[Publius Valerius]

My point is that the line HAS been drawn. It's legal. That's the line.

You seem to simply that there are no standards--there ARE standards, there ARE lines. Child porn is illegal. Just about anything else goes. That is a line, that is a standard.

Again, sorry that you don't like it. But no one puts a gun to your head and makes you watch porn. Unless, of course, you're in an Iraqi prison camp...

[Antoninus]

My point is that the line HAS been drawn. It's legal. That's the line.

That's the line now. It wasn't the line in 1957 when this was written:

Roth vs. The United States (1957)

"Obscenity is not within the area of constitutionally protected freedom of speech or press--either (1) under the First Amendment, as to the Federal Government, or (2) under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as to the States.... In the light of history, it is apparent that the unconditional phrasing of the First Amendment was not intended to protect every utterance.... The protection given speech and press was fashioned to assure unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people.... All ideas having even the slightest redeeming social importance--unorthodox ideas, controversial ideas, even ideas hateful to the prevailing climate of opinion--have the full protection of the guaranties, unless excludable because they encroach upon the limited area of more important interests; but implicit in the history of the First Amendment is the rejection of obscenity as utterly without redeeming social importance."

It also won't be the line in the future...