To: oldleft
"Banning pornographic material? Goodbye freedom of speech!"
The Framers of the constitution were interested in protecting political speech not purile entertainment.
I don't think "entertainment" should enjoy 1rst Ammendment protection. That isn't what the intent was.
85 posted on
11/19/2004 4:21:40 PM PST by
Sola Veritas
(Trying to speak truth - not always with the best grammar or spelling)
To: Sola Veritas
I don't think "entertainment" should enjoy 1rst Ammendment protection. That isn't what the intent was.Will you have the same concern for the intent of the Commerce Clause if they try to use that to prohibit it?
87 posted on
11/19/2004 4:25:06 PM PST by
tacticalogic
("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
To: Sola Veritas
I agree, to a point. The object of the 1st Amendment was to protect unpopular speech.
I try not to look too much at "intent" when interpreting the Constitution. If one starts to do that then you can make an argument for anything. The Framers wrote what they wrote, in no place clearer than the 1st Amendment, and it's our job to protect and defend it, not try to get inside their heads.
90 posted on
11/19/2004 4:29:53 PM PST by
oldleft
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson