"I'm sorry, but your good intentions for the assumption of power over my entertainment doesn't give me any good feelings. Quite the opposite. And I certainly don't need you to be my master."
You are reading entirely too much in what I am saying and you use way too much hyperbole. I am a strict constructionist on the interpretation of the constitution. Until the 20th century no court "saw" a right to have pornography as a first ammendment issue. It was activist courts that made it difficult to regulate pornography. Those were bad decisions and poor interpretations of the constitution.
Now if the people don't want pornography to be illegal, that is their choice and consistent with a free society. However, if the majority want it illegal that is also consistent with a free society and should not be blocked by dubious extrapolations of the first ammendment. The constition neither prohibits nor allows pornography - regardless of what some foolish activist judges have ruled.
What has been side stepped here by many is just how insidious a danger this stuff poses. However, that is hard to explain to those lacking a belief in absolutes.
You are confusing "strict constructionism" with textualism. In textualism, if the right isn't there, you don't have it.
Textualism is a pervertion that sees the Xth Amendment as a nullity. It confers no rights.
Most "strict constructionists" are textualists in sheep's clothing.
Please. What has been side stepped here is that those who make such statements as the one above have yet to substantiate their Chicken Little claims in any meaningful manner whatsoever.