[Viva Le Dissention]

Although it *does* say Congress in the 1st Amendment, the Supreme Court has ruled that free speech protection extends to the states, so a state or local municipality CANNOT make laws that abridge freedom of speech. Please refer to the dissent in Gitlow v. NY and teh concurrence in Whitney v. CA, and then later the Court's decision in Fiske v. Kansas and finally the decision in Stromberg v. CA

Certain rights are "fundamental to a well-ordered liberty" and cannot be intruded upon by any government. This includes the entire First Amendment, the entire 5th, I believe, parts of the 6th, etc.

As far as we go, free speech is not quite absolute--we have time, place, and manner restrictions--but that's all.

As far as your last "point," you are substituting your moral judgment for the opinions of society. How can we know whether such things like bestality or coprophilia (not illegal) are bad unless we can view them and judge for ourselves? We make our own decisions, and we are responsible for ourselves--not the government telling us, "Oh, we've decided this is just too bad for your eyes. Stay away."

By the way obscenity has a strict legal definition that I doubt bestality or coprophilia would fall under.

[Viva Le Dissention]

Let me clarify: I'm not saying we don't have laws against obscenity, and that those laws have been been upheld under free speech claims; they have.

I mean to say that the Court is wrong to not have struck those laws down. Obscene materials are a form of speech; as such, they ought to be protected. This is my argument--after reading it, I think I was unclear.

However, that the 1st Amendment applying to the states is absolutely right, though. States cannot abridge speech.

[Houmatt]

As far as we go, free speech is not quite absolute--we have time, place, and manner restrictions--but that's all.

Uh, nope.

What do the following have in common: Libel, slander, death threats (especially toward the President of the United States), perjury, copyright infringement, yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater, obscene material.

These are all examples of things the free speech clause of the First Amendment does NOT protect. For you to say or even imply otherwise is a deliberate, intentional falsehood on your part.

As far as your last "point," you are substituting your moral judgment for the opinions of society.

Hardly. What I said reflects the opinions of society. If that was not the case, you would be seeing bestality and coprophilia on prime-time broadcast television.

How can we know whether such things like bestality or coprophilia (not illegal) are bad unless we can view them and judge for ourselves?

Good idea. Why don't you post photographic examples on a website, like this one?

I will tell you why: Because if you did, the photos would be deleted and your account closed before you can say Jim Robinson.

Hey! That's censorship!

Guess what? That's tough.

By the way obscenity has a strict legal definition that I doubt bestality or coprophilia would fall under.

While coprophilia may not in and of itself be illegal, its depiction would never make it past state or federal obscenity stautes.

The legal definition of obscenity reads like this:

For something to be "obscene" it must be shown that the average person, applying contemporary community standards and viewing the material as a whole, would find (1) that the work appeals predominantly to "prurient" interest; (2) that it depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way; and (3) that it lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.

Now, if you can, by chance, find ANY literary, artistic, political or scientific value in the depiction of sexual relations involving excrement, please feel free to inform us. Inquiring minds want to know.