So should CIVIL litigation be used to try and limit it's effect? Why the hell not. They aren't calling for new laws or for new bureaucracy. Just civil litigation to uphold community standards. It's going to be a tough fight - just look at all the lame personal attacks on Meese here. Good luck.

[goldstategop]

It has never been. There is a difference between Ulysses and Hustler. The latter has no literary, artistic, or scientific merit that would make it protected speech.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus