See, if it wasn't for the fact that Ron Jeremy is in so many films, they'd keep the places open..... 
He da Man!
Be Seeing You,
Chris
Posted on 11/19/2001 12:38:13 PM PST by Stand Watch Listen
See, if it wasn't for the fact that Ron Jeremy is in so many films, they'd keep the places open.....
He da Man!
Be Seeing You,
Chris
I bet you are right!!
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania 1815 in the case of The Commonwealth v. Jesse Sharpless and others, 2 Serg. & R. 91-92, 97, 101-104 (1815), (case of an "a certain lewd...obscene painting, representing a man in an obscene...and indecent posture with a woman..."). Court’s verdict delivered by Judge Duncan: "...Whatever tends to the destruction of morality, in general, may be punishable criminally. Crimes are punishable offenses, not because they are perpetrated publicly, but because their effect is to injure the public... ...A picture tends to excite lust, as strongly as writing; and the showing of a picture is as much a publication as the selling of a book... ...If the privacy of the room was a protection, all the youth of the city might be corrupted, by taking them, one by one, into a chamber, and there inflaming their passions by the exhibition of lascivious pictures." In a demonstration of the strong feelings of the court on this issue, a second Justice, Judge Yates, added to the decision: "Although every immoral act, such as lying, etc., is not indictable, yet where the offense charged is destructive of morality in general...it is punishable at common law. The destruction of morality renders the power of government invalid... The corruption of the public mind, in general, and debauching the manners of youth, in particular, by lewd and obscene pictures exhibited to view, must necessarily be attended with the most injurious consequences.... No man is permitted to corrupt the morals of the people; secret poison can not be thus disseminated."
Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957): "We hold that obscenity is not within the area of constitutionally protected speech or press."
Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, (1973): "This much has been categorically settled by the court, that obscene material is unprotected by the First Amendment."
Paris Adult Theater v. Slaton, (1973): "We categorically disapprove the theory that obscene films acquire Constitutional immunity from state regulation simply because they are exhibited for consenting adults only. Rights and interests other than those of the advocates are involved. These include the interest of the public in the quality of life, the total community environment, the tone of commerce and possibly the public safety itself."
Paris Adult Theatre v. Slaton, (1973): "Mere availability of similar materials by itself means nothing more than other persons are engaged in similar activities [perhaps illegal]."
Hambling v. United States, (1974): "[T]he availability of similar materials on the newsstands of the community does not automatically make them admissible as tending to prove the non-obscenity of the materials which the defendant is charged with circulating."
Paris Adult Theatre v. Slaton, (1973): "The sum of experience affords an ample basis...to conclude that a sensitive, key relationship of human existence, center to family life, community welfare and the development of the human personality, can be debased and distorted by crass commercial exploitation of sex."
Miller v. California (1973): "In our view, to equate the free and robust exchange of ideas and political debate with commercial exploitation of obscene material, demeans the grand conception of the First Amendment and its high purposes in the historic struggle for freedom."
To those saying that Churches and Firearms will be next, The 1st and 2nd Amendment PROTECTS Churches and Firearms.
OBSCENE MATERIAL IS NOT PROTECTED! Liberals, Libertarians, and their Ilk WANT You to think it is, but it is not. Our Founding Fathers did not believe so, Case Law does not support it. Their Protection to corrupt society's morals exists only in the minds of the Libertarian or Liberal.
As long as the trains run on time…
it isn't an attack on free speech, freedom of the press, or the right of people to peacable assemble
Wrong on all counts, and you forgot private property rights.
Case law very often runs afoul of the Constitution. I'll take what the Constitution says in plain English, not what judges and lawyers tell me it says.
Do you have anything to back up your claim?
Daytona is so full of it. They keep screwing around with zoning laws, but they keep making them retractive, which has very fuzzy legal standing at best. What'll probably happen is the same thing that happened in Palm Springs: you'll know you left the city limits because everything is lit in purple neon (the "official" signal of the smut shop, I noticed that a few years ago).
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.