[mdmathis6]

I'm not trying to rebut the notion of inalienable rights as you stated so much as I'm trying to get to a clearer discussion of this notion of the first amendment as a document stripped of all moral under pinning as the courts currently view it.

Certain types of speech are restricted in this country, and in the military(under the UCMJ) more so. We see this as necessary for the public order.

Demoncraps would like to see "hate speech" laws in place that would actually restrict speech in the name the moral redefinition of America under the guise of "diversity". It is "good" that we have no over-arching notion of "good" so that none may be offended and none may feel restricted...is what the DIVERSITY chaps are arguing. "We must put this idea into action and to re-infuse our tattered 1st amendment with a new morality"...is what the leftists are saying. "Amorality is good while moral speech and religious expression is actually an attack on the first amendment" is the broader implication of what these groups are working toward.

That is why the porn issue is so important in this first amendment issue. It has become the trojan horse in the assault against the moral and religious sensibilities of millions of people. It is being used as a lever to pry our constitution away from its religious and moral roots...(religion and morality being the twin pillars upon which our freedoms rested according to Washington).

Christians who passionately love our freedoms and our constitution, never the less are torn in their consciences when they say "well I have to let even the pornographers have their say cause its free expression and that trumps even 3000 years of accepted morality." By being forced in accepting the amoral interpretation of the first amendment as the current courts envision it, Religious and moral folk often have the uncomfortable notion that they are like a Democratic Catholic politician trying to play both sides of the abortion issue!

[Modernman]

Certain types of speech are restricted in this country, and in the military(under the UCMJ) more so. We see this as necessary for the public order.

Certain types of acts are restricted. A death threat or yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre are really actions, rather than speech. Beating somebody up also involves a message on the part of the beater, but we don't consider that speech, either.

That is why the porn issue is so important in this first amendment issue. It has become the trojan horse in the assault against the moral and religious sensibilities of millions of people.

Tens of millions of Americans consume porn. So, it would seem that a significant percentage of your countrymen either agree with the message contained in porn or at least are not offended by it.

[Ksnavely]

I have to say that is wonderful dissection of the issue. It is quite the conundrum that we on the right are in. You are right as a person who does find porn personally detestable, I would love to see it removed from our society (like liberalism). But I am torn because I do not think the government is the proper avenue to take for its removal. I understand that moral fiber is important and fundamental element to a functioning society, but what do you do when a society chooses to behave accordingly? Do you set the government up as a nanny state? Or do you try to use the social institutions (the church) to try to change hearts and minds. It is an issue that does not have an easy solution, hence the strong and passionate debate in this forum.

[Know your rights]

"well I have to let even the pornographers have their say cause its free expression and that trumps even 3000 years of accepted morality."

That's not the argument; the argument is that "accepted morality" doesn't include using force to make others avoid immoral acts that violate no rights.