Posted on 06/14/2007 6:16:09 AM PDT by jacknhoo
bump
synonym: a word that conveys the same meaning (as another word.) Example: "Clinton" is a synonym of "obscenity."
the thought of Hillary in porn is nauseating....even in her youth.
were she to enter porn, it would probably kill the industry
someone oughta warn Vivid now...
Excuse me, what’s “porn”?
I don’t particularly care if the person who hates freedom “has a strong moral center” - they still hate freedom.
Ah, but that requires one to believe that to hate porn is to hate freedom. Sorry, but that doesn't follow.
I didn't say that.
I was talking only about people who want to ban porn outright because they don't like it.
It is possible to hate porn and still love freedom. You simply have to recognize that others will make choices of which you do not approve. But when you cross the line and decide that others can't have it just because you hate it, that's when you have moved away from freedom into a nanny state.
Because the Founders did not speak to many issues and concerns we have today. Many things exist today that were not issues at that time.
They did not anticipate things like TV, radio, the internet .... etc. Porn was not explicitly excluded under the Constitution, nor was it endorsed.
We have to interopolate from other sources that the intent of the 1st Ammendment was absolutist. Many books have been written and scholars have debated this question since the beginning of our Constitution.
If you read things written by Jefferson, Madison, Adams, etc they were explicitely FOR free speech and explained it as “free speech counters free speech”. That is, no matter what someone communicates, if you have free speech there can always be a backlash against it by MORE free speech, which includes protests and “redress of grievances”. (At the same time, free speech debates were raging in England as well).
It is clear that the founders were trying to get away from European ideas that free speech should be controlled and curtailed by the goverment. They were trying out a different model.
However, there is still debate (like ours) and disagreement between “absolutists” and “categorists” just as there has been since the beginning. I imagine it will still be debated for years to come.
The danger is already here ... free speech is being attacked from all sides. There are “hate speech” laws being proposed and actually passed making it a crime for saying anything negative about homosexuality. The “categorical” approach to 1A is the reason why we’re getting this. Pretty soon there will be a list a mile long of stuff you CAN’T legally say/write/print because is “offends community standards”.
Is this what you want?
You say 1A doesn’t protect porn. (Even though it is not explicetly excluded in 1A). But nevermind ...let’s assume your premise is true and your logic holds. Well 1A never protected negative speech against homosexuality either. So under your logic, the government is free to make laws restricting negative speech against homosexuality. And that is EXACTLY the argument that is being made to uphold these “hate speech” laws.
Pretty soon just reading passages from the Bible will be considered “hate speech”. If the community you live in finds the Bible distateful or offensive ... you could very easily find it outlawed in public. “Community standards” means you could be outnumbered and told to shup up because what you want to say is deemed “offensive” by people around you.
I could give more examples. This same logic is being used to uphold restrictions on students saying or doing anything even remotely religous in public schools. Like wearing a cross necklace for example, or even a “purity ring”.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1854471/posts
Can you see how your own “catgegorical” 1A approach is being used against free speech you might like to protect? It’s the thin end of the wedge if you see what I mean.
I believe the “absolutist” approach to 1A is the only way to go, logically. It has nothing to do with “protecting porn” and everthing to do with protecting my right to PROTEST porn ... or protest whatever I feel needs protesting.
I see the “categorical” approach to 1A (which is what you and Rebekah are promoting) as extremely threatening to free speech rights overall.
well said
If people hate porn, they should excercise their free speech rights to protest it vigorously in the public marketplace of ideas.
My only point, to which you still refuse to respond, is that that the only reason pornography is considered “protected speech” in this country is because the Supreme Court declared it so. Anything of its kind was outlawed at the time of the founding (of course the internet did not exist then but there was still obscene material) and nothing from the contemporaneous writings by the Founders hints that pornography was intended to be included in the 1A. You can argue all you want about Hate Crime (and I agree with you that it is very dangerous). But the point I am making is that judicial activism gave porn its currently “protected state.” The 1A was explicitly included in the BOR to protect political speech - not the right of people to have sex on camera. Obviously you believe the SCOTUS reached the correct decision. But I am a conservative because I think the Constitution means what it says - and nothing more.
One more thing - do you think the Supreme Court came to the right conclusion on abortion, too? And if people don’t like abortion, they can “exercise their free speech rights to protest it vigorously in the public marketplace of ideas”? Just wondering since you seem to think whatever the Court says is gold, even it it lacks any constitutional support.
I’m opposed to abortion. But since you bring it up, that is yet another example for my side of the argument.
You could say, as pro-abortion people DO SAY, that the Founders never intended to extend full rights to the unborn.
So YOUR argument (not mine) supports the same line of logic that supports legal abortion.
If you take an absolutist approach, all human life is protected.
It’s not the Supreme Court which grants our free speech rights. They are there to protect them. I believe the Constitution does grant our free speech rights.
Again, it’s not about porn, it’s about rights to free expression of ideas and freedom to hear/see/read things without government control.
I’m a Conservative who believes the government should have as minimal control in people’s lives as possible. I’ve rad a lot of the Founders writing and I’m certain that’s what the Founders intended.
“You could say, as pro-abortion people DO SAY, that the Founders never intended to extend full rights to the unborn.
So YOUR argument (not mine) supports the same line of logic that supports legal abortion.”
Uh, that isn’t the purported “constitutional” basis for abortion. The Supreme Court made up a right which is clearly contrary to the text of the constitution and its contemporaneous documents - the same as they did in declaring pornography “protected” speech.
This conversation is like two ships passing in the night. You obviously either don’t understand what I’m saying or are just refusing to acknowledge it. The word “speech” in the 1A had an intended meaning - and that didn’t include the right to have sex and sell the video tape or picture. So, the only reason that porn is “protected” speech in this country is because 5+ “lawyers in Washington” declared it so. That is judicial tyranny.
You obviously agree with the Supreme Court’s opinion that porn = protected speech - my point is that pornography was not INTENDED by the Founders to be included in the 1A. If you want to change the constitution to include it, so be it. But it is not the Supreme Court’s job to create rights - which is why many of their most famous decisions, including recent ones such as Roe, Griswold, and Lawrence - are wrong.
Pornography hasn’t always been “protected” by the 1A. If you are a true conservative, you should be able to point to the congressional action which caused the change. Anything else is judicial activism at its finest.
“Again, it’s not about porn, it’s about rights to free expression of ideas and freedom to hear/see/read things without government control.”
I also want to point out that I’m not saying that pornography should be illegal or anything like that. I am saying that it is not “protected speech” under the 1A. The Supreme Court has (again) made up all sorts of tests and rules which protect an individual’s right to do something based on whether or not it fits into the “protected” category (made up by, you guessed it, 5 lawyers in black robes). I’m not advocating making all pornography illegal - that’s a discussion for another day. I am just arguing that the 1A was not INTENDED to include any and every word or act - AND it is not within the Supreme Court’s authority to put words in the Founders’ mouths, so to speak (although that has been their favorite past time during the last 50 years or so).
Before I even read the rest of your epic post, I'd like to deal with this: Are you actually saying that there was no porn in the Frmaers' day? Are you saying there was nothing being done that was considered obscene by some members of the public?
1. Porn screws up society if it's left unrestrained. BTW, did you know a study of Michigan prisoners found that around forty percewnt of the rapists had used porn sometime recently before the rape? Porn may be a second tier issue, but for some people it ruins their whole day, know what I mean?
2. This issue serves to remind the public what they're getting if they vote for Hillary. Thaey aren't getting a 60-something woman. They're getting a country with kids at the wheel in a time of war.
Libertines who want us to have obscenity laws on the books and not enforce them are as bad as liberals. You don't like the fact that obscenity laws exist and citizens who respect the rule of law want them enforced, then change the law. Either that or man up and quit whinin' about it.
No, I’m sure there has always been porn. But standards change. Probably what was considered “obscene” in their day is thought nothing of today.
But that’s the point. If you take a categorical view, you’re reduced to making laws that are basically “community standard” laws. The Constitution is a larger framework than that, by intention.
I’ll give another example. Many people want to ban the right to own certain weapons, namely automatic weapons. The reasoning: The 2nd Amendment doesn’t pertain to these weapons ... the Framers were thinking of the weapons which were available in their time. This is the “categorical” view of the 2A.
Likewise, those who want the government to ban porn or certain types of porn, or regulate various media which conveys porn take a categorical view in an effort to lesson our freedoms.
The categorical argument is being used right and left these days to REDUCE our freedoms, as I explained in a previous post and pointed to the “hate speech” laws that are popping up all over.
Is this what you want?
I agree with you about the SC. But the reason is because they often take a categorical view of the Constitution rather than an absolutist view ... the same view that you (and Silverback) were advocating.
It is the categorical logic which has gotten us the SC rulings which, in effect, create new rights (when they are not outright eliminating actual Constitutional rights) rather than uphold the Constitution.
Again, it’s not about porn. You keep trying to it about this one narrow issue. If you insist that porn is excluded from 1A, then what else is excluded?
Speaking against homosexuality?
Speaking against abortion?
Wearing a cross necklace?
LOTS and lots of things were not explicitly and individually addressed in the Constituion. If you follow your logic to it’s conclusion, we could make laws restricting almost all speech and forms of expression!
Queer eye and Will and Grace would not be on if people did not enjoy the shows and that means the majority of straight people. Gays make up 1 or 2 percent of America...so the other 30 percent who watched it were obviously straight. Kinda tells you about America. I can’t blame the network. They made millions on the shows.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.