Posted on 07/16/2002 2:03:35 PM PDT by aconservaguy
The Claremont Institute
This is the print version of http://www.claremont.org/projects/jurisprudence/000731eastman.html.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First Amendment Doesn't Protect Virtual Kiddie Porn By John C. Eastman Posted July 31, 2000
For more than a quarter century, Congress and state legislatures have been trying to rid our land of child pornography. But with each new attempt, the purveyors of child porn find a loophole or a friendly judge who, relying on a misbegotten First Amendment reading, strikes down the law as unconstitutional.
The latest loophole is the result of technological advances in software that permit pornographers to produce virtual images of children engaged in sexual activity without using live children. These pornographic films are indistinguishable from the real thing, however, and thus cause many of the same harms that "real" child pornography cause by providing pedophiles with a tool to seduce children, titillating child molesters into action and undermining the morals of society. To close this loophole in existing law, Congress enacted the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996, which outlaws the interstate trafficking of materials that are, or appear to be of, minors engaging in sexual conduct.
Before the statute could be enforced, a group of pornographers brought a lawsuit in a California federal court to have the act declared unconstitutional as a violation of the pornographers' First Amendment right to free speech. The district court rejected their challenge, but a split panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, with two judges appointed by President Clinton holding that the only governmental interest compelling enough to warrant restricting pornographers' First Amendment rights was the harm to actual children used in making the pornography, an interest not implicated by virtual reality kiddie porn. Free Speech Coalition v. Reno, 198 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir. 1999).
The rehearing was recently denied en banc, and the government will undoubtedly seek review in the U.S. Supreme Court. This should be an easy case.
As Justice Antonin Scalia noted in Barnes v. Glen Theatre Inc., a case in which the Supreme Court upheld a South Bend, Indiana ordinance prohibiting nude dancing, the First Amendment protects the freedom of speech and of the press, but not expressive conduct.
The purpose of the First Amendment is to prevent government from interfering with the free exchange of ideas, an exercise in human reason that was necessary for the perpetuation of our republican form of government. Although courts have since broadened the First Amendment to protect certain forms of conduct that express ideas normally conveyed by speech, the Supreme Court has rejected the notion that a limitless variety of conduct can be labeled "speech" whenever the person engaging in it intends to express some erotic, perverse or hateful idea.
Pornography, and especially child pornography, is the antithesis of the founding ideal of speech as reasoned discourse. It appeals not at all to human reason but rather to the basest of human passions. It is of such slight social value that, like fighting words, libel and obscenity, it constitutes no essential part of the exposition of ideas.
Even if one could credibly argue that there is some First Amendment value to such pornography, any minimal benefit is clearly outweighed by society's interest in order and morality. As a result, the Supreme Court held in New York v. Ferber nearly 20 years ago that child pornography fell outside First Amendment protections. The court's characterization should hold true whether or not real children are used to produce the pornographic materials.
As Judge Warren Ferguson noted in his Free Speech Coalition dissent, child pornography harms not just the children used to make it, but other children whom pedophiles might seduce by showing them virtual images of children engaging in sexual activity. More fundamentally, like the public nudity that was at issue in Barnes, child pornography has since time immemorial been considered an evil in itself.
Even the Ninth Circuit recognized that such images are morally repugnant. The prohibition of virtual reality child pornography is therefore permissible not just because of the harm it might cause others but because it is per se immoral. The Ninth Circuit panel's contrary holding not only ignores the legitimate governmental interests but denigrates the true meaning of the First Amendment.
This is not a case where we need to tolerate hateful speech in order to prevent gradual encroachments on legitimate First Amendment freedoms. Legitimate speech is not threatened by governmental restrictions on child pornography, and we need not suffer such affronts to public decency in order to fully vindicate the First Amendment. Hopefully, the U.S. Supreme Court will reverse the panel decision and uphold Congress's legitimate efforts to bring the virtual kiddie porn to a virtual halt.
John C. Eastman is a professor of constitutional law at Chapman University School of Law and the director of the Claremont Institute's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© Copyright 2002, The Claremont Institute.
I notice that you have quite a lot to say, but somehow you never get around to actually proposing a standard for a law that would differentiate between the two, and
never really do more than sort of elliptically suggest that it ought to be easy to do. If it's so easy, I'm very interested to hear it.
I notice you've got quite a lot to say as well. Unfortunately you don't put your brain in gear before you spout off. You completely ignored everything I had to say to revert to your demand that others postulate a law that would conform to your demands. That's not our job brain trust. As for all the questions I asked, where's your answers Mr. High and Mighty?
Frankly you should try to offer up a better example. And even if this example was valid, you can count me as one individual who would give up all the Lolita, Romeo and Juliet and other stories involving underage women if it saved even one young child or infant from sexual exploitation, violent abuse or death.
How many of your freedoms will you give up to save two lives? Ten? How many lives would be saved if none of us had the freedom to drive a car? 40,000 a year
or so? Ready to give up that freedom to save all those lives? I mean, if you're willing to abandon an entire genre of fiction to save one life, surely not driving is not too much of a sacrifice to save 40,000 lives, right? How many lives would be saved by all of us giving up all our freedoms?
Yes, I'm willing to give up the freedom to watch some cartoon about a kid getting fu__ed in the a__, then sliced and diced. Tell me the name of one person who died to protect that right will ya. As for your holier than thou comments about giving up rights, B.S., and you know it.
So you're saying that raping young children and killing them is on a par with the implied risk of experiencing an auto accident? Where do you come up with this stuff? Oh nevermind, you don't answer questions. You just make blanket pipe dream defenses of the Constitution that everyone else defends as much as you do, then demand that others answer your questions. Heh heh heh, nice try.
I mean, if you're willing to abandon an entire genre of fiction to save one life... so that's all it is to you, just one genre of fiction hugh? Perhaps you can tell us one single benificial aspect of child porn. I asked you a number of questions related to this issue bub. You completely ignored them. Ah, why? Are you afraid to conduct a two way conversation?
People die as a result of your freedom every hour of every day of every week. Suffering the effects of impled risk as in riding in a car in order to travel great distances conveniently, which may result in a fatal accident, is not the same as some kid suffering the effects of child porn carried out by some flawed adult. Please name the beneficial aspects of child porn that the child experiences or that society experiences in the transaction. There is no beneficial aspect of child pornography.
Your freedom comes with a price that is paid in blood, and frankly, I find it disrespectful to those who pay that price that you are so willing to cast it aside. People die for freedom all the time - that's what makes it so precious, and something to be cherished, and something to be protected, and not something to be cast aside because you think we can have freedom without paying any price for it. Let me assure you, we cannot.
Yada yada yada... nobody died so that you or anyone else could use child pornography. We have many laws on the books today that prevent people from saying everything they'd like to. Perjury, slanders, defamation are but three words that limit our ability to realize the absolutism of the first ammendment. Even so, we are still able to utilize the first ammendment to further the republic. Let me guess, in your convoluted upside down world these three forms of free speech should not have been infringed either. I mean after all, you can't eliminate them without eliminating all first ammendment rights and denegrating the lives of every person who died to save our constitution, right????
...I find it disrespectful to those who pay that price that you are so willing to cast it aside. What a crock and you know it. When your arguement falls short you have to resort to implying that I spit in the face of every member of the military who died to give us rights. Once again, name one individual who with his dying breath said, "...and thank God I was able to die so that infants and young children back home could be depicted as the victims of sexual brutality in snuff films."
Freedom isn't free, in more ways than one...
Look, you have the freedom to come here and voice your opinion. Now I realize you think that will end if child pornography is eliminated, but let me assure you that your freedom to express your views will still be here long after child porn has been eliminated, even as it still is after perjury, slander and defamation laws were enacted.
60 posted on 7/17/02 4:58 AM Pacific by general_re
Quite easily. All they have to do is read it. There are no sex scenes in the play.
Any and all sexual depictions that have appeared in film versions of the play are the embellishments of a screenwriter.
And by the way, the most recent film version was released in 1996, before the virtual kiddy porn law was even introduced, let alone passed.
Who is harmed by these photographs? If you read Ferber, the rationale was explicit - child pornography may be banned because its production involves the victimization of children, and its distribution continues the harm to them. So, using that reasoning, who's being harmed in cases of "virtual" porn?
You just don't get it, do you? It does not matter if it is real or not. It is still wrong. And if a fake picture leads a pedophile to molest a real child, why should it not be illegal?
I merely point out that you quoted my question about crafting a law in your post, but never got around to actually answering it. If you're free to avoid answering my questions, why on earth should I feel compelled to answer yours?
If you'd like, why don't you see if you can think of a standard that will ban virtual child pornography without also banning mainstream art and films. Of course, as you said, you're more than willing to give up all that in order to save just one life, so I'm sure you won't spend too much time worrying about how not to throw out the baby with the bathwater...
Perhaps you can tell us one single benificial aspect of child porn. I asked you a number of questions related to this issue bub. You completely ignored them. Ah, why? Are you afraid to conduct a two way conversation?
It is not my responsibility to affirmatively justify freedom to you - I am not a slave, and you are not my master. Only slaves can be required to affirmatively justify their freedoms. Unfortunately for you, we aren't a society of slaves, and therefore the burden of proof rests upon those who wish to restrict freedom to show that such a restriction is necessary and proper.
Nobody has to justify their freedom to you or anyone else, bub - it's your job to explain why it should be taken away. If you don't understand that, I can't help you.
Let me guess, in your convoluted upside down world these three forms of free speech should not have been infringed either. I mean after all, you can't eliminate them without eliminating all first ammendment rights and denegrating the lives of every person who died to save our constitution, right????
I don't really know why you bothered posting to me - you're obviously quite happy to talk to yourself about this, and don't really need me at all.
What a crock and you know it. When your arguement falls short you have to resort to implying that I spit in the face of every member of the military who died to give us rights. Once again, name one individual who with his dying breath said, "...and thank God I was able to die so that infants and young children back home could be depicted as the victims of sexual brutality in snuff films."
Har har har. So, only people in uniform are making sacrifices for your freedom? I wonder if you've really thought about how many people die every day as a result of freedoms you take for granted, most of them wearing no uniform at all...
How clever of you. Shakespeare isn't illegal, only Franco Zeffirelli.
And by the way, the most recent film version was released in 1996, before the virtual kiddy porn law was even introduced, let alone passed.
And I hope you like those versions, because if this law had stood, you might never have seen another one.
You just don't get it, do you? It does not matter if it is real or not. It is still wrong. And if a fake picture leads a pedophile to molest a real child, why should it not be illegal?
I think I get it just fine, thanks. Actually, you're right - that's a great standard. In fact, it's so great that I think we should expand it. I think that any fictionalized depiction of a criminal act that inspires a real criminal act should be illegal. After all, if a fake murder leads someone to commit real murder, why should it not be illegal?
Well, could it be that you didn't ask me the question? I merely addressed your asking it of someone else. Duh. Now, why didn't you answer the questions I did ask you?
If you'd like, why don't you see if you can think of a standard that will ban virtual child pornography without also banning mainstream art and films. Of course, as you said, you're more than willing to give up all that in order to save just one life, so I'm sure you won't spend too much time worrying about how not to throw out the baby with the bathwater...
I am not a member of the legislature. I do not have legal advisors to help craft such legislation. However I did give you examples of other issues that have been resolved without destroying the first amendment. And of course you ignored them.
Perhaps you can tell us one single beneficial aspect of child porn. I asked you a number of questions related to this issue bub. You completely ignored
them. Ah, why? Are you afraid to conduct a two way conversation?
It is not my responsibility to affirmatively justify freedom to you - I am not a slave, and you are not my master. Only slaves can be required to affirmatively justify their freedoms. Unfortunately for you, we aren't a society of slaves, and therefore the burden of proof rests upon those who wish to restrict freedom to show that such a restriction is necessary and proper.
Oh yes, another fall back position for person who has no valid position. I never said I was your master. This just gets better and better, and more childish and more childish.
Nobody has to justify their freedom to you or anyone else, bub - it's your job to explain why it should be taken away. If you don't understand that, I can't help you.
Bud, you can't help me because you can't answer the most elemental questions even for yourself. Blaming it on something else is fine by me, if that gives you peace of mind, but don't expect me to miss the implications of your actions.
Let me guess, in your convoluted upside down world these three forms of free speech should not have been infringed either. I mean after all, you can't
eliminate them without eliminating all first amendment rights and denigrating the lives of every person who died to save our constitution, right????
I don't really know why you bothered posting to me - you're obviously quite happy to talk to yourself about this, and don't really need me at all.
You're a riot. You post my comment then completely ignore it to make this type of a response, which describes exactly what you are doing. I refered to a number of your points in my post. The issue of Romeo and Juliet, the issue of rights that might be damaged, the nonsensical issue of child porn of just being nothing more than a genre of art were each addressed.
What a crock and you know it. When your argument falls short you have to resort to implying that I spit in the face of every member of the military who died to give us rights. Once again, name one individual who with his dying breath said, "...and thank God I was able to die so that infants and young
children back home could be depicted as the victims of sexual brutality in snuff films."
Har har har. So, only people in uniform are making sacrifices for your freedom? I wonder if you've really thought about how many people die every day as a result of freedoms you take for granted, most of them wearing no uniform at all...
I wonder if you've really thought... that makes two of us contemplating the same thought about the other. Why don't you tell us who is dying for our rights instead of making vacant comments that neither explain your point of view or buttress any arguement with substance? But then if you're going to make another stupfying attempt to equate an implied risk like experiencing an accident while driving to the death of a young child, please save yourself the wasted effort.
63 posted on 7/17/02 7:23 AM Pacific by general_re
Because they appear to me to be entirely rhetorical, designed to score points rather than illuminate the issue. Duh.
I am not a member of the legislature. I do not have legal advisors to help craft such legislation. However I did give you examples of other issues that have been resolved without destroying the first amendment. And of course you ignored them.
And the people who we do charge to craft such laws have failed to do so in a manner that does not offend the Constitution. Maybe, just maybe, that's because it can't be done, no matter how many legislative experts you throw at it.
Oh yes, another fall back position for person who has no valid position. I never said I was your master. This just gets better and better, and more childish and more childish.
Of course you didn't, but you're perfectly willing to live with that as the practical result, obviously.
So I take it then that you have no justification for banning, and you therefore prefer to force people to satisfy your demands, and prove that they should have some freedom?
Bud, you can't help me because you can't answer the most elemental questions even for yourself. Blaming it on something else is fine by me, if that gives you peace of mind, but don't expect me to miss the implications of your actions.
Ah. And which actions did you have in mind, exactly?
You're a riot. You post my comment then completely ignore it to make this type of a response, which describes exactly what you are doing. I refered to a number of your points in my post. The issue of Romeo and Juliet, the issue of rights that might be damaged, the nonsensical issue of child porn of just being nothing more than a genre of art were each addressed.
Why should I bother responding? You're more than happy to put words in my mouth about slander and the like. You don't really need me for this conversation, do you?
Why don't you tell us who is dying for our rights instead of making vacant comments that neither explain your point of view or buttress any arguement with substance? But then if you're going to make another stupfying attempt to equate an implied risk like experiencing an accident while driving to the death of a young child, please save yourself the wasted effort.
Yes, I see this is wasted effort. I tell you what - why don't you compare the number of gun deaths in this country with the number in, say, the UK? See if you can reach some conclusions about people dying as a consequence of the freedoms of the Second Amendment...
And I hope you like those versions, because if this law had stood, you might never have seen another one.
Now you are being intellectually dishonest. Shakespeare's play had NO sex scenes in it, while at least one film version does, making them entirely two different entities. Since you were not more specific in your reference to "Romeo & Juliet", one can only assume you meant the play itself, as I am sure Justice Anthony Kennedy did.
Furthermore, I must ask you why you feel it necessary to imply any film version of the play must include a sex scene.
I think I get it just fine, thanks.
No, I do not think you do. It has been explained to you in clear, easy to understand terms, 1) Free speech is not absolute, and 2) Child pornography, in any format, is just plain wrong. You have absolutely refused to grasp either concept.
Well, could it be that you didn't ask me the question? I merely addressed your asking it of someone else. Duh. Now, why didn't you answer the questions I did ask you?
Because they appear to me to be entirely rhetorical, designed to score points rather than illuminate the issue. Duh.
Yet another example of your inability to separate fact from fantasy.
I am not a member of the legislature. I do not have legal advisors to help craft such legislation. However I did give you examples of other issues that have been resolved without destroying the first amendment. And of course you ignored them.
And the people who we do charge to craft such laws have failed to do so in a manner that does not offend the Constitution. Maybe, just maybe, that's because it can't be done, no matter how many legislative experts you throw at it.
Once again you have failed to take into account laws conserning perjury, slander and defamation. Was that because it shot down your whole aruguement, because you were simply unable to comprehend the finer points of this issue or because you thought it was a rhetorical point?
Oh yes, another fall back position for person who has no valid position. I never said I was your master. This just gets better and better, and more childish and more childish.
Of course you didn't, but you're perfectly willing to live with that as the practical result, obviously.
So I take it then that you have no justification for banning, and you therefore prefer to force people to satisfy your demands, and prove that they should have some freedom?
So my affirmation of perjury, slander and defamation laws also puts you into servanthood doesn't it. Is that your arguement? Well, yes I am willing to live with the pactical results, obviously. I guess this is forcing you and others to satisfy my demands, but I fail to see damage on your part. All I am asking is that you come up with a valid damage to you, by the implementation of these laws. So far you've been loathe to do so.
Bud, you can't help me because you can't answer the most elemental questions even for yourself. Blaming it on something else is fine by me, if that gives you peace of mind, but don't expect me to miss the implications of your actions.
Ah. And which actions did you have in mind, exactly?
If you're having a problem keeping up, please reread the thread.
You're a riot. You post my comment then completely ignore it to make this type of a response, which describes exactly what you are doing. I refered to a number of your points in my post. The issue of Romeo and Juliet, the issue of rights that might be damaged, the nonsensical issue of child porn of just being nothing more than a genre of art were each addressed.
Why should I bother responding? You're more than happy to put words in my mouth about slander and the like. You don't really need me for this conversation, do you?
Each time you make a comment like this, it has nothing to do with the paragraph you're responding to. Please provide an example in my paragraph of me putting words in your mouth. As for me not needing you, I could say the same thing with regard to your avoidance of questions that were asked and avoided.
Why don't you tell us who is dying for our rights instead of making vacant comments that neither explain your point of view or buttress any arguement with substance? But then if you're going to make another stupfying attempt to equate an implied risk like experiencing an accident while driving to the death of a young child, please save yourself the wasted effort.
Yes, I see this is wasted effort. I tell you what - why don't you compare the number of gun deaths in this country with the number in, say, the UK? See if you can reach some conclusions about people dying as a consequence of the freedoms of the Second Amendment...
Once again you have provided a nonsensical example to compare with child pornography. And yes it was wasted. There are positive aspects of using vehicles for transportation and guns for defense or hunting. Once before I asked you to provide any possible positive aspect of child pornography. So far you have failed to do so. In light of that, why do you defend child porn with such ferocity?
As for your neon colors, I guess that's your way of putting down my efforts to make a neat easily read response to you. Yet more evidence that you are unable to discuss this issue on point in an adult manner.
66 posted on 7/17/02 8:18 AM Pacific by general_re
Shakespeare implied it, not me. In any case, why should you get to determine how someone will film the play?
No, I do not think you do. It has been explained to you in clear, easy to understand terms, 1) Free speech is not absolute, and 2) Child pornography, in any format, is just plain wrong. You have absolutely refused to grasp either concept.
No, I understand it just fine. Let's ban virtual murders. Murder is wrong, so depictions of murder are also wrong.
I'm still waiting for a standard that rules out fictionalized depictions of children without also ruling out specific examples of what are clearly mainstream works of art, literature, and film. Oddly, nobody seems to be in much of a hurry to provide any suggestions.
If you can provide me with such a standard, I'll be more than happy to consider it, and support it if I find it to be workable. I don't think there is a way to do it, but I'd be more than happy to be proven wrong...
It sure is easy to tell who likes kiddie porn on these threads and who doesn't.
67 posted on 7/17/02 8:36 AM Pacific by biblewonk
While it does make one wonder why someone would defend child porn with such ferocity, I am willing to chalk it up as another example of a libertarian extremist's arguement. That's why I opened my comments on this thread with the observation that some people damn themselves far better than others could.
No kidding.
"Projection" is when you impute your own limitations on others. In this case, your inability to separate the fantasy of fictional depictions from the fact of child abuse seems to be causing you to have difficulty with the distinction I draw between the two.
Once again you have failed to take into account laws conserning perjury, slander and defamation. Was that because it shot down your whole aruguement, because you were simply unable to comprehend the finer points of this issue or because you thought it was a rhetorical point?
I didn't address it because it's a ridiculous analogy. Slander, libel and defamation have actual, specific victims who are harmed by them. Please indicate for me who the actual, specific victim is in cases of fictional depictions of children.
All I am asking is that you come up with a valid damage to you, by the implementation of these laws. So far you've been loathe to do so.
And all I'm saying to you is that that's not my job - you want to change the status quo, you provide the reasons why. "Why not?" just ain't good enough, sorry.
Please provide an example in my paragraph of me putting words in your mouth.
Please.
Let me guess, in your convoluted upside down world these three forms of free speech should not have been infringed either. I mean after all, you can't eliminate them without eliminating all first ammendment rights and denegrating the lives of every person who died to save our constitution, right???
"Let me guess" - no, please don't. You're not very good at it.
Once again you have provided a nonsensical example to compare with child pornography. And yes it was wasted. There are positive aspects of using vehicles for transportation and guns for defense or hunting. Once before I asked you to provide any possible positive aspect of child pornography. So far you have failed to do so. In light of that, why do you defend child porn with such ferocity?
It's not my job to justify it, any more than the Second Amendment requires you to prove that you need a gun before you can have one. You want to ban it because it might cause harm to people - I submit that people are harmed in the name of freedom every day, and yet we don't take that as a reason to ban guns. The analogy should be obvious to most.
As for your neon colors, I guess that's your way of putting down my efforts to make a neat easily read response to you. Yet more evidence that you are unable to discuss this issue on point in an adult manner.
Not at all. You have inspired me to do the same. I have taken your example and improved on it, as gray-on-white text is difficult to read for many.
That's odd - I was just thinking to myself that it sure is easy to tell who is interested in preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution on these threads, and who isn't...
Yet another example of your inability to separate fact from fantasy.
"Projection" is when you impute your own limitations on others. In this case, your inability to separate the fantasy of fictional depictions from the fact of child abuse seems to be causing you to have difficulty with the distinction I draw between the two.
Yes animated depictions of child porn are not real. And yes the technology is rapidly providing the ability to make life-like productions of these materials. The disconnnect that you are making is this. Those who are enticed by these depictions have no release for their desires. Viewing adult porn creates a desire for adult partners. That desire can be facilitated, the desire extinguished through real life sex acts with adults. Where is the release for viewers of child porn? The fact is there is no release for this pent-up desire short of abusing a family member or kidnapping and abusing a stranger's child.
Once again you have failed to take into account laws conserning perjury, slander and defamation. Was that because it shot down your whole aruguement, because you were simply unable to comprehend the finer points of this issue or because you thought it was a rhetorical point?
I didn't address it because it's a ridiculous analogy. Slander, libel and defamation have actual, specific victims who are harmed by them. Please indicate for me who the actual, specific victim is in cases of fictional depictions of children.
As described above, there are real victims. A demand is created for which there is no fulfillment. Sooner or later the users of child porn are very likely to act out their desires in ways very harmful to others.
All I am asking is that you come up with a valid damage to you, by the implementation of these laws. So far you've been loathe to do so.
And all I'm saying to you is that that's not my job - you want to change the status quo, you provide the reasons why. "Why not?" just ain't good enough, sorry.
I believe I have been very clear why I think child porn should be ruled illegal.
Please provide an example in my paragraph of me putting words in your mouth.
Please.
Let me guess, in your convoluted upside down world these three forms of free speech should not have been infringed either. I mean after all, you can't
eliminate them without eliminating all first ammendment rights and denegrating the lives of every person who died to save our constitution, right???
"Let me guess" - no, please don't. You're not very good at it.
If that had been in the paragraph you responded to, I wouldn't have asked.
You have made the case that child porn cannot be made illegal without seriously damaging the first amendment. I have given you an example of expressions that were limited without doing serious damage to the first amendment. In reaction you have tried to dismiss the validity of my arguement.
Once again you have provided a nonsensical example to compare with child pornography. And yes it was wasted. There are positive aspects of using vehicles for transportation and guns for defense or hunting. Once before I asked you to provide any possible positive aspect of child pornography. So far you have failed to do so. In light of that, why do you defend child porn with such ferocity?
It's not my job to justify it, any more than the Second Amendment requires you to prove that you need a gun before you can have one. You want to ban it because it might cause harm to people - I submit that people are harmed in the name of freedom every day, and yet we don't take that as a reason to ban guns. The analogy should be obvious to most.
Once again, the two examples "automobile deaths" and "gun deaths" are associated with issues that do have positive aspects to them. And yes, I would concur that the analogy should be obvious to most. Your examples: positive aspects, child porn: no positive aspects.
As for your neon colors, I guess that's your way of putting down my efforts to make a neat easily read response to you. Yet more evidence that you are unable to discuss this issue on point in an adult manner.
Not at all. You have inspired me to do the same. I have taken your example and improved on it, as gray-on-white text is difficult to read for many.
Okay. Then I appoligize for the comments. However, I use gray because I want the current comments to stand out. The old comments are generally known, just provided for reference. If I provided the old comments in black, people would say the dark blue didn't stand out enough.
75 posted on 7/17/02 9:03 AM Pacific by general_re
Those who think along the lines I do are unmoved by your claimed defense of the Constitiution. We see it as a read hering issue.
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.