Certainly, and given sufficient numbers and fervency an anti-porn amendment could be passed as well. Of course, I think it would cause problems similar to those we experienced in the Prohibition era.
Of course given the current judiciary, the Constitution is not immediately malleable to the will of the people but it pretty immediately malleable in the hands of judges.
In many cases that is true. I think we are in agreement on what the Constition allows the people to do. I have to admit, it's nice to see someone properly pointing to AMENDMENTS for a change instead of using their standard interstate commerce/general welfare justification for Federal meddling.
...The purpose of liberty is to leave nice people alone and let them lead good lives, not to let the freaks run wild and make life a living Hell for nice people.
We probably agree here as well, generally speaking. But where you think the line should be drawn? That is, at what point do we say "These people are no longer nice and what they are doing is not good...now they are running wild"?
Who gets to decide what our rights really are? And there are really only two answers to that. Some sort of body that is unanswerable to The People get to decide or The People do. There is no magical force or army of perfect robots that will protect your rights. People have to do it. Either they are answerable to voters or they aren't, and neither way is a perfect guarantee of your rights.
Very well stated. I think the Founders developed a pretty good method for addressing this dilemma. A court with a large degree of independence, though still ultimately accountable to the people (Presidential appointment, for example) is a good (but not perfect) way.
I think it all depends on what the Amendment says and how strictly they try to enforce it. I think an Amendment that banned the sale of nude pictures of anyone, even in a non-sexual context, would be as doomed as Prohibition. On the other hand, I think there is a large area of pornography that the vast majority of people would agree is obscene, including animals, children, torture, and so on. In fact, that all but the most fanatical free speech advocates accept the banning of child pornography without concern that it will lead to their Playboys being confiscated suggests that at the extremes, anyway, there is fairly broad agreement on what's so nasty that no nice person should ever want to even dabble in it.
In many cases that is true. I think we are in agreement on what the Constition allows the people to do. I have to admit, it's nice to see someone properly pointing to AMENDMENTS for a change instead of using their standard interstate commerce/general welfare justification for Federal meddling.
Oh, absolutely. But on the flip side, I think the 14th Amendment (and how it's been interpreted) broke the natural vent that the Founding Fathers allowed, which was to allow states to pass lows covering a smaller segment of the population that would not be acceptable at the Federal level for everyone. And that's how I think these things need to be handled. While a Federal anti-pornography law is probably not a good idea, I think it's reasonable to give smaller communities, state or local, more control over such things. And I should point out (again, as explained in that Frontline), the Federal anti-pornography actions do ultimately come down to local community standards, not some universal federal standard.
We probably agree here as well, generally speaking. But where you think the line should be drawn? That is, at what point do we say "These people are no longer nice and what they are doing is not good...now they are running wild"?
It's drawing that line in the muddly middle where I think democracy, slowed through the structure of a republic, needs to have room to play these things out. But I do think we can tell, by looking a the obvious extremes, where the balance of power is. When I see a woman on a public train, with a toddler and a shirt that says "New F***in York" (no asterisks), clearly the balance has tilted toward the crude and freakish.
Very well stated. I think the Founders developed a pretty good method for addressing this dilemma. A court with a large degree of independence, though still ultimately accountable to the people (Presidential appointment, for example) is a good (but not perfect) way.
Correct, but the Founders also gave much more rights to the States than they currently have. I doubt the Founders would have had trouble with Kansas banning pornography and California adopting an anything goes stance (much in the same way they accepted states that banned slavery and states that allowed it) but just as much as you might think it's a problem having Federal prosecutors meddling in pronography prosecutions (it's the only effective way to reach across state lines), it's just as much against what the Founders intended when the Federal judiciary steps in and invalidates state-level anti-obscenity laws. Yeah, I know all about the 14th Amendment and how it's interpreted but I think the founders started the 1st Amendment with the word "Congress" for a reason.
Yes, protecting fundamental rights is importantant. But so is giving people say over the standards of their community and some control over the quality of life there.