Posted on 09/01/2023 12:40:32 AM PDT by RandFan
There are those who think porn is an abomination and should be restricted and then there are those who are constitutionalists and say it's protected speech by the First Amendment.
Where do you stand?
What makes pro-porn people “constitutionalists” (sic)?
Porn isn’t speech.
I would describe myself as more libertarian and thought this issue was settled in the 60s!
But now with the prevalence of porn are States allowed to pursue reasonable age related restrictions?
I dont know.
Would be an interesting case for the Supreme Court and perhaps a landmark one...
Definitions:
White House: Groomer in Chief
The Left thinks the First Amendment protects porn for kids but does not protect political speech they don’t like.
Mental Health verification: “I did not vote for the current Groomer in Chief occupying the White House”
Proceed.....
❌ “This is an Unhealthy Non-Verified Site”
Healthy hotline re-direct.....
I stand with the First Amendment. The kids need better parents.
I’m wondering how the Supreme Court would rule on this.
I think they would side with you but it could be close!
Making porn is “speech”. Viewing porn by children, not so much. Why restrict children from making porn? That seem the perverted next step.
Technology has replaced the parents so some reasonable age rules regarding accessing porno sites is logical.
The hard work is in defining “reasonable” within the context of the Frist Amendment.
By definition, minors do not enjoy full rights but are under the supervision of their parents.
There is an argument to be had i.e kids cannot buy tobacco or alcohol. The States can regulate this, right?
This will go to the Supreme Court.
One thing about the 1960’s porn wasn’t as prevalent/pervasive as it is now.
Some of the justices maybe sympathetic.
Show me a single founding father (constitutionalist) who would stand with granting Canadian pornhub free access to children.
It’s amazing to see so many people standing with social media companies and purveyors of filth as they demand unfettered access to children.
Shows how far we have fallen that their sophistry spins this as free speech. No founder would agree.
Don’t know what 60s you are referring to. In the 60s a 12 or 13 year old couldn’t walk into a porn theater or buy playboy.
Sorry I should say the 70’s / 80s with the Hustler case and Larry Flynt
Before my time
The hustler case was about parody. Nothing more. But even in the 80s 12 and 13 year old kids couldn’t walk into a porn theater or buy hustler. But that was before the revolutionary socialist revolution in America. Now they can get abortions or sex changed at any age.
I understand the argument but it seems accepted that the Hustler case effectively legalized it.
Do you think the Supreme Court might want to weigh in? Its been a long time.
‘I understand the argument but it seems accepted that the Hustler case effectively legalized it.”
Don’t forget COPA, The Children’s Online Protection Act. The GOP Congress passed it at the dawn of the internet era. Clinton signed it.
The Supreme Court threw it out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_Online_Protection_Act
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.