[Lorianne]

Do you believe folks have a right under the guise of "free speech" to force their "private and consensual" sexual practices on others in the public square?

No, but what they do, watch, read ... in the privacy of their own home or on private property they own is their own business. Our laws should be reserved for restricing non-consensual harm (actual harm, not imagined) to people.

As I said, if you don't like porn, there are ample ways to protest it without calling for government censorship. Organizing a boycott is NOT censorship. Picketing a business is NOT censorship. Any free citizen has the right to determine who is responsible for creating, distributing or selling porn, and to protest in front of those persons' homes or businesses. Publicize their names, their home addresses, their place of employment, their car license tags... whatever. Picket their homes, business. Stand peacefully in front of their kid's school with signs saying Parent X sells pornography (as long as it is true). This is free speech countering free speech.

Anyone who is involved in porn could not be consistent if they complain about a person or group excercising their free speech to protest his/her own. Protesters need to learn to use free speech craftily to their advantage to make their opinions known, not rely on the "government" to do their dirty work for them.

[Askel5]

All well and good.

But when court's rule consistently IN FAVOR of the pornographer's "right" to display publicly his wares, the Government has indeed curtailed the rights of those who prefer they and their children not to be subject to the pornographer's conditioning.

You can't have it both ways.