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.
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?
Our society has morals?
Remember now, many liberals, socialists and communists will also agree with YOU on the pornography issue (feminists, Stalinist Russia, etc.), so be careful about pinning labels together and trying to suggest they are the same thing. This is what always results in the silly "Libertarians are Liberals" / "No their not, Social Conservatives are Nazis which are Socialists" tennis match that goes nowhere.
Well said!
Case Law also says abortion is legal. If you live by legal precedent....
IF you will notice, the Libertarians and Liberals who support the Porn/Drug/Abortion/Homosexual Agenda on this forum will not debate you, they will only throw insults in your Direction claiming that you are the Taliban.
There have been direct non-taliban questions and statements directed at you...you however are not replying to them.